Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

A place to talk about Bashar's teachings and anything you feel is relevant to it.

Moderators: Rokazulu, xplosiw, Alice

PianoMastR64
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby PianoMastR64 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:25 am

Alice wrote:
PianoMastR64 wrote:
Alice wrote:
Sounds about right to me.


Bashar actually answers this himself, and he gave a much more satisfying, albeit enigmatic answer. It was something akin to the first 4 implying the 5th and the 5th implying the first 4. This sounds really confusing, but I believe I had it all figured out. But that's gone now. You'll have to google search it yourself. Well actually I just tried to find it and I can't. Oh well I guess. Maybe Darryl found it or something.


Isn't the post Inventor found saying the same thing?
I have a problem with the last law, the law that states “Everything
changes, except for the [previous] laws.” I believe it should instead be
stated “Everything changes, except for the laws of creation.” This is the
reason why: If everything in creation is subject to change, except for the
*previous* laws, then that means the law that states “Everything changes,
except for the [previous] laws.” is subject to change. This means if there
were four laws, the first three cannot change, and the fourth law can
change. If there were five laws, the first four cannot change, and the
fifth law can change. Why is the law that states that “Everything changes
except for the [previous] laws” allowed to change? If the last law is able
to change, then that must mean there is an alternate law that it is allowed
to change into. What *could* it logically change into? Could it change into
a law that states “Nothing changes except for the last law”? The reason it
makes no sense for that law to be allowed to change is because it’s a law.
If a law of creation was allowed to change, it wouldn’t be a law, it would
be a temporary parameter.

For example, the first law simply states “You exist.” In both the 4-law and
5-law configurations there is the law that states “Everything is here and
now.” (In the 4-law config, it’s implied.) If everything is here and now,
including what we perceive to be the future (future falls under the
category of “everything”), and since “You exist.” is present tense, thus
occurring now, then it is logically impossible for “you” to exist in the
present, and to not exist in the future because that would result in “you”
both existing and not existing simultaneously. Therefore, the law “You
Exist.” cannot change, which is why it’s a law.

It’s true that my prior logic depends upon the fact that the law or law
extension “Everything is here and now.” is true. I’m going to assume it’s
true. My point though is that laws cannot change.

I wish someone would bring that up to Bashar to see how he responds.


What's your point? I'm not trying to sound rude; I just don't know what you're getting at. May I please have a link to it? I'm pretty sure I wrote that with my now deleted account.

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:33 am

PianoMastR64 wrote:
Alice wrote:
PianoMastR64 wrote:
Bashar actually answers this himself, and he gave a much more satisfying, albeit enigmatic answer. It was something akin to the first 4 implying the 5th and the 5th implying the first 4. This sounds really confusing, but I believe I had it all figured out. But that's gone now. You'll have to google search it yourself. Well actually I just tried to find it and I can't. Oh well I guess. Maybe Darryl found it or something.


Isn't the post Inventor found saying the same thing?
I have a problem with the last law, the law that states “Everything
changes, except for the [previous] laws.” I believe it should instead be
stated “Everything changes, except for the laws of creation.” This is the
reason why: If everything in creation is subject to change, except for the
*previous* laws, then that means the law that states “Everything changes,
except for the [previous] laws.” is subject to change. This means if there
were four laws, the first three cannot change, and the fourth law can
change. If there were five laws, the first four cannot change, and the
fifth law can change. Why is the law that states that “Everything changes
except for the [previous] laws” allowed to change? If the last law is able
to change, then that must mean there is an alternate law that it is allowed
to change into. What *could* it logically change into? Could it change into
a law that states “Nothing changes except for the last law”? The reason it
makes no sense for that law to be allowed to change is because it’s a law.
If a law of creation was allowed to change, it wouldn’t be a law, it would
be a temporary parameter.

For example, the first law simply states “You exist.” In both the 4-law and
5-law configurations there is the law that states “Everything is here and
now.” (In the 4-law config, it’s implied.) If everything is here and now,
including what we perceive to be the future (future falls under the
category of “everything”), and since “You exist.” is present tense, thus
occurring now, then it is logically impossible for “you” to exist in the
present, and to not exist in the future because that would result in “you”
both existing and not existing simultaneously. Therefore, the law “You
Exist.” cannot change, which is why it’s a law.

It’s true that my prior logic depends upon the fact that the law or law
extension “Everything is here and now.” is true. I’m going to assume it’s
true. My point though is that laws cannot change.

I wish someone would bring that up to Bashar to see how he responds.


