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.
Vinji, wow, that's a lot of deep thinking - thank you! This gives me a lot to think about, for sure. The first takeaway I have is that a lot of all this (my essay, your response) is definitional. How does one define whole, complete, and so on. What does wholer mean, for example? So, to some extent this depends on one's definitions and perspectives.
If, by definition, something is whole because it "is" (a whole slice, a half note - when of course there are whole notes), then one cannot be less than whole or more than whole, and in that case everything is whole at whatever level of analysis one cares to consider. If, however, one considers whole as something fully functional, or complete, or perfect, or something that contains all its parts, then things (like people, ideas, scientific studies and their conclusions) can be less than whole. I'd say that philosophically the first definition might hold, but that as a practical matter, we all know things (like people, an apple once-bitten) are not whole. Not complete, not perfect.
If one buys a pie with a slice missing, is it whole? Well yes and no.
Second, given the second perspective above, and I may be interpreting this incorrectly, it seemed to me that for the first half or 2/3's of this you were making the case for my first three takeaways - No one is whole (nothing is complete - our cells are changing all the time), people can become wholer - or more whole, and being whole is not perfection. One CAN become more whole, have a healthier personality, no one is complete, and so on when looking at being a whole person from this perspective.
The last points you made are also good ones - from Siddhartha's claim that we are all perfect and the Buddha's claim that we are already whole but we just don't know it. Both of those rely on perception. After all, if we just don't realize we are whole - then really, by that lack of realization, we aren't whole. Or we would know (in all ways of knowing) that we are perfect. Not even Michael Phelps was a perfect swimmer. And if we consider ourselves to be perfect, well, again that may be a philosophical argument, but in real life maybe there is a bit of hubris involved in the belief that we are perfect, especially when we just misspelled something or offended someone - when we know that in reality we have a ways to go to "be a better person." We know we can be more wholesome.
Finally, regarding transcendence, as we know people can experience transcendence but even if one does do that once, twice, or even often, can anyone do it more than episodically? If not, can they be said to be whole? Always? If not, would not becoming wholer - or to engage in practices that over time lead to lengthier times of transcendence - not be a worthy task? One can experience love, but does that mean one always loves? Can one not, having loved still become more loving or, using these word forms, a better lover?
These are big thoughts and fun to kick around. Lots depends on points of view, definitions, one's own experiences, and more.
Thanks so much for jumping in here! It was provocative and made me think more deeply about the ways we consider whole.
It is, this business of developing ideas, after all a "messy" business, and even if our thinking becomes more honed in, more elegant if you will, we'll never reach the perfect, unchangeable, answers. It's humbling, really.
My point, though I didn't do a good job articulating it was this: there is no person who needs to be whole. Yes, there is a body; but the body that exists today is not the same body that existed yesterday. Yes there is a personality; but the personality is only perceived to be not whole based on social standards. A dog has a personality, but does that mean that the dog is somehow not living up to its potential as defined by another dog? And most important, yes, there is a sense of subjectivity; but if investigated clearly (by that, I mean by direct observation; not thought), then there is the realization that all perceptions (hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking) arise within that subjectivity. That includes the sense of a 'me'.
Any thought of the 'me' becoming whole is ludicrous. There is no me to become whole. Wholeness already exists and it is boundless, limitless, and eternal. Indeed, the notion of wholeness in this context is also ludicrous.
That doesn't negate the experience of being human. But does a bird question its wholeness? Does any life form question whether it is whole or not? Likewise with this experience of behavior a human. If to become whole means to become a better person, then this notion of a better person is socially derived. It too is an illusion. That doesn't mean living this life ethically and compassionately isn't important in the context of the social context in which we live today June 3, 2026.
You are this entire universe perceiving a 'reality' through a limited range of sensory input.
OK, this has been a terrific exchange, just a kind I was hoping for by making this book writing public. Thank you, Vinji, and yes, I will be buying the beer tomorrow, my friend. What was valuable about this exchange among other things was that it made me very aware that the word “whole” just isn’t gonna work for this book. It’s open to a variety of interpretations and levels of analysis, and just isn’t clear enough.
So in the spirit of learning together, I’ll be changing the title of this book and probably even the emphasis. So thanks again Vincent, and this is the kind of interchange that’s very helpful. I’m hoping others will jump in like this along the way. i’m saving all this kind of feedback and will be interpreting it as the book evolves.
I agree. The word wholeness has too many variations as well as being influenced by cultural norms. It also implies a lack of something; an incompleteness that, again, is culturally derived.
But the broader issue seems to be "how to become a better person."
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a better person; but just like "wholeness", being a better person has cultural connotations.
What I really wanted to address here is the assumption such an approach takes.
Assumption: There is a "person" here; a "me" that needs to be better or do better.
Note: I have no problem with the idea of being a better person in the context of the world we live in. But that doesn't go far enough in addressing what it means to be awaken to one's true nature. It is a bottom-up approach that perhaps has practical value; but is limited. It requires a cognitive, emotional, and spiritual focus on the 'me'.
As you well know, those who have "realized their true nature" often describe it as the dissolution of the self or 'me'. What happens is an awakening to our inherent boundless, limitless nature.
