Sunday, February 24, 2002 (Private/Phone)
Participants: Mary (Michael), Howard (Bosht) and Margot (Giselle)
Elias arrives at 1:19 PM. (Arrival time is 23 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

HOWARD: Good morning! It’s good to talk to you again!

ELIAS: Ha ha! And you also!

HOWARD: I was just telling Mary about my session from a year ago, a year ago plus a week, which was just published, and it’s very much like I haven’t talked to you since, although I have a couple of times.

I’ve been feeling good, and I have been researching the Dream Walker material and I have quite a few questions regarding that, just clarifications, I hope, on my part. I do not wish to continue any of my Sumafi distortion...

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well!

HOWARD: ...which appears to be something I do quite well. (Elias laughs) Although I try desperately to know the truth, I sometimes get my own stuff mixed up in it.

I think what I’ll do is start with kind of bringing back the discussion that we had regarding Gage T.’s passing and your suggestion to me that you would be available to talk some more about the feelings that I had regarding his withdrawal, the sudden withdrawal, from my life. I said to you I believed that I would be working on this over the year, and a year has transpired and here the session is in front of me again.

I thought it would be pertinent to bring this up in the light of Vicki’s sudden departure and how it affected so many people, and if there was something we haven’t touched yet regarding the hole, the emptiness - excuse me - (emotionally) that we feel when a friend has passed on. That’s it. It’s an open plea, if you will, for understanding.

ELIAS: Very well. This may offer you the opportunity to examine in reality the strength of your beliefs, not merely in concept. In these types of situations, my friend, you present yourself with actual experience in relation to the intensity of the influence of your beliefs in association with your perceptions and the opportunity to notice the reality of your perception and how this perception actually does create your physical reality. For in this, as you allow yourselves to be paying attention to what you generate in such intensity in what you identify as feelings, you also present to yourself now the opportunity to examine the information that I have offered to you not merely in concept but to explore this information and these concepts, and turn to allow yourself to generate them in reality rather than merely intellectual concept.

I have expressed to you that emotion is a communication. I have also expressed to you that within this physical dimension you generate a tremendous expression of separation, which prior to this shift in consciousness has been quite purposeful and has served you quite well in generating an allowance in the purity of your experiences. But I have also expressed that within the action of this shift you are thinning, and even in some aspects dropping, these veils of separation. You hold an awareness of this intellectually and in concept, but you also generate confusion in how you shall be creating that expression of dropping these veils.

From the onset of this forum, my friend, I have been expressing, one of the veils of separation that you are piercing in the action of this shift is that between physical focus and nonphysical expressions, and the concept of death. I have also expressed to you all to turn your attentions to self and allow yourselves to view your actual abilities.

This shift is now progressing into the objective insertion into your reality. Recently I have offered information to you all concerning paying attention to HOW you create your reality, not merely WHAT you create within your reality. And now, my friend, energy surges are occurring in strength to be almost FORCING yourselves to move your attentions to yourselves in association with all of these concepts to generate an actual reality. These are all aspects of this shift, and I have also expressed to you that these movements do generate trauma. In this, as you begin to allow yourself to pay attention to all of these concepts that I have offered to you in information and piece them together as an immense puzzle, you may begin to generate an understanding of HOW you create your movement.

Allow yourself the recognition of what I am expressing to you of the power of perception and how it actually generates all - ALL - of your physical reality, and in this, I am not speaking figuratively to you in the moments in which I express to you that although you do interact with other individuals’ energies, you individually actually generate through your perception the actual physical manifestation of other individuals.

Recently I have offered information concerning what you engage in exchange of energy or interaction of energy with other individuals. I have explained that many times you are actually allowing yourselves to receive an energy expression, a projection, from another individual which is expressed with the other individual’s attention, but there are also other time frameworks, moments, in which you interact with energy of another individual but not necessarily energy which contains the individual’s attention. These may be energy deposits of the other individual, which are just as real and are aspects of the other individual’s projected energy but may not necessarily incorporate the individual’s attention. I have offered explanation in how you may recognize this difference, for you all engage these actions throughout your focuses.

