Acknowledging Your Creation Accomplishments
“Acknowledging Your Creation Accomplishments”
“Clarifying What You Actually Want”
Thursday, November 14, 2002 (Private/Phone)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Don (Allard)
Elias arrives at 11:20 AM. (Arrival time is 18 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good morning!
DON: Good morning, Elias.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) And how is your adventure proceeding?
DON: Quite well, I think. That last session was very helpful to me, and I’d like to talk more about what I’ve been doing with it in a little bit. I’d maybe like to start with just a few focus questions.
ELIAS: Very well.
DON: I was inspired by someone recently to try and pick up some future focuses of mine, and I think I may have picked some up or contacted some. The first was a man and I think his name is Michael or something like it. And immediately upon contacting him, somebody else came through more strongly, a woman. I think her name was, is, Jewenna or Jewella, and she’s just all smiles. She comes through really strongly and it felt like she was really happy to make contact. Is this a good interpretation of these impressions?
DON: I had the sense that Michael and... Was the name Jewenna correct?
DON: I had a feeling that they know each other but maybe they’re not in the same physical time and space.
DON: But they almost know each other as well, and in such detail as I might, say, with somebody through an email correspondence.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.
DON: Then I picked up one other, and I can’t tell if this woman is a future focus of mine or actually in another dimension. She feels darker than Michael and Jewella, but not so much. I see her with dark or black hair. I think her name starts with an E, and she’s an emotion artist. She’s in a place where people have a very refined aesthetic sense of emotion and can perceive it almost like we perceive color and sound. Is she a future focus of mine?
DON: Oh, so that’s in this dimension.
DON: So that would mean then that in her society people do sense emotion much more precisely than we do now, and sense it in others precisely. Is that right?
ELIAS: Correct, in recognition that it is a form of communication.
DON: What is her name? Does it start with an E?
DON: What was that again?
DON: Some time ago I asked you if I have a focus as a Czechoslovakian author in the early 20th century. You said friends with Franz Kafka. I just wondered, is that focus of mine Max Brod?
DON: One final question of this sort. I think I have a focus that’s in this current time period that may have recently disengaged. He’s an Afghan, a man in Afghanistan. I think I saw him with a machine gun strapped around him, but he’s not or wasn’t a soldier so much but was involved in the opium trade somehow, maybe a farmer. Is that correct?
DON: And did he recently disengage?
DON: Killed during the recent war?
ELIAS: In association with conflict, yes.
ELIAS: I had something really interesting happen last week. Sandy, essence name Allesander, contacted me after I posted a few things to the Yahoo news group. He had a very curious impression of us somehow having a connection of a type that he hadn’t noticed before, one that felt, in his words, almost molecular or sort of a similarity at a building-block level between us. I felt, with a little different imagery, a pretty similar impression with him. He thinks — well, we both think — we have a fragmentation connection. In fact, his is quite precise. His impression is that I, my essence Allard, fragmented from Allesander roughly around 1407. Is his interpretation correct? (Pause)
DON: Ah, Allesander fragmented from Allard about that time.
DON: I see. It’s curious, does that... It’s difficult for me to think about such things in terms of focuses. Does that mean or would it be correct to say then that focuses of Allard before the fragmentation occurred could be said to be focuses of Allesander? I’m thinking specifically of Petrarch, the Italian poet of the 14th century that’s the focus of Allesander. Was that also a focus of mine?
ELIAS: No. Let me also express to you a reminder that although you incorporate a reality of linear time movement within your physical dimension, all of your focuses are in actuality simultaneous. Therefore, in relation to essence and focuses of attention, they are all being generated at the same time, so to speak, and the association of past and future in relation to fragmentation is what you would term to be irrelevant.
DON: So does this imply that Allesander may have focuses prior to the fragmentation point in history that are not focuses directly of Allard?
DON: Right, but Petrarch is one that we would both say is a focus of ours? (Pause)
ELIAS: Yes and no — one directing, one observing.
DON: Ah, and it would be Allard that is observing?
DON: When I look at why I may have created this imagery for myself last week, I got myself through it to really look again at who I am and who Allard is, and I feel like it was kind of a way for me feel more of who I was and identify more with myself as essence and feel less separate. Would you agree with that?
