Relationships

The Nature of Existence

You might ask, “Well, why does this all exist in the first place?”

many of you have translated some of these ideas into the notion, “Well, what is my purpose? What is the purpose of the existence of All-That-Is?” And so forth. And we have discussed with you many times that the idea, first and foremost, of purpose is something that is created within existence. Existence is not subject to purpose; purpose is subject to existence. Therefore, that which has existed before the idea of purpose was created does not necessarily need a purpose to continue to exist.

However, an even more quote-unquote “fundamental” question, as we have just said in this way many times, is simply that you find yourself from time to time asking, “Well, why? Why does it exist at all?” In this way, recognize we can share with you the idea as for our understanding, but also recognize this: it is not that in the discussion and sharing of this idea with you that we mean in any way, shape, or form to be mysterious in that way, to be mystical. No. But the idea, the question in that form, is dealing with primary fundamentals. And when you find yourself dealing more and more with primary fundamentals, you will find that the answers are more and more simplified.

Now, the idea as to why many of you have thought that there is no answer to that question is simply because it is, in a sense, so simple you have not recognized it. But the idea in many ways of your Society has created a type of structure that will not allow answers of a certain degree of simplicity below your complexity threshold to be acceptable or to be valid in this way.

Therefore, again, this idea may, as we present it, seem to your habitual way of thinking perhaps to be an oversimplification, but this is the way that it will translate into your language; there is nothing we can do about that. Therefore, the idea as you have asked it, “Well, why does existence exist in the first place?” can simply be viewed from this point of view: First of all, you are asking that question based upon a preconceived assumption as if there was a choice. You are creating the idea that it could have been that existence existed, or it could have been that it didn’t.

Now recognize, you are assuming that only one side is real. Existence itself… nonexistence is just as real. But recognize this: it is that you are dealing now with primary fundamentals, and when you deal with primary fundamentals, the basic foundational ideas of creation, then those ideas are in and of themselves their own definitions. That is how they are experienced—as their own definitions.

What this simply means is that it is not that existence is real and non-existence is not. It is simply that they both are real, but by definition, existence is the only thing you can experience. Nonexistence, because of what it is by definition, doesn’t exist in any way that you can have an experience of recognizing its reality. Thus, the idea is that what you are experiencing is simply that portion of creation that brings with it the definition that you can experience it. It is not that it could have been non-existent, for non-existence is right now real, but by definition, it doesn’t experientially exist to you. Thus, both realities are there, are present, but only one carries with it the ability to even create a cognition of it. That is why it only seems that one side is all there is. But it is a primary fundamental polarity. Simply that on that level, its own definition is the reality you do or do not experience.

The Mystery of the Keys

Asker: I had a very strange experience last week. An individual misplaced his keys, and misplaced, right? And I was aware of it, but I didn’t think anything of it.

The following morning, as I was emptying my purse, I found a strange set of keys in the inside pocket of my purse. I immediately assumed there were his, but my first reaction was total surprise.

My second reaction was embarrassment. And my third reaction was that I knew I had not taken those keys—that there was no reason for me to put the strange keys in my purse.

They had probably gotten there on their own because I know that this can happen.

It’s happened to me that I misplaced things and suddenly they were there when they weren’t there before.

So I thought, they are not misplaced. But I didn’t perceive them at one point. So I thought, well, this… I mean, I was a little embarrassed, but I knew that I had nothing to do with it.

Then I said, “Well, that’s very interesting. You know, we’ve been talking about synchronicity. There must be a good reason for it.”

Do you think they were physically put in my purse by somebody or did they just materialize in there.

The person who misplaced his keys didn’t believe me. He thought I had taken them. Which doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense that anybody else would have picked up strange keys and put them in a strange purse.

Bashar: Then in this way, what does that allow you and your friend to find out about each other?

Asker: I only found out that he thought I took them.

Bashar: Which tells you…?

Asker: Well, I was a little upset that he was angry, but uh, I thought, well, you know, that’s that’s his perception. If I had been in his shoes, I might have gotten angry too, maybe.

Bashar: What are you unlocking for each other in that way?

Asker: For me it just never got resolved.

Bashar: You may simply be attempting to make it more complex than it needs to be. Do you feel or have you felt that you can be a reflection in certain ways for this friend of yours?

Asker: Yes but I did not sense that he was willing to discuss it with me.

Bashar: What does that have to do with the fact that you may still be willing to be a reflection?

Asker: Nothing. I really would like to know if those keys got there on their own or if somebody… See, he was sitting behind me..

