Thursday, May 29, 2003 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Paul (Caroll)

Elias arrives at 1:41 PM. (Arrival time is 21 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good day!

PAUL: Good afternoon, old friend! (Elias laughs) Always a pleasure to speak with you!

ELIAS: And how shall we proceed?

PAUL: Well, I thought we would continue today with some of the imagery and ideas we talked about in our last private session. But before we get to that, I thought I’d do a reversal and actually just ask some questions for some friends — you know how that goes. So just to put that on the table first, if that’s okay with you.

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well!

PAUL: The first question is for my mother, Brenda/Frieda, who sends her regards to you.

ELIAS: And you may express the same to her.

PAUL: And I shall. Her question is she’s wondering if she’s a final focus. My impression is that she is.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Then a question for Cathy. She’s been experiencing a nerve, not pain, a nerve sensation from her shoulder to her heart area, something when she pushes off with her left hand. It’s like an electrical nerve thing, and she is curious if there is some connection with Bobbi’s recent heart imagery there.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: And would you care to elaborate?

ELIAS: In a partial manner, it may be identified as an empathetic expression.

Now; this is associated with anxieties and Shynla’s connection or understanding of that type of expression. She is generating a manifestation physically, not in extreme, but enough to notice in generating this type of a connection with Jale in an expression of empathy.

PAUL: I’m sure she’ll be pleased to hear that. My final question is someone who I don’t know directly. His name is Micah — not the same as Mike W./Micah. He is curious if you would offer his general information. Rather than me asking specifics, I’ll just let you offer or whatever, however you want to respond to that for him.

ELIAS: And have impressions been offered as to family, alignment and orientation?

PAUL: No, he didn’t... Let me be clear for a second. No, I don’t believe he offered his own impressions.

ELIAS: Very well. Essence name, Meane, M-E-A-N-E (MAY nuh).

PAUL: Would you pronounce that again for me?

ELIAS: Meane. Essence family, Tumold; alignment, Sumari; orientation, common.

PAUL: Great. I’m sure he’ll appreciate that. Thank you.

Moving on to continue with our series of dream mission discussions — I guess I should mention I’ve been talking to Norm and Reta every couple of weeks since January, and we’ve been having interesting conversations from Norm’s physicist point of view and I guess what we could roughly say from my psychological point of view. I just wanted to mention that he’s been very helpful from that perspective in helping me continue to develop and refine my ideas and my interpretations of your ideas.

I wanted to start today with something that we’ve all talked about before, which is the links of consciousness idea. I wanted to put a word out there, a term, called “holon.” A holon is just a theoretical construct which is very interesting to me. Again, this is in the same spirit of offering this out there and seeing what your feedback would be on it. The idea behind a holon as a theoretical unit like a link of consciousness is, at least in the physical world manifestation, it is a whole made of parts. So in a sense, it’s a whole but it also has parts that we can look at. There’s no separation between these parts when we look at it as a whole. Then in turn, every holon can be transcended and included into what we, again in physical terms, could call a super-holon, and from the holon’s perspective these parts could be considered sub-holons, that each part in itself has a whole/part nature.

It reflects this nested relationship that combines the idea that there is no separation within consciousness on one hand and that yet in a world of time there is an appearance of separation and parts that we can look at. So I was just wondering what you think about that idea.

ELIAS: As a presentment in association with what?

PAUL: Really with anything, any “what.” The idea — and I know you’re trying to get me to refine this a bit — the idea is that every holon has a perspective. There’s a wholeness perspective and there’s a parts perspective also, and it shows the relativity of different perspectives that are nested together within all of consciousness.

ELIAS: What you are describing conceptually is quite similar to the expression of essence, which incorporates those qualities that you are identifying in this concept of this holon, for it is an expression that is a whole that appears to incorporate parts but without separation; there are no actual parts. There is the whole and different directions, different perceptions of the whole, but not separate entities, except in the expressions of physical manifestations in relation to time.

PAUL: So in one sense I would use the phrase “holonic personality” to attempt to describe my version of the expression of essence from a physical standpoint, from a linear time, from an outer ego perspective, and yet holonic personality is then “one made of many.” There’s imagery in the world’s religions that reflect this, and I guess I’ll just provide an example and ask you to comment on that.

