Whole = ? to you

[BearDancing]

"What equals the word "Whole" ... spiritually speaking...we all use the word so what does it mean to each of us" :weirdsmil

[~Elise~]

I'm assuming this is coming from the twin souls thread. Here is MY opinion, and you know what those are like.

You have to whole and complete within yourself before you are ever going to be able to have a good relationship. If you are looking for someone to complete you...you're going to fail. No one can complete you other than yourself.

You can find someone who compliments you...that is the other puzzle piece that you fit into to (you are more together than you are as seperate individuals)

The Charge of the Goddess sums it up perfectly (and this goes for anything in life--again just my opinion) All your seeking shall avail you not, for if that which you seek, you do not find within, you will never find without.

Elise

[Sage Rainsong]

I'm assuming this is coming from the twin souls thread. Here is MY opinion, and you know what those are like.

You have to whole and complete within yourself before you are ever going to be able to have a good relationship. If you are looking for someone to complete you...you're going to fail. No one can complete you other than yourself.

You can find someone who compliments you...that is the other puzzle piece that you fit into to (you are more together than you are as seperate individuals)

The Charge of the Goddess sums it up perfectly (and this goes for anything in life--again just my opinion) All your seeking shall avail you not, for if that which you seek, you do not find within, you will never find without.

Elise

I agree completely the thought of someone completing me in any way just gets under my skin. I am complete in myself thank you very much. My favorite quote about love and relationships is from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran

"Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf. Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone, even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music."

[BearDancing]

I'm assuming this is coming from the twin souls thread. Here is MY opinion, and you know what those are like.

You have to whole and complete within yourself before you are ever going to be able to have a good relationship. If you are looking for someone to complete you...you're going to fail. No one can complete you other than yourself.

You can find someone who compliments you...that is the other puzzle piece that you fit into to (you are more together than you are as seperate individuals)

The Charge of the Goddess sums it up perfectly (and this goes for anything in life--again just my opinion) All your seeking shall avail you not, for if that which you seek, you do not find within, you will never find without.

Elise

What I am talking about in this thread is....what are peoples different opinions on what is "Whole" we all make reference to it yet do we all have the same definition? for example a part of wholeness may be living more in a "learning way" rather than how some people have a problem and it is everyone elses fault and they do not learn the lesson that was intended from the experience
...something they can learn and grow from....instead of living in a socially sanctioned habit form....being based on domestic life and habitual patterns in regards to income, balancing a two parent working situation, chores...."settling down and for kind of attitude" where spiritiual growth is not a part of the equation. That is one example...

[~Elise~]

...."settling down and for kind of attitude" where spiritiual growth is not a part of the equation. That is one example...


That is not living...that's existing and should be on the list of deadly sins, if we had a list of sins.

[~Elise~]

and I'll restate my belief



The Charge of the Goddess sums it up perfectly (and this goes for anything in life--again just my opinion) All your seeking shall avail you not, for if that which you seek, you do not find within, you will never find without.

[BearDancing]

Elise In your opinion .... if I have a altercation with a friend ...and through that altercation I choose to look at myself...instead of ...blameing...by that person saying their truth *which is part of the altercation*...is that person not part of the solution...if they would have chosen to bottle up their feelings instead of sharing...that gift may not have been there in that moment for me look at myself...is that All from within....or somehow a sharing of energies that we find the higher truth......I am not trying to argue....because I personally believe the same as your statement....I guess what I am hoping is that people would share more than a blanket statement for "Wholeness" in doing so...we all will learn...
there are many aspects of "Wholeness" just because someone Knows to look within for answers does not make them "Whole" yet is on the road to "Wholeness" possibly...having the courage and self esteem to be honest is part....not taking what someone else says personally...etc

[~Elise~]

Whole is knowing YOU...the good, the bad and the ugly (where's that music coming from), the light, the dark and the in-between and embracing ALL of that.

If you let something your friend said anger you...then yes, you are giving them 'power over' you. If you're embracing your 'power within (here's that term again)' then you won't be angry...you can examine what was said, if it fits, own it, if not, discard it. It's that simple AND that hard.

Whole is not a magic state of being...it is YOU.

JMO and YMMV

Elise

[BearDancing]

Whole is knowing YOU...the good, the bad and the ugly (where's that music coming from), the light, the dark and the in-between and embracing ALL of that.

If you let something your friend said anger you...then yes, you are giving them 'power over' you. If you're embracing your 'power within (here's that term again)' then you won't be angry...you can examine what was said, if it fits, own it, if not, discard it. It's that simple AND that hard.

Whole is not a magic state of being...it is YOU.

JMO and YMMV

Elise

Thanks that is what I was looking for...the whole is you....etc

[Teresa]

I did not read other posts in this thread yet because I want to give my gut opinion before reading something that could alter it. To me being whole is being able to love myself with all aspects of myself included. Taking the good things and the bad things and realizing that there is some kind of balance in the mixture and accepting it as a whole is one method of self inventory. I can look at all the parts that equal the total and be happy with myself. There are times when I do take a personal inventory and if something does not set right with me about myself then I take action. I make a plan on how to adjust that thing. I set up steps to change it to a point that I can still be happy within me and by myself not needing anyone to validate me besides myself.

Some people do not realize that they need to be at peace and happy with themselves and by themselves before they can learn to have healthy intimate relationships with others. If you look to others for validation and your happiness I do not think you will be very happy. Of course this is just my personal opinion and you can take it with a grain of salt. :thumbsup:

[♀♥Lady Urania♥♀]

I'm assuming this is coming from the twin souls thread. Here is MY opinion, and you know what those are like.

You have to whole and complete within yourself before you are ever going to be able to have a good relationship. If you are looking for someone to complete you...you're going to fail. No one can complete you other than yourself.

You can find someone who compliments you...that is the other puzzle piece that you fit into to (you are more together than you are as seperate individuals)

The Charge of the Goddess sums it up perfectly (and this goes for anything in life--again just my opinion) All your seeking shall avail you not, for if that which you seek, you do not find within, you will never find without.

