One (alone, i.e. God, Brahman) exists merely virtually. It is incomplete in that it lacks realness and identity.
To achieve the completeness of realness the One needs to collide (i.e. apply itself) @ random, hence in a relativity vacuum, (to) with an alternate one (i.e. as self-elaboration), thereby creating a formless 1c2 moment (≈ a quantum of realness). Since the quantum of realness is momentary and formless it is incomplete in that it lacks temporal completeness (i.e. permanence) and form (≈ identity). (This was the Shakyamuni Buddha’s 1st beef).
To achieve the completeness of real identity the One needs to string together (i.e. apply itself as) a series (i.e. a relationship) of realness, i.e. 1c2 quanta. The latter series (a relative form experienced as identity ≈ samsara*) too is incomplete since its string bits are merely momentary realness quanta and its string relative (i.e. conditional). (This was the Shakyamuni Buddha’s 2nd beef).
It follows that both the One (i.e. God ≈ Brahman) and its self-application are incomplete.** Only the moment of formless contact between the One and its alternate application or between 2 alternate applications of the One are complete, albeit for a moment; likewise the ending (or slicing) of a string of realness moments makes complete. Hence the advice to those seeking liberation (Sanskrit: moksha) from the incomplete, and its signal, namely suffering, is to ‘live in the moment’ (hence without or prior to self-stringing).
*… The bondage of rebirth/re-death.
**… In the ancient Upanishads the incompleteness of the One (i.e. as creation matrix) was quickly discovered and the One was recalibrated as Two- (to n-) in-One), to wit, God and the world/nature or the nirguna (sign-less) and the saguna (with signs/marks) Brahman. The problem with Vedanta was that it claimed tattvamasi, meaning ‘Thou art that’ and which is wholly unconditional. Unconditional tattvamasi, however, was politically unworkable since it meant that nature ‘tooth and claw’ (i.e. every living thing ‘warts and all’) is Brahman, indeed that there is only one law to which all are subject regardless of birth and personal dharma. Both Shankara and Ramanuja (et al) took it upon themselves to row back from (an unworkable, because a-political absolute) tattvamasi and to retain a difference between God and nature, thereby to uphold a worldly dharma (that included the hereditary caste system and the varnas, and, in Ramanuja’s case, a personal God) and that functioned to the advantage of the already highly privileged Indian ruling castes. That Shankara (and others) failed to advance, indeed prevented tattvamasi (thus divine, meaning personal democracy and freedom of expression) from becoming the cultural leitmotif of India (as had happened for a brief period in ancient Greece) (violently) suppressed the creative genius of India, in particular of the majority sudras, and so retarded the development of India which, politically and religiously in-bred, gradually degenerated to the point where it became rife for foreign takeover.
© 2016 Victor Langheld