The point of offering that information was to allow for an explanation concerning the individual’s attention, YOUR attention, and what you create through your perception concerning individuals that have disengaged. For even as an individual may continue to be physically manifest within your physical dimension, what you interact with in actual physical manifestation is a creation of your own. It is a projection of YOUR perception.

Therefore, I have offered information to allow you to recognize, in your terms, what it means to be interactive with the energy expression of another individual and that that action is no different within physical focus or within nonphysical focus. The energy that you choose to be interactive with is the same, and you incorporate the ability to generate the configuration of that energy in physical expressions in the same manner as you do with an individual that is participating in physical focus as one that has chosen to disengage through what you term to be death and may be nonphysically focused. This also may be generated in association with other focuses of your own essence within this dimension and other dimensions.

I have offered explanation from the onset of this forum that this is an aspect of this shift in consciousness, but now, as you are inserting this shift into your objective reality, you are moving your awareness to a point of actually recognizing your abilities in these expressions. It may be initially confusing, but now you are actually allowing yourselves to begin creating these actions, not merely assimilating them subjectively.

In this, the reason that you generate such an intensity of sorrow in association with another individual that has chosen to be incorporating death is that this type of choice emphasizes to you the strength of your association with beliefs concerning separation. What is actually being communicated in that emotion is the clear identification of that influence of beliefs expressing to yourself, ’Within this moment you are extremely denying your choices and discounting your ability.’ As I have expressed recently to other individuals, figuratively speaking in a manner that you may understand objectively, denial of your choices and extreme discounting of your abilities is so contrary to the natural expression of essence, for choice is so intrinsic to essence, that this is an expression that may almost move the essence to weep.

I may express to you, my friend, this type of extreme denial of choice within self is not expressed often, but in the moments in which it is, you shall incorporate a tremendous objective awareness for your communication to yourself shall almost be a scream. It shall be generated in tremendous intensity, and this is what you experience in the signal, in the feeling of tremendous sorrow and that which you have expressed as this immense hole. It is not an expression that has been generated by the choice of the other individual or that you are missing the other individual, although this is your automatic response and how you define what you are feeling. In actuality, what you are feeling is a tremendous inability to allow yourself to generate the same action of interacting with the other individual’s energy that you allowed yourself prior to the other individual’s disengagement.

Let me express to you, quite realistically there are individuals that do allow themselves to continue interaction with other individuals’ energy expressions even subsequent to the individual’s disengagement. Some allow themselves to open enough to merely allow an audible interaction in which they hear the other individual. Some allow merely for impressions of the other individual. Some allow dream interaction with the other individual. But there are some individuals that allow themselves to actually engage the same type of interaction with energy with an individual that has disengaged physical focus and generate an actual physical manifestation of the other individual in the same manner that they allowed themselves prior to the individual’s disengagement.

Now; your societies view this type of expression as lunacy and express tremendous disbelief that an individual is engaging this type of interaction, but I may express to you quite literally, there are individuals that do allow themselves to continue to generate through their perception an actual physical manifestation of the other individual in the same manner that they generated it prior to the disengagement, for it is YOUR creation.

The only veil that stands between your energy and another individual’s energy is that which you generate in association with your beliefs - PERIOD. For in actuality there IS no separation. Therefore, the energy continues to be expressed by yourself and by the other individual.

HOWARD: I wrote a thing a long time ago after reading one of Krishnamurti’s books, that the difference between creating your own reality and being a victim was really how you perceive yourself, that if you live your life as other people perceive you to be, you’re a victim. The only way to do things would be to live your life as you perceive yourself to be.

ELIAS: And to offer yourself choice.

HOWARD: Well, thank you so much for that. It was once again a reminder that there is light at the end of the tunnel, or that we’re not in a pit of someone else’s making.