Elise

I used to say the same thing, as well. Jerry Mcguire - you complete me. I said "He shoulda said, you compliment me." Now dont get me wrong, the sentiments are sweet, but pretty much my approach on the path - that the wholeness must be from within. Jungian analytical psychology speaks of this per individuation which I found helpful per the anima/animus theory. Yet is still reflective of the outer as well.

[clearing]

In God's eyes, you are already Whole, Complete and Perfect.

This is the ultimate Reality. Whole, Complete, Perfect, Bliss. Beyond even this description.

[Xentor]

In God's eyes, you are already Whole, Complete and Perfect.

This is the ultimate Reality. Whole, Complete, Perfect, Bliss. Beyond even this description.
Which God would that be, pray tell?

[Darkest Eve]

Being 'whole' spiritually?

I think it is different for everyone, what they would define as the thing, thought, or feeling that makes them whole.

For me, just knowing that I'm on that path of exploration and being who I am regardless of everything else has helped me to become whole. I don't think I'm totally enlightened by any means... but do I think I'm whole? Yes. Not because of another person being a part of my life, or because of anyone else's influence or input... but because I've built my own house to live in, in a sense.

Doing what is right for me (and those I love), and what feels right and true is complimentary and completing for me.

[BearDancing]

Which God would that be, pray tell?

The Big Guy in the Sky ... of course!!!! :giggle:

In all seriousness....I guess in this moment being whole to me "IS" spiritual enlightenment...all the descriptions of being Whole are nice and something that I would probably say....but from moment to moment I do not beleive we all feel whole...( perfect, whole, bliss, one with our selves, excepting the good and the bad etc) 24/7 in the terms describled....Being realistic, we can Know these qualities and be on a journey towards...but until we have practiced and learned, raissed our level of conciousness until all this is natural and we do not faulter..we are still on our journey to being "Whole" yes I beleive all the answers are within...all we need to do is remember them...I beleive our spiritual journeys help us "remember" all that is within ourselves....and through different avenues of learning..."including all relationships" we have the opportunity to Learn...raising our level of conciousness therefor helping us "Remember Who We Are" I guess Remembering Who We Are at our highest level of enlightenment in our Souls journey is Wholeness to me....this is where I beleive past mastery comes in...when we reach a level of conciousness we start to remember what we have mastered in past lives and we are able to apply them in this lifetime...accelerating our souls learning in this life...kinda putting more experiences into practice to experience and learn more...not sure if this is making sensse to you'all but I know what I am talking about...

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Well they say opinions are like buttholes, some are just larger and smellier than others. With that in mind I'll just let mine add to the content of discussion.

In my opinion none of us can ever reach a state of being trully "whole". I supposed one might reach a condition which might be conceived of as a fractured state with whole facets but never a true whole.

To search inside only reveals that which is unique to us and of each of us as an individual. Yet is does not reveal that facet of us that is part of the heard animal that needs and requires social interaction to complete the greater whole of the individual.

The greater one looks inside themselves the clearer the truth becomes of themself. Yet the problem is in seeing that truth, for most if not all of us will only see that which we choose to see. We see that which supports our immediate concept and belief for the given moment. Even then that "truth" will change and evolve as we grow and come to understand ourselves. What is my truth and wholeness today may not even exist tomorrow nor be it whole.

In some ways that persception of being whole is like looking at a crystal and saying it is whole for it is one piece, yet failing to see the many fractures and rifts that are contained within the craystal when viewed up close.

I think part of the error comes in the concept that to be at peace with one's self and place is to mean they are whole. To even be at a point where one thinks they understand themselves is a broken concept for at best they understand themselves against the criteria they used to measure at that one instant of time, yet their very guage reveals failure moments later.

Yet I may be incomplete in design even though I am aware or recognize those items that are missing from myself. The recognization of those ommissions may make me change or compensate for those things but that in and of itself does not replace or assume the role of the missing componet.

I think to be whole requires one to have an equal placement and utilization of all facets of what it means to be human. In some ways I think to be whole means to have the ability to empathese with others and see yourself in that position. In our ability to understand, relate and see their truth do we gain the metere upon which to judge and define ourselves, and in some lessor degree do we come to know outselves..

One may claim to be whole yet where is the wholeness when they say I know myself within but do not present that self outside. I think part of being whole is to be outside and inside who and what we are. Everytime we change or alter an action because another will disagree is to change part of the concept of our individual wholeness.

[clearing]

Which God would that be, pray tell?

The Self, Universal Mind, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, God, Father, Spirit (essentially nameless) - all the same. Surrender opinions and the Truth stands radiantly.

[Shanti]

Being whole doesn't even compute with me as I don't use that term.
So I thought about it.

Um, the only thought is that we are already whole, its just realizing it that one may be lacking.

[Sage]

...but until we have practiced and learned, raissed our level of conciousness until all this is natural and we do not faulter..we are still on our journey to being "Whole" ...

For some reason this part of your reply stood out to me. My first thought was, we will always faulter at some point. If we didn't, we wouldn't be human. The point in my opinion is to know, faulter, know more, faulter, and know more. For its from the faultering that we learn, in my opinion. And going through that process and continuing to go through it, is being whole.

Being whole is being.

Interesting topic.
Sage

[Death the Kid]

You are already whole, you are already fully enlightened. It's just a matter of recognizing it, which isn't easy but it's well within what is possible in a single lifetime.

Wholeness can be recognized through practicing non-attachment and cultivating compassion for all beings, by expanding one's sense of self to include others through recognition of our interconnectedness.

[Xentor]

The Self, Universal Mind, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, God, Father, Spirit (essentially nameless) - all the same. Surrender opinions and the Truth stands radiantly.

Sorry, not all gods are the same. And I definitely won't surrender my opinion anytime soon.

[Xentor]

You are already whole, you are already fully enlightened. It's just a matter of recognizing it, which isn't easy but it's well within what is possible in a single lifetime.
How can one be enlightened without recognising it? Isn't the point of being enlightened that one does recognise it?


Wholeness can be recognized through practicing non-attachment and cultivating compassion for all beings, by expanding one's sense of self to include others through recognition of our interconnectedness.
Non attachment seems so... ascetic. Some of us prefer the tantric way.

