I decided to go back to the beginning, and discovered that this mystery was actually answered correctly by kings.tse in the first response. Man, this thread feels like it's been going on forever. (I'm having fun though btw. I'd love for it to keep going so everyone has a chance to have their understanding expended by participating.) I know I read it, but it didn't stick with me because I didn't quite yet understand what it actually means for the 5th Law to change. It's not the wording of the 5th law as the wording doesn't fundamentally matter. The universe isn't held together by english semantics.
1. You exist…you always have and you always will. You are eternal.
2. Everything is here and now.
3. The One is the All and the All is the One.
4. What you put out is what you get back.
5. Everything changes except for the first four…..
The 5th law is a shifting of perspectives from your point of view.
1. You exist…you always have and you always will. You are eternal. (This is your consciousness your being self aware.)
2. Everything is here and now. ( the infinte stati universes, in fixed patterns)
3. The One is the All and the All is the One. (everything is created and contained within (all that is..with nothing is part of it)
4. What you put out is what you get back. (the property of energy,vibration,frequency of your consciousness, you have to change yourself to experience something different, you cannot experience anything else without change)
5. Everything changes except for the first four…..(you are in a constant state of change, if you did not change you would not perceive anything new, anything different) this is a change of perception, you are not changing the fact that 1. you exist, 2. everything is here and now 3. the all is the one and the one is the all 4. what you put out you get back) you cannot change those things, the 5th law does not change those things, you shift your perspective all the time, creating changes of perspective.
1. That which exists cannot become that which does not exist as nonexistence doesn't exist.
No. Bashar has said that non-existence is full. Non-existence or nothing is from which the universes is created from. nothing is part of all that is it is not part of the universes that you can I exist in. because the only thing that is full (all the time is consciousness), and the only consciousness that can contain nothing is the source or "all that is"
2. There is only here and now as there and then are mere persistent illusions.
"there and then" do exist in parrall realities, they may and may not exist in your reality at the moment, please reread explaination of virtual time and what is virtual particles in this thread. as in my Private Session, they are full of physics questions; and I get my info from Bashar in these things.
3. There is no separation between the collective and the individual as all are one.
Seperation between thecollective and the individual is really how you define seperation and at what level of consciousness. at the ultimate perspective of all that is, yes there is no seperation as you describe, however at a different level of vibration and frequency and patterns of consciences there is seperation of those perspectives.
4. What you experience isn't anything more than a reflection of yourself.
No, you percieve are reflections of your own conscienessess bubble, howeve you also percieve "others in your version of them" The Mechanic of Channelling Handout show how sympathic vibrations, frequemcy, patterns are imprinted on your perception bubble, it can be aside or superimposed of your own refelction of yourself. You experience is a reflection of yourself, a harmonic imprint of other bubble on your bubble...propertiy of sympathic vibrations and pattern matching creates the perception of others.
"""""""" 5. Everything changes except the first 4 laws. Law 1 cannot become "you don't exist" as such a law applies to nothing. Law 1 refers to everything that exists. It cannot change into a law that refers to everything that doesn't exist. Such a law wouldn't actually be a law since it isn't a universal constancy for all of creation. It isn't even true for a single thing ever, let alone 4 things. The same goes for laws 2, 3, and 4. Curiously the same does not go for 5. I wonder why. Well here's why: The 5th law can change, but what does it change into? It's simply a finger that points to everything in all of creation that can
change, which is almost all with the exception of 4 specific things. Imagine the 4 laws are in box 1. Everything else is in box 2. The 5th law points its finger at box 2, but it can change to point to box 1. If you were to describe what the 5th law says after it points to box 1, you would have to just read out the first 4 laws.
again your usage of change is why I keep telling you its a percpective of changes, therefore you cannot change the first 4 laws via the 5th law, so its not a contrdiction of the 1st four laws.
Am I super duper clear now? I hope so. I'm trying really really hard to at least get someone to acknowledge that what I'm saying makes sense. I mean what I REALLY wanted was for people to just understand what I'm talking about, then have a discussion about it. It seems we haven't gotten past the part where this idea is taken literally and seriously so we can move on to discussing the possibilities. That's really what I'm desperately hoping for. It IS the purpose of this specific thread after all.
"The only thing that wasn't explained by Bashar when I read his explanation was, how does having essentially 2 copies of the first 4 laws imply a 5th law that states everything changes except the first 4? I have a proposal. Perhaps with no law to state that anything changes or doesn't change, the mere presence of the 4 laws, being LAWS that inherently don't change, implies that the rest of creation does. This, by logical consequence, becomes a law. This last law seems a necessary addition no matter how many laws you have. Perhaps this infinite cycle is perfect because it almost implies a 6th law that states something to the effect of "everything operates in cycles". A lot of enlightened channeled entities have told us that the wave is the basis for the fabric of our reality. A wave is a cycle. Just something to chew on.
Just some more thoughts... Perhaps it's important that the 5th law still exists, even if it's changed into the first 4. The law that everything exists (since laws apply to other laws) applies to the 5th law. It can change, but it cannot not exist. Maybe it's less that there are 2 copies, and more that the 5th law becomes a reflection of the first 4. both exist, but there is only one set of the first 4 laws. The all are the one and the one is the all applies here. in fact... if you guys are willing to take this seriously then we could have a very lively and interesting discussion about how all 5 laws apply to all other 5. If the 5 laws are the fundamental underpinnings of everything we know and love, then maybe it's the Laws' interaction with each other that manifests it all.[/quote]""""""""""""
All this appears to me a a fractal argument.
Your creating Fractal Logic Loops, because the claim of "5th law changes the other 4 laws is incorrect" this is represented by the 1st and largest is a black loop, then because the EGO doesnt like to be wrong, it creates a 2nd argument a red loop, then if that argument does not create the desired outcome then a 3rd argument loop a blue loop is created, then another loop represented by yellow logic loop.
because all those additional argument loops are nested insside the original black loop, the person now insists that all the loops be proven incorrect the black, red, blue and yellow logic loops in order for the 1st orginal arguement to be proven incorrect. Then what happens is that if any of the logic loops are not proven incorrect or accepted incorrect by the person being incorrect; they get to insist that they are still correct.
when a person is doing these additinal logic loops in order to prove that their claim is correct...yours is not; that tells you alot about the person, hopefully you get the principle of energy exertion, they more you argue to prove your point, the more likly you are incorrect. as truth is a positive action, it self collects to a point, not-truth is a negative actions is seperates and pushes apart of itelf. therefore if you have a negative believe, you have to apply more energy to have it collect to a point to seem, to emulate being correct.
I do understand that you probably dont have access all information presented by Bashar, because you are asking questions.