There’s a Buddhist icon — it’s a long name and I may be mispronouncing it — but it’s something like Avalokiteshvara, and the picture of it’s quite beautiful. It’s a human figure, and yet the face is three-sided and there are two, three, four, several three-sided heads on top of it and what looks like dozens of arms coming out. When I saw that picture in the context of we’ll call it the expression of essence, one-made-of-many, I thought my goodness, that is a literal — it’s not literal — it’s a figurative interpretation of the expression of essence. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: So over the millennia, the various yogis or practitioners, whatever terms we want to use of people who have perceived directly and interacted with their own essence or other essences in an altered state shall we say, this is how it gets interpreted in linear terms, in physically manifest terms, correct?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes, you are correct — therefore also the symbolization of the lotus flower.

PAUL: Right, right. Now there’s another principle that I want to try and tie into this idea, the expression of essence being a holon, a holonic personality tone. It’s the idea of what you call choice and what other philosophers might call free will, the ability to make choice. When we look at one-made-of-many, there’s apparent whole and there’s apparent parts. There’s some sort of holonic boundary, what I believe you referred to as a veil and piercing a veil, and so these veils are the way that essence manages to create the appearance of wholes and parts.

This is something that I’ve been wrestling with for a couple of years, and I asked you a version of this question before. I believe it was around February of 1998, and I’ll check that and add that in a footnote to this session. At that time, I talked about what I called “the veto power of essence” and I cited an example from the first Oversoul Seven book, where the character Joseph was levitated several miles down the hill. Your response to me was that that was figurative of, let’s just say, the relationship of one-made-of-many and how that might interact.

But what I’m sensing is that essence as a whole has this type of free will. In that exploration of consciousness and that creativity that is present within essence, there is a type of free will or holonic free will present at that let’s just call it a “layer” — I’ll put that in quotes, because it’s not a separate thing. Yet for me as a focus of essence, I for all intents and purposes have what appears to be free will to make choices and do what I want within my own boundaries.

Let’s say, on another level, cells in my liver — we can identify them as cells, so it has a boundary — they have a free will in which to be liver cells. They are happy little liver cells, doing what they do regardless of what I choose, regardless of what Caroll at the essence layer chooses. It’s not regardless, that’s not the right word, but it’s nested within; there’s multiple free will.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: And that’s part of the design of the oubliette and the remembrance. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Correct. But in this, what may be challenging to generate a clear understanding of is the element of the lack of separation. For in the association of separating, you generate your expressions in association with your beliefs concerning a type of hierarchy, in which, in your perception, as you view any manifestation in a smaller and smaller and smaller capacity, it becomes less and less and less in relation to the hierarchy of choices and its individual free will, per se — which is actually incorrect.

This also generates the idea and the association of less of an empowerment to the individual, for it generates the idea that you, or whatever it is that is YOU as your consciousness, is separate from all of these other elements, be they physical manifestations of cells or be they nonphysical expressions of essence. Are you understanding thus far?

PAUL: Yes, absolutely.

ELIAS: This is quite strongly associated with your beliefs within this physical reality.

In this, in relation to your archetypes, so to speak, that you are creating, the element of the interconnectedness and the lack of separation is significant, for this expresses that there is not necessarily an independence of all of these different expressions or manifestations without cooperation. Therefore, the liver cell does incorporate what you term to be free will, but in cooperation with the whole, for it is not separated from the whole. But the whole is not necessarily dictating to the part, just as the whole of essence, which also incorporates choice and direction, is not dictating to what you perceive to be the parts of the focuses, for they also incorporate choice.

PAUL: If I can try and summarize what you said in terms of challenging, it is a caution in that we’re dealing with a type of hierarchy — really, nested hierarchy, holonic hierarchies — and they are valid; it’s a valid concept. However, it’s very easy to misinterpret or take an interpretation of hierarchy into a place where we diminish certain parts, shall we say, in relation to the whole.

ELIAS: Correct, and what I am expressing to you is that the idea of the hierarchy is a belief. This is the element that generates distortion and misunderstanding, for in actuality there is no hierarchy and no part is less significant than the whole — for without the parts, there is no whole. Which is, in actuality, the reverse of what you generally associate within your beliefs, that the whole generates the parts, that the whole is first, so to speak, and the parts are generated from that initial whole. But this in actuality is incorrect, for the parts are elements of the whole that have always been present. It is merely a manner of manipulating energy in different configurations to generate manifestations.