[Xentor]

Being whole doesn't even compute with me as I don't use that term.
Like you, I don't use the term, and it isn't something I aspire to become. Instead, I aspire to become a better person.


Um, the only thought is that we are already whole, its just realizing it that one may be lacking.
In order to define anything as whole, we must have a common understanding of the term. If your previous statement holds true, and the term doesn't compute, how are you able to assign the attribute 'whole' to anything? How are you able to assign an attribute that doesn't compute?

It's like saying: oh, you're all lizards from dimension X, you just don't realise it. Or, oh, we're all descendants from elves, we just don't realise it yet. In order for those statements to hold any truth, a common understanding of being a lizard or being an elf must exist. Especially when going all scientificky, an objectively observable common ground must be established.

In the case of 'whole', I very much find that common ground lacking, rendering the term empty instead of something to aspire.

One way of making the term mean something kind-of tangible, is by defining it "SMART"ly. This is a common technique used for defining goals for oneself. Let's break it down:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Time-limited


How can we describe 'whole' in such terms? Can we make it specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-limited?

If not, any claim of anyone being whole or seeing wholeness as something to aspire, will continue to sound empty, will continue to sound unattainable and unrealistic, and as such, not worth my time.

[clearing]

Sorry, not all gods are the same. And I definitely won't surrender my opinion anytime soon.

In essence, the truth is same underneath all those depictions and descriptions. All refer to an enlightened state, be it Nirvana, Reality or the Kingdom of Heaven.


How can one be enlightened without recognising it? Isn't the point of being enlightened that one does recognise it?

Yes, I find the phrase a little inaccurate also. I think what it means is that, enlightenment reveals what has always been, and what forever will be. Infinite intelligence, eternity, infinite love, etc. A revelation through awareness.


Like you, I don't use the term, and it isn't something I aspire to become. Instead, I aspire to become a better person.

The ego always tries to improve itself according to fleeting standards. The Self knows all things are always perfect.

[Darth Brooks]

"What equals the word "Whole" ... spiritually speaking...we all use the word so what does it mean to each of us" :weirdsmil

I don't typically use the word "whole" when it comes to my own beliefs. The first thing I thought of when I read the title of this thread was "the Whole," as in "the All." If we are all part of "the Whole" and the microcosm is but a reflection of the macrocosm, then "the Whole" is not always pretty. In fact, it can be quite brutal and ugly when it comes right down to it.


This is the ultimate Reality. Whole, Complete, Perfect, Bliss. Beyond even this description.

The "ultimate Reality" can just as easily be described as Chaotic, Formless, Dynamic, and Painful. Like being sacrificially ripped to pieces.


The Self, Universal Mind, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, God, Father, Spirit (essentially nameless) - all the same. Surrender opinions and the Truth stands radiantly.

I prefer to think of the Truth as being like a really big elephant, and we're all a bunch of blind people, touching bits and pieces of it and trying to figure out just what the hell it really is. It doesn't stand radiantly so much as it conceals itself in darkness; opinions are useful despite their transitory nature, provided that one is strong enough to discard them when they have outlived their usefulness.


Non attachment seems so... ascetic. Some of us prefer the tantric way.

Amen to that. Vamachara, here I come...


In essence, the truth is same underneath all those depictions and descriptions. All refer to an enlightened state, be it Nirvana, Reality or the Kingdom of Heaven.

Not everybody thinks of it in such solar-based terms. Most do, but not everybody.


The ego always tries to improve itself according to fleeting standards. The Self knows all things are always perfect.And yet were it not for the ego, one would not be able to even contemplate any of these notions in the first place. This is something the right-handed schools always seem to have a bit of trouble grasping. I prefer to think of the human being as flesh first, spirit second. Matter, flesh, impurity, ego - these things are of Netjer just as much as anything else, and it is every bit as possible to reach Netjer through them as it is to reach Netjer in spite of them. Both paths are equally true and valid, they both lead to Netjer when they are practiced with wisdom, but they can also both be misused.

[Perseph0ne]

To be honest, I only really read the first couple of posts.

I think I disagree with the question itself. The concept of 'whole' implies a finished product, complete. Without being cliché and running too heavily down the whole 'still travelling a path' route, I know I'm still learning and looking around me. I'm not ready to shut the book and say 'that's it, nothing more to know'. When I can't think of another questions to ask, maybe then I'll be done...whole, complete, finished.

Maybe a better question would be; what do you consider the key pieces to your metaphysical jigsaw puzzle?

[BearDancing]

am loving everyones interesting responses....:uhhuhuh:

[Death the Kid]

How can one be enlightened without recognising it? Isn't the point of being enlightened that one does recognise it?
Everyone has Buddha-nature. It is, according to the Buddha, the foundation of awareness. Thus every being who has awareness, has the Buddha-nature. All beings are already enlightenment. Yet samsaric beings have this nature clouded over with attachment, ignorance, aversion and these factors are under the self-perpetuating cycle of karma.

Recognizing that there is a fully-awakened Buddha beneath all of that requires work, you have to put forth the effort to clear away all of that mess and to reveal that unborn naked awareness.

There is no "point" to being enlightened, at least not as far as the Buddha-Dharma is concerned. In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha is attributed with saying that while there are enlightened beings, there is no such thing as enlightenment. Which is to say that if a clouded mind goes searching for enlightenment, it will generate its own idea of what "enlightenment" is - and this idea is not enlightenment itself. It's a fantasy conjured up by a mind under the influence of ignorance and karma. This is why that famous Zen teaching advises us to kill the Buddha if we should see him on the road. Kill your notion of enlightenment because it will only get in the way.

[QUOTE=Xentor;3699214]Non attachment seems so... ascetic. Some of us prefer the tantric way.
No tantrica would expouse the virtue of attachment. Non-attachment means that you recognize that lasting happiness does not come from impermanent things. If you're hungry and you begin to eat, you may think you feel happy. In reality, you're experiencing the pain of hunger being great, and the pain of fullness being small. If the deluded mind were correct in its assessment that eating at that time brings you happiness, then the more you eat the happier you should become - but that's not what happens.