That doesn't mean that the ego or 'me' disappears (although it may for a while). It just means that there is an awareness that this 'me' is nothing but an idea based on a set of conditioned patterns and memories.
The lawn still needs to get mowed; hips surgically replaced; bills paid, food eaten, etc.
Instead, a top-down approach (which we've discussed) starts with a concerted effort to see past our thoughts and our 'me' and awaken to our true nature. Once that happens, the character (i.e., the 'me') that we play behave in ways (most of the time) in accord with the direct understanding that there is "just this." And "just this" includes the entire universe.
And there is the recognition that, as human beings, our perspective, our view, of "the world out there" is limited by the range of our sensory apparatus.
Consequently, there is not a person that needs to be better; but betterment happens naturally given the recognition that there is no real separation between you and me. Compassion, empathy, etc., follow naturally. It doesn't require a set of prescriptions to follow.
That doesn't mean, however, that I don't appreciate that it's your turn to buy the beer! See you tomorrow!
This is good perspective. I will have to think about it, but I don’t think I am going to be the person to carry the “awaken to one’s true nature” message or the practices that get you there. These questions about whether or not there is a me or not I think are going to be beyond my ability to, or actual interest in, trying to share with others. Thinking about how to settle into the present moment as deeply as possible is about as far as I think I can take myself or others.
I think the other is going to be much more up your alley and those who have practiced non-duality and such for years and who have gone deeply into what you seem to be talking about here.
I’m going to be more of the “how to be a better person“ ilk, how to follow Jesus type, how to move toward eudaimonia/human flourishing type work. Profound living and learning if you will. I’m interested in how to be a pilgrim and yes, moving forward while moving deeper at the same time. Simple practices that yield results not only in the present moment but over time.
So we will see. In the meantime, I’m looking forward to an ice cold Porter or two tomorrow.
And my career, at least over the last 30+ years, has all been teaching, education, learning, lifelong learning for organizations and individuals. Over the last 10 or so years, I've added spirituality and spiritual learning to the mix. And it's ALL about how to become a "better" person if you will. A more joyful person. And not just for others, much more for me - how can I become a better, more joyful, more generous, kinder person.
That's me (that's "me"), my life, my calling if you will. My question for myself is always how can I learn to be more effective doing that? So I have to leave other ontological/philosophical arenas for others, who are wiser about them than I'll ever be.
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.
Vinji, wow, that's a lot of deep thinking - thank you! This gives me a lot to think about, for sure. The first takeaway I have is that a lot of all this (my essay, your response) is definitional. How does one define whole, complete, and so on. What does wholer mean, for example? So, to some extent this depends on one's definitions and perspectives.
If, by definition, something is whole because it "is" (a whole slice, a half note - when of course there are whole notes), then one cannot be less than whole or more than whole, and in that case everything is whole at whatever level of analysis one cares to consider. If, however, one considers whole as something fully functional, or complete, or perfect, or something that contains all its parts, then things (like people, ideas, scientific studies and their conclusions) can be less than whole. I'd say that philosophically the first definition might hold, but that as a practical matter, we all know things (like people, an apple once-bitten) are not whole. Not complete, not perfect.
If one buys a pie with a slice missing, is it whole? Well yes and no.
Second, given the second perspective above, and I may be interpreting this incorrectly, it seemed to me that for the first half or 2/3's of this you were making the case for my first three takeaways - No one is whole (nothing is complete - our cells are changing all the time), people can become wholer - or more whole, and being whole is not perfection. One CAN become more whole, have a healthier personality, no one is complete, and so on when looking at being a whole person from this perspective.
The last points you made are also good ones - from Siddhartha's claim that we are all perfect and the Buddha's claim that we are already whole but we just don't know it. Both of those rely on perception. After all, if we just don't realize we are whole - then really, by that lack of realization, we aren't whole. Or we would know (in all ways of knowing) that we are perfect. Not even Michael Phelps was a perfect swimmer. And if we consider ourselves to be perfect, well, again that may be a philosophical argument, but in real life maybe there is a bit of hubris involved in the belief that we are perfect, especially when we just misspelled something or offended someone - when we know that in reality we have a ways to go to "be a better person." We know we can be more wholesome.
Finally, regarding transcendence, as we know people can experience transcendence but even if one does do that once, twice, or even often, can anyone do it more than episodically? If not, can they be said to be whole? Always? If not, would not becoming wholer - or to engage in practices that over time lead to lengthier times of transcendence - not be a worthy task? One can experience love, but does that mean one always loves? Can one not, having loved still become more loving or, using these word forms, a better lover?
These are big thoughts and fun to kick around. Lots depends on points of view, definitions, one's own experiences, and more.
Thanks so much for jumping in here! It was provocative and made me think more deeply about the ways we consider whole.
It is, this business of developing ideas, after all a "messy" business, and even if our thinking becomes more honed in, more elegant if you will, we'll never reach the perfect, unchangeable, answers. It's humbling, really.
