不少東西方密契主義以及特定學派的宗教家與哲學家們認為，他們所肯認的終極實在及其相應的體驗超乎一切思議與言詮，正所謂「言語道斷，心行處滅」。易言之，終極真實及其相應的體驗都不可說 !問題是，我人真的能無背謬地說某物為不可說嗎 ? 當我人說某物不可說時，我人豈不已用「不可說」一詞說了該物 ? 這樣一來，似乎不再能說該物為不可說。另一 方面，大部分聽者或讀者卻似乎可以理解這種「不可說」的用法。「『不可說』的弔詭」一詞正指涉這種有關「不可說」的使用與理解的悖論。早在西元五世紀時，印度教文法學派哲學家帕提訶利 (Bhartrhari) 已述及相應的語言弔詭，並提出他的消解之道。本文將析論他的觀點，並藉由「指示」、「暗示」等概念的討論，進一步探討相關的語言哲學議題。

　　　　　As is well known, a number of traditional philosophers and religious thinkers in both the East and the West claimed that the ultimate reality or the mystical experience intuiting the reality is ineffable, well beyond the reach of human concepts and words. But, can we speak meaningfully of something that it is unspeakable? Does not such a speech make the thing actually speakable? On the other hand, it seems that most hearers or readers could follow this use of ineffability without taking it to be self-contradictory. The phrase `the paradox of "unsayable" is meant to refer to such a paradoxical situation. In this paper, I refer to a passage in Bhartfhari's magnum opus, the Vakyapadrya, to see how this fifth-century grammarian- philosopher of India resolved the paradox in question. Bhart;harp's strategy will afterward be enlarged and supplemented to deal with certain related issues.