The 4 Laws of Creation

The Four Absolutes / The Four Laws of Creation

We would like to elaborate on the four absolutes, the four laws of creation.

Number one: you exist. Can’t do much about that.

Number two, the one is all. The all together are one.

Number three, what you put out is what you get back.

Number four, everything changes. It is constant. Change is constant.

Now, these ideas we have discussed at length from a variety of perspectives from time to time. And we would like to now add a different notation for each one, a kind of shorthand reminder of what each of the four laws, the four absolutes, represents.

• Number one, you exist. This can be summed up as the concept of self-awareness.
• Number two, the one is all, the all is one can be summed up as the concept of synchronicity.
• Number three, what you put out is what you get back can be summed up, if you wish, as the concept of karma, or consequence, or reflection. It doesn’t matter what term you use as long as you understand that when you use the term karma, it does not mean it in a judgmental way. It simply means it as consequences of action, as a reflection of the state of being you exist upon or in.
• Number four, everything changes. Change is the constant. The idea here is that this can be summed up as the concept of creation itself.

So you have self-awareness, synchronicity, karma, and creation. These ideas perpetuate creation. These ideas perpetuate themselves and act as the fundamental underpinnings of all that you experience in what you call reality. This shorthand notation can help you understand a different way of looking at each of these so-called absolute laws. Perhaps by examining in more depth all of the concepts associated with those four shorthand terms, allowing yourself to explore all the different ways that individuals in different cultures may view or express these four absolutes, and give you something to play with and think about.

Every experience in any reality, be it on your world or any other world, is based on these four absolutes, and there are no more. Everything else, as you say, as we have said, is your ball game beyond that. It is your combination of these four laws that create every experience that you have.

And now we would like to add another kind of spin to this concept. And we would like to play a little bit with your minds, if you don’t mind.

So let us talk about the three absolutes, as we have said. Number one, you exist, or self-awareness. Number two, one is all, all is one, or synchronicity. Number three, what you put out is what you get back, or karma. And then let us talk about the fourth absolute. And yet, a moment ago I said three absolutes. Now I say four absolutes. What’s going on here?

The idea to understand is this: The fourth absolute is in and of itself, by definition, a paradox. Change is the only constant. Everything changes except the first three laws. However, change in and of itself must contain the concept of change. So change even has to change to be true to the concept of change; even has to change what it means to change. And that means there are things that don’t change. And those are the first three.

So the fourth is an absolute and yet at the same time is a paradox and contradicts itself, because change itself, to be true to change, must change from being change, which means it must become fixed—and this is what creates the first three laws. So they are self-reinforcing. The fourth absolute reinforces the other three. You might say they are the exceptions to the rule of change. But yet at the same time, paradoxically, all things change.

The other reason why the fourth absolute can be looked at as an absolute and as a transitional idea is to ensure that there are in fact only four, or three, absolutes. If the fourth absolute—change is the only constant, and everything changes—were fixed in the same way that the first three were fixed, then you could say there are four absolutes, and that would be a statement that would actually be a fifth absolute. Then you could say there are five absolutes, and that would be a sixth absolute, and so on and so on.

So the fact that the fourth is transitional as an absolute is what reinforces, by always referring back to the first three and never going beyond that, that there remain four and only four absolutes—or three.

Think about it, play with it, and thank you for allowing us to play with your minds a little bit in this concept. If you will delve into this in fun, you will find that by examining and exploring this concept of paradox in the fourth absolute, it will open new doorways and allow you to see the unlimited complexity and richness of creation as expressed in the four laws we have just outlined, as they interact with each other to create every possible experience that can be imagined within the mind of the self-aware infinite one. All that is.

So we thank you for allowing us to reflect these ideas to you this day of your time, and in return for the gift you are giving to us, I ask now: in what way may I and my civilization be of service to you? You may proceed with sharing in any manner you so desire.

---

Conversation: Life, Culture, and Experience

Questioner: how do you spend your time? Like, do you work?

Speaker: Do you have—what I am doing right now is one of the ways I spend my time, so to speak. Okay. We do not have what you and your planet would call a 9-to-5 regimen. But the idea is that we do many different kinds of things as we are inspired to do them. And spontaneously and synchronistically, anything that anyone is inspired to do automatically meshes with the mass consensus reality of our world and enhances everything else everyone is also automatically and spontaneously and synchronistically inspired to do.

