Completeness
Achieving completeness* is signalled
with happiness. Achieving
incompleteness is signalled with unhappiness.** That’s
it, all of it. For
completeness read: fulfilment, i.e. achieving realness (with or without identity).
Completeness is defined as a 1c2***
moment. Hence completeness is momentary (as is the happiness resulting from
completion). For 1 read: perfection, and which is incomplete. For
incompleteness read: un-fulfilment, i.e. not achieving realness (with or without
identity). Incompleteness is defined as @1c.*** Incompleteness
too is momentary, as is the unhappiness resulting from incompletion. ‘Am’ (i.e. perfect realness) happens as the momentary effect
of the collision of 2 perfect but unidentified and unreal ‘I’s. ‘I am’
happens as a completed series of ‘am’ moments whereby the series provides
identity. Completeness (German: Entscheidung:
English: decision) happens
as momentary (hence random) event (i.e. as 1c2 moment of
absolute realness) resulting from the random collision of 2 virtual quanta (i.e.
perfect units/events ‘waiting’ for collision as 1c’s). The fundamental
incompleteness (German: Unentschiedenheit or Unentsheidbarkeit))
of all closed (i.e. quantised, hence
perfect) systems (i.e. as series or networks of series of fundamentally random
momentary 1c2 connections) was most recently proposed for the
closed, albeit dynamic (relationship) field of mathematics as abstract sub-set
of everyday reality by Gödel and Tarski. In other words, the real
(i.e. actual) world (indeed any real actual world, external or internal)
completes the virtual, hence unreal but perfect (because quantised) ground of
all worlds (i.e. the pantheistic God of Amalric
of Bena, Meister Eckhart and Spinoza). However, 2500 years
ago the Buddha (i.e. the Scythian recluse Shakyamuni) clearly understood the
nature (i.e. as fact) of the ground of (everyday) reality, namely its
momentary, hence non-abiding (i.e. empty of permanence, i.e. transient, hence
incomplete) status. Firstly he observed (in nature) that all things that are
born die. Secondly he observed that all things that are arise (i.e. that are
born) do so subject to conditions; and that they cease (i.e. they die)
subject to conditions. Thirdly he observed that the primary condition
required for arising (i.e. becoming an identifiable reality) is contact, now understood as @c2 collision in a
relativity vacuum. From all the former he concluded that unpleasantness (Pali: dukkha)
results from impermanence (Pali: anicca), meaning that all
everyday forms happen minus an abiding essence (Pali:
anatta), meaning that they (possibly their
essence) are (is) non-abiding (i.e. because momentary), consequently
incomplete. All that nonsense about suffering being caused by desire, the asavas and/or initial
ignorance (Sanskrit: avidya), as the early Vedantins
believed, was superimposed centuries after his death by his followers for the
benefit of simple minded (i.e. infantile comprehension) folk and Tibetan Rinpochets beguiled by the crooked Brahmin (Vedanta)
scholiast Nagarjuna’s deliberate misinterpretations
and whose clear intention it was to wreck all existent Buddha dharma
mutations for the good of the Vaishnava (i.e. Mahayana) fold. *… i.e. getting there, arriving.
The ‘there’ is irrelevant…. because God, i.e. the creation algorithm, is
blind. **… 1c2 defines the saguna Brahman (i.e. one unified or copulating with an other’) 1c defines the nirguna Brahman (i.e. the ‘1 without an
other’). See: The 3 characteristics sutra *… See my book: How to make and fake happiness © 2016 Victor Langheld |