PAUL: What you just said I’ve been wrestling with, of how to explain this in simple ways. There is a general way I approach this, which is a duality — the manifest/the unmanifest, time/no-time, space/no-space — looking at dualities like that, parts/wholes. There’s essentially a paradox in our perception, in our belief systems that we’re so used to taking for granted, that this acorn-sapling-tree aspect to our perception here, that that’s absolute somehow. I know that this is not an absolute, and so there’s a basic paradox of how to try and wrestle with that. I guess that’s all I’m really trying to do with these different concepts.

ELIAS: I am understanding. But even in this example that you have offered of the seed, the sapling and the tree, you may view the different perspectives in the association with those three elements.

In one direction, you may perceive that the grandeur of the final product, so to speak, is generated by the small beginning, or that the large generates the smaller. Both of which, in association with consciousness, are a distortion and an absolute association and somewhat incorrect; but generally speaking, this is the manner in which you associate in relation to your beliefs — either some vast entity creates all of the smaller entities, or the small entity creates and continues to grow to become the large entity.

PAUL: Right, essentially from the space/time point of view is where the belief systems develop about that. From the no-space/no-time or the simultaneity perspective that’s obviously incorrect, that all of those exist as a simultaneity, and yet as they manifest in a time framework, the acorn is the emergent part, then the sapling and then the tree, and it has to appear that way. However, that’s one perspective, that’s one holonic perspective — which is mine, being in time, in a body in time.

However, from a different perspective outside of time, more of shall we just say an essence perspective, that’s not the way it is at all. That duality seems to be what we wrestle with in trying to find ways to conceptualize, and not only that but then to help understand it further and explore it ourselves from this linear space/time point of view.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Which leads a couple of places — let me just throw another idea out there. If we’re talking about expression of essence or holonic personality tone and hierarchy/non-hierarchy, nests within nests, there is some type of holonic communication meshwork therefore between them, this network of wholes and parts. If we just take the example of essence, a focus of attention and a liver cell in that particular focus of attention, what you were talking about earlier that the critical understanding of the cooperation of that nest is absolute. Without the cooperation, that nest doesn’t manifest ever. So each super, regular and sub-part/whole of it still communicates. In order to cooperate, a liver cell, the focus of attention and the essence are talking to each other, are translating, projecting energy and translating energy, and it’s not just two-way, is it? It’s multidimensional.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Right, and I’m trying to discover from my perspective, from the forgetting, the oubliette perspective, trying to remember that communication meshwork is kind of cool, is something of an art-science that I think will emerge in the next few centuries.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: I would love to hear you comment, then, on this idea of communication. You already have, of course, with your avenues of communication from essence to the focus of attention through impression, imagination, inner senses, dreams, physical sensation and so forth, so that’s one avenue of holonic communication from subjective awareness of the essence to objective awareness. What other dimensions or angles or parts of a communication network are there that we haven’t talked about yet? I guess I’m asking for some more clues. (Laughs)

ELIAS: In relation to other dimensions?

PAUL: Yeah, I know this is tough. No, well, I guess that’s probably where this leads, because I’m thinking of myself in a single dimension, and I realize what you refer to as Regional Area 1 is penetrated with infinite sub-dimensions, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So this holonic communication, it’s infinite in one sense, but I want to try to get more concrete examples. What else should I throw into this then? Can I try another idea?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: I appreciate it. (Both laugh) Let’s put in the idea of probable selves, because I think that helps to get us into a multi-dimensional framework here. This is something that we might be able to ask some further questions about. From my perspective as a focus of attention, I have a probable birth, but that is really the initiation of all of my probable selves. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: In terms of linear time...

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: ...I’m calling it linear time. We’ll just take my life, and I was born May 5, 1955. So I’m a little baby there and I’m doing my thing, and at some point I splinter off into my first probable self. At another point, life conditions create a tension-resolution to such a point where I splinter off into yet another probable self. I’m referring mentally, Elias, to a chart that I showed Mary back in January, so I think you have that in her memory bank to refer to with these probable selves and these bifurcation points. Is that diagram a roughly accurate or at least beginning way to look at probable selves as they fragment through time?

