Tuesday, May 27, 2003 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Joanne (Tyl)

Elias arrives at 11:47 AM. (Arrival time is 16 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

JOANNE: Good morning, Elias! (Elias chuckles) I want to thank you, first of all, for your continued lending of energy to me. I feel it. I’ve had some wonderful experiences. I’m going through a lot of changes; I know that I’m connecting with you subjectively, and I just want to thank you very much.

ELIAS: You are welcome. (Chuckles)

JOANNE: I’d like to ask some questions, if that’s okay with you.

ELIAS: Very well.

JOANNE: My first one has to do with love. You say that animals don’t have emotions, but we have bonds with them, connections with them. I was wondering, since love is a truth, it must be something experienced by all creatures. Is it true that what we think of as emotion in animals is really their sense of love and that love is much like instinct?

ELIAS: Partially. Let me express to you, as I have also with another individual recently, individuals confuse and misunderstand the statement that creatures do not incorporate emotion, for you people-ize your creatures. Therefore, your translation of their expression is associated with emotion, for this is what you understand. But if you are genuinely recognizing what emotion is, you may much more clearly understand what I have expressed. Emotion is a subjective communication to the objective awareness.

Now; creatures incorporate no necessity for this type of mechanism or this type of communication, for they are in actuality more aware of their subjective awareness than their objective awareness. As you are aware in observation of any creatures, much more of their time framework is engaged in the action of sleeping than their awake time framework, which is their involvement with their subjective awareness. Within the awake time framework, their awareness of both objective and subjective is so very clear that there is almost no separation of the two. Therefore, there is no necessity to be incorporating an action that facilitates communication between the two awarenesses, and this is the reason that creatures do not incorporate emotion.

Now; they do experience affection and love in its true sense in knowing and appreciation. What you many times confuse for an expression of emotion is actually the language of the creature. Creatures incorporate a language that communicates to you, and their language is in action. They incorporate behaviors that shall express their interaction and their language to you in manners that you may understand. You confuse that language and the behaviors with an expression of emotion, which it is not; it is a form of communication.

They are quite expressive in their behaviors to communicate different expressions to you, in which you shall acquire somewhat of a general idea of what that communication is. In some behaviors, you may associate that the creature is displaying sadness or distress. In actuality, they are expressing a behavior, which is a language, a communication to you concerning what they prefer and what they do not prefer, what they like and what they do not like. You may also associate a creature in different behaviors as being happy and pleased or affectionate.

Now; affection is not necessarily associated with an emotion. You as individuals generally do associate affection with an emotion, for you do also incorporate an emotional communication in association with the impulse of affection in a validation of your allowance of yourselves to be expressing that affection — or at times, in what you may experience as a painfulness associated with affection, which is a generation of an emotional communication identifying that you are not allowing yourself the freedom to express in association with your impulse of affection. Creatures do not block their expression of affection, and therefore they display behaviors which are quite expressive, communicating to you their allowance of their expression of affection.

As to the expression of love in genuineness, yes, they do quite easily and readily express love, but not as an emotion. Love is also not an emotion. But in genuine expression of it, generally individuals do present themselves with an emotional communication to be validating the identity that they are allowing themselves to genuinely express that knowing and appreciation in the truth of love.

It is difficult for individuals to separate emotion from actions and different expressions that they incorporate. Generally, the manner in which you define it expresses them as almost synonymous and that you may not be expressing affection or love without the incorporation of an emotion, which is not correct, actually. In this, there is a difference between feelings that may be associated with different actions or expressions, and the feelings that are associated as signals with emotional communications. At times, you may be incorporating feelings and not be generating an emotion.

JOANNE: Do animals express love by killing and eating other animals? Is that an expression of love?

ELIAS: Not necessarily. This be remembering also — creatures do not incorporate beliefs or belief systems. Therefore, they do not generate judgments in association with different behaviors and actions. Therefore, they may be incorporating an action of what you view to be killing another creature, and they may incorporate that action in association with different motivations.