So we do not have delineated jobs. Each individual is allowed to follow their highest joy, because we know that to do so allows each individual to operate in the most natural way. And to allow each individual to operate in the most natural way automatically reinforces what any individual within such a reality would want to do.

Speaker: the idea of communicating with other civilizations in this fashion is one of the things that I and many others of my kind will do. We express ourselves through similar ideas of art and music and investigation and exploration of what you would call scientific thought. There are many different kinds of things that we do.

Speaker: But in our evolution, at this time, in that we are moving in our own transition from physicality to non-physicality, as you would understand it, we no longer either eat or sleep in that sense as you understand it, though we used to.

Questioner: Wow. Okay. Interesting. Thank you. And uh, I would—I would like to ask a personal question if I may.

Speaker: Yes.

Questioner: Um, six years ago I was uh living in Los Angeles, and uh in Orange County.

Speaker: Oh. All right. Okay.

Questioner: And I uh came back from New York, and um the company that I was working for uh got taken over by the Internal Revenue Service.

Speaker: Taken over. All right. Understood. Okay.

Questioner: And uh and I had a personal car—for a limousine. It was a limousine company. So I had no transportation. So I felt really uh desperate.

Speaker: You mean you no longer had the transportation you had?

Questioner: That’s right. That is correct.

Speaker: Thank you for being precise. Okay. It doesn’t mean you had no transportation.

Questioner: Well, I did. There was also a city bus line, but that didn’t…

Speaker: It still is not what we are getting at. Okay. You will always be capable, in general, of creating whatever you need, regardless of in what form it may come or how it may come to you. So to insist at that moment that you had no transportation was to, in a sense, blind yourself to the possible opportunities of all the different ways transportation might have been provided for you. Okay, you follow that logic?

Questioner: Yes. And that is part of the problem.

Speaker: Yeah, it is part of your challenge, right? Watch your definitions. Okay. Otherwise, you will make a challenge a problem. Okay? All right. Remember that your reality doesn’t exist apart from your definition of it. If you define reality as a problem, so it will be. If you define it as a challenge, so it will be.

Questioner: Oh, okay.

Speaker: You understand this premise?

Questioner: Yes, I do.

Speaker: All right, then. And if you can truly define the problem, you can find the solution. The challenge.

Questioner: Thank you. Okay.

Speaker: You see, part of the redefinition, in and of itself, is the renaming, right? It is not an arbitrary thing. We are not talking about glossing it over by simply giving it a pretty name and still acting as if it is a problem. I am talking about a true redefinition, where you know it is a challenge and not simply a problem renamed.

Questioner: Right. Okay. So, I had a challenge.

Speaker: Yes.

Questioner: Thank you. And uh found an individual that had a uh an old car.

Speaker: Yes.

Questioner: And I had enough cash to buy it.

Speaker: All right.

Questioner: And uh and went to uh and made a deal on the telephone that if I liked the car, I would buy it.

Speaker: Nice.

Questioner: Then when I was there, um he uh he just played with me for three hours.

Speaker: You mean—like what? Played ball?

Questioner: Well, sort of. All right. Yeah. I mean, he uh he never did say no, but he never did say yes. That kind of play, right?

Speaker: All right.

Questioner: And later I found out he used to be a used car salesman. So he was using manipulation and trickery.

Speaker: Well, and using… goes along with being a used person. Do you understand how we mean that?

Questioner: Okay.

Speaker: It is again a wonderful synchronicity in the names you give each other—that very often, of course not in all cases, individuals who have allowed themselves to become named “used people,” “used car salesmen,” used this, used that—perhaps in many ways, if they actually are using other people in a negative way—is because they have been used themselves.

Questioner: Well, that certainly uh puts a little forgiveness light on the subject. That’s for sure. Yeah. And at the time, I did not know that he had been a… used person.

Speaker: All right. It doesn’t condone the action, but it does give you more insight into how to recognize vibrations that may not be aligned with your own, and to not necessarily allow them to impact you by buying into their reality.

