user-1: According to I think all Buddhists, the whole is nothing more than its parts. I've read it claimed that, given everything is partite, nothing exists. Perhaps Being means something more than its parts, though I'm not sure. Anyway, do we perceive - with or as the skandhas - something as a thing that is more than its parts? Such as a chariot.
I think that would mean that things that don't exist can sometimes be the object of perception. In turn, that interests me because beings without any existence may - perhaps - be in some sense permanent and non-empty, as well as impermanent and empty.
The implications for karma seem obvious.

Update: it definitely seems that Theravada Buddhists claim that we only infer the whole, and do not perceive it. I'm unsure about the Mahayana, especially given how often "the whole universe" crops up in discussing the bodhisattva. So, if I may ask two follow up points:

is the inference to a whole like something: so that the whole in some sense belongs to our mental life?
what about in the Mahayana?


user17553: We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is.
We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.

user43: Perception is interpretation. Interpretation is inference. When we perceive the chariot we infer it from its signs, then project that inference back on the basis (the parts and the context).
This projection is the source of trouble (dukkha) because we ignorantly tend to attribute our own, often incorrect, interpretations, biases, and assumptions to the basis of inference.
The understanding that all entities without exception are inference and that in reality entities are not delineated (and lack fixed identities) is a big part of realization of Emptiness.

-1: <p>According to I think all Buddhists, the whole is nothing more than its parts. I've read it claimed that, given everything is partite, nothing exists. Perhaps Being means something more than its parts, though I'm not sure. Anyway, do we perceive - with or as the skandhas - something as a thing that is more than its parts? Such as a chariot.</p>
<p>I think that would mean that things that <em>don't</em> exist can sometimes be the object of perception. In turn, that interests me because beings without any existence may - perhaps - be in some sense permanent and non-empty, as well as impermanent and empty.</p>
<p>The implications for karma seem obvious.</p>
<hr />
<p>Update: it definitely seems that Theravada Buddhists claim that we only infer the whole, and do not perceive it. I'm unsure about the Mahayana, especially given how often &quot;the whole universe&quot; crops up in discussing the bodhisattva. So, if I may ask two follow up points:</p>
<ol>
<li>is the inference to a whole <em>like</em> something: so that the whole in some sense belongs to our mental life?</li>
<li>what about in the Mahayana?</li>
</ol>
 17553: <p>We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is.
We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.</p>
 43: <p>Perception is interpretation. Interpretation is inference. When we perceive the chariot we infer it from its signs, then project that inference back on the basis (the parts and the context).</p>
<p>This projection is the source of trouble (dukkha) because we ignorantly tend to attribute our own, often incorrect, interpretations, biases, and assumptions to the basis of inference.</p>
<p>The understanding that all entities without exception are inference and that in reality entities are not delineated (and lack fixed identities) is a big part of realization of Emptiness.</p>
