Do we perceive the whole? 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 &quot;the whole universe&quot; 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?
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.