Bashar: Someone deposited the keyes where they thought they belonged.

But no matter who did it, it still:

• is synchronicity
• is magical
• serves the purpose to allow the recognition of the interaction that is going on between you and your friend to come about.

Asker: But there wasn’t much of an interaction.

Bashar: You said that your friend in your terms accused you of taking the keys.

Asker: Well, he didn’t accuse me. He said… “Did you…”

Bashar: Was your friend angry?

Asker: Yes. That’s my perception when he called me on the phone.

Bashar: Then you have created your own perception of your friend’s anger. Whether the friend had anger or not, your creation of it, the involvement, is an interaction.

Asker: But I don’t know we got out of it.

Bashar: Why don’t you ask your imagination?

Asker: I did. I didn’t get much.

Bashar: “Not very much” is a judgment. Again, you may be assuming that it is more complex than it has to be. What did you get?

Asker: Well, actually for myself, I really felt that those keys got there on their own. And I thought it was exciting. And I thought it was a shame because I thought he would perceive it as being exciting too. But of course, I’m not the one that was put out by…

Bashar: So what does that tell you?

Asker: That I had expectations.

Bashar: Your creation of a situation, and someone else’s creation of a situation, and a third explanation of a situation, are all their own complete realities.

They’re all different from each point of view. All equally real for what it does for you in terms of allowing you to create yourself in the image you imagine yourself to be.

This key can unlock many locks simultaneously, allowing you to experience your portion of the idea and someone else to experience theirs, even though they may be very different.

The tools that you have in your Society can all be viewed as keys. They fit every lock. One key changes and transforms to fit every lock that there is. So you use the key in your way, they use the key in their way, and in a sense, though it is transformed, it is all the same one key basically.

The Shark – Big Mountain and Earth Energies

Asker: Last week you were talking about different chakras of the Earth. Can you tell me what significance Big Mountain has? Big Mountain? Yeah, which it’s in Arizona on the Four Corners reservation.

Bashar: In this way, it will be once again more what is in our terminology a “free zone,” rather than what you would recognize as one of the major chakras. But in this way, all the chakra points and energy vortices upon your planet are beginning to blend. So every free zone energy vortex will carry within it the idea of energy from all the vortices. In this way, that particular energy is not dissimilar to the idea of the energy vortices in what you call Sedona, and it will be one that will carry within it many different reflections. So that when you place yourself in that energy, what is paramount within you that you wish to face will be brought to the surface. It is, by the idea you have described it and by the location it appears in your idea of geography, indicative of the idea of a crossroads of sorts, where all these ideas come together so that you can know that you are in that energy vortex—an integration of all the directions of energy that you are. You follow me? Mh-hm. It will also be one of the balancing points for what you call American Indian culture. In this way, one of the doorways of extra-dimensionality through which many of their consciousnesses have communicated to many other levels of consciousness.

Asker: Right now there’s um, a public law which says… which is trying to relocate the Indians there on that land and take over that land to dig out the minerals and oil and coal there. I um, can you say something about that?

Bashar: What do you wish to do about that?

Asker: Well, I wish to stop the process.

Bashar: Then in your terms, go in love and light without accusations and educate individuals and give them an opportunity to recognize the idea of what the energy can be used for, and how there is, in your terms, far more energy naturally in the area than anything they could extract from the land. You follow me?

Asker: Yes.

Bashar: Is up to you. Is your planet. You decide how the balances go. If um, if the federal government isn’t stopped and they do… you are the government. When you equalize yourself and open up equal communication with that portion of yourselves, then it will not be something outside of you that has control over you. It is not that it will become stoppable; it simply will never start. Okay? When you equalize the idea and do not accuse, do not judge, but give that portion of yourself an opportunity to recognize that you are the government, and that you all together will decide. But it will take action on your part—the willingness to show that you have the conviction that this is what you prefer, and not something else.

Asker: I just went there on a delegation from Santa Barbara. Oh, right. Students? Did you have a good time?

Asker: Yes. All right. Um, they’re preparing for their Sundance ritual right now. Yes. And I met a 7-year-old boy who had gone… his name is Joshua. I was wondering if you could tell me anything about him.

Bashar: Has been in your terms American Indian many times. Has been Shaman many times. Is connected to the idea of what may be loosely termed symbolically “Rainbow Consciousness” or “Fan Consciousness.” Fan has been and still, to some degree, is within the dream state what is termed Hopi Thunder Dreamer. We dreamer we… and can be focus of much energy in a very gem-like way. It is a very crystalline individual here for its own specific purposes. I say “it’s” because it is a blended individual rather than he or she. That is what we can perceive at this time.