They may incorporate the action in one moment, in one scenario, in association with their preferences and their choice to be exercising their preferences in natural expressions of their species. In other moments, in other scenarios, they may be incorporating the action as a communication with you or with another creature. They may offer their conquest in sharing with you or with another creature, which is a communication through action of appreciation or affection.

JOANNE: It sounds like Adam and Eve, too. (Laughs) I guess I have this impulse that says that love is about doing things that are instinctual and crossing boundaries, in a sense. I’m not sure how else to express it. What you just said relates so much to the gist of what I’m trying to get to, about love and instinct, and defining it better.

ELIAS: I may not necessarily incorporate the term of “instinct” in association with love as a truth, but in another respect I may acknowledge that your terminology of “instinct” is not inaccurate in association with your definitions. It actually may be accurate, for it is an inherent quality; but although it is an inherent quality, it is not necessarily expressed inherently or automatically.

For in association with your beliefs and in association with how you define different terms, different expressions, different actions, your identification of the expression of love has become somewhat distorted, and therefore it is not as readily expressed, for it is not as easily identifiable. Your definitions of love are very closely associated with expressions of emotion, and therefore that in itself is greatly distorting of what the actual expression of love is. In separating the emotion away from the actual expression of love, it becomes quite challenging for you to incorporate an objective understanding of what that expression actually is.

In this, I have offered to you the definition of appreciation but also coupled with the expression of knowing, genuine knowing. For at times you may incorporate somewhat of an appreciation for different manifestations or different expressions within your focus, but you may not necessarily also incorporate a genuine knowing of it, of the manifestation itself — not of the appreciation, but of the manifestation itself. In this, in moments in which you actually allow yourself to genuinely experience that expression of knowing and appreciating, you do generate an actual physical responsiveness to yourself and you feel what that expression is, and it is not necessarily associated with any emotion. But there is a quality of inspiration that is associated with the actual expression of genuine love.

Now; in this, as individuals, you incorporate a unique quality associated with your expressions of emotion and feeling and the translation of thinking, incorporating the action of expressing love and coupling that with affection, and also incorporating the emotional communication in validation. You possess the ability to generate a tremendous expression, which may be an extreme excitement and inspiration in generating all of these expressions simultaneously.

Generally speaking, most individuals within your physical reality do not generate that type of experience. I may express to you that in a time framework in which your physical dimension was newly being developed, that type of expression was generated much more freely and much more frequently. But throughout most of your history, genuinely experiencing that type of expression is somewhat rare in any individual’s focus, if they even allow themselves to generate it at all.

But that requires genuinely being familiar with yourself, genuinely expressing an acceptance of self and genuinely trusting yourself, which would facilitate your allowance of your freedom of your expressions and no fear of how you express yourself in that action of love, in association with yourself and also, thusly, as a natural by-product outwardly with other individuals or creatures or any manifestation within your reality.

JOANNE: Are you talking to me specifically about this being my final focus, or are you speaking more generally?

ELIAS: Both.

JOANNE: Does this have to do with, perhaps, other focus bleed-through with kinds of beliefs, for example having to do with bodhisattvas and maybe a sense of responsibility or direction I may take that has to do with being a final focus?

ELIAS: The key would be your association with responsibility, which also at times hinders your allowance of your freedom of your expressions.

JOANNE: Yes, I understand that objectively; I appreciate that. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

I’d like to ask another question that has to do with focuses. Many people have confirmed famous focuses with you. It seems to me, anyway — and tell me if I’m wrong — that it’s statistically improbable that so few people have so many famous focuses, including myself. Aren’t we just everybody? I wonder if this is an accurate impression.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Let me express to you, those of you that have incorporated this direction of offering yourselves impressions concerning famous focuses are actually tapping into quite a relative few numbering of what you would term to be famous focuses. Throughout your history, there are many, many, many individuals that have incorporated fame or notoriety in every country, in every location of your planet, within every time framework.