ELIAS: You are not - but you are, if you perceive yourself to be.

HOWARD: Correct. What I’ve heard from you will be something that I’ll be looking at more in the future about my reactions to certain people, for example, and business situations and so on. Thank you, because it’s given me a reminder that what I’m seeing is pretty much the feedback of what I’m giving...

ELIAS: Quite.

HOWARD: ...and I can change that.

ELIAS: And so you may.

HOWARD: I wanted to discuss some of the things that I’ve got in this Dream Walker thing, and perhaps I could get to some other questions afterwards.

Basically, what I have been compiling are the teachings that you brought forward regarding the counterpart actions between the families, the initiator as Gramada, and unfortunately - well, not unfortunately - I mean, the way it is with us, or with me at least, I think in linear terms like very much like my book, ’We, the Angels.’ An idea occurred, and in the exuberance of the idea that came a reality was created, and so I’m trying to get back to that idea with the Dream Walker stuff. But I have asked Margot to help me out with things that she’s read, and I’ve been reading and catching up.

One of the things that catches my eye is the truths, the truths that we have here that are actually universal and are the truths for all time and dimensions. We have color, consciousness, energy, love, reality, and tone. However, additionally in the readings I have come across other truths. Would dreaming and imagination be a truth, or dreaming be a truth? You’ve said that, but then if it is a truth, would it be a subcategory to consciousness?

ELIAS: It is a truth in action, for all aspects of consciousness incorporate this action. Therefore it translates in every area of consciousness, and this is the criteria of identifying a truth.

HOWARD: This is a dimensional thing - I’m crossing categories here, and I realize I’m going into Atlantean stuff - but the truth that Thoth talked about, he only spoke of three: law, life, and light. I would take light to be a combination of energy and tone, life to be the subject of love, but law - is law a reality or a truth?

ELIAS: No, for this implies rules and absolutes, and there are no absolutes.

HOWARD: Regarding the objective and subjective, I believe David in one of the sessions back in Castaic - I think it was him - was wondering if, or the way I took it to be - and excuse me, David, if I’ve got this wrong - subjectiveness would be a truth but objective would not be. (Pause)

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, for the subjective awareness is an awareness that is translatable in all areas of consciousness, but the objective awareness is an awareness that is generated merely in association with physical dimensions, and not all physical dimensions, but many.

HOWARD: That seems right to me, which brings me to reality itself, because not all realities are the same.

ELIAS: Correct.

HOWARD: How is reality itself a truth?

ELIAS: For reality IS, and this is translatable in any area of consciousness. It may be generated differently, but it is translatable; just as any of these other truths may be configured differently in association with different expressions of consciousness, but they are translatable in some capacity. In some areas of consciousness objective awareness is not translatable; therefore it is not a truth.

HOWARD: Some areas of subjective awareness cannot be translatable?

ELIAS: No. Some areas of objective...

HOWARD: Oh, oh, okay. I do understand that.

A basic philosophical premise on which just about every philosophy of the world is based upon includes logic. It strikes me that logic is not a truth.

ELIAS: No, it is not.

HOWARD: So we’re spending time watching water go down, or run uphill or something. Logic would not be a good place to spend a lot of time trying to describe truth.

ELIAS: Correct.

HOWARD: Can I segue to a twin soul aspect?

ELIAS: You may.

HOWARD: Speaking of logic, I was told - and I know how you are probably smiling a great deal right now - that Ayn Rand was my twin soul. This was some time ago, when I understood twin souls being an essence splitting back at some point in time so that they could experience the same thing differently.

It has since come up several times that - and Margot has even suggested that Ayn Rand is a focus of mine and I have said that she’s a focus of Ayn Rand - but in terms of perceptions, I guess, feelings, getting back to that again, Margot strikes me as being more of my twin soul because we’re so compatible yet differently living, perceiving, than Ayn would be. So I guess the question is probably more like, are we of the same essence, Ayn and myself, or are we...?

