In fairness, I didn't say the canon was
complete. But that's a cavil; I'm not going to be able to give you an answer that satisfies, because I think those are not questions that
can be answered in the way you're trying to. What they get at is the conflict between incompossible systems of ethics and thus of belief, and so essentially normative a question can have no meaningful answer in the same positive sense as a question in orbital mechanics - which is simple, in that it works the same whether any humans are involved or not. Nothing about belief is simple in that sense, which is why we have orbital mechanics pretty much down to a science, while belief remains in the domain of philosophers, whose entire reason for being is to fail in interesting ways at 'unscrewing the inscrutable' - which is what makes them always so annoying, and occasionally so worthwhile.
(No judgment; I share the love of disputation for its own sake, if in a more autodidactic style - which is why they have found me so annoying, interpersonally at least: I don't know their rules well enough to play by them, but do tend to say things they find they have to take seriously. Or at the very least, I've often annoyed one of them that way...)
I think I see now why the quotes, but there's nothing to be gained by swapping words around. None of those purports to be the answer to so hefty a question as "what is happiness?" Each, and I grant this part is heavily implicit, poses only an answer, which some have found satisfactory but no one is obliged to. They're not so much there to agree or disagree with, as to encourage you to think about why you do either and why you do either - they're not there to tell you how to be, but to help you understand who you are.
As I said, I can't give an answer that satisfies - at most, I can give an answer that knows it's only a statement of belief, and have. Few seem ever to manage so much, and from this lack I think springs all of politics, because also from this lack I think springs the vast majority of mass human violence and much interpersonally besides, and if a better tool than politics exists for placing distance between essential disagreement and violence, I can only assume it has not yet been discovered because otherwise we'd all be using it. (I hope we'd all be using it.)
In the end, given the questions you cite here and what I've read of your work on your site, I think that must be what you're trying to solve. It's an honorable occupation, and I'm glad you find it enjoyable! You're far from the first to attempt it, and I hope I may be forgiven for doubting your chances in this field as much as I'd doubt anyone else's - but as long as you go on finding it a pleasant pursuit, I'll go on being wrong to have said it wasn't worth your effort; as definitions of happiness go, that seems to me about as good as any.
(To the other point, you might consider being broader in your range of named citations, and of supported languages.)