The Four Absolutes Malibu, CA 9-19-97 Q: I'd like to talk about some answers you gave recently to questions about how one should relate to various events that seem to be coming; how to avoid a paranoid reaction to various things that are happening? B: All right, but not avoid. It is simply a matter of choosing what you prefer, that's all there is to it, and it is not a matter of should, but, again, a matter of choosing what you prefer. Q: Well, what you seem to be saying was that by keeping your vibrational rate high enough you can experience these events in a way that will not harm you, that sort of....and I'm wondering.... B: Correct, in a way that you will perceive as non harmful, you understand? Q: Okay B: There may be individuals who will perceive certain events that may happen to others as harmful, and in some ways and on some levels there may be a generalized commonality for what you define as harmful and not harmful that holds truth for most people. But in this day and age of individuality and universal created realities, the idea of what may sometimes seem harmful to one person may not in fact be experienced as harmful by the person to whom it is happening. Just to clear that point up first. Do you follow? Q: I do, but let me give you an example. B: By all means. Q: What I think a lot of people would generally think of as fairly harmful, which is.... B: Yes, would be what? Q: Well last night on the radio show, on Art Bell, Ed Dames, the remote viewer, said that plant pathogens are going to wipe out greenery and various Earth changes we're going to.... B: Yes, and on one reality, in one parallel Earth this is true. Anything that you can imagine is happening somewhere. Now is that the reality you prefer? Q: Well no, but I wonder if there's a reality that most agree on, that does include some sort of Earth change like that; that would generally be thought of as traumatic? Like a lot of people.... B: There are, from time to time, realities that the majority of you may seem to agree on for a particular moment that may contain such experiences but then, perhaps, in the next moment that is not so any longer. It is difficult to answer that question directly because you are asking it as if there is only one reality and there isn't; there are an infinite number. And in this day and age on your planet, what you all are learning is that what you actually hold to be most true is what you will experience of it, even if there may be a wide-spread common event, even then, it may still be experienced in a drastically different way between one person and the next. So it really isn't even relevant whether or not a particular thing is going to happen; what's relevant is how are you going to relate to it and what are you to do with it if you have decided to be part of the reality that experiences that particular kind of event, which, by the way, many of you have decided, in some senses, to do without. Q: And some people haven't. B: Yes, some people haven't. Q: In this reality right now. B: Which one, this one? Q: Yes, this one. B: What about this one? What about this one now? And what about this one now? Q: All of those. B: Well, they're all different, but go on. Q: But each one of those realities contain people who say they don't want to experience.... B: Oh no, that's not true. Some of them contain people who want to experience it, some of them contain people that don't care, some of them contain people who are unaware that such things may or may not happen. There are a variety of what people these realities contain, but again, if you're simply making a point, by all means do so. Q: Well, that was my point. That there's this variety of people that sort of believe contradictory things and a.... B: They will then experience contradictory things. Q: Okay, well.... B: Do you find that difficult to believe? Q: Yes. B: All right, well that's the difficulty. Q: I find it difficult to believe that it would happen all in the same reality. B: In a sense it does not. Q: Right. B: But, let's say, there might be overlap, enough similarity in one person's equation so that they might share certain common points with another person's equation. But then the things that are uncommon will sometimes be very different and will determine, perhaps, how each person experiences their particular equation, even though there may be some common overlap. Does that make sense? Q: It does. B: Yeeet. Q: Yet, if I see in my reality.... you talk about the library of books where you can pull out any book. B: Yes. Q: In my reality I see a lot of books that constitute a mountain of evidence that there's a global elite that's waiting to take advantage of certain Earth changes and events; that are coming to implement basically an evil new world order type government. B: What you are asking us to do is reflect to you, shall we say, the common consensus odds of all of the equations that we can perceive in the collective consciousness and what seems to be the most likely probable reality that most of you will share. That's what you are asking. Q: Actually, what I'm asking is if I see that coming and I want to help as many people as I can, it seems to me that rather than not look at those books, not look at the evidence... B: That's not what we are saying. Don't make that mistake. Q: All right. B: I am not saying you are ignorant of the fact that the books are in the library. I am simply saying that you are very aware that they are there but what you are also equally aware of is that they are nothing more than equal choices; that no one of them has more innate built in power to manifest, and be more likely to manifest than any other. In fact, again, paradoxically, the more you become aware as a being, the more you become aware of the more negative possible