You eat too much, you being to feel sick and pleasure turns to pain. But because we're attached to the pleasure of eating, we forget about these times when we over-eat, and we do it again and again.

Non-attachment doesn't mean you don't enjoy anything, or that you believe any kind of desire immediately brings you suffering. You should enjoy life and partake of its pleasures - where non-attachment comes in is to recognize that these pleasures are not permanent, they don't last. If you go into something that brings you pleasure expecting it to last, then when it's over there's a sense of dissatisfaction. Sometimes that sense arises even while you're partaking of pleasure as a nagging sense that "soon this will be over", and you're prevented from fully enjoying something because you're already imagining the pain of loss.

If you're not attached, you can fully enjoy something knowing full-well that this is not where happiness comes from, and that it has to end. So you really enjoy it while it lasts. You have no need to fret over the fact that it will end, because you've already accepted that and went ahead with it anyway.

Non-attachment isn't about denying yourself, it's about freeing yourself.

[Xentor]

If you're not attached, you can fully enjoy something knowing full-well that this is not where happiness comes from, and that it has to end. So you really enjoy it while it lasts. You have no need to fret over the fact that it will end, because you've already accepted that and went ahead with it anyway.

Non-attachment isn't about denying yourself, it's about freeing yourself.

Thank you for explaining that part... now I find the term 'non-attachment' misleading as well.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Faery Tradition Pillars :

Mother's Column = 603 = Awareness ( 602 )

Father's Column = 391 = To Know Internal Buddha Nature

Together = 994 ( 603 + 391 )

994 = "I" + I Can Not Believe I Know The Whole Thing...

...:uhhuhuh:...:hehehe:...:thumbsup:

Double Father Column + Boundary = 894

894 = Buddha Nature : I Am Not Attached To Non Attachment
Or Attachment , Or Internal Buddha Nature...:lol:

And That's The "All" , Folks !...:bigredgri

[Death the Kid]

Thank you for explaining that part... now I find the term 'non-attachment' misleading as well.
That's an unavoidable problem when translating terms from Sanskrit into English. English words tend to have singular meanings whereas words in Sanskrit are generally more nuanced.

[Xentor]

That's an unavoidable problem when translating terms from Sanskrit into English. English words tend to have singular meanings whereas words in Sanskrit are generally more nuanced.
Erm... no?

Since when can any one language contain more nuances than any other language? The nuance isn't in the language; it's in the people using it and in their use of it. And if you're about to tell me that people speaking Sanskrit use more nuances than people speaking English, you had better have some decent proof.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Erm... no?

Since when can any one language contain more nuances than any other language? The nuance isn't in the language; it's in the people using it and in their use of it. And if you're about to tell me that people speaking Sanskrit use more nuances than people speaking English, you had better have some decent proof.

Perhaps his usage of "nuance" was not the best...

However , Xentor , in Sanscrit , Runic , Hebrew / Obri ,
and other ancient languages , each letter of a word had ,
and has , multiple levels of meaning...

Thus , on the deeper levels of the language , a word may
contain many possible understandings...very different
from the views regarding modern english words , where
meaning is more contained , and limited...

I leave it up to Death the Kid to elaborate further...:thumbsup:

[Xentor]

Perhaps his usage of "nuance" was not the best...

However , Xentor , in Sanscrit , Runic , Hebrew / Obri ,
and other ancient languages , each letter of a word had ,
and has , multiple levels of meaning...

Thus , on the deeper levels of the language , a word may
contain many possible understandings...very different
from the views regarding modern english words , where
meaning is more contained , and limited...

I leave it up to Death the Kid to elaborate further...

Quite commendable action, Shawn. Your own method of applying gematria to English and finding new meanings in common and not-so-common words is exactly what I had in mind when pointing to the nuances in use by people, instead of in the language per se.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Quite commendable action, Shawn. Your own method of applying gematria to English and finding new meanings in common and not-so-common words is exactly what I had in mind when pointing to the nuances in use by people, instead of in the language per se.

And yet , whether you know it , or not , or others do ,
Xentor , English , as a language embodied in the steady
state reality , does have multiple levels of meaning...

Do note : I did not state English did not have multiple
levels of meaning...only the common mundanes perception
leaned toward that false reality...a retrograde of consciousness

I repeat...ancient languages are encoded , with multiple levels
of meaning , and not just by human interpretation...one day ,
perhaps when most humans attain their Buddha Nature , this
shall become apparent...humans did not invent number , or
language systems...they pre - exist , and are merely filtered
through , from a steady state universe...:uhhuhuh:...:hehehe:...:thumbsup:...

[Xentor]

they pre - exist , and are merely filtered through , from a steady state universe...
And where can I point my trusty telescope, or the Very Large Array antennae, to observe that illusory universe?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

And where can I point my trusty telescope, or the Very Large Array antennae, to observe that illusory universe?

Sorry , I do not know of any illusionary universes...

Only real ones...:lol:...right next door...

Check dark matter matrix , first...

[Xentor]

Sorry , I do not know of any illusionary universes...

Only real ones......right next door...

Check dark matter matrix , first...

Oh yes, very fitting.

Can you point to the specific dark matter that represents our number system, and prove that it does in fact represent just that?

[BearDancing]

Oh yes, very fitting.

Can you point to the specific dark matter that represents our number system, and prove that it does in fact represent just that?


Xentor are you being a smarty pants pain in the butt or what??:weirdsmil

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Oh yes, very fitting.

Can you point to the specific dark matter that represents our number system, and prove that it does in fact represent just that?

Most certainly not , nor do I have the obsessive - compulsive
order ( or disorder ) which would require me to do so , or
need such from others...such as those locked into hard science
are afflicted with...

You see...I am not attached to that type of thought pattern...:hehehe:

[Xentor]

Xentor are you being a smarty pants pain in the butt or what??:weirdsmil

That's one way of putting it. I prefer the term 'skeptic'. I'm willing to accept anything given a convincing amount of scientific evidence as fact.

Everything else will be treated as opinion.

[Xentor]

Most certainly not , nor do I have the obsessive - compulsive
order ( or disorder ) which would require me to do so , or
need such from others...such as those locked into hard science
are afflicted with...

You see...I am not attached to that type of thought pattern...

