Omnilinguality

Within the midst of its linguistic obscurities, Joyce embeds a few readily recognizable words. By this act is he only playing with a "literary thing," or is he predicting that "time, universality, omnilinguality" is the means by which future human histories will be told?

This type of paradox is fundamental to the Buddhist episteme and informs all aspects of Buddhist discourse. There is the "tension between a buddha’s transcendence and immanence—his location within both nirvāṇa and saṃsāra," John D. Dunne writes, and "Śākyamuni Buddha's involvement in the world as a teacher and his detachment from the world as an awakened being." Buddha has "omnilinguality” even as "Buddha in se does not speak," Paul J. Griffiths writes, and "is not implicated with language. Eckel considers such paradoxes, and specifically the implications of Buddha’s absence, as "points of incongruity that challenge the stability of conceptuality itself" yet lead to insight, knowledge, and "the ability to perceive and respond to the absence."

Within the midst of its linguistic obscurities, Joyce embeds a few readily recognizable words. By this act is he only playing with a "literary thing," or is he predicting that "time, universality, omnilinguality" is the means by which future human histories will be told?

Within the midst of its linguistic obscurities, Joyce embeds a few readily recognizable words. By this act is he only playing with a "literary thing," or is he predicting that "time, universality, omnilinguality" is the means by which future human histories will be told?

either^([sic]) shapeshifting or omnilinguality^([sic])