Essassani – Virtual Personality and Smog Clearing

Asker: I imagined myself to exist on your planet in physical form in the way that you describe the virtual personality. And in that imagination, I uh, imagined basically saying greetings to you.

Bashar: Our perception is that you also worked with the crystal sheets.

Asker: Wow. I will uh, I’ll take your word for it. On… you don’t don’t have to. I I like to… I’m I I like it.

Bashar: All right. He up to yeah. I that is simply our perception of the energy. Sounds good to me. I enjoy that. Uh, it seems that uh, on the second occasion that you… you took the group up to your face, your spacecraft, I chose not to participate by not being here. And um, I’m becoming convinced that I am creating a reason for that. Oh, I’m also creating puzzlement as to what that reason is. You have any more to share with me about that now?

Bashar: In a sense, as you have said, you have been creating it yourself. You are recognizing that you are as unlimited as you wish to be, and the idea of any particular time has nothing to do with the timing in that way. You are quite capable of recreating the experience any time. Uhhuh. In this way, it may simply be an indication and a reflection for you that you are not necessarily bound by any particular schedule.

Asker: That is very true. Uh, it’s particularly reflected in my life. Nice. So that’s true. That’s terrific. Um, all right. I had a… I had a really neat experience. Uh, oh, do share. Oh, about a week ago. And as I was coming over the hill from Kathy’s house to my own domicile, nice. I uh, spotted in the valley a tremendous amount of looked like haze or smog. I thought to myself, “Wouldn’t it be neat to move this out of there and clear up the day?” So I contacted the mass consciousness of the area in my imagination. I just said, “Hey guys, you want to bring up some wind and move this stuff out of here?” And I got this kind of uh, chorus of voices going, “Hey yeah, that sounds neat. Do.” So by the end of the day, um, the wind had come up and cleared out the smog. It was really terrific.

Bashar: Thank you. Switcher? My pleasure.

Asker: Do you understand the term? No, I don’t. Valve gate? Oh, okay. Link connection point. Terminal for communication or for air? Same thing. Oh, that’s neat. Uh, activator? Catalyst? Ah, now it’s… now it’s hitting home.

Emotional Pain, Love, and Relationships

Asker: I’m going through a lot of emotional pain right now.

Bashar: Sure. Emotional pain, which means judgments of yourself. Yeah, I guess so. All pain is the result of judgment. There is no need for pain, and it does not occur until you judge portions of yourself and separate them from the rest of all that you are. Now, why in this way would you be judging yourself at this time?

Asker: Well, I’m very much in love with someone right now. Um, I’ve taken a choice to..

Bashar: What does “in love” mean?

I don’t know.

Bashar: Do you love yourself?

Bashar: I’m trying. Trying. Then you are doing trying. Yeah. Now, do you wish to love yourself?

Asker: Yes.

Bashar: Are you sure?

Asker: Yes. Unconditionally. I do not hear anything. You cut me off before I can… um, I myself unconditionally… Do you think you can love others unconditionally? Anyone at all?

Bashar: It’s a struggle.

Asker: Why? What do you think it entails that makes it a struggle for you to love someone unconditionally?

Bashar: ‘Cuz I have so many expectations. In other words, you are not trusting that the situation as it occurs is the way it needs to be. You’re right. You may also be under the assumption that you need a relationship in order to allow yourself to be recognized by you as complete. You’re right. And in this way, recognize that if that is your belief about yourself, since belief creates reality, you can only attract someone into a relationship that will only reflect your sense of incompleteness about yourself. Follow me?

Asker: Yes, I do.

Bashar: It is very simple. The idea of your so-called soulmates can appear in your lives when you know you are already complete and are operating on a vibrational level that attracts someone of equal vibration to reflect to you that you know you are complete. And thus, that is the relationship you form. But the idea is not, “If only my soulmate was here, I’d be happy,” but “Since I am happy, I allow the idea of someone to be in my life to reflect that happiness to me.” So I can reflect their happiness. So I can reflect their happiness today. If you believe you are incomplete in that way, in that sense, then you will usually attract someone who reflects like that incompleteness to you. And in that way, it will usually be someone who will also derive benefit from having you reflect incompleteness to them.

Asker: I have another question for you. Um, did that assist you?

Bashar: Definitely.

Asker: All right. Um, what connection do I have with this individual? What past life experience have I had with this individual? His name is Edison.

Bashar: More than one. Has it been based on dependency? Um, once little girl and father. Father disappointed. Disappointment.

