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

TheInventor
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:44 am

This is what PianoMastR64 wrote.
I don't even know what else to say. This is such a nothing response, and all it does is clearly demonstrate how you're dead set on me being wrong. I'll come at you with that evidence one of these days.

Your full rejection is clearly a Neg EGO reaction. I have proven my claims with your own denial of what you wrote. You are wrong of your claims; you will have No zevidence of your claims ever.

This insult by PianoMastR64
My illustration clearly shows no cycle of 5th law back into the first 4 laws.

No, I don't understand your ms paint scribbles. You can't just say it's clear. you have to make it clear by explaining it. Even if it was perfectly clear even a dog could understand, that doesn't mean it's correct or that it isn't missing information.

Is a rejection action by Neg EGO

I have quoted you to prove what cyclic claims you have made

We've been over this. Clearly you don't understand if you think "the 5th law changes the first 4" is what I'm saying. Stop just quoting me and tell me what your understanding is so we can get some kind of foothold in this conversation. If not, then we're both just talking to brick walls.

I will quote you in order to prove to you....what you wrote. Now you want that stopped...because you dont like it? Too Bad.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:14 am

TheInventor wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:44 am
This is what PianoMastR64 wrote.
I don't even know what else to say. This is such a nothing response, and all it does is clearly demonstrate how you're dead set on me being wrong. I'll come at you with that evidence one of these days.

Your full rejection is clearly a Neg EGO reaction. I have proven my claims with your own denial of what you wrote. You are wrong of your claims; you will have No zevidence of your claims ever.

This insult by PianoMastR64
My illustration clearly shows no cycle of 5th law back into the first 4 laws.

No, I don't understand your ms paint scribbles. You can't just say it's clear. you have to make it clear by explaining it. Even if it was perfectly clear even a dog could understand, that doesn't mean it's correct or that it isn't missing information.

Is a rejection action by Neg EGO

I have quoted you to prove what cyclic claims you have made

We've been over this. Clearly you don't understand if you think "the 5th law changes the first 4" is what I'm saying. Stop just quoting me and tell me what your understanding is so we can get some kind of foothold in this conversation. If not, then we're both just talking to brick walls.

I will quote you in order to prove to you....what you wrote. Now you want that stopped...because you dont like it? Too Bad.
Ok so you've just declared yourself the winner. It's funny that you claim I'm rejecting what you're saying because that is exactly what you are doing. You are either refusing to understand me or are unable to understand me.

Recap: I made the original claim about an interpretation about something Bashar said. You refuted it, but also demonstrated your lack of understanding of what I even said invalidating your refutations. I attempted explaining like 10 different ways to the best of my ability what I'm saying. You still lacked understanding. I asked you to tell me what it is you think I'm saying, so I'll have a better ability to explain. The conversation is now stuck because you've decided you won and refuse to break down what I'm saying in your own words.
TheInventor wrote: I will quote you in order to prove to you....what you wrote. Now you want that stopped...because you dont like it? Too Bad.
Do you actually know why I wanted that stopped? I told you. You even quoted me saying it. I want my claim in your words so I know where the misunderstandings are. Did I say because I don't like it? No, I didn't. You made that up just to deliver the mean line "Too Bad". Your own personal negative ego alarms should be going off like crazy with that line. Just repeating what I said doesn't tell me how you interpreted it. Do you still think I'm saying the 5th law changes the first 4? because if you do, then we're still not on the same page. MS paint scribbles wasn't meant as an insult, but in retrospect I can see how there's no other obvious way to interpret it. I was more referring to how much of a mess it is and how it looks like not much effort was put into the aesthetics to make it easier to read and understand. I'm sorry for insulting you, but that wasn't my intent. Although you make feeling sorry for you a challenge by saying something like "Too Bad".

Your consistent effort in trying to sound right and proving me wrong is really telling. It tells me you were never interested in having a conversation. I'm pretty certain now that no matter what I say, you won't make a single effort to understand it.

This is even more of a nothing response. All you did was tell me how much you won and I lost. Do you think the conversation's over now? ...even though you keep ignoring me when I give the simple request to tell me what you think I'm saying?