Most excellent. Then please also stop putting forth your opinions so matter-of-factly. It may come as a surprise to you, but we don't all believe the same belief.

Or it may not, and you just don't care. :rolleyes:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Everything else will be treated as opinion

Exactly what I feel about science being the answer...merely
an opinion...that is all...:bigredgri

[Xentor]

Exactly what I feel about science being the answer...merely
an opinion...that is all...

Hey, look at that, we actually agree on something! :thumbsup:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Then please also stop putting forth your opinions so matter-of-factly.
Or it may not, and you just don't care. :rolleyes:

Since I feel this way about science , perhaps you and others should stop putting forth your opinions so matter of factly...

Or maybe you just don't care...:lol:

[Teresa]

One way of making the term mean something kind-of tangible, is by defining it "SMART"ly. This is a common technique used for defining goals for oneself. Let's break it down:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Time-limited




You are giving out our secrets ... :uhhuhuh:
That is how I set my goals :thumbsup:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

_handclappFinally !

Edit to last post...saw this after I posted...

Don't want to argue...just we both know we see through
differing lenses...and you are no more , or less right...:thumbsup:


Hey, look at that, we actually agree on something! :thumbsup:

[Xentor]

Since I feel this way about science , perhaps you and others should stop putting forth your opinions so matter of factly...

Or maybe you just don't care...

Please show me where in this thread I have masked my opinion as fact and I shall endeavour to correct my mistake.

Thank you.

Of course, I shall expect the same from you.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Please show me where in this thread I have masked my opinion as fact and I shall endeavour to correct my mistake.

Thank you.

Of course, I shall expect the same from you.

As we both know , "fact" is a rationally oriented , science
based word , with implications of ultimate truth...

Since I have stated here and elsewhere how I feel about science ,
this would make "fact" only an opinion...

Which , due to my own experiences , I may , or may not , agree
with...:uhhuhuh:

I have my own views , experiences , and realizations , via my
life experiment , which determine my reality...

Regarding Awareness :

As Sinatra said "I do it my way"...:hehehe:

[BearDancing]

Xentor...:crazyman:>>>>>>>>>_tomatoe_<<<<<<<<<<<<<Shawn Blackwolf:crazyman:





:giggle::nyah: :chatty: :woah::giggle:

...LMAO...

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Xentor...:crazyman:>>>>>>>>>_tomatoe_<<<<<<<<<<<<<Shawn Blackwolf:crazyman:






:giggle::nyah: :chatty: :woah::giggle:


...LMAO...






Can't we all just get along ?

( Ala Rodney King )

[BearDancing]

You Two:smoochypokiss and make up....or I will have to give you both a_wedgie_..............:nyah:

[BearDancing]

So after all of that...what do you have to say about "Whole":giggle:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

You Two:smoochypokiss and make up....or I will have to give you both a_wedgie_..............:nyah:

No wedgies...and no kisses...

I am perfectly willing to accept , in Xentor's version of the
universe , as well others of his persuasion , the need for
scientific proof , to determine reality...

You see...that is part , and parcel , of the WHOLE...:uhhuhuh:

Yet , so again are other views , just as valid , and part , and
parcel of the WHOLISTIC VIEW...

One must allow for this , within the Buddha Nature , to put
it in that terminology...

Unless one is so attached , one is unable to surmount the
obstacle of rationalism , to attain the mount , and see the
larger picture...

I do so have hopes for the imperically data based population ,
impaired by their need for the elusive "proof"...

However...perserverance furthers...keep up the good work...

Look to the Great Wedgie...one day you shall find the "Crack
Between The Worlds"...:hehehe:

[Apokalipse]

I just think of the word 'whole' as any other word in the English language (or any language, for that matter)
That is, just an arbitrary group of ordered characters (shapes), associated with another arbitrarily defined set of conventions defining sounds, which people choose to assign a meaning to.

I don't think of the word 'whole' as having one meaning or one context.
It has a definition which can affect the meaning of a sentence depending on how it is used and what other words it's used with, and in what order those words are used in, but not necessarily a complete meaning in itself.

Of course, people can choose to assign their own meaning to it themselves (which people in this thread are doing), and they can be rather subjective.

Exactly what I feel about science being the answer...merely
an opinion...that is all...:bigredgriScience isn't trying to be an answer per-se. It's just a process.

Specifically, the process of finding facts using empirical evidence.

Of course, one cannot be absolutely certain of anything in the external world.
But if the evidence is sufficient, one can at least be sure of something to a probability high enough that it can be called fact beyond reasonable doubt.

There are also an infinite number of ideas which technically have a nonzero probability of being true.
Such as, the idea that we are all going to spontaneously transform into a variety of striped golfing umbrellas tomorrow.
Ideas such as this, while it's technically wrong to call them absolutely impossible, are so improbable that they're not worth considering.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I just think of the word 'whole' as any other word in the English language (or any language, for that matter)
That is, just an arbitrary group of ordered characters (shapes), associated with another arbitrarily defined set of conventions defining sounds, which people choose to assign a meaning to.

I don't think of the word 'whole' as having one meaning or one context.
It has a definition which can affect the meaning of a sentence depending on how it is used and what other words it's used with, and in what order those words are used in, but not necessarily a complete meaning in itself.

Of course, people can choose to assign their own meaning to it themselves (which people in this thread are doing), and they can be rather subjective.
Science isn't trying to be an answer per-se. It's just a process.

Specifically, the process of finding facts using empirical evidence.

Of course, one cannot be absolutely certain of anything in the external world.
But if the evidence is sufficient, one can at least be sure of something to a probability high enough that it can be called fact beyond reasonable doubt.

There are also an infinite number of ideas which technically have a nonzero probability of being true.
Such as, the idea that we are all going to spontaneously transform into a variety of striped golfing umbrellas tomorrow.
Ideas such as this, while it's technically wrong to call them absolutely impossible, are so improbable that they're not worth considering.

I shall consider the truth of your opinion , though in my
universe , the probability a word is only what you consider
it to be , and subsequently have stated so , to be rather low on
my gradient scale of reality...

