Cognition: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
see [[shes pa]] | see [[shes pa]] | ||
In it's utimate aspect cognition is limitless due to it's being synonymous with pure awareness, nonconceived and without particulars of conceptuality or discursion. As such, this unlimited aspect ''as'' cognition is still not changed as a result of discursion, conceptuality or particularization(s), suffering/not-suffering, [[samsara]] and [[nirvana]] notwithstanding | In it's utimate aspect cognition is limitless due to it's being synonymous with pure awareness, nonconceived and without particulars of conceptuality or discursion. As such, this unlimited aspect ''as'' cognition is still not changed as a result of discursion, conceptuality or particularization(s), suffering/not-suffering, [[samsara]] and [[nirvana]] notwithstanding as is recognized by their actual inseparability [[dbyer med]]. This pure cognition, then, comes to be termed ''re''-cognition as it becomes reflective of it's own innate purity, and re-cognizes of it's inherent potentiality as particulars, or - all things. Nonetheless, all things...each and every single 'thing' whatsoever...are as spontaneous and nameless within and as themselves as they are even in their recognition as particulars, each with an infinite array of attributes which come to be defined as a direct result of such recognitions and reflections. [RWB] | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 10 July 2006
see sems
see shes pa
In it's utimate aspect cognition is limitless due to it's being synonymous with pure awareness, nonconceived and without particulars of conceptuality or discursion. As such, this unlimited aspect as cognition is still not changed as a result of discursion, conceptuality or particularization(s), suffering/not-suffering, samsara and nirvana notwithstanding as is recognized by their actual inseparability dbyer med. This pure cognition, then, comes to be termed re-cognition as it becomes reflective of it's own innate purity, and re-cognizes of it's inherent potentiality as particulars, or - all things. Nonetheless, all things...each and every single 'thing' whatsoever...are as spontaneous and nameless within and as themselves as they are even in their recognition as particulars, each with an infinite array of attributes which come to be defined as a direct result of such recognitions and reflections. [RWB]