Session 1168

Gender Energy, Reliance on Thought, and Shifting


“Gender Energy, Reliance on Thought, and Shifting”

Sunday, October 27, 2002 (Private)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Bobbi (Jale)
Elias arrives at 10:38 AM. (Arrival time is 22 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning. (Chuckles)

BOBBI: Good morning, good to see you.

ELIAS: And you also.

BOBBI: Thank you. Ruther sends her love, by the way.

ELIAS: And you may extend my greetings.

BOBBI: I will. My husband says to say hello to you...

ELIAS: And my greetings to him also.

BOBBI: ...even though he insists on calling you Seth. (Laughing, and Elias laughs) That’s his stubbornness.

Someone asked me if I’d ask you for their essence information. He’s living in Sweden, and I’ll read what he wrote to me. His name is Mark M. He says, “I’m living in Stockholm, Sweden. I was born June 22, 1955, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I have been reading the Elias material for two years.” His impressions are that he is belonging to Sumafi, aligned with Ilda and is of soft orientation. He is unsure of his essence name, but he says he has encountered a character named Sariel, and maybe that would be close.

ELIAS: Relatively speaking — Sarano (suh RAHN oh).


ELIAS: Yes, and other information [is] correct.

BOBBI: Thank you. Mostly I have just impressions today...

ELIAS: Very well.

BOBBI: ...just for fun. (Elias chuckles) I was looking for a focus I had shared with you in which we had a warm relationship. The brief impression I had was that you were an older man, a grandfather or a great-uncle, and I was a young girl.

ELIAS: Grandfather.

BOBBI: I’m going to work on that a bit, as far as the time frame. I’m not sure, maybe the 1700s or the 1800s.

ELIAS: Early 17th.

BOBBI: And this would be in Europe somewhere; the costumes seemed European.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: This last year, I’ve been having a lot of discomfort all on my left side, whether it’s my teeth or shoulder or back. I’ve been trying to figure out why it’s on that side. (Elias smiles and starts nodding) I think, when it’s on that side, it has to do with other people ... why are you smiling?

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Quite understandable.

BOBBI: So would it be when I’m over involved ... not over involved, but over concerned with other people?

ELIAS: Partially. It also is directly associated with shifting. Your impression is correct in relation to other individuals, for it is a matter of shifting perception and moving your attention to you, but beyond that identification there are other layers. A significant layer of this imagery is associated with shifting perception in relation to gender energy.

The left is associated with male, intellect. The right is associated with female, intuition. Therefore as this shift also shifts the energy from the male gender of intellect to the female and intuition, you are offering yourself information through imagery in association with that shifting.

The male energy projects outward and this is quite associated with the common orientation. The female shifts to inward, to self. Which as I have stated, [this] is quite understandable. For in your shifting individually and associated with your orientation, in an attempt to aid yourself in moving your attention to you and shifting your perception, allowing you to become more aware of the inner communications, the intuition and impressions, rather than focusing your attention outwardly and not paying attention to yourself, you incorporate this physical manifestation as a trigger or a reminder to move your attention to you.

BOBBI: That’s what it seemed like, a reminder.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: I understand. So this kind of jumps to another question. I had a time period this year, probably starting this spring, where I was just mentally a mess for months. I was really foggy, couldn’t focus or remember things. It was very disorienting. At the time, I felt that my brain — which is my favorite thing (laughs) — was leaving me, which was very distressing to me. So part of my question was, was that sort of a taste of transition? Or was that shift related? It’s stopped now.

ELIAS: This is not associated with transition. This is associated with shifting perception.

BOBBI: So again, it’s the intellect thing.


BOBBI: I felt like I could not rely... For my whole life I have relied on my intellect to figuring things out and what to do about things, and I took it for granted. That was always my strong suit.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: And it was gone!

ELIAS: But if you are allowing yourself recall of the interaction which occurred prior to your experience in what you term to be early time framework of this year and my interaction with all of you in the group setting, our topic involved explanation of thought and its function, attention and movement of attention, and the association that individuals generate between attention and thought, defining attention as thought, and my explanation that attention is not thought and that thought is a mechanism that you incorporate in this physical reality which is associated with your objective awareness as a translating mechanism. In this, it functions continuously, as I have stated, in like manner to your breathing and your heartbeat and your organs as they function naturally. Your attention is not always directed objectively to those mechanisms, but they are continuously functioning — so also is your thought mechanism. But your attention need not continuously be directed to the thought mechanism. There are other expressions that you generate continuously and those expressions are that which generate communication.