choices because you become more aware of everything, dark and the light. So we are not talking about ignoring that; that is a possibility. Just the opposite, we're saying you will become just the opposite. We're saying you will become even more aware that there may be even more dark side choices than you may have previously considered. But just because, and here's the catch, just because you may find yourself becoming even more aware of more details concerning those particular things, that, in and of itself, that level of awareness in itself, doesn't mean anything relative to their power to become manifest. That still resides in you. Q: Then my question, since I am aware of the sort of way that you are saying all of these things, how do I not let them manifest in my reality? B: I just told you. Q: I missed it. B: Listen again. Pay attention. I will be more specific. Q: All right. B: The awareness of their potential existence is not sufficient for causation, not sufficient for manifestation. Does that make sense? The awareness itself is neutral, the awareness of potential negativity does not bring it about, so there's nothing you have to do to avoid it unless you believe in it and then need to change your belief system to experience something other than that. But if you don't actually believe in it, if you know that you don't prefer it, if you know it's not your frequency of personal experience to experience those things then there's nothing you have to do to avoid it because you already know it has nothing to do with you experientially, even though you may be, in your reality, very aware of them as possible choices to experience. Does that make more sense? Q: It does make more sense. B: But not quite enough to be comfortable. Q: The things that I'm aware of, to me are sort of evidence, pieces of.... B: Evidence, oh you mean that every single thing you hear of must be true because you heard it? Q: No, just some things seem to have more weight. B: Why do you think that some things seem truer to you than others? Q: Because some things seem to have more evidence for their being true. B: More evidence, why do you think you perceive some things to have more evidence than others? Q: Maybe because I know more about them? B: Define evidence. Q: Well, more information that logically leads to the conclusion that this is true. B: Yes, I know. However, our definition of evidence is a self-reinforcing reflection based on what you most likely believe to be true already. In other words, have you not, in any way, shape or form, at any time in your life, heard about the idea that one individual may say "But there is so much evidence for this," and yet another individual will say there is absolutely none. Q: Yes B: Well doesn't that tell you something? It tells you that there really is no empirical evidence. It tells you that evidence shows up to reinforce a belief that's already there; in the likelihood of that thing having evidence to back it up. But you create, in a sense, the attraction of your attention to the evidence. There is evidence for everything being true and there is evidence for nothing being true. The degree to which you perceive evidence for any one particular facet of everything has to do with your orientation and that's all it has to do with. Does that make sense? Q: Yes. B: So the evidence you see gives you an opportunity to understand what belief systems within you. Perhaps that means what fears are being reinforced, by you, to show you, you have certain orientations and to decide whether or not to change them. Again, evidence to some degree, now understand, what you mean by certain kinds of evidence, and I will not debate, necessarily, the pragmatism of that on a certain level, that is how your reality works on a certain level, by the idea of evidentiary information. I understand that. We are talking about a very high level here, because we are talking about the fundamental creation of your reality and that level is different. So the idea here is that like the concept of prediction, on this level evidence is an opportunity to decide whether or not you actually want to experience that thing, whether or not you actually want to allow manifestation to occur, to continue in that direction or whether you would like to change your idea about what you are seeing and put it in a different light and, by so doing, see if some different evidence comes up. Make sense? Q: It does, thank you very much. B: This is an opportunity more than it is an absolute, do you follow? Q: I do. B: Now, I will remind you: there are only /four absolutes/; only /four/ /absolutes/ in creation, only four. Doesn't even fill the fingers on one of your hands, well the fingers but not the thumb. Only /four absolutes/: *Number* *one*: *You exist*. That which exists, exists forever because existence only has one quality and that is to be. *Number two*: *The One is the All, the All* *are the One*. The individual pieces together combined to form the one, the one is formed of all the pieces and each piece holographically is the one expressing itself as the piece of the one. *Number three*: *What you put out* *is what you get back*. *Number* *Four*: *Everything changes, except the first* *three laws.* That's it. Any other statement, any other statement at all may have the weight of consensus behind it, may have a lot of inertia and momentum and likelihood and probability, based on a collective definition of what reality might be possible to experience. But that is a far cry, when you think about it, from what really constitutes an /absolute/. There's only four and if you didn't hear it in the four it's not an /absolute/. It is changeable, it is flexible to some degree or other. Does that make sense? Q: It does. B: Does that help you then? Q: Yes.