Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Vincent's avatar

I start with a comment about this sentence: "But that begged the question, can anyone — anyone — ever become whole? And if not, am I on a wild-goose chase here?"

And my answer is the first is: No; no one can ever become whole. And yes, you are on a wild-goose chase!

Merriam-Webster defines wholeness primarily as the quality or state of being entire or complete.

Given that definition, in what way can anybody be complete? Complete how? What defines completeness in a human being? Attaining one's goals professionally and personally?

Is it about how one's "personality" interacts with the world, morally and ethically? But if so, that's not really about wholeness, is it. It's about being in accord with social expectations or perhaps even spiritual development. If the former, then wholeness of personality is defined by society. If the latter, than is it possible to be ever spiritually complete?

Next:

"If we extended this idea of becoming wholer, we could look at “wholiness,” that is, becoming wiser, healthier, kinder, more graceful, more compassionate, more integrated, more deeply human."

Similar to the comment in the previous paragraph, is it possible to be "more" of anything? At what point is such 'behavior' complete? And doesn't society put boundaries as to how much more of something a person can be.

But let's address the real issue. Is it possible to be more of a human being than you already are? Even if you are the most evil person in the world (who happens to wear orange makeup, for example), does that mean you are not already a complete human being?

And even here, there are limitations: our bodies do not consist of the same cells as they did 10 years ago. So, if completeness is defined by our bodies, then the constant turnover of cells implies that we are never complete.

What about what we perceive? Do our brains perceive the entirety of electro-magnetic radiation or the entire range of sound waves? How is it that when we zoom in on any atom: beyond electrons and protons; beyond quarks, we find nothing there. But it's a nothingness that is full of potential?

It was Donald Hoffman who likened our bodies as interfaces that limit our perceptions of reality to only what is needed for our biological selves to survive. Thus, what we perceive as 'reality' is only a small slice of what is possible to perceive. So, does that imply that by definition, being human means we can never be whole?

What about spiritual transcendence? Many have described awakening experiences as being beyond space and time; beyond personality; beyond human needs and desires; beyond ego: Is this the wholeness or completeness one seeks if on a spiritual search. And having experienced such 'wholeness', is the human personality also 'whole'?

One of the mythological statements apparently made by Siddhartha when he realized his true nature is that all human beings are perfect and complete just as they are. Problems and suffering occurs when we begin to believe our thoughts, including thoughts about being a 'better person'.

The desire for anything including transcendence implies that there is something missing. But who decides what is missing? The ego? The personality? Society? All of the above?

But if one looks beyond thought; If one examines the gap between thoughts; then what remains? Similarly, where does hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, touch, feelings, and thoughts occur? Seeing this clearly, we come back to Buddha's point. We are already whole and complete; we just don't realize it.

Vincent's avatar

So much to unpack in this one. I have a few comments (of course I do!), but I'll have to come back to it later this week.

10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?