As I explained, thought does not generate communication; it interprets communication. In shifting, individuals begin to recognize that they do incorporate the ability to move their attention and offer themselves information not associated with thought. For especially individuals that incorporate the orientation of common, which are most individuals within your planet, your reliance upon thought to explain information to you is tremendous and at times excessive — and as I express to you “excessive,” what I am meaning in this terminology is not that it is bad, but that it does at times generate confusion, for you are not paying attention to the actual communications, merely the interpretation or the translation of the communications, which without paying attention to the actual communications themselves, the interpretation or translation of them at times becomes distorted or inaccurate or incomplete.

An example associated with living artfully: were you to engage an activity of incorporating participation in audience of a ballet, and in that action you chose to disengage your sight, closing your eyes and continuing to participate in the audience of the ballet, you would be offering yourself partial information and experience through the participation with music and different sounds, but the main object of the event you would not be paying attention to. Therefore, you would offer yourself merely partial information, which may be inaccurate. You may incorporate a partial knowing of the story, but perhaps not an entire knowing of the story. Therefore in merely allowing yourself to incorporate the music, you are guessing at what is actually occurring. Whereas, if you are engaging all of your avenues to be inputting information in the event and your participation in the event of the ballet, you shall offer yourself a more accurate picture, and the information shall be clear.

In similar manner, as individuals occupy their attention so fully with the mechanism of thought, it excludes the source of the information, which is the communication. Therefore, the thought becomes similar to merely the music, and you are guessing at the accuracy of what you are interpreting, just as you must interpret with the music what is actually occurring in the moment, for you are not participating in the visual event and the ballet is a visual event.

In like manner, if you are not listening to your communications and moving your attention to those communications — which are not thought — as you subsequently move your attention to thought to translate and interpret what you have offered to yourself in communication, in that movement you allow yourself more clarity. But without the attention moving to the communications, you leave area for misinterpretation, confusion, inaccuracy of translation, and your clarity becomes a fog.

Now; your experience was related to your assimilation of that information which was offered at that time. As you began to assimilate that information more and more — which also is not accomplished through thought — you began to generate shifting your attention, moving your attention, allowing yourself the recognition that your attention is mobile, that it is possible to move your attention. It may have been uncomfortable temporarily, but it also was a purposeful experience, allowing you the opportunity to understand that your attention may move and that there are other manners in which you may function and that your information is not supplied by your thought process.

BOBBI: That’s what it was like. It was like operating in a whole different way than I was used to.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: That was part of the disorienting part of it, because it was so unfamiliar. The way that I used to do things just did not work anymore.

ELIAS: (Nodding) Correct, and this also was a purposeful experience that you offered to yourself, for as I have been expressing to you all, you are actually shifting and that which you view to be old familiar movements do not fit in your shifted reality. In a manner of speaking — not in absolutes, but in a manner of speaking — it is necessary that you recognize that these old familiar expressions are inadequate and do not fit. But it is also important that you offer yourselves experiences of unfamiliar to allow you that movement beyond fear into the unfamiliar.

Which, as I have stated yesterday, not all of your experiences may be comfortable. This is not to say that they are not quite beneficial and that you may not offer yourself tremendous information; you move information into reality through experience. Without the generation of experience, whatever information you offer to yourself remains concept. But as you generate experiences, you move into a shifting of perception and you generate an actual reality, which is quite significant.

As I have stated, our exercise yesterday was quite purposeful. Not in association with yet again another automatic response of associating recent experiences, but genuinely allowing yourselves to examine what has been your most familiar automatic response throughout your focus — as with yourself, that automatic response of analyzation which you generate in all types of scenarios, a reliance upon thought as a communication, and a continued belief you align with that thought creates reality and in that precedes what you generate in actual physical reality.