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU JUST TELL ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING SO THIS CONVERSATION CAN GO SOMEWHERE?

openmindedskeptic
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by openmindedskeptic » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:08 am

Wow, when I started this thread I had no idea that it would lead to such confrontations.... how about y'all just stopping the finger pointing by just saying to each other..." I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree, so let's just agree to disagree..." ?

There must be more fun or exciting things for y'all to do instead of this acrimonious, grumpy stuff ... ;)

OMS

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by Alice » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:34 pm

openmindedskeptic wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:08 am
Wow, when I started this thread I had no idea that it would lead to such confrontations.... how about y'all just stopping the finger pointing by just saying to each other..." I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree, so let's just agree to disagree..." ?

There must be more fun or exciting things for y'all to do instead of this acrimonious, grumpy stuff ... ;)

OMS
Covers it all: "You may be right."

:lol:

TheInventor
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:26 pm

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU JUST TELL ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING SO THIS CONVERSATION CAN GO SOMEWHERE?



No.

I have presented your quotes that are posted in this Forum on your claims. 1 you idea was removed. I found your idea posted years ago.

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

PianoMastR64 on January 23, 2014 at 4:43 pm said

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.


That 2014 quote shows (again) the concept of a cycle of 5th law changing and influencing the 1st 4 laws. I have explained to best I can and illustrated the 5 laws, and how the 5th law is a change of perspective.

The reason I will not "PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU JUST TELL ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING SO THIS CONVERSATION CAN GO SOMEWHERE"?" Is that it will continue into a Fractal Argument...you will argue what that what you said, is not what I am claiming what you said. And its a "WhatAboutism Argument" which will divert away from your cyclic 5th laws to 4th laws incorrect claims.

I drafted a diagram illustrating the basics of the 5 laws. create your illustration and post it. Yet, frankly you wont do it, because it cannot support your claims. Your quick rejection of that diagram..and claiming it was silly illustrates rejection; instead of asking how it works because you dont get it. I have explained in words in neausem multiple times. breakout MS Paint and illustrate your claims.

TheInventor
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:45 pm

Wow, when I started this thread I had no idea that it would lead to such confrontations.... how about y'all just stopping the finger pointing by just saying to each other..." I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree, so let's just agree to disagree..." ?

When someone is claiming false or untrue Bashar information; in this case (the assertion that the 5th law changes the other 4 law's) I will correct it, with a good explanation. Evrn so Far as draw a diagram explaining how each law exists and operates (as I understand them)

What I am also demonstrating is how Negativism Works. Read through this thread with the perspective of Positive Energy. (Positive Energy literally focuses energy to a common point, common collective of thoughts to singular positive point/perspective.) Also Read through this thread with the perspective of Negative Energy. ((Negative Energy literally will un-focus energy, seperate ideas, take apart concepts in order to distract from the main point) ----create tangents away from the subject at hand.)) Positive Energy re-focus back to the central subject at hand.

I am not fond of the "just agree to disagree" while it does end debate/argument/discussion...it allows for false beliefs,information to remain unchallenged and allow it to appear legitimate. Which is worse in the long run.

openmindedskeptic
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by openmindedskeptic » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:25 am

In the early days of Internet there was a hilarious cartoon in some magazine...

A guy is sitting in his pyjamas at a computer... outside it's dark.... his wife calls from upstairs "Harry, it's 4 am, come to bed, you have to go to work tomorrow...."

The guy replies, "I can't , honey, there are some guys on the internet who are wrong!"

OMS

User avatar
Alice
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by Alice » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:12 pm

openmindedskeptic wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:25 am
In the early days of Internet there was a hilarious cartoon in some magazine...

A guy is sitting in his pyjamas at a computer... outside it's dark.... his wife calls from upstairs "Harry, it's 4 am, come to bed, you have to go to work tomorrow...."

The guy replies, "I can't , honey, there are some guys on the internet who are wrong!"

OMS
Well, it keeps things lively :lol:

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:54 pm

TheInventor wrote:When someone is claiming false or untrue Bashar information; in this case (the assertion that the 5th law changes the other 4 law's)
Wow. Did I not say repeatedly that "the 5th law changes the other 4 laws" is not at all what I'm saying and that I'm quoting Bashar himself? You're not listening to me at all. You're continuing to hear what you want to hear, and that's why I'm officially done talking to you now.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:59 pm

Is there someone else I can talk to about this who's willing to listen?

