A Drop of Water in a Lake

**Empty Dragon** · 02-06-03, 02:01 PM

I once heard a man compared universal consiousness to drops of water that formed together to create a lake. The question I contemplate is the nature of this unity. In the end it may all be simlply H20. Just because the origin is uniform does that mean unity require a return to uniforimity? Or simply a direct connection to the initial undifferentiated state of being? A connection to nothingness to fuel existance?

**A4Ever** · 02-07-03, 05:41 AM

Emotions and thoughts only exist in contrast to something else. When you consider the whole, the lake, categories like anger, fear or love do not apply. They are still there, but like a table is present in a tree.

To us people that seems like a negative state of being, but I think it will be just fine

**Empty Dragon** · 02-07-03, 09:36 AM

It has been said many times that this state cannot be comprehended intellectually.

I kind of look at it more as a composed organisme. Lungs, liver heart..... Each having its own function. I guess that question is what is beyond that intial uniformity.

**moonman** · 02-07-03, 02:35 PM

If you consider the uniformity to be baffelingly infinite, it essentialy being the universe itelf, then there is no such thing as 'beyond'. Complexity and simplicity lose their meanings as does time and space.

In my mind such a grand('grand' is heavily understated) form MUST exist for it to be possible of anything atall to exist, I consider it almost axiomatic. For even the simplest 'something' to exist there must be an infinite possibility for it to exist.
I hope someone can follow my logic here.

**A4Ever** · 02-08-03, 03:20 AM

I think I can. I always picture it like this: I walk on the street. I can go left or right. These options are already in the "grand form", but I get to make the decision, I take one of the two paths.

Only thing is: there's more than just going left or right. There are infinite possibilities, plus the stuff you can't chose yourself, like a truck sweeping you from the sidewalk.

Infinite possiblities in all directions, contained in one thing we can't name or even discuss with our human minds.

**Empty Dragon** · 02-10-03, 02:34 PM

Upon reading this thread I came up with this:
With in realization it is only nothing that seperates us from nothing.
Rationalization is nothing.
Realization is nothing.

If you consider the uniformity to be baffelingly infinite, it essentialy being the universe itelf, then there is no such thing as 'beyond'. Complexity and simplicity lose their meanings as does time and space.

But what can be beyond Complexity and simplicity, beyond time and space. Infinty doesn't just end?

**Empty Dragon** · 02-11-03, 11:26 AM

Oh!!! No worries I get in now. I feel kinda silly.

**Jan Ardena** · 02-11-03, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
I once heard a man compared universal consiousness to drops of water that formed together to create a lake. The question I contemplate is the nature of this unity. In the end it may all be simlply H20. Just because the origin is uniform does that mean unity require a return to uniforimity? Or simply a direct connection to the initial undifferentiated state of being? A connection to nothingness to fuel existance?

Could it be that the lake in question is a metaphor, that the universal consciousness is in essence, one, and our consciousness (droplets) are individual parts and parcels of the one consciousness (the lake).
If that was the case, then naturally the droplets are essentially the same as the lake, in quality, and although they are individuals and have become separated, they have at some stage, got to return to the lake, not as the lake itself, but as individuals.

Love

Jan Ardena.

**Empty Dragon** · 02-11-03, 07:22 PM

Mabye so Jan...Mabye So

**Canute** · 02-25-03, 11:27 AM

Is not the lake nothingness, and bliss not just 'what it is like' to be nothing? Are the droplets of water not just points of attention within the cosmic consciousness, and each one of us one of them?

Or is this sounding rather pretentious?

That the cosmos is ultimately one thing is the only answer to the logical contradictions of dualism. If so then reductionism suggests that that one thing must be nothing, on which all else is founded. Therefore consciousness is nothing. Therefore there is 'something that it is like' to be nothing. Therefore to still the mind is to achieve nothingness and experience the blissful state in which, barring stray thoughts of Universes and existence, nothingness can lay back and enjoy eternity.

Of course this may be nonsense. It would help me if someone could point out why it might be false as a hypothesis.

**Empty Dragon** · 02-25-03, 06:32 PM

That the cosmos is ultimately one thing is the only answer to the logical contradictions of dualism. If so then reductionism suggests that that one thing must be nothing, on which all else is founded. Therefore consciousness is nothing. Therefore there is 'something that it is like' to be nothing. Therefore to still the mind is to achieve nothingness and experience the blissful state in which, barring stray thoughts of Universes and existence, nothingness can lay back and enjoy eternity.

I remeber another line that was said "Mighty as I am (The lake) I am still just a drop". Even in the unifed whole you are still just a drop. You are not the lake, you are merly a part of it. Like you said earlier just points of attention. To be one but not the same.

I realize now that I wasn't talking about what was physicaly beyond it. I was reflecting on the understanding that was beyond that initial uniformity. Now what is beyond a unified, individualistic whole?

**Canute** · 02-26-03, 02:13 PM

"I realize now that I wasn't talking about what was physicaly beyond it. I was reflecting on the understanding that was beyond that initial uniformity. Now what is beyond a unified, individualistic whole?"

This makes me realise that your original question was not quite what I thought it was. If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that if you are one unified and complete sense of consciousness then it cannot be asked whether you are a singularity or the cosmos, they are the same experience. Thus the drops in the lake are all themselves lakes, and the lake is a drop.

Is this what you are saying? It seems closely equivalent to the current ideas of physics on creation, which proposes that the ultimate 'particles' out of which matter is formed are made out of themselves. (Which I feel is even harder to get your head around than lakes of consciousness).

**notme2000** · 03-05-03, 05:36 PM

Let me mix things up a bit.

If the lake is nothing and we are but drops in the lake, how does the lake effect the drops or the drops effect the lake? Since, essentially, 'nothing' can not be effected and 'nothing' can not effect... Thus the drops and the lake can not have a relationship.... And if that's the case, the lake might as well not exist, and all we're left with is us... Something doesn't add up.

Another way of looking at it... If the lake is nothingness, and we are the drops that fill it... Again something doesn't add up... Nothingness can not be filled. Nothingness can not be divided in to something (drops). So how do we exist?

Mathematically. The lake is absolute 0. What are we? 0 multiplied or divided still equals 0. So how do we exist?

**Canute** · 03-06-03, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by notme2000
If the lake is nothing and we are but drops in the lake, how does the lake effect the drops or the drops effect the lake? Since, essentially, 'nothing' can not be effected and 'nothing' can not effect... Thus the drops and the lake can not have a relationship.... And if that's the case, the lake might as well not exist, and all we're left with is us... Something doesn't add up.

Another way of looking at it... If the lake is nothingness, and we are the drops that fill it... Again something doesn't add up... Nothingness can not be filled. Nothingness can not be divided in to something (drops). So how do we exist?

Mathematically. The lake is absolute 0. What are we? 0 multiplied or divided still equals 0. So how do we exist?

The whole thing hinges on the definition of 'nothing'. If by 'nothing' we really do mean nothing then you are right, the metaphor of the lake is illogical. But by 'nothing' I mean physically nothing. This leaves the back door open for the non-physical. I would argue that complete nothingness is an impossibility.

**notme2000** · 03-06-03, 11:56 AM

I would argue that complete nothingness is an impossibility.

It is by definition. Every 'something' fits in to reality, possibility. Nothingness is everything that does not reside in reality and is not possible. Absolute nothingness is beyond our comprehension.

**Canute** · 03-06-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by notme2000
It is by definition. Every 'something' fits in to reality, possibility. Nothingness is everything that does not reside in reality and is not possible. Absolute nothingness is beyond our comprehension.

We seem to agree. I just wish I could logically prove it.