If you may identify a want and you may think of this want, you may concentrate upon the thinking of this want and therefore generate it — which is quite iffy. (Elias smiles, and Bobbi laughs) Perhaps you shall and perhaps you may not, for it is not an absolute and thought does not generate reality. But in many years of your philosophies and even prior to your philosophies, as a small one prior to philosophical information that you have offered to yourself, your reliance upon thought as a generating mechanism of reality has been quite strong and therefore [is] your most familiar automatic response to any given scenario — in interaction with other individuals, in interaction with yourself, in interaction with circumstances, creatures, even objects... (Smiles and nods)

BOBBI: This is very true. (Elias chuckles) I’ve always been comfortable with it, though!

ELIAS: And I am not expressing to any of you that any of these automatic responses in their familiarity are wrong. The significance of the examination of that is that you may offer yourselves information and familiarize yourself with your movement more clearly and therefore generate a clearer understanding of HOW you generate your reality and therefore also offer yourselves choices.

In this, understand once you genuinely become familiar with what you generate, what you do, what your automatic responses are, you may choose to continue with those types of expressions, for you generate them in preference, as you have stated. But they move from automatic responses to choices, which is quite different.

Your recognition that this is a preference of your method is significant, for you recognize that it is a preference and this offers you not merely the opportunity to be accepting of your choices, but to recognize the difference of other individuals’ movements. As they may choose differently, you dissipate the judgments associated with yourself and associated with other individuals, for you recognize that this is YOUR preference. It is relative to you. In your common vernacular, it is a working mechanism for YOU, but it is acceptable if it is not with another individual.

BOBBI: And that was brought home in your talk yesterday. It was really excellent. (Elias chuckles and nods) Thank you, that really clears that up. It was a very strange summer.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Much movement has occurred; tremendous shifting has been occurring.

BOBBI: Yes, it has. Not always comfortable, but in hindsight I guess it’s worth it.

ELIAS: And as you continue shifting and generating your movement, you shall also begin recognition concerning uncomfortableness, and in a manner of speaking, how these types of choices play into your shifting, for they are quite significant. (Chuckles)

BOBBI: A question about the “Three Little Maids” that Lynda, Margot and I were. I think we’ve come up with who’s who, if we could verify that with you. My impression is that I was the singer/actress Sybil Grey.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: I have some other ideas about who the other two were, but Lynda and Margot have the impression that Lynda was Leonora Braham and Margot was Jessie Bond.

ELIAS: And your impression?

BOBBI: They are reversed.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: Really! (Elias chuckles) Thank you.

I was on vacation recently, and we went through southern Utah. Zion National Park is beautiful, and this name kept coming to me while we were there. I kept getting Nedra, Nedra, Nedra. I had the impression of having lived there, being a young Mormon girl with that name and who had a younger brother, and we were just running all over those rocks and living in that area. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: I mentioned this to Margot, who said that she also had a focus in that general area probably in the same timeframe, and she thought probably of the same community.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: I don’t think I’ve ever had that clear an impression. It was almost like coming home in that area.

ELIAS: I am understanding. Quite similar to Giselle’s experience in Connecticut. (Chuckles)

BOBBI: I haven’t run into too many instances of that, but that was very interesting.

ELIAS: And Michael’s experience in Paris.

BOBBI: I have a bunch of impressions that happened during that same vacation, when I just seemed to be getting... It was just a really active time. I had a dream that I had an older brother who was king or something, and somebody told me that he was either deposed or dead, and that he had been crazy. In my dream I thought, “Oh, I guess that means I’m king,” but it didn’t mean much to me. Looking into that, the only crazy king I could come up with was King Ludwig of Bavaria, who did have a brother, Otto, who was even more crazy and never did really become king. So was my dream related to that?


BOBBI: So I was the brother, Otto?


BOBBI: What a character! (Laughs with Elias)

ELIAS: You do incorporate some colorful individuals as yourself, do you not?

BOBBI: Yes, absolutely! I read that he ran naked through the palace, barking like a dog! (Laughing, and Elias chuckles) I don’t know if I want to be THAT guy! Too weird!

This one is about you. You have a focus as an American Indian, I wasn’t part of the forum when that all came up, but my impression was you were a Sioux Indian of the Hunkpapa tribe.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: All I got was that your name had something to do with “buffalo” incorporated in the name.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: Was that Sitting Bull?