Asker: What… what is the… what is the um… I you say past life, but what is it in this life right now?

Bashar: This is the transformational life upon your planet. All that you have ever been, all that you have ever experienced with anyone in your terms, is now blending into one understanding: the idea that you are as powerful as you need to be as an individual to create anything in your reality you desire without having to hurt anyone else to get it or rely on anyone else to have it. Therefore, there may be still some remnants of the idea of dependency in that way, but you are being given an opportunity to shake that off, to be complete, so that you can interact completely and not interdependently.

Asker: How I want to be with this individual? How can I make that happen?

Bashar: You want to be with an individual that represents the vibration you desire to have in your life. Now, maybe that can be with the individual you recognize, and maybe it won’t. But the idea is that even if it is with the so-called individual you recognize, when you change the vibration you are, if they decide to, let us say, stick around, they will need to change the vibration to match you. If they change their vibration, then they are not the same individual anyway, literally. Therefore, the idea is not so much that it has to be any specific individual, but that the idea of the vibration you are is matched. If your vibration is matched in perfect harmony by someone else, then all of your needs, so to speak, are filled, and you don’t care who it is. Now, it may be that you are recognizing that that particular individual may be able to share that idea with you, but if so, they will still change into another individual in order to do it when you change. You follow me?

Asker: Oh, yes.

Bashar: And you find when you change, whatever individual needs to be there to match your vibration will be there. Whether it is the same individual or not will not matter to you because it will feel right. You follow me? Many times an individual, depending upon the timing of what they are learning, may interact with you simply to get you to a certain point. But it may be that the timing is not that they will continue to interact with you, as it may be that they need to interact with someone else to get them to a certain point. Then whoever needs to be interacting with you from that point forward will automatically be there. You follow me? It can be the same individual, but it does not have to be, and you will not care because it will feel right.

Asker: One more question. All right. Why are newborn babies so powerful?

Bashar: Because they have not forgotten so much yet. [Music] You follow me?

Asker: Oh, definitely. Oh, thank you. Um, on your planet, you have two people get together. You said you have sex and procreation sort of like we have, but how structured is that relationship if children only… children get reoriented and are on their own by the time that their body is free?

Bashar: In this way, as we have said, relationships will transform into whatever the purpose is that is being served. While everyone will still always recognize the idea of the biological child and the biological parent, everyone in our civilization is married to everyone else. Every child is everyone’s child. Every adult is every child’s parent. Thus, in your terms, it is not very structured at all.

Asker: In other words, two people… you were you ever married?

Bashar: I am married to my entire civilization. If you mean do I have physiological offspring? No. Okay. However, I have had relationships in that way. Right. But let’s suppose someone on your planet has a physical relationship and there is offspring. Yeah. But there is no cultural um, pressure or I don’t know what the um, pressure or I don’t know what the right word is…

Bashar: We understand. For the two of you to remain together correct, so that the relationship may evolve and you’ll now next week or next year be with someone else perhaps? But do not forget that we never lose track of any relationship that is once formed. Then it is altogether highly likely that the individuals you have had relationships with will remain in your life more or less in some shape or form, but not necessarily as we would say the primary relationship. Perhaps in your terms as we understand it. Correct. Not necessarily. Although once again, we do understand what you mean, but we do not necessarily look at a relationship as more primary than some other relationship. All are equal. It is simply a different definition, but that does not make it in a sense more primary just because you are assuming that quote-unquote “more physiological time” may be spent with one individual than another. But that doesn’t make that relationship more primary. Not really to other relationships. Makes it the relationship that it is, which changes nothing about what all the other relationships are. Right? Except that in the physical universe there’s a limit that you have days just like we do, to some degree. Yes. I mean, it gets light and it gets dark, and so there’s a limit, if you will, to the amount of time in any one day if you’re spending in that sense…

Bashar: We understand what you mean. We simply mean that it is not primary in terms of energy.

Asker: Okay. Another thought I’ve had in exploring this for myself about sort of answering the question you asked the young lady, “What does it mean to be in love?” It seems to me that the sensation that most… when people say they’re in love, what they are meaning is that they are experiencing a particular physiological sensation. It’s in some part of their being, and the part will differ if you do a survey of individuals, which is itself interesting. But it just struck me today that that… that the basis of that physiological sensation is separation. That on this planet, when someone says that they’re in love, they’re experiencing separation from that individual rather than um, integration. However, well, I’m also now… I’m not denying the possibility that some people experience a Oneness and call that love. I’m not denying that. I’m merely in my experience… I’m trying to describe something which I have observed and experienced that I think more often than not… that I think more often than not the average person…

Bashar: Are you saying that the idea of quote-unquote “being in love” is that when you are not physically together you miss them? Is that what you are to saying?