ELIAS: Somewhat, for it is an initial draft of identifying movements and choices and directions within one focus which generate probable selves in different points of the focus.

Now; recognize, whenever you generate one of these points in which you, in your terms, splinter a probable self, you do not merely generate ONE probable self or ONE probable reality, for in that moment ALL of the probable probabilities are actualized.

PAUL: And that would then include all subsequent probable splintering?

ELIAS: Yes. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, it is infinite.

PAUL: Yet in a manner of speaking there’s a way to make it somewhat discrete, correct?

ELIAS: Discrete in...

PAUL: Finite, I guess. It’s back to that duality — finite versus infinite.

ELIAS: The finite action is the choice that you generate that you insert into YOUR reality. But from that choice springs, so to speak, infinite choices and infinite scenarios of probabilities.

PAUL: I want to get back to the choice, the free will, the choice that is a bifurcation point. There’s something else in this... I’m wrestling with this. Let me come back to the bifurcation point, then. At the bifurcation point itself, for example, the liver cell bifurcates also, my entire physical form bifurcates, or is it the entire dimension?

ELIAS: Figuratively speaking, yes — in relation to YOU.

PAUL: To the perspective, the focus of attention.

ELIAS: Correct, and the essence.

PAUL: Right, right, right. I keep forgetting that layer! (Both laugh) But I’m getting more in touch with including that layer because that is the primary thing. It’s just so invisible that I keep forgetting about it! But that’s the nature of the forgetting, isn’t it? (Elias laughs) You appreciate this, don’t you? My confusion, my remembering? I know you do.

So, this question, then — you just articulated that thus far in my awareness that it’s a major decision versus some minor decision. So if I get up to go to the bathroom, I don’t necessarily fragment into a probable self, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: There is some intensity within energy that’s discernible somehow, where this probable splintering occurs, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: That is something that Norm and the dream-art physicists will eventually begin to identify somehow, correct?

ELIAS: Yes. You are already moving in that direction, for you are already recognizing that there are points in your movement that are identifiable in time which signify that action of generating probable selves and probable realities, and that you may actually intersect those probable realities and probable selves and interact. You may move into those probable realities and move also back to your own.

PAUL: How would I know in my objective awareness that this has occurred? There must be some perceptible apprehension in objective terms, not necessarily the five senses, not necessarily a thought, but in terms of impression, impulse, feeling, even emotion, I guess, since that’s a baseline and a key avenue of essence communication. Is there, then, an emotional way that I could learn to discern these probability points, these bifurcation points?

ELIAS: You may easily identify these points objectively. The manner in which you identify these points is merely to be viewing your movement objectively and your directions. Each time you generate an alteration of your direction, you may, in your terms, mark this as a point of creating probable selves and probable realities. In those time frameworks in which you generate decisions, choices that change your direction in some manner, you are generating probable realities also.

For example, an individual may be avoiding a collision within their vehicle and it may be what you term to be a near miss. In that moment there has been a jerk action of the individual’s direction. The direction was to collide, and in that moment there has been an alteration of the direction, which is noticeable but it is also abrupt.

Now; not all probable realities are generated in abrupt alterations of your directions, but those are quite noticeable. Those that may be more subtle, so to speak, but are also quite obvious may be pin-pointed in any decisions and choices that you incorporate that change your direction — incorporating different schools, the choice of coupling yourself with another individual or dissolving a coupling, generating a new relationship with another individual, different expressions of friendships that may change your direction.

Now; you may be incorporating a friendship and not be generating a probable self or reality; it is dependent upon whether your direction changes. But each time you alter your direction, you also create probable realities, and in that moment all of the probabilities are actualized.

PAUL: So desire, intent and emotion are involved in those choices...

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: ...that result in the bifurcation into new sets of probabilities.

ELIAS: Not necessarily result — desire, yes. Emotion is a communication; therefore it is an involvement, for it is an action of communication that you offer to yourself in relation to what you are doing — identifying what you are doing and communicating to yourself about that action. Desire, yes, is a motivating factor. Your intent, yes, that also generates an involvement, for all of your directions are associated with your intent.