My point, though I didn't do a good job articulating it was this: there is no person who needs to be whole. Yes, there is a body; but the body that exists today is not the same body that existed yesterday. Yes there is a personality; but the personality is only perceived to be not whole based on social standards. A dog has a personality, but does that mean that the dog is somehow not living up to its potential as defined by another dog? And most important, yes, there is a sense of subjectivity; but if investigated clearly (by that, I mean by direct observation; not thought), then there is the realization that all perceptions (hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking) arise within that subjectivity. That includes the sense of a 'me'.
Any thought of the 'me' becoming whole is ludicrous. There is no me to become whole. Wholeness already exists and it is boundless, limitless, and eternal. Indeed, the notion of wholeness in this context is also ludicrous.
That doesn't negate the experience of being human. But does a bird question its wholeness? Does any life form question whether it is whole or not? Likewise with this experience of behavior a human. If to become whole means to become a better person, then this notion of a better person is socially derived. It too is an illusion. That doesn't mean living this life ethically and compassionately isn't important in the context of the social context in which we live today June 3, 2026.
You are this entire universe perceiving a 'reality' through a limited range of sensory input.
OK, this has been a terrific exchange, just a kind I was hoping for by making this book writing public. Thank you, Vinji, and yes, I will be buying the beer tomorrow, my friend. What was valuable about this exchange among other things was that it made me very aware that the word “whole” just isn’t gonna work for this book. It’s open to a variety of interpretations and levels of analysis, and just isn’t clear enough.
So in the spirit of learning together, I’ll be changing the title of this book and probably even the emphasis. So thanks again Vincent, and this is the kind of interchange that’s very helpful. I’m hoping others will jump in like this along the way. i’m saving all this kind of feedback and will be interpreting it as the book evolves.
We all need to “drink beer on Fridays.”
I agree. The word wholeness has too many variations as well as being influenced by cultural norms. It also implies a lack of something; an incompleteness that, again, is culturally derived.
But the broader issue seems to be "how to become a better person."
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a better person; but just like "wholeness", being a better person has cultural connotations.
What I really wanted to address here is the assumption such an approach takes.
Assumption: There is a "person" here; a "me" that needs to be better or do better.
Note: I have no problem with the idea of being a better person in the context of the world we live in. But that doesn't go far enough in addressing what it means to be awaken to one's true nature. It is a bottom-up approach that perhaps has practical value; but is limited. It requires a cognitive, emotional, and spiritual focus on the 'me'.
As you well know, those who have "realized their true nature" often describe it as the dissolution of the self or 'me'. What happens is an awakening to our inherent boundless, limitless nature.
That doesn't mean that the ego or 'me' disappears (although it may for a while). It just means that there is an awareness that this 'me' is nothing but an idea based on a set of conditioned patterns and memories.
The lawn still needs to get mowed; hips surgically replaced; bills paid, food eaten, etc.
Instead, a top-down approach (which we've discussed) starts with a concerted effort to see past our thoughts and our 'me' and awaken to our true nature. Once that happens, the character (i.e., the 'me') that we play behave in ways (most of the time) in accord with the direct understanding that there is "just this." And "just this" includes the entire universe.
And there is the recognition that, as human beings, our perspective, our view, of "the world out there" is limited by the range of our sensory apparatus.
Consequently, there is not a person that needs to be better; but betterment happens naturally given the recognition that there is no real separation between you and me. Compassion, empathy, etc., follow naturally. It doesn't require a set of prescriptions to follow.
That doesn't mean, however, that I don't appreciate that it's your turn to buy the beer! See you tomorrow!
This is good perspective. I will have to think about it, but I don’t think I am going to be the person to carry the “awaken to one’s true nature” message or the practices that get you there. These questions about whether or not there is a me or not I think are going to be beyond my ability to, or actual interest in, trying to share with others. Thinking about how to settle into the present moment as deeply as possible is about as far as I think I can take myself or others.
I think the other is going to be much more up your alley and those who have practiced non-duality and such for years and who have gone deeply into what you seem to be talking about here.
I’m going to be more of the “how to be a better person“ ilk, how to follow Jesus type, how to move toward eudaimonia/human flourishing type work. Profound living and learning if you will. I’m interested in how to be a pilgrim and yes, moving forward while moving deeper at the same time. Simple practices that yield results not only in the present moment but over time.
So we will see. In the meantime, I’m looking forward to an ice cold Porter or two tomorrow.
And my career, at least over the last 30+ years, has all been teaching, education, learning, lifelong learning for organizations and individuals. Over the last 10 or so years, I've added spirituality and spiritual learning to the mix. And it's ALL about how to become a "better" person if you will. A more joyful person. And not just for others, much more for me - how can I become a better, more joyful, more generous, kinder person.
That's me (that's "me"), my life, my calling if you will. My question for myself is always how can I learn to be more effective doing that? So I have to leave other ontological/philosophical arenas for others, who are wiser about them than I'll ever be.
As always, you have the deep view. What does all this mean as a practical matter?
It means, beer on Fridays!
Apparently, it would be ludicrous to think that “I” could show up. However, that’ll be “me” sharing a couple cold ones with you, on “me!”
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.
Thanks my friend - I'd love to hear them!