As an example, in this present now, how very many individuals may you count that incorporate this expression of fame or notoriety — all of your politicians, all of your actors and actresses and musicians and artists and dancers, individuals that are writers or poets, individuals that incorporate fame in association with sports, with different inventions, with research, with creations of designs, all the individuals that incorporate fame in association with your militaries, with your pilots, your sea captains.

As you view all of these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout all of your world that incorporate this notoriety and this fame, as you begin to view what all of you have allowed yourselves in recognition of different famous focuses that you incorporate in this forum throughout all of your history, you have perhaps filled a thimbleful in association with your ocean. (Chuckles)

Therefore I may express to you, no, you are not incorporating an improbable account of famous focuses or that you have tapped into so very many. In actuality, you have tapped into so very few! Ha ha!

JOANNE: I guess it’s time for me to start re-evaluating my beliefs about fame, probably!

ELIAS: And many of these individuals that have identified famous focuses also have identified themselves but are not the focus, are observing essences of the focus.

JOANNE: Thank you. That’s been sufficiently corrected! (Elias laughs) I think that a lot of people are going to be really glad to know that!

Now, Elias, about my, for lack of a better word, my namesake, my essence namesake — I know you’ll probably correct me on that. I’m wondering if Tyl Eulenspiegel, the possibly fictitious, probably archetypal merry prankster is actually the namesake of my essence, for whom my essence name/tone has been incorporated. Is that correct?

ELIAS: The reverse.

JOANNE: But it is Tyl Eulenspiegel?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: So there is a historical person involved from whom the legend sprang, presumably? Is this correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

JOANNE: Is he from Norway?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Wow! That is really cool! (Elias laughs) He’s the archetypal merry prankster. That just blows my mind! It’s wonderful, thank you.

I also found out that one of the stars in the constellation Draco is named Tyl. I’m wondering if I have an ancient Egyptian focus named Tyl.

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Is this the Borledim-aligned woman that you told me about that I have a strong connection with, along with my Judea focus Jessaline?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Oh, wow! Is another of my focuses a Czechoslovakian actor in the past named J. K. Tyl?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Erin Brown, an Enron executive — is that a focus of mine also?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

JOANNE: Interesting. And Chang, of Chang and Eng, the original Siamese twins?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: And my friend Mary S.’s essence has the focus of Eng, I believe?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Is she Sumari/Sumafi?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: And common?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: May I have the essence name, please? (Pause)

ELIAS: Essence name, Bette, B-E-T-T-E (BET).

JOANNE: Thank you. On a related person, I would like to confirm that my friend Kathleen is Tumold/Ilda.

ELIAS: Correct.

JOANNE: She’s common, I believe, and may I have an essence name, please?

ELIAS: Correct. Essence name, Curt, C-U-R-T.

JOANNE: Thank you. Is another of my focuses Charles L. Black, the civil rights lawyer?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

JOANNE: Is my focus Charles Ricketts? (Pause)

ELIAS: No.

JOANNE: I’m Charles Shannon?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Thank you. And a future focus named Eric Cavendish, a college music instructor?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

JOANNE: And a female long-distance swimmer from the early 1900s, is that Gertrude Ederle?

ELIAS: Correct.

JOANNE: And George Lucas’ second mother, Tilly? (Pause)

ELIAS: Observing essence.

JOANNE: And Johann Wolfgang Goethe? (Pause)

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: And Gypsy Rose Lee?

ELIAS: This is an observing essence role throughout the entirety of the focus.

JOANNE: Oh, interesting — hence my connection at an early age.

And Japanese Zen master Ikkyu?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: And Jean Clemens, Mark Twain’s daughter?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

JOANNE: Ludwig von Beethoven’s sister-in-law Johanna?

ELIAS: This is also an observing essence.

JOANNE: A present or future focus named Karen Slader?

ELIAS: Somewhat future.

JOANNE: Overlapping?

ELIAS: Yes, somewhat.