OgBashar
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by OgBashar » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:17 am

PianoMastR64 wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:59 pm
Is there someone else I can talk to about this who's willing to listen?
Sure

TheInventor
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:31 am

Wow. Did I not say repeatedly that "the 5th law changes the other 4 laws" is not at all what I'm saying and that I'm quoting Bashar himself? You're not listening to me at all. You're continuing to hear what you want to hear, and that's why I'm officially done talking to you now.
[/quote]

This is what you wrote.
Why are you so defensive? Yes, thank you for answering my question very clearly. I appreciate your input. Also, this doesn't answer the question at all. The question is if the fifth law applies to laws themselves, then why doesn't it apply to itself? I mean how easy is it to state the law as "Everything changes except the laws" or even "Everything changes" with the assumption that the laws don't, but he didn't state it that way. Therefore, it must mean something. I'm assuming you didn't actually read my long explanation for why the two sets of laws imply each other. Sigh... I'll try to summarize what I can even remember.

The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. It changes to refer from what changes to what doesn't change which are the other laws the fifth says don't change. Since the laws are just references to constancies of reality, it's the reference that changes, not the wording of the law itself. When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change. Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself. It's a rabbit hole of a logic puzzle. Bashar says it's perfect this way, but I'm still not sure why it can't be simplified to just "Everything changes except the Laws."


Contained in that statement are

Why are you so defensive? Yes, thank you for answering my question very clearly. I appreciate your input. Also, this doesn't answer the question at all. The question is if the fifth law applies to laws themselves, then why doesn't it apply to itself? I mean how easy is it to state the law as "Everything changes except the laws" or even "Everything changes" with the assumption that the laws don't, but he didn't state it that way. Therefore, it must mean something. I'm assuming you didn't actually read my long explanation for why the two sets of laws imply each other. Sigh... I'll try to summarize what I can even remember.

The fifth law, which states that "everything changes except the first four laws", when changed, becomes the first four. It changes to refer from what changes to what doesn't change which are the other laws the fifth says don't change. Since the laws are just references to constancies of reality, it's the reference that changes, not the wording of the law itself. When the fifth law is the first four, then it's basically just a redundancy of the first four. However, when you have just the first four laws, it's implied that everything changes because the four laws are there to specifically state what of all of creation doesn't change. Thus a fifth law is logically consequenced that states that "everything changes except the first four laws". But when you have a law that tells you what does change, it's no longer assumed that everything changes, otherwise, you wouldn't need a law to state it. so the fifth law can and does change. The catch is that it always changes back to itself. It's a rabbit hole of a logic puzzle. Bashar says it's perfect this way, but I'm still not sure why it can't be simplified to just "Everything changes except the Laws."


There are the elements of your 5th law cycles back to first 4 laws loop.

Again, draw out a diagram of what your idea of how Bashar Contradicts Himself....You have not done it. And I am 99.9999999999% wait 99.99999999999% positive you will not. I have posted numerous times how you are wrong; because you have surmised that the 5th law is a physical change...its a perspective change. I am wasting my time posting this response;its like the rarest thing ever posted "I didn't know that" or the phenomena...Of how a person that states "I dont think...(this is correct)...But I will tell you, your wrong!!! about the thing I dont know anythihg about.

draw up a picture or logic flow.

User avatar
Arouet
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by Arouet » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:57 pm

PianoMastR64 wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:59 pm
Is there someone else I can talk to about this who's willing to listen?
Listening...
I AM a Precursor!

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:36 am

Ok, so...

I somehow managed to find that link to the transcript I was talking about earlier. You can find it if you search for "the four laws of creation". For me at least, it wasn't on the first page of search results. It appears to be from the "4 Laws of Creation" session. I bought it, but the download link kept not working until it frickin expired. I sent them an email and hopefully they'll get it figured out. Anyway, here's the relevant lines from the transcript:

Bashar: "Law number four: Everything changes except the first three laws. Everything changes except the first three laws. The reason it is framed that way is so that you can understand that means that even the fourth law changes. And when change changes what does change become? That which does not change, which is the first three laws. So the fourth law gives birth to the first three, which gives birth to the fourth, and it is in that sense a circle of perfection."