ELIAS: No, not of such notoriety. (Laughs)

BOBBI: Sitting Bull really didn’t seem like you, but that was the only buffalo name I could come up with. (Elias chuckles)

I had another dream on that same vacation, where quite a bit of activity was happening at a hotel, a lot of people were there. I was about to leave and I looked down and noticed I was carrying Mary’s luggage, her suitcase. I looked and she was behind me, and I thought I ought to give it to her, but I thought, “No, I’ll just carry it. We’re all going to the same place, anyway,” and I figured she would carry mine. My interpretation of that dream was that perhaps that we’re counterparts. On further reflection, I thought that since they’re twins, since Lawrence and Michael have the whole essence-twin thing going on, maybe this was more about being counterpart to Vicki.

ELIAS: Both.

BOBBI: So I’m counterpart to both.

ELIAS: Yes. In a manner of speaking, counterpart to both as one.

BOBBI: Interesting — counterpart to the twins as a unity.

ELIAS: Yes, yes.

BOBBI: And that would be in relation to this information and this forum?


BOBBI: Am I an observing essence to Walt Disney?


BOBBI: That’s interesting. I always felt that he was like my grandfather, not like my actual grandfather but that kind relationship. So observing to the son?


BOBBI: When you give the number of a person’s focuses, does that include observing focuses?


BOBBI: And I would imagine that’s a very changeable number...


BOBBI: ...because of sort of dropping in and sampling, almost.

ELIAS: Yes. For at times an essence may choose to be an observing essence throughout the entirety of a focus, and at times they may choose merely partially observing essence, and this is quite fluctuating.

BOBBI: I have a question about final focuses. You’ve said that a final focus is a final focus in all physical dimensions, right? Or is it just this one?

ELIAS: THIS physical dimension.

BOBBI: Is the final focus of Jale manifest now, in this timeframe?

ELIAS: Not yet. But you are correct, in this general time framework shall be. Within your linear time framework in association with your focus and the design of this physical dimension of entering, of being born, not yet.

BOBBI: I had some brief impressions of one future focus who is in the City. It’s my impression she is a librarian there. (Elias nods in agreement) Is she the final focus?

ELIAS: No. In THIS general time framework. The designated final focus shall overlap with...

BOBBI: I see. Not born yet, but will be within my lifetime.


BOBBI: I understand.

I had a dream about Vicki back in July, and it was extremely clear. It was almost as if we had run into each other somewhere. We talked for quite a while and I was very happy to see her; she looked great. She said, “I just had to go away for a little while,” and expressed to me it was because Ron had died. And I said, “No, it was you,” but she was quite insistent that no, Ron had died and she had to go away for a while, but it’s great now and she’s fine. My question is, is that my dream imagery or was that an actual sort of interaction?

ELIAS: An actual interaction with the energy, yes; your translation in imagery, but an actual interaction with a projection of energy, yes. And also accurate information — your translation of that accurate information. It was a recognition of Lawrence in the time framework in which Olivia disengages.

Within the experience and the expression that Lawrence incorporates now, time is expressed quite differently. There continues to be some experience of time, for there continues to be a partial objective awareness, which has not been entirely shed yet. But the time experienced is much different and therefore in your terms — what you may comprehend — much closer to an expression of simultaneous time, and in this, many actions occurring simultaneously.

You translate the energy that is being expressed and the information that is being expressed in more of a linear fashion that you may be understanding, although you are disagreeing and expressing, “No, Olivia has not disengaged; YOU have disengaged,” assuming that there is confusion in the expression of Lawrence. There is not confusion; there is a recognition of the time framework in which Olivia has disengaged, which is significant, for many times essences do not pay attention.

It may not necessarily be identified as rare, but it is not common that essences engaged in this physical dimension incorporate the attention in one focus to be directing that attention in association with other individuals, other focuses associated with one time framework in relation to other essences and their choices. In other terms, a focus of attention of Lawrence such as Victoria, once disengaging, generally speaking shall not necessarily be moving their attention to the choices and movements of other individuals continuing within physical focus.

BOBBI: That they were intimate with.

ELIAS: Correct, for the awareness expands tremendously in nonphysical transition, and therefore the attention moves to the essence of the focus of attention and all of the “televisions” of that essence. This generally occupies the attention of the focus that has disengaged, and therefore they do not necessarily move their attention concerning themselves with other essences and their focuses of attention — which may be quite disillusioning to many individuals within your physical dimension, for many individuals experience what you term to be a loss in association with death and wish for the individual to be paying attention to those continuing within physical focus, especially if the individuals incorporated intimate relationship with the disengaged focus.