JOANNE: Ned Buntline, novelist? (Pause)

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Does my boss Andrea’s essence have the focus of Buffalo Bill?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

JOANNE: Is her essence Texas Jack Omohundro?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: I also seem to have a variety of people who I connect with when I go to sleep. One is a black male ragtime pianist.

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: One is a black man in a gutter?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Did I appear to him as myself or some kind of angelic creature? Like those two things are different! (Both laugh)

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: So I was myself and I was angelic? (Laughs)

ELIAS: Ha ha! In the perception of the individual, yes.

JOANNE: Does this have to do with angel phenomenon, that it’s often another focus of essence?

ELIAS: At times. At times it may be an apparition.

JOANNE: Now, I had a very strong connection with a character in a Dickens teleplay that I saw named Monks, the Edward Leeford character. I just can’t explain what this connection was. Does this have to do with the actor or does this...? I think it probably is both. It has to do with the actor but it also has to do with the character, that Monk reminds me of another focus of mine.

ELIAS: Yes, and there is an incorporation of counterpart action with the actor.

JOANNE: So there’s that familiarity.

What does Steve Martin have to do with this? Is this another focus of mine?

ELIAS: Counterpart.

JOANNE: When we visualize our inner self, us being human and all, I think of Jung’s anima and animus and how people kind of use those expressions to look for something greater. I kind of imagine Steve Martin and this other character Monk at times as my animus. I feel like this has something to do with imagining my inner self. I wonder if there are any suggestions that you have for what to imagine when we do imagine our inner self. Do we imagine all these people who are our focuses or one specific person that reflects something that is helpful at the time?

ELIAS: You may, if you are so choosing, or you may allow yourself to view yourself more closely associated with what you actually are, as not necessarily a thing or an individual but a tremendous force that incorporates such wonder that it generates manifestations of physical quality from nothing physical.

JOANNE: Does it then, Elias, relate to the helpfulness of the essence name, invoking that tone, that this will have more to do with tone than an imagination of a physical representation?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, for if you are seeking some type of association that you may generate in relation to yourself as essence, perhaps you may incorporate what is known to you within your physical reality. You may visualize or associate yourself as essence as similar to wind, an action — not actually a physical manifestation that you may view, but one that actually generates physical manifestations from movement.

JOANNE: That’s beautiful. So we’re a mighty wind. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Yes, in a manner of speaking! (Laughs)

JOANNE: Getting back to this final focus experience, I imagine that as we move into a nonphysical state when we die that we in our expansion actually view, something like a bird’s eye view of all of our focuses. Until now, I imagined something like “It’s a Wonderful Life,” where we get to see the effects of our lives, but this would be on a much, much grander scale. We view the effects of our many, many lives and the actions across this physical reality in a wind kind of sense. Is that fairly accurate?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. It is less defined or structured than what you are expressing in viewing all of your focuses and the grandness of yourself in being all of these focuses. That, I am understanding, is an association that you generate in relation to how you view yourself now within this reality and how you view reality in itself in association with this physical dimension.

In moving into an action of disengaging from physical focus, the action that you incorporate is not quite as defined as a viewing of all of these experiences and all of these different focuses, but rather a knowing of all of the experiences. Figuratively speaking, it may be likened to you yourself within your individual focus — you have presented yourself many experiences throughout your focus.

Now; you do not necessarily incorporate an actual visualization of all of these experiences, but you incorporate the knowing of them, which many times you incorporate in an objective manner in association with memory. But even without invoking memory, you are aware of the enrichment of all of your experiences, in a manner of speaking, in association with who you are and what you are in this manifestation.

JOANNE: I wish that I had a more positive spin on many of those interactions.

ELIAS: (Chuckles softly) And in this, as you allow yourself to move into that expression of genuine acceptance and trust and appreciation, you may allow yourself to alter your perception concerning many of your experiences and generate what you began with in this discussion, in an expression of love.

JOANNE: It also sounds like you’re saying that this final focus disengagement has to do with associating with the wind and not with the effects as much. Would that be an accurate summary?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. But this is not limited to the designation of a final focus, but with any focus. The final focus is merely a designated position. It bears no responsibility to the choices of any other focus. It is your choice in how you incorporate your exploration in association with being the designated final focus.