Hmmm...though I do consider it to be in the same category , as
those striped golfing umbrellas...:hehehe:

FORE !

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Had a different chain of though occur to me as I read and re-read the responses.

If one were to advance to a point (regardless of specialty) where they think they have arrived at the finish would that not be a station along the pathway that one might consider to be "whole"? At that moment in time their perspective could possibly be they are "whole" until such time as another trigger occurs to set them off to the next destination.

Of course any single item or sequence of items could be the catalyst that causes us to re-exam our perception of our wholeness. Yet until that point or catalyst is encountered we stop at a point, even if only to our perspective, that we are whole and complete.

How many times have any of us reached a point where we think we are whole and complete in our knowledge? Yet that error only becomes apparent when a new piece of information becomes apparent to us and results in our (collectively) pushing forward.

So is the concept of being "Whole" actually an obtainable destination? Until death should actually take us is there any time that the "catalyst" could not occur that would trigger the next movement or search for information?

So to some extent the concept of being "Whole" would seem to be obtainable to the extent that one may assume the position of being "Whole" has been achieved. Yet he/she would be unaware of or potentially consider beyond that point until a continuation trigger occurs to inspire them to renew their search.

I suppose one could equate it to a volcano in operation. While active and erupting it is clear the volcano has not reached a point of rest. Thus would the search for knowledge cause us to overflow and become active. Yet, once the eruption has finished the volcano may return to a slumber state for countless years before the natural cycle once again triggers an eruption.

So while the underground changes build and slowly cause the internal change the outward appearance is one of dormancy. The same is true of a person who has reached a point where they consider themselves to be whole. The outward appearance may show no indication of change until such time as a trigger source, external or internal, begins to affect the greater whole and causes the next burst of energy that will lead to the next rest period and perception of completeness and wholeness.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

So...given this perception , would those moments of "rest" , be considered "whole - isms" , within a greater "whole" ?

"Isms" , in this sense , being frozen moments of awareness , as
lesser units of a timeless expanded state ?

Must awareness be apprehended as a "whole" ?

Is being aware a complete state only , or are there discrete states
possible , as pulses of experience ?

Does awareness then evolve ?

Is self - awareness consciousness ?

Are consciousness and awareness , two forces , or forms of
soul's manifestation , or are they possible without soul ?

What is the perception of "wholeness" dependent on ?

Consciousness ? Awareness ?

Or something else...:smileroll

Had a different chain of though occur to me as I read and re-read the responses.

If one were to advance to a point (regardless of specialty) where they think they have arrived at the finish would that not be a station along the pathway that one might consider to be "whole"? At that moment in time their perspective could possibly be they are "whole" until such time as another trigger occurs to set them off to the next destination.

Of course any single item or sequence of items could be the catalyst that causes us to re-exam our perception of our wholeness. Yet until that point or catalyst is encountered we stop at a point, even if only to our perspective, that we are whole and complete.

How many times have any of us reached a point where we think we are whole and complete in our knowledge? Yet that error only becomes apparent when a new piece of information becomes apparent to us and results in our (collectively) pushing forward.

So is the concept of being "Whole" actually an obtainable destination? Until death should actually take us is there any time that the "catalyst" could not occur that would trigger the next movement or search for information?

So to some extent the concept of being "Whole" would seem to be obtainable to the extent that one may assume the position of being "Whole" has been achieved. Yet he/she would be unaware of or potentially consider beyond that point until a continuation trigger occurs to inspire them to renew their search.

I suppose one could equate it to a volcano in operation. While active and erupting it is clear the volcano has not reached a point of rest. Thus would the search for knowledge cause us to overflow and become active. Yet, once the eruption has finished the volcano may return to a slumber state for countless years before the natural cycle once again triggers an eruption.

So while the underground changes build and slowly cause the internal change the outward appearance is one of dormancy. The same is true of a person who has reached a point where they consider themselves to be whole. The outward appearance may show no indication of change until such time as a trigger source, external or internal, begins to affect the greater whole and causes the next burst of energy that will lead to the next rest period and perception of completeness and wholeness.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

So...given this perception , would those moments of "rest" , be considered "whole - isms" , within a greater "whole" ?

In a retrospect fashion I believe they might. It would only be when viewed in a back reflective glance that one might recognize the state of "rest" or "Preceived Wholeness" that an individual had recognized within and upon themselves.

In a forward looking method, I think it would depend upon the catalyst that triggers the person to continue onward from thier current point. Though I do admit that in some ways it gives the persception that to be stagnate could be construted as being "Whole".

"Isms" , in this sense , being frozen moments of awareness , as
lesser units of a timeless expanded state ?

I think that would be a correct identification. Frozen in the persceptive that one becomes trapped upon the conclusion that nothing else is to follow until that catalyst acts upon them.

I think if one understands and recongnizes that each fragment is but a pause in the greater cycle then I do not know if it would be a timeless segment or merely a period of reflection of events up to that point with the potential of revesion of perspective and analysis.

Must awareness be apprehended as a "whole" ?

I think that would depend upon personal perspective and position. To some awareness might only go to the extent that it is static until an outside force impacts upon the data to change the results. To another the results might be seen as a dynamic state that is in constant flux and only appears static at the moment of observation, with recognization that the results will be changed with each observation.

My own perspective is that of quasi-static in that the results may appearto repeat or be constant though I recognize that change may require a greater period before I will see or recognize the change or results. Though in this condition my persception is that "Whole" is the totality of all parts and results, even though I may not be aware of what each part is, though I recongize the greater influences than that which I can observe alone.

Is being aware a complete state only , or are there discrete states
possible , as pulses of experience ?


I think this one is sort of like watching the waves on the ocean. While I may see and be able to caculate the cycles and crests and troughs of the ocean, there are still factors that influence that I may only experience as pulses or fragments. Yet those pulses or fragments may not be immediately apparent to my senses, but become known to me after I have been subject to them for some duration.

Does awareness then evolve ?

Is self - awareness consciousness ?

I do not think one's awareness evolves so much as sharpens and becomes selective. All of us possess varing degree's of awarness of our self and our environment, yet I do not think it does more than become an ability to selectively become aware of things about us. In all probabiltiy we miss far more than we are aware of, or realize we are aware of.

