by Greg Goode
It has to do with where so many non-dual teachings place their emphasis. Most non-dual teachings work hard to demonstrate how the personal self doesn’t exist. They deconstruct the personal self in many different ways, interpreting it as merely the result of a story, or as a label projected onto a body-mind mechanism. The personal self is the hot target of most teachings, as well it should be. But many non-dual teachings stop there. They may not deconstruct bodies, minds, or coffee. I’ve even known non-dualists who say that although the self doesn’t exist, the body does.
Whenever we feel a sincere need to avoid common words for non-dually correct reasons, we’re operating in the shadows of representationalism. We’re accepting certain kinds of objective existence, even if only tacitly. This acceptance leaves a subtle sense of separation in its wake.
Nonreferentiality and the Direct Path
The direct path goes a different way. The direct path is egalitarian toward objects. It doesn’t accept the objective existence of anything whatsoever, including awareness. Its approach to language is thoroughly nonreferential, breaking free of representationalism altogether.
How can you get comfortable with the nonreferential approach? One way is to see how representationalism doesn’t make sense. Another way is to understand how you’re already communicating nonreferentially, perhaps without knowing it. I’ll discuss both.
Approaching Nonreferentiality Through Inquiry
As a student of the direct path, you come to see that representationalism’s claims don’t make sense. In your inquiry, you discover that these claims, which assume that objects exist in an independent way, are incoherent. You discover that in your direct experience, all objects (including words) are nothing more than arisings in witnessing awareness. There are simply no referents to be found. It’s not just words for “awareness” that don’t refer to an object. No word refers to any object in the way imagined by representationalism.
According to the direct path, all words refer or point to awareness alone. When a word arises, it occurs as a sound or visual mark. It arises from witnessing awareness, abides in awareness for a short while, and then subsides into awareness. The word’s “home,” its true meaning, is awareness. It embodies its true meaning not by representing awareness but by being awareness. Words are like any other object in this respect. Even when we seem to hear words, speak them, or understand them, these “events” are nothing more than arisings in awareness.
This balanced discovery about words and objects promotes a balanced attitude toward language. Since no object is found in direct experience, the “I” is on a par with the cup of coffee. Therefore, we don’t need to outlaw certain words and allow others. All words fail to refer in the same way. We don’t need to outlaw any words. We just use them differently.
We don’t need to take the direct path’s approach literally either. Imagine hearing this sentence:
Today will be cloudy with an 80 percent chance of precipitation.
Just because we’ve seen that words have their home in awareness doesn’t require us to adopt a new literalism. We aren’t obligated to translate the above sentence about the weather into “awareness talk”:
Awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness.
With nonreferentiality, we have more freedom, not less. So I can write an e-mail message to a friend and communicate normally. I can say:
Hi, Jason. This is Greg Goode. We met at the Science and Non-duality Conference last year. I’ll be in your area in two weeks. Would you like to get together for a cup of coffee?
Speaking in a natural, intuitive way, without having to force my everyday words to fit my spiritual teachings, brings the same wonderfully refreshing feeling of freedom as one experiences exploring poetry, humor, song, and dance. Our speech doesn’t always have to conform to the cautious, factual, literal style of a police report.
In this section, I discussed the freedom of the nonreferential attitude toward language. I took the route of direct path–style inquiry, in which words and sentences are seen as appearances to witnessing awareness.
There’s another route as well—attuning ourselves to the figurative aspects of language. Inquiry, although some people find it quite helpful, isn’t required for this. In fact, this route may be more intuitive for those who don’t relate strongly to doing inquiry. It involves looking through the lens of the artistic and rhetorical features of language itself. Shri Atmananda gives a hint about this in Atma Darshan. I examine this approach in the next section.
Approaching Nonreferentiality Through Figurative Language
The idea is to reach nonreferentiality through greater attention to figurative language. This is where poetry, literature, music, and even mythology come into play. Unlike literal language, figurative language doesn’t assume that its referents exist. But it communicates nevertheless. The more you understand about how figurative language works, the more you’ll use it knowingly, freely, and joyfully. (As I show toward the end of this chapter, even literal language can be seen as figurative.) In this section, I illustrate how to move closer and closer to using figurative language in a knowing way, as Shri Atmananda recommends.