Questioner: Right. And I did not know how to react to him. Oh, all right. And but I did know that I wasn’t going to leave there till I had that car.

Speaker: I see.

Questioner: And what I did do was uh get stuck.

Speaker: Um? Stuck? Yes. In what way?

Questioner: Well, I—well, that’s what I’d like to ask, because uh I uh… Well, can you be more specific about what you define as the experience of being stuck?

Speaker: Oh, okay. All right. What happened?

Questioner: What happened was I uh uh I kept trying to make…

(Music plays)

Speaker: It sounds like somebody has been stuck in this reality before. They are coming unstuck now. Perhaps even unglued.

Questioner: Do go on.

Speaker: Well, now you can bring back to your culture what a stand-up comedian’s like here.

Questioner: Do we have to stand, or can we sit?

Speaker: Yeah, you can sit. Thank you. Do remember that one of the things we did learn from your culture—since we no longer really use our own language—is the concept of the pun. We enjoy it now that you have taught it to us.

Questioner: Good. What? Humor or what?

Speaker: The pun in particular, not humor. We have humor, but since we no longer have a language that we use, we do not have puns until all of a sudden we learned that your language did, and started to understand how your language was used to create the particular concept you call a play on words, a pun.

Questioner: Right. Right.

Speaker: Yeah. So, do proceed. Okay. An emotional concept that has other meanings, right?

Questioner: Yes. Well, you were talking about being… well, you know.

Speaker: Yes. So, what was your experience that you are labeling as being stuck? And are you stuck still?

Questioner: Yes.

Speaker: Oh, all right. So, define what you mean by this term, experience.

Questioner: Okay. Not as much, but it’s been six years. And yeah.

Speaker: All right. Not as much, but in what way still?

Questioner: Okay. And what happened was um… nice. I kept uh trying to trying to make him honor the deal, and he kept sidestepping and being a comedian, just entertaining this other guy and I… at my expense, though.

Speaker: All right. Well, will you please do us a favor?

Questioner: Yeah.

Speaker: Bring this into the present. In what way do you feel stuck now?

Questioner: Okay. All right. I’d like to share one more thing. Somehow I got um—he gave me a beer to drink. It was a hot day, and I sweated the beer out right on my right side of my neck, which I thought was extremely unusual. And uh and I’ve been stuck in that area of the right side of my neck ever since.

Speaker: I see. Ever since—defined as…?

Questioner: Um, the power isn’t flowing. I breathe in that area more than any other area of my body for all these years. And um… the feeling is—I don’t know what to do with… just the fascination that I don’t want to leave there without the… of a collective representation rather than actually referring to single individuals.

Speaker: Yes. Adam simply meaning male, Eve simply meaning female of the human species.

So in that sense, Enki, Enlil refer to similar concepts of the admixture of certain genetics within certain groups of humanity.

Speaker: These brothers that came to this planet to mine gold and created a beast of burden…

Speaker: But it is again talking about a collective. Of course, within the collective, you could pinpoint that there may have been brothers here and sisters there that you could pinpoint as the specific individuals that are represented, but in general it represents now, to some degree, a shall we say simply mishmash collective of the entire group of Anunnaki that came and did that.

Questioner: these two brothers were left in control of this planet, so to speak.

Speaker: They were a council. We are talking about a large group of Hundreds of thousands.

Speaker: There were those that started as leaders and there were those that thought they should be leaders, but it quickly devolved.

Speaker: You are attempting to narrow it down to actual individuals.

This is not the case. You are, through those names, representing a variety—a wide variety—of political, historical circumstances that have all been symbolically lumped into two individuals.

It is not literally two individuals.

It is representative of many different things, in the same way that Adam is not necessarily literally representative of an individual in the way that you might mean it with regard to the story of what happened.

Even though obviously there had to be, in a sense, a first male human and a first female human, but the idea of Adam and Eve actually represents the story of early humanity—meaning thousands of individuals—in terms of the collective experience of what happened, being symbolically represented by two individuals in a story archetypally.

So we are being specific. It’s just that it cannot be pinned down as far as the stories to actually just two individuals, because we’re talking about a group of individuals that interacted to create the story that has come to be represented in shorthand version by two individuals in your written history.