I think to some degree self-awareness is consciousnes. For as I become more self-aware of my self and my environment I become consciousness of my preceived place and position within it. Even to the degree of what my sense of "Worth" is for myself and position within the system.

Are consciousness and awareness , two forces , or forms of
soul's manifestation , or are they possible without soul ?


Well if one assumes all things are possessed of a soul then I would say they are manifestations of soul or life force. However, I don't presume that all things must or do possess that which one might call a soul so I think it is something that a "thing" (collectively) can and may experience and learn from. Of course the level of learning would very from thing to thing depending upon its ability to comprehend it's observations and analysis of said events.

ie a rat would have a different awareness of its environment than say a fish in the sea of the rat's environment.

What is the perception of "wholeness" dependent on ?

An individuals understanding and defination of what the word means and entails to them. An understanding of what the guage is by which they measure a condition and the acceptance of variables that could impact upon their results. To a great degree the catalog of identifications they have used to format and structure their understanding of thier environment.

Or something else...

I would have to say something else for no matter the means or ways I try to define it their will always be factors that are static, quasi-static or dynamic in action, whether they be of an internal or external source, impacting upon my observations and understandings. With each occurance changing the final conclusion upon which I base my understandings upon.

[Garm]

" Whole = ? to you"

Yes

[Xentor]

Can't we all just get along ?

( Ala Rodney King )

Ah... I thought we did get along. We might disagree on a tenet here and there. If I didn't get along with you, chances are I wouldn't be talking with you either. :thumbsup:

[Xentor]

I am perfectly willing to accept , in Xentor's version of the
universe , as well others of his persuasion , the need for
scientific proof , to determine reality...

You see...that is part , and parcel , of the WHOLE...

Yet , so again are other views , just as valid , and part , and
parcel of the WHOLISTIC VIEW...

One must allow for this , within the Buddha Nature , to put
it in that terminology...

Unless one is so attached , one is unable to surmount the
obstacle of rationalism , to attain the mount , and see the
larger picture...

I do so have hopes for the imperically data based population ,
impaired by their need for the elusive "proof"...

Ah, you misinterpret my needs. I did not ask for scientific proof of 'whole'. I asked for a usable definition, one we might agree upon. The quest for scientific proof came when people started claiming we already are whole, without providing a usable definition, started offending all religions and claiming refutable things about language differences, followed by some esoteric ideas pertaining to the nature of reality.

See, when you touch upon reality, you can ignore everyone around you. But if you do, you shouldn't be surprised when people start avoiding you. If you want your opinions accepted by people, the least you can do is find a common ground with what those people think. That takes effort. Science is such an effort.

As soon as you start talking religion and faith, science won't do us much good. Unfortunately our paths differ greatly, which means there is little common ground upon which to base a proper common understanding. That leaves the floor open for working the way we want to work, without considerating others or their opinions.

And that's the heart of my intentions: some participants in this thread were passing off opinions as fact. We shouldn't. Opinions are fine, but let's identify them as such. Facts are fine too. Let's not confuse the two.

And now back to defining 'whole'.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Ah... I thought we did get along. We might disagree on a tenet here and there. If I didn't get along with you, chances are I wouldn't be talking with you either. :thumbsup:

I think we both know...as I would hope anyone else would...:uhhuhuh:

I was making a joke...:hahugh:

However , it is nice to know...:bigredgri...thanks !

( I do stake out my tenets , now and then...camping , or not...:lol: )

[Shawn Blackwolf]

See, when you touch upon reality, you can ignore everyone around you. But if you do, you shouldn't be surprised when people start avoiding you. If you want your opinions accepted by people, the least you can do is find a common ground with what those people think. That takes effort. Science is such an effort.



I am aware of this , good Xentor...

I was raised to not be afraid to express my opinions , nor make
statements , as I knew them to be true , whether other people
liked them , believed them , found them to be true or false...

In other words , speak my truth...

And if others avoid me , because of their own beliefs , prejudices ,
idiosyncrasies , or ismatic ideals , so be it...and to hell with them...

I have better things to do , than worry , or even be concerned ,
about them...There are a certain number of people , ( no , I have
not figured that number out yet...:hehehe: ) of people I shall resonate
with , and many I shall not...I shall focus my attention on those
who are amenable to expanding their viewpoints , beyond their
present boundaries , without my needing to convince them to
do so , or those who presently have views which have intersections
with my own , one or multiple , which allow for "communication
between equals"...

I have no need , or care , "to have my opinions accepted by others"
as I see this as an infantile need by those too insecure to stand
on their own , in the face of a universal stream of dissent , if need
be...I am , and shall remain , a warrior , and lover of words , and
shall give no quarter to those who attempt to dissuade me from my
path , beliefs , opinions , etc.



And that's the heart of my intentions: some participants in this thread were passing off opinions as fact. We shouldn't. Opinions are fine, but let's identify them as such. Facts are fine too. Let's not confuse the two.


I do not attempt to pass my opinions , statements , or my
beliefs , off as facts...as I have already stated on this site ,
multiple times , I do not believe in facts...

Therefore , that would be an impossibility for me , let alone , a
waste of my time , and something I would find distasteful...:bigredgri

I will , however , continue to state my opinions , and beliefs , and
acquired knowledge , forcefully , and with eloquence , and purpose ,
as I was raised to , whether others like it , or me , or interact with
me , or not...:uhhuhuh:

We all have a choice...I can not speak for how others acted here ,
nor feel about your statements...nor would I choose to...

I do so hope this clears up any misunderstanding on your , or any
others part , regarding my caring about whether they like my
positions , opinions , beliefs , or posts...:hehehe:

[parallax]

"What equals the word "Whole" ... spiritually speaking...we all use the word so what does it mean to each of us" :weirdsmil

Whole, to me, means to be complete, not lacking pieces, intact, healthy, undivided. The definition doesn't change much to me whether we are talking about a pie or a person, something physical or spiritual.
I consider myself to be a whole person, I am not in pieces, I don't have any reason to believe I'm divided or missing something or particularly unhealthy.
My life isn't complete, it isn't finished, it isn't whole. But as a being, I think that I am.
Does that make sense?