This is the Bashar quote I've been referring to. (Keep in mind that this is from when there were 4 laws, not 5.) Bashar states explicitly that the 5th law can and does change specifically into the first 4 laws. He says that's what the 5th law becomes when it changes. Think of it this way: There are 2 boxes. In the first one is everything that changes. In the second one is everything that doesn't, which is merely the first 4 laws. The 5th law points to the first box. When the 5th law changes, it then points to the second box. It's the only other box it can change to point to. In that sense, the 5th law becomes the first 4. It's not that the wording of the 5th law changes, which was the initial confusion.

Curiously, he also says the first 4 laws become the 5th. I say it that way because it sounds like 1-4 --> 5 and 5 --> 1-4 is the same process. I'm not sure exactly what he means by this, but my best guess is this: The 5th law becoming the first 4 means there basically is no 5th law anymore, just 2 copies of the first 4. Since the first 4 laws are there to explicitly state what out of all of creation doesn't change, it's implied that everything else does change. This implication can and does become a law, namely the 5th law. Once you have all five laws, there's nothing to imply whether or not anything not covered by the laws changes because everything is covered.

How about now? Do I make sense now? I feel like a broken record. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. Is it also understood that I'm not saying the 5th law changes the first 4 laws? I mean, the 5th law itself states that everything changes except the first 4. The first 4 laws can't change no matter what. The 5th law changes itself to become the first 4 laws, which is very different.

OgBashar
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by OgBashar » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:47 am

PianoMastR64 wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:36 am
Ok, so...

I somehow managed to find that link to the transcript I was talking about earlier. You can find it if you search for "the four laws of creation". For me at least, it wasn't on the first page of search results. It appears to be from the "4 Laws of Creation" session. I bought it, but the download link kept not working until it frickin expired. I sent them an email and hopefully they'll get it figured out. Anyway, here's the relevant lines from the transcript:

Bashar: "Law number four: Everything changes except the first three laws. Everything changes except the first three laws. The reason it is framed that way is so that you can understand that means that even the fourth law changes. And when change changes what does change become? That which does not change, which is the first three laws. So the fourth law gives birth to the first three, which gives birth to the fourth, and it is in that sense a circle of perfection."

This is the Bashar quote I've been referring to. (Keep in mind that this is from when there were 4 laws, not 5.) Bashar states explicitly that the 5th law can and does change specifically into the first 4 laws. He says that's what the 5th law becomes when it changes. Think of it this way: There are 2 boxes. In the first one is everything that changes. In the second one is everything that doesn't, which is merely the first 4 laws. The 5th law points to the first box. When the 5th law changes, it then points to the second box. It's the only other box it can change to point to. In that sense, the 5th law becomes the first 4. It's not that the wording of the 5th law changes, which was the initial confusion.

Curiously, he also says the first 4 laws become the 5th. I say it that way because it sounds like 1-4 --> 5 and 5 --> 1-4 is the same process. I'm not sure exactly what he means by this, but my best guess is this: The 5th law becoming the first 4 means there basically is no 5th law anymore, just 2 copies of the first 4. Since the first 4 laws are there to explicitly state what out of all of creation doesn't change, it's implied that everything else does change. This implication can and does become a law, namely the 5th law. Once you have all five laws, there's nothing to imply whether or not anything not covered by the laws changes because everything is covered.

How about now? Do I make sense now? I feel like a broken record. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. Is it also understood that I'm not saying the 5th law changes the first 4 laws? I mean, the 5th law itself states that everything changes except the first 4. The first 4 laws can't change no matter what. The 5th law changes itself to become the first 4 laws, which is very different.
This appears to be a dualism vs non dualism question. Everything that exists changes, that which doesn’t exist never changes. It’s a cyclic argument that goes on indefinitely and does appear to be the nature of things. At some point we have to be content with the unknown. Existence and Non existence are one and the same thing. We are Nothing and Everything existing and not existing simultaneously. Pretty cool. :)

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:53 am

TheInventor wrote: Again, draw out a diagram of what your idea of how Bashar Contradicts Himself
I know I said I'm done talking to you, but... well I guess I'm a liar. lol. Thank you for giving me another iota of your understanding of what I'm saying. It really helps when you do that. I know Bashar isn't contradicting himself, and I'm not arguing that he is. You need to know that you have a severe misunderstanding of what I'm saying. you could try asking questions. You're relying too heavily on your assumption that I'm wrong in everything I say. And I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong in anything you're saying. All I'm saying is your objections fall flat because you're arguing against something I'm not saying, which I know very little of because you keep refusing to tell me. So far, what I know is this: You think I'm saying "the 5th law changes the first 4", and you think I'm arguing Bashar is contradicting himself.