You generate many myths concerning death and what occurs subsequent to death: where the individual goes, what they experience, how they long to contact those upon the other side — which is all of you — or how they may be held or bound to your physical dimension through their love and connection with those remaining within physical focus. Generally speaking, this is quite associated with your beliefs and myths that you generate in speculation of what occurs subsequent to death.

This is not to say that you may not be interactive. You may all be interactive with each other, for it is associated with projections of energy in very similar manner to what you generate in physical focus. As you proceed within this shift in consciousness and these veils of separation are thinned, it becomes easier to be interactive with individuals that have disengaged and their projections of energy, but their attention is generally expressed differently.

Therefore, it may be viewed as an interesting observation that this particular focus continues to move its attention in association with this physical reality and other individuals which are continuing, not necessarily concerning itself with the movements that any of you are generating physically now but incorporating a recognition of the movement into disengagement.

BOBBI: Would there be a reason for that, or that’s just where Lawrence’s interest goes?

ELIAS: Partially in association with beliefs that have not yet been shed in association with reuniting with individuals that there has been expressed a closeness.

BOBBI: And that’s the interest in disengagement.


BOBBI: I see. So she’s still doing transition?

ELIAS: Yes, and engaging some beliefs and therefore influencing the attention and where it may be projected to, and also, as I have stated, continuing to incorporate some objective awareness in association with this physical dimension.

In your terms, many times a focus that disengages, even in engaging transition within physical focus, may continue within a transitional experience nonphysically for what may be translated as several years within your linear time framework. It is not experienced in that manner by the individual, for the experience of several years is quite different within nonphysical areas of consciousness, and in that transitional experience it may be experienced more in association with very brief time framework.

BOBBI: Thank you.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

BOBBI: I was looking for my happiest focuses, at a particularly low point, and the ones I got, I’d like to validate, of course. I guess I assume that they are correct, and I understand why I connected with them.

One was a little girl in Hawaii living in a leper colony, and the other was a young boy who was severely retarded but living within a very loving family. Both of them were oblivious to their circumstances or what we would look at as the negative aspects of their experience, and were just very happy. Were those correct impressions?


BOBBI: I understand why I connected with those at the time, in this last year. (Laughs, and Elias chuckles) I have a lot of judgments about illness, and it just seemed like a lot of that was going on that I’ve been looking at in other people.

Looking for my most content focus, I think that this was part of the Shift book. It was the Scottish focus, living within that community. I was a female, had a loving husband, several sons who were big and strong and good sons. I was living on farm as a milkmaid or something like that. It was like my whole world was contained right there, and everything was as it should be. Is that...?

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: And that was in the Shift book?


BOBBI: I had a dream where Shynla told me that she held the focus of Augustus Caesar. Is that correct? I have no objective opinion about it one way or the other. It was just a dream impression.


BOBBI: Does the essence of Elizabeth hold the focus of Queen Elizabeth? (Pause)

ELIAS: The first.

BOBBI: Yes, definitely. Do I have a focus that participated in what was called “The Great Escape,” in World War II? They were prisoners in a German prisoner of war camp and tunneled out. I have some huge connection with that movie. (Laughs) It’s my impression that I participated in some way, probably not to escape, but was aware of it and helped in that effort.


BOBBI: Glad to know I was on the right side! (Elias laughs) In that focus, anyway!

I had a dream a long time ago, when the little “cc” email group was active, that we had all participated in a movie focus where we made movies in the ‘30s or ‘40s. This would be Melinda, Tom, and of course Ron, Cathy, Vicki and Mary, Margot, MJ, Cath, Linda, the whole group. I assume that’s a correct assessment. (Elias nods in agreement) Does that have to do with Howard’s focus of William Boyd? It would have been in that general timeframe. It didn’t seem like we were making any great epics or ... you know?

ELIAS: (Laughs) There is an association but in meeting, but not in association with that individual as participating in your endeavors.

BOBBI: It wasn’t with that particular movie company.

ELIAS: Correct.

