Obscure

“...for the gods in some way love the cryptic and despise what is plain”-

This is a quote from a verse within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, probably the oldest of the Upanishads dating to before the time of the Buddha, possibly back to the 7th century BCE. In it, the inner essence of all things is stated to be the ‘self’ atman. The very self of a human being is of one essence with the Self of the universe, which is Brahman, the ultimate reality, analogous to the platonic One. The Vedic gods mentioned are themselves expressions of this same hidden atman at the root of all things, and are superior to human beings only in that they are immortal forms and had more direct access (and earlier in the universal cycle) to the truth than the mortals, for whom they nevertheless act as benefactors and guides. The gods therefore are beneficent and take care of us, but they – according to a reading of the above quotation – preserve wisdom and knowledge of the truth by means of obscuring language in order that humans don’t dilute the force of the truths through over familiarity and overuse.

It’s probably an apologetic for a very elitist priestly class to justify reserving authority to themselves, and as such, I have written against it in a previous essay as something deleterious to humanity. On the other hand, it might also be read as indicating the limits of human intelligence and discursive thinking when turned towards seeking to grasp ultimate reality. Arthur Schopenhauer, for whom the critical philosophy of Kant was a pivotal moment of rescue for western philosophy, and for whom early western translations of the Vedas and Upanishads were a great inspiration, wrote –

“That we cannot comprehend the world on the direct path, in other words, through the uncritical, direct application of the intellect and it’s data, but are ever more deeply involved in insoluble riddles when we reflect on it, points to the fact that the intellect, and so knowledge itself, is already something secondary, a mere product. It is brought about by the development of the inner being of the world, which consequently till then preceded it; and it finally appeared as a breaking through into the light from the obscure depths of striving...” -Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, vol 2

Here Schopenhauer is pointing to the subordinate and derivative character of the intellect- to the fact that in the sense of pre-intellectual knowledge, the inner essence of existence precedes the ‘essences’ imposed on existence through the analytical intellect of humans. If we could translate this into perhaps less confusing language, it would be that ‘experience’ precedes existence just as existence precedes essence. By experience we just mean, that which is primordial and undifferentiated before the discursive intellect of humans differentiates and analyses according to the particular interests of humans and according to their conditions as human.

Martin Heidegger in his Introduction to Metaphysics seems to hone in on this last point in his discussion of Parmenides. Having stated that it was with Parmenides’ poem (usually translated under the title – On the Way of Nature) that the ancient Greek encounter with ‘being’ as a philosophical topic properly began, he states the necessity for us here in the modern context to try and recapture (by dispensing with centuries of familiarity and presumption) the experience, and so, the psychic environment of the people at that time and place from whom Parmenides and his poetic encounter with the mystery of Being arose. Not easy. In fact, it’s presented as little short of a call to an almost yogic meditation. Heidegger further says that-

“ The Greeks themselves began to fall away from truth of the saying right after Parmenides. Originary truths of such scope can be held fast only if they constantly unfold in a still more originary way – never however merely by applying and appealing to them”. - Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics

In other words, the philosophy which was built up on and developed from the ‘originary truth” or insight of Parmenides, including most significantly by Plato and Aristotle, was an intellectual covering over of the shocking original power of the encounter which Parmenides set out in his poem. What the subsequent classical and medieval western traditions did in building up in sophistication and subtlety philosophy derived from the originary truths of Parmenides (and the pre-Socratics) including in the fleshing out and technical development of logic was to reveal more of the patterns inherent in human intelligence, while also covering over the originary truths themselves. The place where these latter could be re-encountered being accessible in experience through effort and meditation.

To say that obscure language is often the only honest way in which encounters with ultimate reality or fundamental truths can be expressed is neither to endorse the hoarding of authority and access to wisdom and knowledge by elites nor to claim that mere obscurity in language is evidence of wisdom- ‘obscurantism’, false-enthusiasm, and the mumbo jumbo of charlatans is a genuine menace. But, even as access to the encounter with or experience of ultimate reality is (and should be) available to absolutely everyone for and as themselves, we should not expect the expressions through which that experience is related to be any easier to grasp from the outside. And we are advised by all the above that to merely take concepts gleaned from the original insight (as the later Greeks and western philosophers did with Parmenides) and build up sophisticated and tidy, consistent philosophical systems is to reveal more about the interests and biases of the human intelligence than to deepen and expand the original vision.