In the preface to Atma Darshan, Shri Atmananda discusses the Vedantic Mahavakyas (Great Sayings) “That thou art” and “I am Brahman.”19 He recommends that when we contemplate one of these sayings in order to realize its truth, we set aside the literal meaning of key terms and take up what Indian philosophy of language calls the “indicatory” meaning. Other writers, including Swami Sivananda and the scholar Bimal Krishna Matilal, discuss these issues in much greater detail.20
What is “indicatory” meaning? According to Indian philosophy, “indicatory” comes from a word’s signifying or indicating power. This is analogous to what in English we call the “figurative” meaning of a word. It’s the basis for metaphor. When we focus on the figurative meaning instead of the literal meaning, we don’t expect objective referents for our words. Our understanding can thus broaden.
When we apply figurative meaning to the Mahavakya, the literal meaning of “I am Brahman” is “I, Greg, am Brahman.” The figurative meaning is “I, as awareness, am Brahman.” According to the figurative meaning, I am awareness.
Amazing! If we simply switch to the figurative meaning of these terms, we’re instantly carried past the normal limitations of our understanding and catapulted toward our goal. It requires no analysis or inquiry whatsoever! It’s almost as if the literal meaning of the terms had itself created the illusion of separation.
As far as I can tell, people who discover these insights about figurative meaning feel a rush of relief and freedom. They feel as though their power of self-expression has been unleashed. They don’t have to watch their words. If they’re criticized by fans of the representationalist non-dual view, they can understand why this happens.
Some non-dual students have been told to stop reading books or to stop engaging with music, art, and film, especially works with non-spiritual topics. And then, if they actually do sneak in a novel or movie, they feel spiritual guilt. Of course the recommendation to put aside non-spiritual aesthetic material can certainly be effective for some people in the right circumstances. But to insist upon it for everyone becomes a kind of non-dual puritanism. If you can enjoy literature in a figurative, non-literal way, you don’t have to reject it. You can use it in a new and beautifully poetic way. I say more about this below, beginning with simple examples.
Here’s an example of literal meaning from Indian grammar:
The village is on the banks of the Ganges River.
Here’s a very similar example, which uses non-literal, figurative meaning:
The village is on the Ganges River.
The village isn’t literally on the river. The word “on” is figurative. But the sentence is so clear and straightforward, it seems to be literal!
There are many other ways that meaning can veer away from the literal
. The more you can sensitize yourself to these variations in meaning, the less you’ll feel attached to the literal meaning alone. Even though literal meaning isn’t directly confirmed in the direct path, it still helps to become familiar with the varieties of non-literal meaning that you can choose from even now. You can enjoy greater freedom with this more open kind of communication.
Here are a few examples of non-literal meaning:
Metaphoric meaning (similar to figurative meaning) “It’s raining men.”
Famously sung by The Weather Girls in 1982, “It’s raining men” means the male-to-female ratio is advantageous for those who like men.
Playful poetic meaning “STIX NIX HIX PIX”
This is the headline of a 1935 article about how audiences in rural areas (the STIX) tended to reject (NIX) films with rural settings (HIX PIX), preferring films about the urban upper class. This famous example of “slanguage,” from the entertainment industry periodical Variety, served to support the periodical’s view of itself as hip and superior, as being in the center of things.
Nonsensical poetic meaning
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
These are the first three stanzas of perhaps the most famous example of nonsensical poetic meaning, Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” (1871). Their meaning is conveyed largely by sound and rhythm, not by dictionary or semantic meaning at all. Other examples are the vocal jazz scat singing of Jelly Roll Morton, Cab Calloway, and Ella Fitzgerald, and the melodic syllables heard in 1950s doo-wop songs such as “Mary Lee” by The Rainbows and “In the Still of the Night” by The Five Satins.
Well-crafted nonsense syllables sound just right. And in spite of their lack of semantic meaning, they’re able to convey a tremendously strong sense that something important is being said. They can even bring to mind specific images and a feeling of agreement with what the speaker is (unconventionally) saying.
Performative meaning “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” Or “I promise to call you tomorrow.”
These sentences don’t pick out an objective meaning. They establish meaning by being uttered.
Ironic meaning “How am I? Great! Just great! I was stuck in traffic this morning, I arrived late for work, and now I have a headache.”
The speaker doesn’t mean she’s literally feeling great; quite the opposite.
There are many other types of non-literal meaning. All of them break free from the assumptions of the representationalist view, even if the speaker subscribes to that view. Even if you’re a rigid representationalist, you can’t control all the non-literal effects of your communication.
These different linguistic registers can be mixed. In fact, as your understanding improves, you’ll be able to switch registers with increasing facility, sometimes even in the same sentence. For example, in the following sentence from Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda, the word “you” switches senses twice, for a total of three types of meaning in eleven words!
Even when you say you are attached, you are really detached.21
“you say” Literal, conventional meaning, in which Shri Atmananda is addressing the questioner in the questioner’s own terms.