Here's my awful MSPaint scribble:

Image

higher res: https://i.imgur.com/s6R5YBx.png

I'm not really an artist, so there's probably a better way of illustrating it. Perhaps someone who understands can try making one that's much simpler. For example, mine relies on 4 logical steps which requires me to redraw the updated diagram. Perhaps there's a way of illustrating what's happening in a single unchanging diagram.
TheInventor wrote: I have posted numerous times how you are wrong; because you have surmised that the 5th law is a physical change...its a perspective change.
And I have posted numerous times how I'm not surmising anything. I'm just telling you what Bashar said. Here's something I haven't said before: The 5th law changing into the first 4 is a perspective change, and not a physical one. My diagram actually shows this. The two bottom boxes which represent physical reality don't change. The 5th law does change, but that doesn't mean anything physical changes. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only times you've asked me to draw you a diagram is when you've told me I haven't done it yet.

Since you're better at drawing up diagrams than me, perhaps you can fix mine so it represents what I'm saying a lot better than what I've drawn.

PianoMastR64
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by PianoMastR64 » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:03 am

OgBashar wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:47 am
This appears to be a dualism vs non dualism question. Everything that exists changes, that which doesn’t exist never changes. It’s a cyclic argument that goes on indefinitely and does appear to be the nature of things. At some point we have to be content with the unknown. Existence and Non existence are one and the same thing. We are Nothing and Everything existing and not existing simultaneously. Pretty cool. :)
Wait, how are we nonexistence at all? Are you saying that my logic implies this? It's my understanding that the 1st law tells us that we have never and will never be nonexistent. What I'm saying doesn't cyclically switch us from one to the other, if that's what you're saying. Although, I suppose you could apply the "this and that" rule to it, but I don't think it applies.

Can you expand on what you mean?

OgBashar
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by OgBashar » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:55 pm

PianoMastR64 wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:03 am
OgBashar wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:47 am
This appears to be a dualism vs non dualism question. Everything that exists changes, that which doesn’t exist never changes. It’s a cyclic argument that goes on indefinitely and does appear to be the nature of things. At some point we have to be content with the unknown. Existence and Non existence are one and the same thing. We are Nothing and Everything existing and not existing simultaneously. Pretty cool. :)
Wait, how are we nonexistence at all? Are you saying that my logic implies this? It's my understanding that the 1st law tells us that we have never and will never be nonexistent. What I'm saying doesn't cyclically switch us from one to the other, if that's what you're saying. Although, I suppose you could apply the "this and that" rule to it, but I don't think it applies.

Can you expand on what you mean?
Yes, we always exist, we can’t not exist. My mind went off on a tangent there and my statement is not directly related to your point. Sorry to confuse you. :p

I think that what the 5th law is saying is that we are the changing perspective of All That Is. I don’t see a contradiction.

TheInventor
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:43 am

Creating Your Reality: The Four Laws
The Four Laws of Creation 04-19-97 Las Vegas
Creating Your Reality: The Four Laws
Law Number One: You Exist.
Law Number Two: The One is the All, and the All are the One.
Law Number Three: What You Put Out is What You Get Back.
Law Number Four: Change Is The Only Constant, and Everything Changes Except the First Three Laws.
per transcript

TheInventor
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:40 am

Re: Bashar contradicts himself about the Five Laws?

Post by TheInventor » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:44 am

Number one: You exist. That means that you will always exist, in some form or another. You cannot
become non-existence, non-existence is another concept altogether. If you exist that’s your basic quality,isness. Isness only has one quality, to be, that’s it.
Law number two: The One is the All, the All are the One.
Law number three: What you put out is what you get back. That describes the reflective mirror quality
of creation, of existence, of consciousness.
per transcript

Post Reply