BOBBI: I think I was behind the scenes somewhere, script girl or something of that sort.


BOBBI: Thanks! I have a strong association with the name of Robert. I have not really been able to find ... I’m assuming that’s a focus.


BOBBI: Could you just point me like in a direction? (Laughs)

ELIAS: (Chuckling) And shall you not be investigating? You accomplish quite well in this expression.

BOBBI: (Laughs) So keep looking, then?

ELIAS: Mm-hmm! (Nodding)

BOBBI: I think I have a focus that’s buried in the Valley of the Kings. Not particularly as a pharaoh, but probably as a...

ELIAS: Servant.

BOBBI: I’m still looking at our shared French Revolution focus, and I’m not sure what that was all about. (Laughs, and Elias chuckles and looks amused) I’m not sure if I was just a pill, or what. (Elias continues chuckling) I’ll continue to work on that.

ELIAS: Those in which you may be expressing an adversarial role may be more difficult to be connecting with in your terms, for there are judgments concerning that type of role in association with your relationship with myself now.

BOBBI: So that’s a clue. Adversarial — so some sort of police?


BOBBI: (Laughing) Oh god, another one of those! (Elias chuckles) I’m noticing a pattern of consistently being on the wrong side!

ELIAS: (Laughs) Not necessarily!

BOBBI: Well, no, but according to my beliefs now! (Laughing)

ELIAS: Let me express also to you, Jale, adversaries are not always enemies. (Chuckles) At times, individuals may generate some fun in cat and mouse, and express mutual respect of their differences.

BOBBI: (Laughs) I hope it was a case like that.

ELIAS: In this scenario, yes.

BOBBI: Good to know! Okay let’s see, I’ve hit all the high points. Oh! Several years ago, when David/Mylo was getting to know me, he expressed the opinion that I had something to do with the focus of Boudicca, an English queen, sort of a warrior-queen.

ELIAS: Not that individual, but associated with that individual as a confidant.

BOBBI: Okay, thank you. Our time is almost up. Is there anything that you would like to add?

ELIAS: An encouragement to continue paying attention, and perhaps an encouragement of you to express more gentleness with yourself. You express a tendency to force your energy and to express a harshness with yourself. Offer yourself permission to express a gentleness, for that type of energy generates a type of fountain that spills from you outward to other individuals, and you are equally as valuable as the individuals that you attempt to be gentle with. (Chuckles) Remind yourself, my friend. Pushing merely generates exhaustion.

BOBBI: I hope I’m only pushing myself. I mean, I try not to be pushing with other people.

ELIAS: This is the point. Attempt to not be with yourself. You are equally as valuable as other individuals and worthy of your own gentleness with yourself.

BOBBI: Thank you.

ELIAS: You are welcome, and I shall continue to offer my energy to you in support, in encouragement and in genuine love. My dear friend Jale, to you in tremendous affection, au revoir.

BOBBI: Thank you. Bye.

Elias departs at 11:39 AM.

(1) Elias is referring to the 1/19/02.

(2) Just as a side note, Walt Disney has two daughters and no sons, but has a grandson named Walt Disney, Jr. It is my impression now that this is who Elias was referring to.

(3) In 7/16/98, Elias offers an analogy of viewing focuses of essence as televisions during transition:

“(Intently) Within the action of transition, you view your focuses simultaneously. They are in actuality all occurring at once within all dimensions. Therefore, you begin by examining the simultaneousness of this one particular focus, and then you allow yourselves to move into the area of viewing all of your focuses simultaneously. Now; individuals already engage this action within physical focus, but they also camouflage this action. You shall allow yourselves the ability to NOT camouflage, but it is important that you hold an understanding of the reality of simultaneous time, that you do not confuse yourselves as you enter into viewing it.

“I have expressed an analogy previously of one hundred televisions. One hundred televisions occupy a room. You are the room. All of the televisions are your focuses, and they are all playing at once. They all display different programs -- not one is the same -- and you view them all simultaneously. And how confusing may this be to you, to be connecting with each of them and all of them and understanding all of them all at once, if you are not holding an understanding of simultaneous time? Each of these focuses are you, although they each hold their own integrity and are not you. There are many aspects of you that you do not view yet, but you shall.”

©2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

Copyright 2002 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.