Asker: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m… there’s a quality of intoxication that occurs. Easy? Well, no. Because I think that it’s… it’s nearly identical to the excitation that occurs when you take drugs. When one on this planet takes drugs, and I have perceived a distinct similarity approaching identity between the experience of taking a drug…

Bashar: What you mean is multiple orientation?

Asker: No, I don’t understand that. Multiple orientation?

Bashar: Disorientation. The idea that when you are quote-unquote “in love,” that you are blending, that you are integrating and opening up more of yourself, connecting into more levels, so that there is multiple orientation, which many times can feel like disorientation to you. Let me come at this another way. Um, perhaps what you are referring to as giddiness or intoxication…

Asker: Well, let me maybe I can come at this another way. Right. I have observed within myself, he um, that my relationships that I’ve had are formed on the basis of different parts of my physiological being, if you will. In other words, I would say there are some people I have loved with my head, and I sense kind of a source point of the intoxication with my head, whereas with…

Bashar: We understand. The idea to our perception is simply that when you have that kind of differentiation, that kind of separation, yes, it is not that you have not created the relationship out of an overall unconditional love, but what you are recognizing perhaps is the specific vibration representative of the specific purpose that you are with that specific person. Yes.

Asker: But I okay. I noti… I do follow you. I’ve noticed for myself a distinct, a dramatic, of light years apart difference, yes, between the quality of the relationship and the particle of excitation, if as I would describe it to myself, it’s a relationship… the connection is with my head, or the connection is with my heart. Yes.

Bashar: In this way, you may understand that the idea of being connected in a total way will be more representative of what you say to be feeling. And thus, it may be that simply the relationship you are having allows you to connect with more of yourself than other relationships. So all we are saying is that when you find that the quality is more differentiated, it may simply be that that particular relationship is for a more highly specified reason. Okay?

Asker: But it’s in my experience. And of course, this I don’t… I want to find… it’s not a judgment, but it’s an observation that it would seem to me in retrospect that all of the relationships I’ve had that were connections of the head were interesting. They served purposes, etc., etc., etc. But in all of them, I was having a relationship… the other person at the other end was less capable of achieving and understanding the kinds of ideas we’re sharing here of a unity among all people. In other words, it was a person who existed more in separation. Whereas the relationships I’ve had with my heart are with people who are capable of experiencing a greater unity among people.

Bashar: Well, again, that is only in your terms logical. Because in this way, when you attract an individual for a specific type of interaction that is limited in that way, then that is the level on which they are going to relate to you and you to them. You are simply attracting what defines the vibration you are at any given moment for the purpose of co-creating that relationship. Therefore, when you create a relationship with more of yourself, obviously you will attract an individual that will also be able to share with more of themselves.

Asker: I got it. Thank you. I’d just like to tie in the what I said about drugs. We live in a society which this particular civilization here in the United States places a tremendous emphasis on things of the head. Analytical reasoning. Analytical by definition is a taking apart into its pieces, which is obviously part of separation. So whether it’s true of other people or not, the thought occurred to me that um, because of that cultural environment uh, and a great attachment to form, perhaps the majority… many people, who knows, the majority… many people are led to focus attention on having relationships of the head, if you will, which seem to me to be almost by definition divisive.

Bashar: We understand. In other words, it can be the result of the idea of the habit of the way you have created yourself to do things. Yes. And it is the connection of the head rather than the heart that struck me as having a distinct near identity to a drug experience. Thank you. And that drugs are a… a dividing. When you take drugs, you are individuated, I think, from the mass consciousness because it’s a, in a sense, it’s a shutdown. Although there are portions of the idea you are sharing within the mass consciousness to have the experience anyway. But do recognize in this way that the primary portion that you are sharing with the mass consciousness is that it is the drug that is creating the experience, when in fact it is you that is creating the experience. Okay. One last thing. So you I… could I… what perhaps a direction I should consider evolving in is up to you?

Bashar: No, it’s up to me. But would be… I mean, it sort of fascinates me that there are these different parts of my physiological seeing. That is why you are here exploring this. But but there’d be a possibility of somehow integrating all of those so that my experience would be having a relationship that encompasses all of me rather than just focusing on one point?

Bashar: Or all you need to do is be that kind of being and act like it, and that is what you will attract.