ELIAS: I may express to you, Bosht, there is a difference of expression concerning what may be associated as twin souls and what you term to be soul mates. As you are aware, I have expressed that you do incorporate many soul mates, but at times you allow yourselves to incorporate a continuous or constant interaction and mergence with particular soul mates and resonate with that essence. You and Giselle express this type of action.

That which you identify as twin souls you have correctly identified. This is an expression in which one essence chooses to be fragmenting into two essences.

Now; not necessarily to be generating similar experiences in different manners, but creating two essences that incorporate almost - almost - the same qualities. Your physical incorporation of identical twins within your physical dimension is a physical reflection of that type of action within essence.

Now; as you view the physical incorporation of manifestation, only the physical aspect, you may view that the beginning of the physical manifestation is incorporated by one entity, that which you express as one egg, which splits and becomes two.

Now; beyond that expression, these two physical twins may or may not be the same essence, and I may express to you, generally speaking, for the most part they are not the same essence. But the physical manifestation is a clear reflection of what occurs within consciousness concerning twin essences. They are initially fragmented as one and choose to split and become two from the one.

HOWARD: And I agree with that. That was the way I understood it from the beginning. So, would Ayn Rand be this... Is that where this was coming from? Is that what the channeler was seeing, our fragmentation of one essence to two?

ELIAS: In association with yourself and Giselle?

HOWARD: No, with myself and Ayn Rand.

ELIAS: Ah! (Pause) No, but I am understanding of the distortion, for these are fragmented of the same essences.

HOWARD: All right. That’s good to know.

I had one other thing regarding just personal stuff here. I’ve decided that I’m a dispersed essence. Is that correct? (Pause)

ELIAS: In actuality, no.

HOWARD: No. (Laughs) Okay. I based that upon the idea that I can go into so many incredible energy deposits of other people and I have so much empathy for people’s positions, that I decided that I’ve been sharing a lot of this.

ELIAS: Let me express to you, my friend, ALL essences incorporate this ability quite naturally. This is merely your allowance of yourself to be utilizing a natural ability and also incorporating exercising your empathic sense.

HOWARD: Good. I’m glad to hear that other people are afflicted in the same way! (Elias laughs) We’re all crazy!

Looking at my questions here and I’ve got one that’s quite old. I came across a word which describes the difference between an alternate and probable self. It just came to me. The word is arka, A-R-K-A, and it’s like the portals or something to the Gates of Horn, so I wrote this down. What is it that I’m tripping on that I would actually be able to name this regional area between probable and alternate realities?

ELIAS: I may express to you, my friend, you have merely allowed yourself to create a word that you may associate in a difference between these terms of probable and alternate selves. As I have expressed previously, alternate selves are numberless but they are all you; they are all the you’s of you in a particular focus. Probable selves are generated within moments of what you may term to be intense choice, almost in what you may express as crossroad choices.

In every moment that you generate a choice which creates a direction, you also generate countless probable selves. If you choose to be moving your physical location, at the moment that you generate that choice and move your physical location you also generate countless probable selves to be expressing all other probabilities in association with your one choice to move your physical location of your dwelling, so to speak. This is an example of how you generate probable selves. As you choose one mate, you also generate countless probable selves that choose other expressions.

HOWARD: Okay, I’ve got it.

I’ve got a question for Margot here that came up in her Afghanistan focus. She felt that she had identified all of her focuses. The Afghani one came into her knowing last September, and she was kind of surprised about that and she wondered how that happened. Where did this other focus come from?

ELIAS: Clarify.

HOWARD: I should clarify?

ELIAS: Or incorporate Giselle, for...

HOWARD: Oh, I see. Well, if I get her attention before the session ends, I’ll have her... Margot? Why don’t you get on the phone and discuss the Afghani?

In the meantime, I have a final question, I think.

ELIAS: Very well.

