Friday, November 29, 2013

A Voice from the Future

Dear All,

Please listen to this voice from the future speaking about The Four Laws of Creation:

If you would like to learn more about Bashar - and his medium, Darryl Anka - please click on the following links:

Waking Universe:

Official Website for Bashar:

Please comment on anything you find worth sharing in this context :)

Thank you!



  1. Seeing as I have a strong religious background, and equally strong religious beliefs, I can't put much faith in this whole experience (a voice from some distant time in the future speaking through a human existing now? We have seen a lot of fraudulent cases of those already). That being said, the ideas he speak of are interesting, and the notion worth entertaining. The idea that Bashar says around 2:13 onwards about existence being permanent, only changing its form seems to comply with the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. However, that seems to imply that my being is simply the sum of my bodily parts, and not a being with some distinct quality that distinguishes it from a corpse. When I die, my parts are still there, but is it true that I still "am"? I would argue, 'no'. How can he say that my existence is permanent and that it has only "changed form" even after death? Does he assume my spirit, mind, 'chi', life force (or whatever you may decide to call it) also changes form and exists in some other place?
    Another confusing idea is that the world, and ourselves, are part of the creator. On the surface, this even sounds like many of the world's religions. But is the creator still a discreet being of his own? Or is he simply the amalgamation of all the parts in the world? The most interesting has to be the last law-- the ultimate conviction with which he says this is astounding. By saying the first three laws do not change, he argues that the world we live in have fundamental characteristics that never change. Also, with the third law, he has mentioned that the physical reality is only an external portrayal of the spiritual/mental reality. If so, what happens at the (supposedly) end of the universe? Some kind of colossal destruction that wipes out humanity? When the minds die, does the physical universe continue existing?
    These are the questions that went through my mind as I watched this video. Does anyone care to share theirs?

    1. In my view, Bashar is obviously referring to something abstract but value the most. One of the examples which can explain Bashar's theories, as I can think of, is that our knowledge of musics do not disappear even if singers, compositors, or even people who make those equipments pass away. The great contribution of their passion, emotion and ideas can always pass on to the next generations, allowing their spirits to remain immortal after death.
      I am not a religious person, but it occurs to me that Bashar is just trying to persuade people to find something they can rely on (or believe) so that they can sustain the fear of dying. Otherwise, people who does not have a strong belief will find their entire lives goalless and feel overwhelmed when they face challenge in society.

    2. just want to add that another point. I assume that people who have a strong belief are usually willing to sacrifice themselves as well as to be free of the fear of death.

    3. Cool question at the end, "When the minds die, does the physical universe continue existing?". In my opinion, the physical world and mind may not be two separate things, but only appears so due to our limited perception, or perhaps because western philosophy often draws a distinct line to differentiate between subjective and objective reality.

  2. Quick Point: Gudrun, I love the interesting topics you chose to convey. It has made me discover interests in things I have not heard before.

    I found this insightful as Bashar lays out the basic blueprint of what he believe are the 4 laws of creation. Bashar could be considered as a psychonaut of our generation and he claims he is an extra-terrestrial entity. Nevertheless, Bashar simply promotes others to simply follow your joy, all his points add up and I have no objection to his message. He clearly explains and share his knowledge to those who need enlightenment. His claim that every individual and entity is a part of a holographic existence reminds me of Michael Talbot’s essay “The Universe as a Hologram.” Dashar explains that every single part is a part of a whole, “the one is all and the all are one” and that is what makes us exist holographically. Just as Talbot explained the meaning of a hologram as a 3-D hologram composed from lasers and if you cut it into a hundred parts, one may believe that each part will display a separate area of the image but it is not the case for holograms. Holograms show that each of the smaller parts show the exact same imagine that it would project when seen as a whole. He brings forth a concept of the “whole in every part,” similar to Bashar’s “the one is all and the all are one.” This view of the composition of a hologram lead us to a new insight in understanding ourselves and we are simply just part of something grand and spectacular - the universe. We are the reflection of the works of the universe, which makes us grand and spectacular beings also. This is what Bashar wants to convey to others, that we are simply capable of grand and spectacular things, but we do not have that higher knowledge at this point and he wants to bring forth another state of consciousness to allow us to tap in and access our full potentials. If you do not accept the fact he believes he is from an “extraterrestrial origin” and is “channeling” his works through Darryl Anka, forget the background noise and just focus on his message. Take what he says with a grain of salt. I believe his “channeling” is irrelevant, it is his message he is trying to convey and his experiences that he is wants to share is what resonate with others. I encourage others to listen to his message and consider if it resonates to be true to any of us.