Questioner: Well, I appreciate what you just said. That’s a lot more specific than it was before, and I appreciate that. All right. Now, they created mankind on this planet as a beast of burden.

Speaker: In a sense. Again, that is simplistic, because the idea is that many different individuals within the group had different ideas about why they were doing what they were doing and what they thought their relationship to humanity would be. So to say they created humans as a beast of burden is only talking about one slice of the group.

Questioner: Okay. What was the primary purpose? The primary intent.

Speaker: The primary intent, okay, was expansion of the self in a variety of ways. Some individuals within the overall group saw an opportunity—I’ll just put it this way—to foist off certain chores that they found either unpleasant or incapable of doing themselves.

And thus then it developed into the idea of what might be called a master-servant relationship for the small group that ultimately was left in control of that idea. But it didn’t begin that way. It began mostly as simply the sense of expanding the self, of exploring what could be done, of expressing the self genetically in other mediums and other realities, and a variety of other ideas and agendas.

Questioner: And then what you’re saying is this small group distorted this purpose. Yes, for their own… and that’s why they were left on the earth. All right. How small of a group was this?

Speaker: Again, several hundred thousand.

Questioner: Okay. Several hundred thousand. And now they had these beings that they had put sentience into.

Speaker: Yes. All right. And thus, for a while, to maintain their position, they in a sense expressed still the idea of some degree of dominion over them. Although they also recognized that they were on earth to stay and had to blend. And thus then was generated the stories of humans bowing to the gods, and gods mixing with humans and creating half-gods, and so on and so forth, and the mixing of the genetics and all.

Questioner: Yes. All right. Now, what story… even more so, what I—what I’m trying to find out, what I want to get out of this next question is this. You had these beings that weren’t sentient beings and the hominids.

Speaker: The hominids. Okay. Yes. Well, they had sentience, but I understand. You know what we’re talking about?

Questioner: You know what I’m talking about. Not in a form you call human.

Speaker: That’s right. Yes.

Questioner: Okay. Now, when the change was created… Yes. Now, the spirits, the soul… yes… that took upon this. Did it fully understand what was going on—that this would be a a a limited being? Uh and you know, more or less… you’re starting a book.

Speaker: Some did, some did not. Because it depended upon, again speaking linearly, from where the spirit incarnated, in terms of the last lesson that it brought with it. So some did, some did not.

Questioner: Were any coaxed into it? You know what I’m saying? Like in the non-physical—were they coaxed into, you know, checking this… in a manner of speaking?

Speaker: That can happen, in that there is a level or a realm of astral existence wherein individuals can still buy into reality systems that are not necessarily in alignment with their truth. And on that level, yes, some coaxing was done and some bought into it. But only on that level.

Questioner: Yes. And let me ask you this. Uh on that level… Yes. How big of a level is that level? Or… you know what I’m saying? Uh I—I don’t even want to ask like percentages or whatever, but I understand that—that that had to go on. How much of—how much of that went on? The coaxing, or the manipulating, or…

Speaker: All right, we understand the difficulty of applying a percentage to this, since this is a very arbitrary thing in terms of a frequency, and how to say how many inhabited at that time and how many were coaxed. Let us simply say that out of the final result of all that wound up in the past, in what might be called the first wave of humanity… let’s say about 10% were coaxed.

Questioner: Okay. And uh in terms of years, how many years ago was this?

Speaker: This was about 500,000 of your years ago. And in a sense, the first experiments resulted in the first wave that was considered to be successful about 300,000 of your years ago.

Questioner: And I’ve—I’ve read where they—they found that uh the idea that humans have lived a lot longer than that on this planet.

Speaker: Yes. But we are talking about specific kinds of alterations that are more recognizable as contemporary humanity, rather than what you are calling early forms of humanity.

Questioner: Well, the early forms of humanity were essential.

Speaker: Yes, in some ways. And remember, there were things going on with regard to exploration and experimentation and mixing of genetic stock even before the Anunnaki. But we were talking about the Anunnaki wave, which really set fire to that idea.

Questioner: Well, let’s go back before the Anunnaki wave. Oh, all right. What was their names?

Speaker: Founders.

Questioner: The founders. Yes.

Speaker: The founders have been experimenting with that idea on your planet actually for millions of years.