“you are attached” This is cleverly and intentionally ambiguous. “You” carries two meanings at the same time: the implied literal meaning that the questioner applies to it, and the transcendent, impersonal meaning that Atmananda applies to it.
“you are really detached” This is the figurative, transcendent meaning, in which “you” means witnessing awareness itself, not a person at all. Awareness is never attached to any object.
By recognizing these switches, or using them, you loosen your attachment to the representationalist view and its assumptions of objective existence and separation.
The Nonreferential Approach
The nonreferential approach to language doesn’t do away with the idea of literal meaning. Nonreferentiality has its own take on literality. The meaning of “literal” transforms.
Even “Literal” Isn’t Literal
What does “literal” even mean? Even the etymology doesn’t support the representationalist view of language.
From the etymological perspective, the heart of literality isn’t factuality, representation, or accuracy. The meaning pertains to expression, to letters. According to Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, “literal” has several meanings. In the first meaning, “literal” refers to keeping with the letter of religious scriptures (as opposed to the “spirit” of the meaning). The second definition is the expected “adhering to fact.” Factuality (a form of referentiality) does count as a meaning, but it isn’t the first meaning listed. The primary definition of literal takes us first to words, not to their referents. The etymology of “literal” does the same thing. The word derives from Latin littera and litera, which mean “of a letter, of writing.”
In this way, even the word “literal” is not literal but a metaphor. The original “letter” of “literal” has become a signifier for factuality. The letter is a metaphor for fact. In this case, literality is an effect of non-literality.
Literality is especially vulnerable to irony, the “bad boy” of figurative meaning. “Literal” as a word can become its own opposite, in which it means “not literal.” When someone makes a big mistake at work, you might say: “When the boss finds out, heads will roll. Literally!” This irony was in place even two and a half centuries ago. In 1769, novelist Frances Brooke wrote the following passage in The History of Emily Montague: “He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.”
Literality Divided Against Itself
Literality is also subject to contradictory meanings. Sometimes a word can have opposing literal meanings. Such words are called auto-antonyms, antagonyms, or contronyms. For example, the word “sanction” means both to impose a penalty upon and also to give approval to. The word “cleave” means both to cling or adhere to and also to split or sever.
So how can we think of literal meaning? After all, literality as imagined by the representationalist as a word-world correspondence doesn’t make sense. We’re never in a position to stand aside from words and the world so that we can measure the degree of fit or correspondence. This model gives us no way to perform the required tests.
So if this meaning of literality doesn’t make sense, doesn’t the idea of figurative language also lose its sense? How can there be figurative meaning without literal meaning? Doesn’t the distinction melt away?
Even though the literal/figurative distinction isn’t something we directly experience as existing in the objective sense, we don’t have to discard it in practice. As a nonreferentialist, I can still see pragmatic value in distinguishing some kinds of communication from others. Human communication is vast, with lots of different styles and purposes. A medical textbook uses language in a different way than does a poem, a novel, or a street-corner conversation. So why not retain the literal/figurative distinction, though without trying to base the difference on a correspondence to objective reality?
One way to retain the distinction is to see “literal” and “figurative” as being based on different communicative styles or conventions. For example, we may see literal meaning as what happens when old metaphors become stale or where there’s widespread agreement about a word or sentence. “The arm of my chair is broken.” We may think of literal meaning as how police reports communicate. We can
see figurative meaning coming from newer metaphors or perhaps from contexts in which there’s less agreement or a greater spirit of play. “She led the radical arm of her English class.” We may think of figurative meaning as how poetry and song and slang and jokes communicate.
Stories of Nonreferentiality
Here are two stories that illustrate how nonreferentiality can help us enjoy and understand life more fully. In my experience, the more I’m attuned to nonreferentiality, the more freedom I have to embrace life in creative new ways.
The Jury-Duty Story
About a year ago, I was called to jury duty. Many people who are called are unable to actually serve on a jury for various reasons, including imminent plans to travel or have surgery. In a culturally diverse area such as New York City, there’s another frequent reason that people can’t serve: inability to understand the language of the court (English, in this case).
I arrived on a Monday. There were almost a thousand of us sitting in the assembly hall. A uniformed federal marshal came to the microphone and made some announcements over the loudspeaker. At one point he announced very seriously, “All of you who are under age eighteen or who do not understand English are excused.”
When I heard this, I couldn’t hold back my laughter. If listeners could understand this sentence enough to get up to leave the room, then they ought to stay in the room! On the other hand, if they didn’t understand English and should therefore be excused, they wouldn’t be able to understand the sentence in the first place!
