wholeness or completeness , what difference , one that is whole is complete !
In one sense of the word, obviously, there is no real difference. I'm more incline to go with "whole" as it implies the sum of the aggregates, as it were, and is not specifically saying the thing in question is complete. It is merely the sum of the parts.
Personally, I take great exception to the notion of so-called "completeness". In a very limited sense, yes, one does have a sensation of "coming full circle" or "reaching the summit" and completing that stage of the journey into the dawn of expanded consciousness, but more importantly, at that stage one also realized that very little is actually completed. If anything, it's where the fun, adventure and intrigue really begins. In some terms, so-called "enlightenment" is really just the first baby step on yet another road, without the aid of a map, exploring a territory that is vastly larger than what one has already explored. I hope that makes sense.
nothing on the material level but we are dicussing enlightenment , which trancends all conventional levels and atains the ultimate realisation.
Well, I can see you are in for a few surprises. Don't worry though, as it's all good. When I say nothing is complete, I am meaning, precisely, nothing is complete, regardless of the realm that nothing finds itself in. Is that clear? You may limit this to the so-called "material" world if it helps you to sleep at night, but I meant no such limitation. Change never stops, get used to it.
Aside from this, I also reject, somewhat contemptuously, all notions of any "ultimate realization". Again, don't sell yourself short. Realization never ends, and once again, get used to it.
buddhi - the inteligence or realisation atained by the buddha is un changing , is complete , is whole , it is satcitananda .(eternaly blissfull and full of knowledge)
Well, that is what the books would tell you, yes. However, it isn't really correct. It is a gross distortion, to be truthful. I am quite sure that those who encountered the original purveyors of this myth may well have assumed such beings were indeed All powerful, all blissful and all knowledgeable, but my guess is that they didn't tax those assertions very hard.
Like, c'mon.
Sat = All powerful. Ok, to me that means "godlike" power to do practically anything. Do we see much evidence of this? No, not really. In fact, there is almost nothing in the historical record, outside of fanciful mythologies, that would support this notion - and yet it stands...
Chit - All knowing - Again, we don't have much evidence to backup this claim. One would think that the Eastern world would be light years ahead of the Western world, if this was the case. Given that it is not, one does have to take this as a mere tug to the legs of the unwashed. My guess is that there has been practically zero research, by anyone, to verify this claim - and yet, it stands...
Anana - All blissful - Well, there IS a distinct bliss that accompanies expansions of consciousness, but one soon gets used to it. It simply becomes the new "normal".
To be fair, I think that the purveyors of Sat-Chit-Ananda were happily ensconced in Ananda and were only joking about the All Power and All Knowledge. No doubt their disciples lapped it up... and were likely in on the joke too. In any event, it's hard to take the concept seriously.
Perhaps I'm just not as easily impressed as you'd like me to be.
