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