What's your point? I'm not trying to sound rude; I just don't know what you're getting at. May I please have a link to it? I'm pretty sure I wrote that with my now deleted account.


A link to what?

PianoMastR64
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby PianoMastR64 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:19 am

Alice wrote:
PianoMastR64 wrote:
Alice wrote:
Isn't the post Inventor found saying the same thing?


What's your point? I'm not trying to sound rude; I just don't know what you're getting at. May I please have a link to it? I'm pretty sure I wrote that with my now deleted account.


A link to what?

The post Inventor found. You're referring to my old one from years ago, right? I don't even know how he found it. I tried looking for it myself.

User avatar
Arouet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Arouet » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:22 am

What Link? When? Why ?Am I always the last to know? <sad and feeling rejected>
I AM a Precursor!

TheInventor
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby TheInventor » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:56 am

A link to what?[/quote]
The post Inventor found. You're referring to my old one from years ago, right? I don't even know how he found it. I tried looking for it myself.[/quote]
[quote="PianoMastR64"][quote="Alice"][quote="PianoMastR64"]

use this link.

http://newdimensionsmediagroup.com/bashar-the-5th-law/

scroll down to #24 in the comments section.

Is my internet searching KungFu...good or what?

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:21 am

TheInventor wrote:A link to what?

The post Inventor found. You're referring to my old one from years ago, right? I don't even know how he found it. I tried looking for it myself.[/quote]
PianoMastR64 wrote:
Alice wrote:
PianoMastR64 wrote:
use this link.

http://newdimensionsmediagroup.com/bashar-the-5th-law/

scroll down to #24 in the comments section.

Is my internet searching KungFu...good or what?


Yes indeed Mr. Inventor! You just need to learn how to do the quote thing :lol:

Happy New Year to you and all here, except the Damn Spammers! :mrgreen:

TheInventor
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby TheInventor » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:30 am

I have no clue how my usage of quotes is wrong.

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:19 am

TheInventor wrote:I have no clue how my usage of quotes is wrong.


OK I went here, hope this helps. Probably easier to understand if you go to the linked page and look at the info there on quoting text in replies.

https://www.phpbb.com/community/help/bbcode

Quoting text in replies
There are two ways you can quote text, with a reference or without.

When you utilise the Quote function to reply to a post on the board you should notice that the post text is added to the message window enclosed in a
block. This method allows you to quote with a reference to a person or whatever else you choose to put! For example to quote a piece of text Mr. Blobby wrote you would enter:

Mr. Blobby wrote:The text Mr. Blobby wrote would go here


The resulting output will automatically add "Mr. Blobby wrote:" before the actual text. Remember you must include the quotation marks "" around the name you are quoting, they are not optional.
The second method allows you to blindly quote something. To utilise this enclose the text in
tags. When you view the message it will simply show the text within a quotation block.

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:25 am

You can also simply highlight what you want to quote, go up to the tool bar (if doing "quick reply," select "Full editor and Preview") and click on "quote." Done!

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:25 am

btw, I thought you did a great job in your explanation of the Five Laws, so I took the liberty of editing.
The Five Laws, by TheInventor:

1. You exist…you always have and you always will. You are eternal.

Consciousness is self awareness, and you are a spark of All
That Is, therefore you are immortal, you cannot be destroyed.
Because you have Consciousness, you can transpose Space/Time upon a static structure of Space/Time that already exists. Bashar has said many times "Space/Time is much more malleable than you think." I have said the Universe that is Virtual to you, does not contain your own space/time imprint. It is virtual and does not "exist" in your perspective. When you impose your Consciousness on that Virtual Space/Time you are changing your perspective of the universe, then it becomes real to you. Because you are a part of All That Is, you have the properties of All That Is.

2. Everything is here and now.

Because the Prime Radiant is outside space/time, the laws of space and time do not apply, The Prime Radiant is infinite velocity and infinite time. This is why everything in the universe is here and now, it's created all at once.

3. The One is the All and the All is the One.

The One is "All That Is" AKA Prime Radiant,AKA Infinite Particle, creates everything; there is "Nothing Else"

4. What you put out is what you get back.

Because the Universe is all that is, and you are part of all that is. your Consciousness has a property of vibration, frequency, pattern...this is a type of field that only can perceive vibration... you cannot perceive anything outside of vibration, frequency, pattern. In order to see other parts of the universe, you have to change your Consciousness to that part of the universe. I have posted Polaroids of the two human fields Bashar has described, the human bias field...which show that I am a neutral perceiver of reality. it's perfectly level in the Polaroids, which is amazing because Bashar says most humans shift quite a lot. the other field is the physical mind field.