DON: I felt like I had other imagery kind of coming together at the same time for that. There was some music that I never would have noticed but somebody else pointed out to me to get me to look at the passion I would feel when I listened to this particular music by Eminem. It’s the same feeling that I got when I tried to feel what Allard feels like. I felt that wild energy of freedom. It felt like I was trying really to get myself last week to understand and to feel more of who I am.
ELIAS: I am understanding. And in this, what have you discovered?
DON: What have I discovered — that I have a real love of freedom, for one thing, and that I have more power than I’ve been allowing myself to see.
DON: It felt like it had to do with power.
ELIAS: Yes, and ability.
DON: Yes, right. I wonder if you could give a definition of freedom. I was curious, interested, to see in the group session recently, you said that freedom was the truth. It’s hard for me to draw a distinction between freedom and choice and becoming and action, as they all seem to be sort of the same thing to me.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, they are.
DON: Would you define freedom somewhat differently?
ELIAS: I may define freedom as the recognition and implementation of choice.
DON: After my last session, I’ve been trying quite a bit to change my perception of things. I found the identification of my single most familiar automatic creation — that I do not like my current scenario — to be really helpful. In one sense, I feel like it’s really easy to change my perception of things and feel like I’ve been pretty successful with it, and I can sort of feel how that actually changes my reality. But at the same time I can see I’m drawing kind of a line in my perception, where it feels relatively easy to change my perception sort of in terms of evaluation, like whether I choose to like my current scenario or dislike it. But I still don’t feel like I... I feel a line, even though I know there’s certainly not one there, between that and actually being able to create what I want in terms of a different manifestation. Do you have anything to say about that?
ELIAS: You are practicing, and in this, as you continue to practice, in a manner of speaking you refine or streamline your attention more and more, generating a clearer focus of attention. In that action, you more clearly define what you want more specifically.
For you view less of an actual alteration of your reality physically if you are generating within yourself generalities. As you become more specific within yourself in association with what you want, you also direct your energy more clearly and more specifically, which creates a more dramatic expression of altering your physical reality.
DON: Sometimes I feel like with just the slightest perception, everything feels completely altered. I can almost feel myself connected to my external imagery by just these wires I pull, like a marionette almost, and it feels really good! Then sometimes I feel doubtful of that and feel that I’m just kind of camouflaging, that I still don’t really control and choose my own reality.
I don’t think I’m really camouflaging, it’s just that it feels unfamiliar to me, but I’d like to check that with you. To what extent am I setting up a camouflage for myself just because I really don’t think I can have what I want or create what I want?
ELIAS: In actuality, my friend, this is not an action of camouflaging, but you are correct, it is an unfamiliar expression and action. Therefore, although you may generate moments in which you are actually altering your reality through your perception, as you continue your movement you do incorporate doubt concerning what you are generating, and therefore you move to the familiar once again.
Now; this is actually what I have expressed to other individuals in association with discussions concerning what they may be manifesting physically and continuing to doubt what they have actually created. Individuals express their wish to be engaging parlor tricks such as materialization of an apple within their hand, and express to myself that this shall be proven evidence to them that they do actually incorporate these types of abilities. And I have expressed consistently to individuals, this is quite incorrect.
For your beliefs are incorporated with a strength that influences your perception and your associations to an extent in which you may actually generate these types of actions and alter your physical reality, or even materialize an action or a manifestation in solidity within your reality, and continue to doubt its validity or doubt that you actually created that. You may acknowledge the physical manifestation or the action, but not necessarily acknowledge that you have actually created it yourself.
Individuals express this wish to be incorporating winning of your lottery quite frequently and express that this shall be their proven evidence that they have actually created their reality in association with what they want. And I may express that this is not necessarily the situation. For even in generating that type of action, in association with the beliefs held by the individual it shall continue to be expressed that they themselves did not necessarily create that manifestation but rather some other force has created it, and they have merely allowed themselves to tap into some other manifestation which has been generated by some other expression, be it an individual or a situation; it matters not.
In this, you are expressing the actual realistic evidence of what I have been expressing to many individuals, that you move in the direction of doubting what you have generated even in the moments that you offer yourself actual physical evidence of altering your perception and therefore altering your physical reality, and doubting that it is real.