Questioner: For millions of years. And that would be more what I was getting at too. Yes. And uh when they were doing this, is there pain and suffering in these individuals? You know, like we have—we have babies born on this planet now with birth defects. Yes. At that time…?

Speaker: No, the founders are very different, and they manifested these things very differently that did not involve really much time at all, nor any divergence or deviation from what they intended to happen.

Questioner: What density was this then? Was it third density or…?

Speaker: Well, yes, they were still dealing with third density. Very early third density, of course.

Questioner: It seems pretty malleable if they… if they have…

Speaker: But that’s because the founders are higher than that, and have the ability to in a sense create flexibility in the lower densities to their intention, to their focus—as far as flexibility and time span and all.

Questioner: Yes. Does that help?

Speaker: Yes, it does. Uh I wanted to ask you: like on our planet, we deal in polarities. Yes. Good and bad, this and… you know… Yes. Uh on your planet, are there polarities?

Speaker: There is the recognition that polarity is possible, but it is not expressed because it is allowed to be balanced as a choice. In other words, since we understand that what you might call negative choice is equally valid to positive choice, in that recognition, then we simply choose what we prefer.

Questioner: And—and you’re going to tell me that out of all these millions of uh beings you have on your planet, no one ever chooses the negative.

Speaker: Not anymore.

Questioner: What happened when they did?

Speaker: We learned from it, and learned that that’s not what we preferred.

Questioner: And did you put them off in the corner somewhere or…?

Speaker: No.

Questioner: What? What was the treatment?

Speaker: The treatment was that they were assisted to understand the consequences of their actions. Everyone explored all the consequences that occurred and were fascinated about all the different variations that could occur, and then developed a consensus reality for what was thought to be for the good of all concerned. And then that’s what was done from that point forward. No coercing in that sense.

Questioner: All right. And uh to switch it just a little bit… we—we’ve had a lot of sightings in Arizona. Yes. Recently. Yes. UFO sightings and all. This is the beginning of another wave.

Speaker: Yes.

Questioner: And uh what kind of a wave? Like the first wave, or a wave of observation…?

Speaker: A wave of calibration. These things are cyclic. It is recognized that there are shifts happening. In fact, recently there was a rather large craft off of the western United States to aid and assist in making adjustments in some of the tectonic and seismic movements to make sure that it acted as somewhat of a safety valve, so that it would not be catastrophic. So there are adjustments and balancings being made because of certain kinds of accelerations and shifts going on in the collective consciousness. So we are participating to whatever degree it is appropriate for us to participate. So there is now an increased wave of presence and recognition of our presence collectively, because there is a step closer being created in your collective consciousness to the day when we shall all in a sense participate.

Questioner: And uh this large craft… these beings… where are they from?

Speaker: This is more the idea of association. Of an association.

Questioner: Yes. And how many beings are on this craft?

Speaker: Several hundred thousand.

Questioner: Several hundred thousand. Yes.

Speaker: It was, in your terms, about 20 miles in length.

Questioner: And in our terms, are these beings physical, luminous beings, or…?

Speaker: There are several varieties, though again because of the nature of the craft… For the most part, you would perceive them as generally physiological.

Questioner: And uh are there Pleiadeans on this craft?

Speaker: Yes.

Questioner: Are there Grays on this craft?

Speaker: No. No Grays. Not in the contemporary time frame, though there are variations of certain factions that you would not necessarily relate to as a Gray.

Questioner: Grays and Pleiadeans. Yes. Do they get along?

Speaker: Well, I mean, do they… in a sense?

Questioner: Yes. What sense? You know, like uh you know, you stay on that side of the galaxy, I’ll stay on this side. You know… what sense?

Speaker: Let us say they have dealings, but they are in a sense similar to estranged cousins.

Questioner: So like they tolerate each other.

Speaker: Well, yes, in a sense.

Questioner: Oh, well, why did you just say that? You know, because there are many implications to the term “tolerate.”

Speaker: And we do not necessarily want to give them negative ones on the part of Pleiadeans. The Pleiadeans simply recognize they are what they are. And in that sense, they allow them to be what they are. And when they find reason to deal with them, they know what they are dealing with. But they also understand that they cannot necessarily relate to them very closely.