Because your frequency is shifting in a region of frequencies, Bashar has said that human masters are at 240khz (from memory ...might be off) down to 140khz frequency, there is by nature a shifting of frequencies all the time, in fact the rate of switching is 1x10^-43 sec rate.
so you can only get "back" what you are currently putting out.

5. Everything changes except for the first four…..Star Wars (The Last Jedi Spolier) doesn't change the movie...really.

This 5th law is a perspective law, it's not a physical static law at all. it describes how your perspective is always changing from moment to moment in the infinite pattern of all that is, of all infinite universes. you are literally in a hall of mirrors, which you only see one mirror at a time. in the new Star Wars, Rey is in a infinite reflecting mirror showing changes occurring. in the end, the person in the reflection is herself (when she was looking for her parents) This is a great example of the perspective shifting and the infinite but slightly different universes that exist.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby PianoMastR64 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:41 pm

*big deep breath*

So... Let me attempt to put it as simply as I can. I swear, I'm gonna buy all Bashar sessions that have anything to do with the 4/5 Laws and quote him myself! Ahem, anyways. The very fact that the 5th Law needs the specific stipulation "except the first 4 laws" unequivocally implies that laws can apply to themselves. You wouldn't need "except the first 4 laws" if the 5th law didn't automatically apply to the first 4. This leaves us with an obvious question: If the 5th law can apply to laws 1-4 (which it doesn't), then why isn't it also stated not to apply to the 5th law? Am I at least clear on that? Never mind the answer. I'm really asking btw. If I'm not clear, I need to rethink my explanation.

Alice, you keep praising TheInventor for how wonderful his/her explanations are for how the Laws of creation work, which I mostly agree with. How about at least a little understanding of my position? Do you understand what I'm saying?

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. That which exists cannot become that which does not exist as nonexistence doesn't exist.

2. There is only here and now as there and then are mere persistent illusions.

3. There is no separation between the collective and the individual as all are one.

4. What you experience isn't anything more than a reflection of yourself.

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.

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.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby PianoMastR64 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:42 pm

TheInventor: Sorry; I noticed that you replied to some things I said, but the quoting format just made it look like it was part of what I said. Please preview before posting to make sure you're clear. That goes for me too; I'm not just picking on you.

TheInventor wrote:Again....The first 4 Laws are not changing, go back and read what I posted from bashar. [...] This is why your claim the 5th law changes the other 4, it does not. [...] you keep insisting that the 5th law changes the other 4.

This is... the complete opposite of everything I've been saying. Will someone please help me isolate the problem in my method of explaining this which is leading to a misunderstanding this grand? Perhaps my explanation above will clear it up. If not, please let me know. I keep insisting, as a direct gosh diggity friggin quote from Bashar himself, that the 5th law changes itself to become the other 4 laws. Please please please read what I'm writing more carefully than that. But... at least you've identified some of your understanding of the information I'm presenting so we can gain traction in this exchange. Please keep doing this where you take something I've said and relay your version of it so I can tell you whether or not we're even on the same page. In fact, I'm curious to know your entire understanding of what I've said so far so I know where I went wrong.

TheInventor wrote:Again you assume that "Everything changes except for the first four laws….." are changes to the physical nature of the universe.

Unless you can explain how that relates, it seems removed from the point I'm trying to make.

Really, if you think about it, there are no laws at all. There is simply the one thing, which is sorta the ultimate Law. This one thing creates infinite complexity. But even so, there are 4 things which remain the same about all of it. This one thing with no rules bounding it spawns the 5 laws, one of which is "the all are the one and the one is the all", which is perfectly fitting. You say it's just our perspective swimming through static infinite complexity, creating the illusion of change? (I think that sums it up.) Well, the 5 Laws are part of that illusion, since there only is the one thing. The 4 laws never exhibit the illusion of change, while the 5th one does in a sneaky way. Anyway, I'd love to talk about that, but I'm currently concerned with the subject matter which is the basis of this entire thread, so please don't even address this. I just like to babble lol. ...or do address it I guess. I'm just really hoping You'll finally understand what I'm talking about with the other thing and feel compelled to focus on that. Although, that does contradict my babbling... lol Well, I think you get the idea. This kind of rambling is what I'd really like to be doing, but I'm too busy defending the other thing.

TheInventor wrote:people have problems with the obvious

Huh. It's.. funny you would mention this. Yes, funny indeed. (I'm just messing with you. Don't forget to have fun. I forget sometimes.) Real talk though, It became strikingly obvious once I read Bashar's explanation and gave it a little thought. Now I'm just trying to show others what I've learned. This is something I've been pondering for years, and now that I finally get it... idk it's just a really weird feeling having to fight just to get an idea understood.