DON: Yes, I can certainly see the similarity. But that is mostly because of the unfamiliarity, I guess.
ELIAS: Correct. But as you continue to be practicing, the moments in which you are altering your perception and generating a difference within your physical reality become more and more extended.
DON: And you know, now that you mention it, I had forgotten that I’ve noticed that even though changing my perception, playing with that, at first feels like I am simply re-evaluating what already exists outside of me — which in itself, even within those beliefs, I find to be really useful — I’m still enjoying my current scenario a lot more that way. But I do find then that it almost immediately, if not immediately, does seem to change my objective imagery also, that they kind of stair-step. I change the perception in terms of evaluation, and my objective imagery reflects even more difference than that.
ELIAS: Correct, and do not discount this action, my friend. For this is a familiar association in expression to oneself, that you may be re-evaluating and that this is not an actual action that may be altering of your reality, [that] it is merely changing the manner in which you see your environment or your situation or yourself, or generating an association that you are merely imagining some alteration. But I may express to you quite genuinely and literally, these actions are not to be discounted, for they are manners in which you actually do move your attention and alter your perception.
DON: Yes. I had a letter from someone recently and it felt like a really good opportunity to play with my perception and feel the difference. First I reacted pretty automatically to it, then I went through and tried to watch my automatic responses and creations with each small part of the letter and found how I could change that. That’s the type of practice that you are talking about, isn’t it?
DON: Yes, and that really did work! (Elias laughs)
In your speaking of the lottery and parlor tricks, that reminds me of that pesto jar incident I had a few months ago. (Elias laughs) You remember that? (Don laughs)
ELIAS: Yes! (Laughs)
DON: I wonder, in light of what you’re saying, that was — and of course, I guess this is true — that was my creation.
ELIAS: Yes. But also allow yourself to remember your automatic association with that action and your immediate discounting of the actual manifestations, expressing to yourself that you must be imagining this...
DON: I actually think of that pesto jar incident often. It’s been great! But that’s right, I remember again, almost as if my body were throwing off some foreign tissue — me and my beliefs just trying to throw that whole memory off.
ELIAS: Correct, and expressing to yourself that you had remembered incorrectly as you return to the scenario with the jar. This, once again, is another example of allowing yourself to actually physically manifest alterations in your physical reality, not accepting that and doubting that it actually occurred.
DON: Right. I should say, Elias, I’ve forgotten to check the time at the start of the session. Are you able to monitor it very well? (Pause)
ELIAS: Very well.
DON: Oh, thank you. So you’ll tell me when it’s time to quit?
DON: One thing I’ve noticed is ... well, I’ve noticed this before, but I’m noticing it again. I tried to modify my perception over these last few weeks. I know other people have talked to you about this. I feel like it’s not so easy for me to really know what my preferences are or to be clear on what it is that I really want versus what I’m just telling myself I want or don’t want, because I really feel I cannot create what I want or don’t want.
For example, in intimate relationships I really feel confused about what my own desires are there. I know several months ago I felt that I was finally acknowledging and understanding that my preference was really not to be in an intimate relationship, and yet I continue to generate imagery that seems to tell me something different. I’m kind of confused there.
I remember something similar feeling. Several months ago I was finally becoming accepting of my shyness, that it wasn’t a camouflage, that it was one way to describe my nature and that was all right. Now I’m thinking that it is a camouflage and it’s really just my holding my energy back out of fear. It’s kind of a vague question, but I wonder if you could address this a little bit, this way that I’m having trouble really feeling like I know what my preferences are.
ELIAS: I am understanding. This is quite commonly expressed by individuals within your reality. In actuality, MOST individuals express this confusion. Even those individuals that think that they clearly know what they want, many times are not expressing as much clarity as they think they are.
This is the significance of paying attention to what you actually do, what you actually generate, listening to your communications, becoming more refined in the movement of your attention, paying attention to your communications — also allowing yourself the flexibility of your attention, to move it between the expressions of your communications, your translation or interpretation of your communications through thought, and your actions. As you allow yourself that flexibility in movement of your attention and you continue to pay attention to these three expressions, you allow yourself to become clearer in your objective understanding and definition of what you actually want.
For your thoughts are generally not entirely inaccurate; they may be expressing the interpretation or the translation of some communications, and they may be incorporating an accuracy in relation to your communications that you are expressing to yourself. But they may also be blurred, for they are generalities.