PAUL: So the emotional communication then is a signal that is, in linear terms, after the choice? Not necessarily. (Laughs)

ELIAS: In actuality, it appears to be subsequent to the choice. In actuality, it is literally generated at the moment of choice; but in association with the movement of your attention, it appears that the communication is expressed after.

PAUL: So this would be one way to identify, then, one of these bifurcation points through the intensity of the emotional signal?

ELIAS: Not necessarily, for at times you may generate a choice to be altering your direction and not necessarily offer yourself an intensity of emotional communication, especially if you are generating a strength in trust of yourself and you do not question your choices. In that expression of trust, regardless of how affecting the alteration of your direction may be, you may not necessarily be generating an emotional communication concerning it.

PAUL: The key then is identifying the doing and choosing.

ELIAS: Yes, and paying attention to the emotional communications, if you are generating them.

PAUL: So it all works together in a spectrum.

ELIAS: Yes, (and it) is quite important to be paying attention to all of these different functions and generating them in harmony. When any one of them is not in harmony with the others, you are attempting to communicate some information to yourself that concerns your beliefs and concerns how you are influencing your perception and therefore how you are influencing your reality.

PAUL: That makes sense. So if I could ask you at this point, based on our conversation today and in the previous session, to just walk through the four Regional Areas in a very general sense, to try and give a sense of their relationship to each other in the context of the expression of essence and the holonic personality and what we’ve been talking about in a sense, would you mind just trying to walk through the four?

ELIAS: In what sense?

PAUL: In the sense of their... yeah, in what sense?

ELIAS: You, as essence — figuratively speaking, for consciousness is not a place and it is also not a thing — but figuratively speaking, you as essence occupy all areas of consciousness. Therefore, identifying any particular Regional Area is actually identifying different actions.

In this, Regional Area 1 is the aspect of you in which you generate the action of physicality.

Regional Area 2 is the area in which you generate the action of communication in association with Regional Area 1 and all other Regional Areas. It is the bridge to Regional Area 1, allowing for the availability of any desired information.

Regional Area 3 is the action of interconnectedness, collective, the action of no separation, which also, in a manner of speaking, feeds to Regional Area 1 through Regional Area 2, in the sense within Regional Area 1 of being interconnected in some manner, regardless that there is the appearance of separation.

Regional Area 4 is the action of, in a manner of speaking, your archetype. In association with any action of generating any physical manifestation, this springs, figuratively speaking, from this whole of Regional Area 4 — which is also the part, but the whole of the whole of all of the other Regional Areas.

PAUL: Does the Regional Area metaphor break down at that point, as far as my perspective is concerned?

ELIAS: As to your understanding within your physical awareness, your objective awareness, yes.

PAUL: In theoretical terms when we talk about this physical reality, if we deal with these four nested Regional Areas, that’s pretty much going to cover it.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: And yet, on the other hand, consciousness in its vastness, of course branches out in all sorts of different ways.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: There’s just no point in referring to them as Regional Areas.

ELIAS: Correct. This is the on-going, infinite lotus flower. For what you are exploring is directly associated with your physical reality and in your terms what is related to your physical reality. In this, these four Regional Areas may be directly associated with physical reality — not merely your physical reality, but any physical reality.

PAUL: From the Regional Area 4 perspective, you’re saying that all physical dimensions are connected from that Regional Area focus of attention?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: As essence, then, the aspects of essence manifest in Regional Area 4. It is their choice and intent to explore these physical time frameworks from that construct. This Regional Area 3, 2, 1 nest unfolds and is explored from that perspective.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: Essence then, of course, explores in other ways and there’s really no point in me talking about them right now!

ELIAS: (Laughs) This is one direction.

Now; beyond what is identified as Regional Area 4, you are incorporating the genuine expression of no separation, and therefore there is no distinction, so to speak, of essence. For essence is consciousness, and consciousness is not a thing; therefore, there is no thing to be separated.

PAUL: Let me ask you this, then. As I study the different perennial philosophies and translations and interpretations that’s referred to in the Buddhist tradition as non-dual emptiness — and they recognize that that is just a label which is meaningless in one context because it’s only a description — it’s not the focus of attention itself.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: It’s not even a focus of attention.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So these maps are somewhat accurate, in the sense of showing a non-dual source consciousness that’s unmanifest, ineffable, inexpressible and yadda-yadda, but as sort of this beyond Regional Area 4, which of course isn’t beyond because it’s within everything.