  3. Thank you Rosaline, Yizhen, and Nicole for your highly insightful comments.

    Nicole, I think your comparison of Bashar's philosophy and Talbot's ideas about the holographic universe are excellent - and will help people understand the important points of the message. Your comments are excellent philosophical reflections on the topic! I am really impressed!

    Yizhen, I really like your references to music and death! Very good, indeed!

    Rosaline, I think you answered your own questions and doubts by putting them in to words and reflecting on them: yes, I, too think, that Bashar refers to what we could call spiritual reality (or universal consciousness/intelligence if you want to translate it into scientific terminology). If you want a metaphor: you can say the universe and all that exists is the ocean, and we are the waves, that is we are all "made out" of the ocean-substance (salt water) but also form the ocean collectively. Our forms as individual waves change constantly (i.e. we constantly "die" as an individual wave but are reborn as a new individual wave). I think this is similar to ideas expressed in Hinduism (Vedanta), Buddhism, and First Nations Spirituality - though probably somewhat different from the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (since, as far as I know, those three religions do not officially accept the idea of reincarnation - although one could argue that at least Christianity implies the possibility of reincarnation by stressing that Jesus is an incarnation of God - which means: if god can become incarnated in human form once, he should theoretically be able to be incarnated in human form a second time - and that ad infinitum).
    What the ocean metaphor doesn't capture is the non-local and non-temporal quality of existence, which I think is also important. It means that our various forms as individual waves (that we can experience as chronological sequence of different lifetimes) ultimately all co-exist at the same time. I think this is similar to what non-locality means in the quantum realm. Bashar has used the image of the different channels we can choose from when we watch TV: they all exist at the same time but we experience them in a more chronological way by first clicking on and watching one program and then another one etc - but the channels are all there at the same time and we can, if we wish, jump from one to the other constantly and at random….
    I hope this wasn't more confusing than helpful :)

  4. I forgot one thing: the ocean - in this metaphor - would be the consciousness that underlies and creates all life and that all life is made out of (i.e. life energy/ ki/ chi/ prana, spirituality/ universal soul/ divine substance, or whatever else you want to call it).

  5. I found the messages Bashar expressed very interesting. I was initially surprised when he said there were only four real laws, but after he described them I understood what he meant. The laws are very encompassing and deal with some of the largest, and personally, most interesting questions about life. I found it difficult immediately not consider other "laws" that I would otherwise have complete faith in, real laws but when thinking about it I think I understand the point he is making. It is always difficult to accept something someone is saying right after you hear it, but given time to process the information and think about it, you can make an informed decision on whether you would chose to believe it. I realized that I believe Bashar is not trying to disprove what I would consider other laws (Roslyn mentioned the law of conservation of energy as a good example) to be wrong, but instead just explaining what he believes to be true. I appreciated that he explained his beliefs and how they related to us and our nature, but did not attempt to force them or explain why other beliefs about similar topics or views from certain religions are incorrect. I found that by stating his opinion without any pressure, it was easier for me to consider what he was saying.
    I found the way he expressed his message, through a medium, and that he claims to be an extra terrestrial being, difficult to believe but I still found his message interesting and I don't think it should be discarded because of the way it is expressed.

  6. I find his arguments kind of meaningless to be completely honest. The four "laws" he introduces really have no influence in people's daily lives. For the first half of his speech, I think the take-away point is we act on what we believe to be true. At the end he talks about motivation which rely on emotions and beliefs is another thing I agree with. However, at the very last, he talks about surrender. According to him, if we surrender ourselves, we will become what we really are (a part of the infinite whole which is everything and is a part of everything). I would disagree with this statement. We are what we are, a species in a great evolutionary time. We are limited by our physical bodies, and we can not do everything we wish to do. I think it is very meaningless to define everything because, these "Laws" will not take us anywhere. In stead of sitting here and summarizing everything we observe, why not actually go out and do something useful?