HOWARD: Milumet and Zuli are opposite counterparts and you’ve made a point to say that they are opposite. I was wondering, in an actual focus if a Milumet was aligned with Zuli or a Zuli aligned Milumet, is that person setting themselves up for a real situation of causing mental disorder, or...? How does one cope with that sort of thing?

ELIAS: I may express to you, I am incorporating these terms of opposites in association with how YOU view opposites, but they are quite complementary to each other, for in viewing the genuine expression of spirituality, it incorporates all aspects of being, therefore it incorporates the physical AND the nonphysical or the philosophical.

Therefore, yes, you are correct that there are individuals that do incorporate these combinations and some individuals do for a time framework incorporate challenge and conflict in association with their beliefs concerning the opposites, but in actuality there may also be incorporated a tremendous harmony in some individuals choosing these two families and the qualities of them and blending that combination in a fullness in appreciation of the self in almost a circle of self, if you are understanding.

HOWARD: You reminded me of the spirituality aspect of Milumet and suddenly my question became moot. But I thank you for the further explanation. It did strike me at the time as being a very difficult situation for that person to be in, but now I see it in another light. Thank you very much.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

HOWARD: And here is Giselle with her Afghanistan focus question.

MARGOT: Hi, Elias!

ELIAS: Welcome!

MARGOT: It’s nice to hear your voice today.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) And you also.

MARGOT: Elias, we talked last time in the last session that I had about the fact that I had a focus in Afghanistan who had recently been killed, and so I worked a little bit on trying to connect with that and I did find out one or two things from you. Was this somebody who could have been considered to be someone in charge, a leader or in charge of some group?

ELIAS: No.

MARGOT: And it was male, I believe you told me that.

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: Now, the thing that came up about that was that I had thought, prior to the last time that we talked, I thought that I had identified all of the focuses that I have in this timeframe. I had not, prior to that time, identified anyone having any connection to Afghanistan, so I was a little surprised by that. Then I met Marj, who you know as Grady, at the Castaic group session, and she was telling me that she feels that her son is a focus of mine because, I believe, C9 told her that he was a focus of Giselle. So there’s two questions there that I wasn’t confused about, but I just thought I’d like to ask about.

ELIAS: To your second question, as Grady’s son being another focus of your essence, no.

MARGOT: But as far as the Afghanistan focus...?

ELIAS: Now; identify to myself your identification of your focuses within this time framework.

MARGOT: They are my granddaughter, Jessica...

ELIAS: Correct.

MARGOT: ...Jennifer, and the woman who is a marine biologist or oceanographer who lives in New Zealand, and a woman whose name I believe is Hannah Schmidt who lives in the eastern part of Germany, and myself of course, and then... I wasn’t prepared with my list, Elias. (Laughs) I’m sorry, I can’t think of the others that I identified. Oh, no, the lady who lives on Mary’s Street, that Mary was able to identify. I’m coming up blank now with whatever’s left.

ELIAS: I may express to you, you may continue your investigation. Not all of your focuses in this time framework are female.

MARGOT: Did you just say not all of them are female?

ELIAS: Correct.

MARGOT: I don’t think I ever thought of them like that.

ELIAS: And I may also express to you, the individual that disengaged within this location of Afghanistan is not what you term to be native of that location.

MARGOT: Oh. Is he of Islam?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: But he came from another country, then?

ELIAS: This individual has incorporated different locations, and you may continue your investigation.

MARGOT: I shall, Elias, and thank you very much.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome. I shall be anticipating our continued interactions.

MARGOT: You certainly may, because I do and I’m going to be in touch with you soon.

ELIAS: Very well, my friend! I offer my energy to you both in great encouragement in your continued adventures, and I express as always to you both, my dear friends, tremendous affection.

HOWARD: Thank you.

ELIAS: To you, in the truth - ha ha ha! - of lovingness, au revoir.

HOWARD: Good-bye.

Elias departs at 2:22 PM.

(1) That discussion occurred in , 2/18/01.

(2) Two recent discussions of this occurred in , 2/13/02, and , 2/17/02.

©2004 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2002 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.