We are begining to see the limitations of language already, on
this thread. The point about language is that it is based on
things either existing or not existing.. and even more
problematically, our thinking follows our language/concepts. It
can be difficult to convey more nuanced ways of existence (see I
fell into 'existence' trying to convey that!). In any case that
particular limitation is linked to understanding nibbana.
Another problem is trying to describe transcendental states,
with language used to describe mundane states- again in
reference to nibbana, but experientially (the previous one was,
conceptually). There is also the problem that even mundane
meditative states can't be described accurately because language
has been created to talk about non- meditative experiences which
are mostly 'out-there'. So we use special terms (eg: samadhi) to
denote them. In any case language is a poor substitue to
experience because as the saying 'a picture is worth a thousand
words' suggest, it is not easy to put