[Aegun]

Im lovin this thread. Some very thought provoking comments being made here.

For myself, I'm not sure I have felt whole or ever will, spiritually or in anyother context. As folk have said, wouldnt being whole be a sort of conclusion to ones life?, in the definition of the word that is (pls pls dont ask me for a definition, been a long day at work and my brain power has been depleted. lol).

So, personally, feeling whole is just being happy about where I am, what I'm doing with my life, and with events and people surrounding my life. I dont really "sub-divide" life into spiritual, career or whatever, because i see that all parts are my life are kinda the same.

There was alot of mention early on in this thread about focusing on being "one with yourself before you can enjoy whats outside", or something like that, which is fair enough, I can see their point, and i think its a good one.

But, again, for myself, I dont think I can live like that. If someone makes me angry, yeah sure i look at myself and think "why did s/he make me angry", but i also remember that some people just dont get on, like 2 North Poles on a magnet... they aint gunna want to come together no matter what you do... and that some conflict is at times good.

I guess in the short of it, me feeling whole is like i said before, being happy about where i am in life etc, and working to reach my goals... then, more importantly, having dreams to give me more goals. I guess, without sounds too corny, its the journey that makes me feel whole.


Aegun

[thought_on_a_wind]

A definition from the dictionary would roughly be: Something that is complete.

Me? I figure the whole means everything, which is why it seems so damned useless. Whole is almost infinite, and though it's good for the pause and reflection, there are so many different versions of it that in the end one could waste several lives without coming to any single conclusion. (If I'm overthinking the hell outta this please excuse me, that is what I excel at)

Is there a whole self? Certainly, I believe it's the illusion that we've lost a part of our own being that make us think we are anything less than whole. In fact, at least for me... I hate feeling whole because then there are so many different things that "need" attention that it's hard to focus. Of course this also hinges on the fact that I don't classify whole as necessarily being fulfilled.

Anyone? Does this makes sense to anyone, or is it one of those things I garbled on the way from the brain to the fingers/keyboard? (I seriously can't tell at the moment)

[BearDancing]

Possibly a balanced female/male in each of us....and fully evolved???

[Windsmith]

Possibly a balanced female/male in each of us....and fully evolved???Just jumping in here, but I could not give less of a damn about male/female. It's a false dichotomy created by societally imposed definitions of what constitutes "male" and what constitutes "female."

To be whole is to be fully myself, beyond duality. It is to embrace my "darker" aspects, to acknowledge and integrate my shadow self, but also to embrace and acknowledge the parts where I'm getting it right. It is to say, "This, and this, and all of this...is all who I am."

[BearDancing]

It is my belief that in each of us is acombinationof femminin and a masculine energies/qualities that are comparded to the expeinces that we have had to date...what we have worked on to develop and those that we have chosen not to develop for some reason or another...

[Apokalipse]

Just jumping in here, but I could not give less of a damn about male/female. It's a false dichotomy created by societally imposed definitions of what constitutes "male" and what constitutes "female."

To be whole is to be fully myself, beyond duality. It is to embrace my "darker" aspects, to acknowledge and integrate my shadow self, but also to embrace and acknowledge the parts where I'm getting it right. It is to say, "This, and this, and all of this...is all who I am."
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a false dichotomy.
I mean, biologically we are different. And sometimes the biological difference can translate into social differences.
Statistically speaking, men and women tend to think differently.
Men tend to think about "things that do stuff", and women tend to think about patterns/orgaising.
That's definitely not absolutely the case with everybody; it's just a statistical difference.

But I'll refuse to take a stance on the idea of one sex being better than the other no matter which way it's argued.

[Windsmith]

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a false dichotomy.
I mean, biologically we are different. And sometimes the biological difference can translate into social differences.
Statistically speaking, men and women tend to think differently.
Men tend to think about "things that do stuff", and women tend to think about patterns/orgaising.
That's definitely not absolutely the case with everybody; it's just a statistical difference.The problem I have is twofold: 1) Sure, you know that statistical differences do not equal Universal Truth, but I fear you're in a wee minority. For most everybody else, someone does a little study (and with six billion people on the planet, how can any study that claims to consider essentially the entirety of the population ever be anything but little?), et voila! "this is how women are" and "this is how men are." And far too many people assume that we can and should treat every woman and every man we ever meet according to these generalizations.

2) I find that when people have conversations about male/female polarity and "balance" in regards to Paganism, they're not talking about scientifically based biological or neurological differences. They're talking about abstract "energies," concepts that have been (mostly arbitrarily) assigned the labels of "masculine" or "feminine." So being strong and active and generative is masculine, and being soft and still and receptive is feminine, or other such hogwash. It's a reductionist attitude that really disturbs me. For me, part of "being whole" is understanding that balance and integrity is more like a sphere than a double-ended axis. I get twitchy enough when someone says, "Being whole is balancing light and dark, good and evil, Sith and Jedi, blah and blah," and downright jumpy when people further oversimplify those oversimplifications to say, "Being whole means balancing your male and female energies!" Not everything in this life is reducible to sex or gender - nor should it be.

[BearDancing]

Being a "woman"....I get to change my mind.....just jokin...........but in reality I have changed my mind....TO ME being whole is being ONE with source and creating to the best of my abilities...

[Windsmith]

Being a "woman"....I get to change my mind.....just jokin...........but in reality I have changed my mind....TO ME being whole is being ONE with source and creating to the best of my abilities...Interesting. Can you say a bit more about what "source" means to you?

[BearDancing]

Source.....to me it is God/Godess...the Source of All life...the epitome of Love...I will get back to this something came up...actually I would like to talk to you about this...

I LOVE your signature...that is how I try to live my life also...

[Windsmith]

Source.....to me it is God/Godess...the Source of All life...the epitome of Love...I will get back to this something came up...actually I would like to talk to you about this...Ooh! I'm all ears!


I LOVE your signature...that is how I try to live my life also...
Thanks! It's from an essay in an anthology called Pagan Visions for a Sustainable Future (http://lupabitch.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/pagan-visions-for-a-sustainable-future-various); ever-so-highly recommended!