ELIAS: Correct. But they are somewhat accurate. They are translations and they are associated with what you know within your physical reality and they are associated with your beliefs, but they are not entirely inaccurate.

PAUL: Specifically I was referring to that sort of trans-Regional Area 4 part of the nest, whatever you want to call it. I wasn’t sure about that before, but I understand it, I can conceptualize it better now. I find great joy and amazement to see that others have at least experienced it briefly and have attempted to map it for those of us who are still in our forgetting as we go along. I find that consonant with what you just said about the four Regional Areas. Then trans-Regional Areas, it’s not even verbal, there’s no object, there’s no thing, no process, no consciousness, no energy, no perspective, but there IS...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: ...there simply IS.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: That’s close enough for today! (Elias laughs)

Oh, I just have a couple more questions here. I really, again, I always appreciate our discussions and your helpfulness and the clues that you plant for me to ponder here as the years roll by.

Back to the probable selves idea and the fact that it’s a cluster and what-not, in a sense, then, from the essence perspective, as it goes through a cycle of manifestation and explodes all of its manifestations and what-not, as probable selves are created in a time framework, this means that there are — and I know it’s obvious, but I just wanted to state it for the record — that there’s probable deaths, there’s holonic deaths, there’s not a single death. There is no death, which as you’ve said is a translation of state, a translation of being, a new chapter beginning, but beyond that in terms of regular linear time in these probable dimensions that are nested within my Regional Area 1 in this dimension, there are countless probable deaths experienced.

ELIAS: Correct, for this also is a choice to alter your direction, and in that choice to alter your direction, you once again generate numberless probable realities and probable selves.

PAUL: From the perspective of essence, that’s all maintained in a simultaneous focus of attention?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: That’s amazing. (Both laugh) It’s really amazing to be in my little bubble where I am floating through consciousness and knowing that there’s another veil and another veil, which are all present right here, right now, in a very simple way.

Just a couple things here — the chart that I showed to Mary, I just wanted to get your feedback that it was not a distortion in terms of the multiple focuses. I attempted to show a beginning, continuing or initiating, continuing, final focus, even observing focuses, where the initiating focus is in terms of linear time. It’s like number seven and the final focus is like number five, so it shows that they’re non-linear.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: It also shows then the nine — from my focus of attention, physically manifest focus of attention — there are nine forms of time, in a general way, in a very general way, and how they relate then to each of the other focuses. Is that somewhat accurate, how I mapped that?

ELIAS: Identify “nine forms of time.”

PAUL: Okay. We take past, present, future and just matrix it into past-past, past-present, past-future, present-past, present-present, present-future, future-past, future-present, future-future — each one being a valid perspective from my now.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: So each focus personality in this now can access those nine perspectives...

ELIAS: In your now, yes.

PAUL: ...or does access those nine perspectives in different ways, even though there’s a tendency to stay in the present-present and present-past and present-future.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: But these other six, past ones and future ones, are there and perhaps in altered focus or in other ways they are clearly accessible to us.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: Wow. That does it on that chart.

Just one more question then for today, old friend. The idea of... Let me frame the question. I realize that’s so important in the way you answer. In the context of this acorn-sapling-tree developmental stages in time, from this focus of attention, from the essence focus of attention, it’s a simultaneity. Recognizing that, the ten belief systems that you’ve presented to us as general areas of beliefs that work together are present in the acorn, they’re present in the sapling, they’re present in the tree to different degrees, and therefore...

ELIAS: Not to different degrees. They are all present continuously. The distinction is that they are not all expressed. They are...

PAUL: As they get expressed, as we develop and go through our developmental stages... And this is a moral question. This is a tricky one. This is duplicity; the belief system of duplicity is present. And let me just ask you this question — in your context, the belief system of duplicity would be the area where we would look at morals and ethical belief systems?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: Where we judge good and bad?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: As opposed to the other nine, which deal with relationships, I mean. And as you stated, the belief system of duplicity is nested within the other nine...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: ...and so that moral judgment is always present...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: ...and with our relationships, with emotion, sexuality, and on with the others. All I’m trying to get is that this belief system of duplicity, it changes in time also. It goes through what we could loosely call an acorn, sapling and tree stage.

