Is anything ever complete?

I think Buddhists agree that the past cannot return, look at e.g. Dogen on firewood, or perhaps the Awakening of Faith > all that had been conceived in the past was as > hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is > like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the > future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly. There are no "wholes" in Buddhism. But are there, conventionally speaking? > Vasubandhu rejects both wholes and combined sets (whether cohesive or > merely contiguous). Wholes are rejected by appealing to the Buddhist > reductionist principle which says that only the component parts of an > entity are real (aggregated wholes, on this view, are not). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ I was merely some things may be of the sort that could *potentially* be wholes, but never are: and so they are never complete. Is that the case, why, and if so, so what? ---------- Take the canonical example of a chariot. Does anyone say that the chariot is not ultimately real, but you can conventionally find the chariot in among its parts - that it has then itself as a part - meaning the chariot appears to be a whole: it is potentially but not actually as there is always more.