In this example, so to speak, you express that you think you want an intimate relationship in the expression of a romantic relationship, but you also are recognizing that you are not necessarily generating that action.
Now; your attention moves in a general manner in both expressions, for the translation in thought of what you want is partially accurate, but it is a generality, it is not specific, and also your association or your recognition of what you are doing is general. You merely express to yourself the general translation, “I am not generating a relationship in what I want,” but you are not necessarily specifically examining or evaluating what you ARE generating, what you are creating or specifically what you are not creating.
DON: I actually feel like I can see what you mean, I think, in terms of generalities. I feel like I generate imagery that I do and I do not, in various ways. I also have a sense of my preferences in some ways, that I desire this and some ways I do not. Instead of looking at it, I feel like I’m continually sort of flipping back and forth from one discrete generality to another.
ELIAS: Correct, which is the significance of paying attention to yourself and incorporating that intention in the now to allow yourself to become intimately familiar with yourself and therefore incorporate an objective recognition and understanding of what you actually create, what motivates your creations, what your associations are and what your automatic responses are, what choices you incorporate, and how you may manipulate your energy in a manner that allows you to accomplish creating what you want specifically.
But the action of intentionally generating what you want in physical manifestation requires trust.
DON: Right, and I felt a real lack of trust in myself. I’ve become aware of that, and playing with my perceptions the way I am now, the way we talked about in my last session, is a way that I can gradually increase my trust.
ELIAS: Correct, and also allowing yourself the objective recognition of all of the actions that you incorporate in physical manifestations that you do trust, and recognizing the ease in which you generate physical manifestations in association with the lack of doubt of your ability.
You do not doubt that your physical body consciousness shall function, and you trust your ability to incorporate that action. Therefore, you do not move your attention to your mechanism of thought in association with that action that you generate. You trust your ability, and therefore you manifest these actions in ease.
You trust your ability, without incorporating thought, to generate an actual physical manifestation of another individual as you encounter their energy, without instruction, without thought. It is an automatic immediate action. And you generate an actual physical individual, merely through the interaction of energy.
But you doubt your ability to alter your perception. You may create structures, trees, mountains, oceans, stars, planets, other individuals — which you do each day, each hour, each moment of your physical reality, but you doubt your ability to generate a relationship with another individual or to manifest money or to create an employment that you want.
You create stars, but you cannot create money? You create worlds, but you cannot a relationship with another individual? (Laughs)
DON: Or, as you say, even if I create it, because of my beliefs I will throw that perception off.
ELIAS: And express to yourself that you do not believe that you create this.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) And this is the point, for this is the snare. The most significant influence in hindrance of what you allow yourselves to create is that you do not believe that you create all of your reality. This is what you have expressed in moments of experience in altering your perception and allowing yourself the momentary experiences of sensing your power as essence.
DON: And this is why I’ve been generating things to remind me of myself as essence.
ELIAS: Yes. Perception is an extremely powerful tool and it actually generates physical realities, which is a tremendous expression.
DON: I really do feel like this last month I’ve been getting a sense of that.
It feels like probably time to wind up. I’ll be practicing, continuing to play with my perception. I feel really excited about that and wonder if you have any advice.
ELIAS: I am encouraging of you, my friend, to continue within your practicing and your movement, and to be paying attention to your expression of trust.
DON: One final thing — Allesander, Sandy, was planning to join us for this session. Has he been around?
ELIAS: Subjectively, yes. There is an energy expression in presence.
DON: I think he might be curious about this — I am, too, of course. Was there a focus of ours that actually fragmented to become Allesander, or was it a different fragmentation action?
ELIAS: Not an actual focus.
DON: Not an actual focus?
DON: Well, as always, thank you so much, Elias.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome, my friend, and as always I shall be anticipating our next meeting and our discussions.
DON: Oh me, too.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha! And I may express to you the appreciation of my preference in our interactions.
DON: Thank you, Elias. (Elias chuckles)
ELIAS: I shall be offering encouraging and supportive energy to you, my friend, as always, and express to you in tremendous fondness, au revoir.
DON: Au revoir.
Elias departs at 12:09 PM.
©2005 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved
Copyright 2002 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.