ELIAS: That would be quite figurative, for it is not a development. Do not misunderstand. You incorporate ALL of the beliefs within ALL of the belief systems from the moment that you choose to be participating in this particular physical reality.

Now; you express relatively few beliefs within each belief system. I am aware that it appears to each of you that you express many beliefs in association with each belief system, but in relation to the countless beliefs which are contained within each belief system, relatively speaking you express few.

Now; those are not absolute, either. They change. The beliefs do not change, but which beliefs are expressed may change. Some beliefs you continue to express throughout the entirety of your focus, but some you do not. You may move your attention in association with different directions that you incorporate within one focus and that may alter which beliefs are expressed.

An indicator of this that you may obviously objectively recognize is preferences. Preferences change. You may incorporate certain preferences in one time framework and within another time framework you may incorporate other preferences. Preferences are merely preferred expressed beliefs. In viewing how your preferences change, you also indicate to yourself that other expressed beliefs also change and may become non-expressed beliefs and exchanged for other beliefs to be expressed.

This is the significance of genuinely generating an objective understanding of what you actually incorporate within this physical dimension — that beliefs are not your enemy and that they are not to be eliminated, but rather that you move your awareness to a wider expression and recognize that you actually incorporate a myriad of beliefs to choose. Rather than your familiar association with beliefs in automatically viewing them as bad, the point is to recognize that they are an integral expression and design of this physical dimension, and (that) to be incorporating optimum movement and creativity within this physical dimension, to allow yourself to be incorporating the choice of all of them — use them rather than attempting to eliminate them — and the manner in which you use them efficiently is to neutralize them in association with judgment.

Now; as I have stated, duplicity is a belief system also and it incorporates beliefs also. Those are not to be eliminated either, but rather to be recognized in relation to PREFERENCE or the lack of preference, not in absolutes. But you may continue to incorporate your opinion and your preferences, knowing that they are relative to you, and not an absolute.

PAUL: At some point in linear terms, the awareness, the focus of attention becomes aware of what you just said — preference, opinion — as opposed to absolute.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: So it’s not inherent in the acorn stage, necessarily, or is it?

ELIAS: That awareness?

PAUL: Yes, that awareness.

ELIAS: The potential of that awareness, yes, is.

PAUL: But oftentimes, more often than not, that potential is not anywhere near fully realized in the pre-conventional stages.

ELIAS: Correct. In this time framework and throughout your history, you are correct. But this is the reason that you are incorporating this shift in consciousness.

PAUL: So are you suggesting, then, that post-shift the pre-conventional stages will be more aware of that potential awareness, will be more fully manifest in the pre-conventional stages?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: Oh, that’s good news. See there, I made a judgment! (Elias laughs) But that makes sense as far as the Shift, and that would be a huge shift from where we are presently.

ELIAS: Yes, you are quite correct.

PAUL: Just the last question then — the ten belief systems, they’re general. We could divide them up other ways too, I suppose, but it covers a spectrum. Those ten are inherent in the blueprints.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: So an essence, when it manifests, say, 1200 focuses — woof! — those ten are in all 1200 focuses.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL: Okay, that’s consistent with your model as you’ve explained it so far. Well, I guess that does it for me today, old friend!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well. I shall be anticipating our next discussion.

PAUL: And so shall I. I just have to say again how deeply I appreciate the interactions. I do prefer being in physical proximity but the telephone will do also.

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well, my friend. To you, as always, I express great lovingness, and in my tremendous affection, au revoir.

PAUL: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 2:56 PM.

(1) Transcriber’s note: The image of a lotus flower is traditionally incorporated in pictures of Avalokiteshvara. Apparently Elias must be familiar with the term and image.

(2) For Paul”s fully annotated version of this transcript, go to www.eliasforum.org posted there.

(3) From 7/18/97: “For you focus your attention in one area. You merely focus a beam of your attention in one area and allow yourself your oubliette, your place of forgetting; therefore offering yourself the purity of your experience. Now you move to a place, in your terms, of remembering. Symbolically, what you are accomplishing is building, piece-by-piece, your bridge, from your oubliette to all of reality.”

©2006 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.