David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

I won't stick to the Law of One. That suggestion is unfair.

THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THESE PRINCIPLES WERE NOWHERE EITHER SPOKEN TO OR FOUND BEFORE OR AFTER AS GIVEN BY Ra IN "THE Law of One" TEACHINGS. THEREFORE "THE Law of One' IS SINGULARLY OUR SOURCE WHEN REFERRING TO THESE PRINCIPLES AS MUCH AS TO THESE ASSERTIONS.

If Ra mentioned gravity, does this mean we have to judge his words in Newtons terms? Or Quantum physical terms?

I don't know how much more clear I can be? If one is going to invoke the principles of the LOO, then one must invoke only what was taught.

I'm sorry, if this is the basis of our misunderstanding then we've come to the core matter rather quickly... I don't believe this is true. In fact, I believe that if we forbid others to mix materials we'll never actually get any progress.

Telling us that we can judge ALL his comments purely from the Law of One knowing that he has multiple sources is in effect sabotaging the process and judging him unfairly.

I find this to be a curious statement. I am under the impression that we have a tacit understanding that this forum is for the further study of the LOO, not other sources as primary?

This is the description of the forum.

A forum for seekers to discuss the challenges and rewards of spiritual evolution on a more personal basis, including but not limited to: relationships, family, work, parenting, study, hobbies, and break dancing. The best of personal evolution.

So I don't share your tacit understanding.

The way I see it you're quoting him stating from a non Law of One source, then claim that this is not a Law of One source, and therefore his understanding of the Law of One is flawed...

Your English alludes me here a little, but if I am correct in your meaning, this is exactly what I am stating, in as much as he is indeed utilizing the LOO, but not as undiluted LOO. We in effect are reading "Wilcokian" by virtues of it being based on the LOO, but not purely from the LOO. This in effect equals something different, but it assuredly is not Ra, or their teachings, or the LOO. You are in effect making all my points for me Ali? Can you see this?

No I am not. The fact that you think so means that you are missing the points I am actually making.
It is wrong to judge a man by your own standards. Just because YOU think Wilcock should stick to the canon does not mean he should. The fact that he does not, does not make him any less a scholar in the dictionary definition of the word.

Again, I think your making this easier for me than expected. He has stated repeatedly that he is a scholar of the LOO. That is the only claim that begs questioning. How then is the line of reasoning flawed? Can we not simply as students of the LOO stick simply to the LOO and assertions made regarding the LOO? This has been from the onset and outset the question posed, Nothing else.

Again.... If you wish to say David says more than the Law of One, and uses the Law of One as one of his sources you're correct. However you seem to conclude from this that his remarks about the Law of One are therefore flawed. I cannot follow that jump in logic.

Same answer. Forget everything else Wilcock speaks about as regards all non-LOO materials or references,

How can I forget those? If YOU use exactly those remarks as basis for your assertion that Wilcock is not Scholarly enough? I am willing to judge Wilcock on the basis of Law of One scholarship but only when he speaks about the Law of One, the fact that he uses the words does not mean he speaks about the Law of One. He clearly mentions another source than the Law of One you claim he speaks from. I use english, does that mean I cannot contradict Shakespeare?

To show David isn't a scholar. You should show where Wilcock misrepresents the Law of One in a clear unambiguous manner. You have not done this, your objections are that he uses the Law of One as a source for assertions on topics that are not about the Law of One....

His work is a derived work. If the derived word is not a verbatim copy of the original this does not mean the original was violated in any way. You have to show where it's violated. Not where it's derived.

I am not interested in what other scientists say as regards Wilcocks assertions. I am only interested in what Wilcock says in regards to the LOO. Period. The scientists assertions may or may not be true. This is not in question. I do not pretend to claim at all that he gets his info only from the LOO? What are you misreading? I emphatically suggest that he indeed blends much info into the LOO, which mixes, distorts, and blurs the LOO.

Yet what David says about these other scientists is interpreted by you as to be stated from the Law of One. He uses the Law of One as a source, he is not making claims about the interpretation of the Law of One.

As I said before a scholar does not need to agree with the original material he just needs to understand it, and represent it accurately. He is also not disallowed to make derived works.

David only states here that the Law of One describes the contact with 4d entities as vastly different from the contact with the current batch of 4d humans visiting earth. And ascribes this to polarity.

Please re-read my post again. Also re-read what Wilcock asserts? He clearly states 3D STO dies, but that 3D STS elite survive?

No, he does not assert this. Please cite him where he says this. I've read your post. And the quotes you gave of David twice. He does not state that we die.. He states repeatedly that the shift means a transmutation of matter. Physical death is not an accurate description. He compares the effect to stepping through a Stargate. Which is obviously incomparable.

Not at all dear Ali. There is a wealth of discussion to be had as regards the assertions made as relates to the LOO singularly. May we not simply do this without all the other dialogue as to his other sources? I am only interested in the LOO as regards bring4th or as regards Wilcock's assertions. There are many many many other forums and sites that discuss all the other topics mentioned in all of Wilcock's posts. Wilcock may be brilliant as regards these. He may not be. I don't know. I am singularly concerned only as regards the LOO and to his assertions made with reference to LOO principles.

Then judge him on those principles... From where I am standing you're not doing so. The quote you give only passingly mentions the Law of One. And not in a relevant point you objected to.

You're stating that his understanding of the Law of One is poorly based on his non Law of One statements. This is a huge leap in logic. It's called a non sequitur fallacy in formal rhetorics. You're making it.

Ali, I am perplexed that you are not understanding what may otherwise be a very simple exercise: speaking only to the LOO. He is indeed referring to the LOO throughout this assertion only by the mere fact that he is invoking principles of the LOO by using LOO vernacular, i.e. 3D, 4D, STS, STO etc.

Well I disagree with the restriction you use.. In my opinion Wilcock's total material is a derived work from the Law of One with other material weaved in. The fact that it's a derived work does not mean it contradicts the original. And it also does not mean Wilcock is not a scholar of the original material.

However it somehow includes the "fact" that David says everyone will die in 2012. He does not say this. Certainly not in the quotes you give, and as far as I can tell, never ever does he state this.

Perhaps I have misjudged? I was under the distinct impression we were speaking on a level playing field, and that you were intimately familiar with his writings, his claims, and his assertions. It is extremely clear by this one single statement that you may not be? Wilcock coined the terms "Instantaneous vs Gradualist" positions, or perhaps at other times referred to as "Spontaneous vs Gradualist". He writes quite extensively about the fact that all must die at 2012.

Cite references please. I do not see him stating this. Certainly not in the references you give. And while I accept that I may not be informed about all his statements. I reaffirm that I am well informed and I believe you're misunderstanding the man. So if you cite references we can see how this works out.

We've been through this before. Instead of implying that I am uninformed please just cite the references that show I am wrong. Your statement now is without any merit.

All is well my friend. I appreciate your impassioned attempts in any event and your willingness. Allow me to direct you to his DIVINE COSMOS site as well as his Ascension 2000 site for more information on his assertions.

Not good enough... You did this before and you agreed later it was not good enough then, please support your statements. Do not play the authority game but give us the facts. So we may determine ourselves that what you say is true.

Like I said before, it's ambiguity that leads us to misunderstandings. You're making some basic unspoken personal assumptions and since Wilcock violates those you consider him wrong. I do not make those assumptions (I make different ones) and therefore I don't see him as wrong.