Many individuals generate the mass association that there are certain qualities that a designated final focus generally experiences, which is not necessarily correct; but many individuals do experience similarities, for they generate similar mass beliefs and express similar beliefs. There are also many individuals that are designated final focuses which incorporate quite different expressions and a tremendous zeal and excitement in their exploration of their focus, a wonderment that in some manners is similar to that of an initiating focus.

In actuality, initiating focuses many times incorporate much more challenge than the final focus in association with their expressed beliefs and the beliefs concerning being an initiating focus or a final focus. The mass belief in association with an initiating focus or a beginning focus is that all within your world shall be new and exciting, when in actuality many initiating focuses incorporate a considerable confusion and challenges in their associations with being the initiating focus.

The mass belief association with the final focus is that you have been incorporating focuses as though they were all expressed in a line linearly, and you have manifest and deceased and re-manifest and re-manifest and re-manifest many, many, many times, and therefore the final focus, in a linear movement, incorporates an exhaustion from experiencing so many focuses. That is a belief. Therefore, your experience is influenced by what beliefs you express. (Pause)

JOANNE: I’ll be thinking about that one for probably the rest of my life, thank you very much!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! I may express to you, all of your associations are influenced by your expressed beliefs. This is the reason that it is important and significant to be recognizing and identifying what you incorporate as expressed beliefs and also recognizing what the influence of those expressed beliefs is, for any belief incorporates many different types of influences in many different directions.

It is challenging to identify the belief itself; it is quite challenging to identify how it is influencing. But it is also quite liberating once you begin to incorporate that action, for this is the genuine area in which you recognize your choices, you discontinue automatic responses and limiting yourself in association with your beliefs, and the point in which you objectively genuinely recognize that rather than generating the association that your beliefs are your enemy and therefore must be eliminated, you begin to view that in actuality you incorporate so very many, in actuality countless, beliefs associated with all of the belief systems, that you have volumes to choose from.

Those beliefs that are expressed are actually quite few in relation to the countless beliefs that are not expressed, and you each incorporate them all. Therefore, you also incorporate a vast expanse to choose from.

JOANNE: I guess I think, too, about I’m affecting my other focuses through what I believe, but I know that it really is about me now.

ELIAS: Correct, for let me express to you, no other focus may affect you in any manner that you do not choose or that you do not draw to yourself in association with some action of your exploration now, and that applies to all other focuses also. You are not affecting of any of these other focuses in any manner in which they do not choose and in any manner in which they are not drawing that energy to them in association with their experiences and their exploration.

JOANNE: And I, Joanne, don’t need to take responsibility for their choices.

ELIAS: Correct! You, Joanne, identified in this particular focus of attention, are merely responsible for YOU, which is enough.

JOANNE: That’s for sure! (Both laugh) Divine creature that I am! Thank you.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

JOANNE: May I ask just a couple of quick questions for my friend Cynthia before we finish?

ELIAS: You may.

JOANNE: Is Pierre Gillard a focus of Cynthia?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Is Leon Trotsky?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

JOANNE: Is Cynthia observing Leo Tolstoy as well?

ELIAS: Yes.

JOANNE: Thank you very much.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

JOANNE: I look forward to dialoguing with you more and more, even when I’m not doing so objectively.

ELIAS: Very well, and I shall be interactive with you.

JOANNE: I’m looking forward to it, my good friend. Thank you again.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) You are quite welcome. I continue to express my energy and my supportiveness to you, and my expression of playfulness to remind you to incorporate more of that expression yourself! Ha ha ha!

JOANNE: All right, you got it! I’ve got it, for that matter. Thank you very much.

ELIAS: To you, my dear friend, in affection as always, au revoir.

JOANNE: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 12:49 PM.

(1) Originally expressed as “It is difficult for individuals to separate emotion from actions that they incorporate and different expressions.”

©2006 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.