Sigh... I'm just sitting here watching Alice sing your praises as you basically agree with me in the form of contradicting my logical expansion on a quote from Bashar. What am I supposed to make of that? I'm trying to start with wondering whether or not you're just hunting for things to tell me I'm wrong about, which is a problem I run into almost every time I discuss anything with anyone online. Can we please not do that? Let's just have a friendly conversation where we're not assuming the other person is wrong on all accounts. I really wasn't expecting so much pushback from such a simple idea.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby PianoMastR64 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:51 pm

TheInventor wrote:A link to what?

The post Inventor found. You're referring to my old one from years ago, right? I don't even know how he found it. I tried looking for it myself.[/quote]
PianoMastR64 wrote:
Alice wrote:
PianoMastR64 wrote:
use this link.

http://newdimensionsmediagroup.com/bashar-the-5th-law/

scroll down to #24 in the comments section.

Is my internet searching KungFu...good or what?


I don't even know how to begin fixing this :lol:. Thanks! I honestly barely remember writing that.

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:06 pm

PianoMastR64 wrote: Sigh... I'm just sitting here watching Alice sing your praises as you basically agree with me in the form of contradicting my logical expansion on a quote from Bashar. What am I supposed to make of that?


I just like his explanations of the Laws. Even though his writing needed a lot of editing, the ideas came through clearly.

I am not saying your position is wrong, but I guess I just don't have the mental energy to keep up with all your postings on the subject.


PianoMastR64 wrote:I'm trying to start with wondering whether or not you're just hunting for things to tell me I'm wrong about, which is a problem I run into almost every time I discuss anything with anyone online. Can we please not do that? Let's just have a friendly conversation where we're not assuming the other person is wrong on all accounts. I really wasn't expecting so much pushback from such a simple idea.


If you are having this problem all the time, you need to take responsibility for that. This is what Ho'oponopono is for.
All our problems are memories replaying in the subconscious. You might do a search on Ho'oponopono here, lots of posts.

TheInventor
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby TheInventor » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:15 am

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.
Fractal Arguements.jpg
Fractal Arguements.jpg (54.29 KiB) Viewed 364 times


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.

User avatar
Arouet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Arouet » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:31 am

TheInventor wrote:I decided to go back to the beginning, and discovered that this mystery was actually answered correctly by kings.tse in the first response.

Finally.

Thank you !
Arouet in China lol
I AM a Precursor!

User avatar
Arouet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Arouet » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:42 am

TheInventor wrote:I ...


Excellent answer,!! Do you date? :twisted:
I AM a Precursor!

TheInventor
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby TheInventor » Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:05 am

Arouet wrote:
TheInventor wrote:I decided to go back to the beginning, and discovered that this mystery was actually answered correctly by kings.tse in the first response.

Finally.

Thank you !
Arouet in China lol


Change is a constant. Change itself can change into non-change, which is the first four laws, so it creates a cycle.
All are natural laws of the universe. It's how the universe/creation functions. They are simple, basic laws. They are the nature and structure of existence. They are also knows as the Five Laws of Existence. They are unchangeable. That's why Bashar calls them laws. These aren't like laws of our physical universe because things like physics or the speed of light might not exist in another dimension/reality/universe or might exist in a different way. The five laws are unchangeable everywhere and every when. The structure of existence never changes, but experience of that structure expands infinitely and forever.

This answer is not correct.

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby Alice » Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:39 am

I decided to try posting Inventor's latest reply to PianoMastR64 with the quote function used (I hope) correctly, to avoid confoosion. Here goes.

PianoMastR64:
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.


TheInventor:
All this appears to me a a fractal argument.
Fractal Arguements.jpg


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.

TheInventor
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Postby TheInventor » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:26 pm

this is incorrect statement

Change is a constant. Change itself can change into non-change, which is the first four laws, so it creates a cycle.
All are natural laws of the universe. It's how the universe/creation functions. They are simple, basic laws. They are the nature and structure of existence. They are also knows as the Five Laws of Existence. They are unchangeable. That's why Bashar calls them laws. These aren't like laws of our physical universe because things like physics or the speed of light might not exist in another dimension/reality/universe or might exist in a different way. The five laws are unchangeable everywhere and every when. The structure of existence never changes, but experience of that structure expands infinitely and forever.

there is no cyccle, look at diagram; there is no cycle as you describe.

all that is.jpg
all that is.jpg (105.42 KiB) Viewed 335 times


Return to “Bashar's channelings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests