Friday, June 20, 2003 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Don (Allard)

Elias arrives at 11:28 AM. (Arrival time is 16 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

DON: Good morning. (Elias chuckles) Today, despite what I said last time, I found myself with several impression questions I’d like to run by you.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: I get for my father’s essence name something that starts with R-O and ends with O. I don’t know if it’s Roberto or Romero, or maybe Romelio. What is his essence name?

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Much shorter.

DON: Oh, Ro?

ELIAS: Rollo.

DON: Rollo. Well! (Laughs) I don’t know why that makes me laugh, but it sure seems to fit. (Elias laughs) Now, Sophie’s name, would you spell that S-O-F-I or S-O-P-H-I-E?

ELIAS: S-O-P-H-I — no E.

DON: I get the feeling that regarding my future focus, Phillip Robin, that there’s a probability at least that he may fragment, and if that occurs, I gather that the tone of the new essence might be approximated as Jaxpur or Joxpur, with an X and P-U-R. What would you say about that impression?

ELIAS: It is correct, but it is a potential. It is not actually decided yet.

DON: Would you say that’s because it’s a future focus, or could that be true for a past focus as much as a future focus?

ELIAS: The latter is correct.

DON: In that probability, is it more probable that he would fragment to become an essence belonging to Zuli?

ELIAS: That would be a choice, which would be expressed in the moment of fragmentation.

DON: Some time ago we talked about Green-Jene, the name I used for a mergence between myself and Jene, and my impression is that this mergence actually led to a fragmentation. If it did, I’d approximate the new essence’s tone as Gwyneth or maybe Guinevere or Gwendolyn.

ELIAS: Gwendolyn.

DON: And I have the impression that this essence is not physically focused in this dimension, although he/she is in others.

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: There are some noticeable parallels between her and an essence that may have fragmented from Myranda that she calls Guinevere. Are these the same essence or do they have some association?

ELIAS: There is an association in focuses in other dimensions.

DON: I’m just starting to become a little more aware, I feel like, of essences fragmenting from me in combination with others. I take it this is actually a pretty frequent occurrence with most of us, isn’t it?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: Quite frequent?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: I picked up a couple more, I think, and I get them mostly by color. One is peach-pink. I don’t get much more about it. Another, I think, is yellow and would have a name something like Arawani.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: I sense that one of these is actually perhaps fragmented from both me and Gwendolyn, or maybe just Gwendolyn and also Sophi.

ELIAS: All three.

DON: Only us three?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: And that would be Arawani?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: Interesting. I have a question from Stephen in Australia and I’ll read this verbatim. “This question has arisen about my fragmentations. The question is that in actuality I am and always have been and will be Ornah, and that these fragments that I think I become I do not become, for they are just the result of my merging with other essences. So therefore, I am still and shall always be Ornah, none else.” I guess he’s asking for confirmation of that.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: I have a question from Allie, focus Ingrid. Is Anthony Quinn a focus of hers?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

DON: She picks up a strong connection between the two of us. I don’t know if you have anything to say about it. I think we have both counterpart action and some shared focuses.

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

DON: I have things from Allesander. First, he’d like some focus confirmations. Is Jean-Baptiste Bessières a focus of his?

ELIAS: Observing essence.

DON: Louis Pasteur, the same question.

ELIAS: No, but does incorporate a focus that is known to that individual briefly.

DON: And again, the same question for the French explorer Samuel de Champlain.

ELIAS: No, but he does incorporate a focus in that time framework and that focus expresses a strong admiration for that individual.

DON: Finally he wonders if Sakuro Saito, S-A-I-T-O, is the name of his Japanese World War II pilot focus.

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: I have a question from Oona and Ashrah. Is Tamsen Donner a focus of Myiisha?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: I picked up what I thought were some possible names of subdivisions of the Vold family recently. The three names I got were Vox, V-O-X, Volare and one that’s either Vulcan or Vulnar. Are any of these actually names that you would give to the sub-divisions of Vold?

ELIAS: Yes, all three, the third being the former.

DON: Vulcan.

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: Do I belong to one of these subdivisions?

ELIAS: No.

DON: So I belong to Vold but actually to no particular subdivision of Vold?

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: You said that with family subdivisions, generally the intent between all of them is very similar with only slight differences. Is that true of these three?

ELIAS: Yes, that is correct.

DON: Allesander has the impression that John Torrio is a focus of mine. I can’t tell if it’s a focus or not, but somehow he feels more closely associated to Rollo than to me. Do you have any comments?

ELIAS: Yes, in counterpart action.

DON: Between one of my focuses and John Torrio, or Rollo?

ELIAS: Rollo.

DON: So Rollo has counterpart action.

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: This is an impression from some time ago that both Jene and I have wondered about it. I don’t feel clear on it, so I’ll ask you. During the time of the French Revolution, are Grace Elliott and Philippe, Duke of Orléans, focuses of Jene and me, respectively?

ELIAS: Yes, Orléans. (Corrects pronunciation)

DON: Orléans. (Laughs) I didn’t trust myself to say that, but I knew it! (Elias laughs)

Another quick impression of Jene’s, she’s felt a connection between her and me and the focuses of Andy Kaufman and Bob Zamuda. Her strongest impression is that Andy Kaufman is a focus of hers. I can sense some connection between the four of us also, but I’m not clear on it.

ELIAS: This would be an observing essence throughout the entirety of the focus.

DON: For Jene.

ELIAS: Yes, and observing essence for partial focus in association with yourself.

DON: With Bob Zamuda?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: Another impression of hers is she saw Tony Bennett recently in concert and she thought she definitely felt my energy associated with him somehow. Her first thought was that perhaps he’s a focus of mine, but maybe the connection is something else. Then my impression upon hearing this was that while there may be another connection, I felt like during that particular show there was a projection of energy from me to Tony Bennett somehow and that’s what she was sensing.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: The latter?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: And other than that, there is no particular connection between me and Tony Bennett?

ELIAS: No.

DON: Recently, maybe three weeks ago or so, I felt Seth around. This is the first time I’ve ever really been objectively aware of him in particular, and it was kind of a curious contact to me. In my mind’s eye, I saw him definitely unsmiling but not unfriendly — just looking at me and making eye contact somewhere if I looked at him with my mind’s eye. I didn’t get the sense that he had anything in particular to communicate to me, more kind of a sense that he was satisfying his own curiosity — at least this is how I translate it. Is this a very accurate translation of this interaction?

ELIAS: Yes, and your allowance.

DON: So he really didn’t have much to communicate to me then?

ELIAS: No.

DON: I have a question from Lucille. She would like to know what essences — I believe, if I understand her question correctly — she’d like to know what essence or essences she’s fragmented from. I think she’s also curious as to whether her current focus is considering fragmenting to form a new essence.

ELIAS: To the second question, no; to the first question, fragmented from Pico, Pablo, Amadeus and Wieng.

DON: How do you spell the last one?

ELIAS: W-I-E-N-G (WING).

DON: Pico is spelled P-I-C-O (PEE koh)?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: Just a general question on focus-based fragmentations: I wonder if, given that we have probable selves, does it occur that one probable self might fragment to form a new essence, and another probable self of the same focus remain with the original essence?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: I met someone recently — just online, I haven’t in person — and I sense a connection between her and Jene, but I can’t tell. It’s most likely a counterpart action, but I thought perhaps this was actually a focus of Jene’s. I wondered what you would say about that. Her name is Lynn.

ELIAS: This is a counterpart action.

DON: I have a question about truths, maybe a statement or a hypothesis, that I’d like your comments on. (Elias chuckles) Let’s see, I didn’t write this out properly or the way I wish I had now. I think of truths as something you might call the axioms of existence, and they’re the only things, for lack of a better word, not created actually by all of consciousness. At least one argument I see for them not being created by consciousness but rather defining or implying it, is that if consciousness can create truths, this implies the existence of probable truths — those that might be created, yet are not. But any probable truth actually already exists, then, as a probability, and thus would fail the definition of a truth, as it exists in a part of consciousness and not in another. Do you have any comments on this?

ELIAS: (Chuckles) First of all, I may express to you that truths are an expression of consciousness. They are not independent of consciousness and they are also not absolute, for they are changeable, but the essence of them remains somewhat the same. They are expressions of consciousness that may be translatable in any area of consciousness.

DON: May be translatable but are not necessarily translated into every area of consciousness?

ELIAS: Correct, but they may be. There is the potential or the possibility. They are expressions of consciousness that can be configured in different manners that would allow them to be expressed in every area of consciousness.

DON: So given that consciousness is continually exploring itself, it’s still... I can just imagine that consciousness might create an aspect of itself in which a given truth may no longer be translatable in that particular area of consciousness.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: Oh, and it would no longer be a truth.

ELIAS: Correct, as there are no absolutes.

DON: Yeah! (Elias chuckles) You said recently in the group session, although I haven’t seen the transcript yet, from what I understand you said that we’ve begun a wave of addressing to the belief system of truth.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: In that session did you define what this belief system is? I haven’t seen it yet, but I haven’t really been able to get a good handle on what that belief system is.

ELIAS: It may be identified as any expression that you perceive as a truth. It has been defined that what you access as truths are your most strongly expressed beliefs, those beliefs that permeate every day of your focus and are expressed in all of your focus and influence all of your directions. Those expressed beliefs are quite strong, for they are not questioned; they merely ARE.

You each incorporate — or have incorporated, given that there are some individuals now that have moved their awareness into a direction of recognizing what beliefs are and are not necessarily generating the distinction between beliefs and truths any longer — but for the most part, individuals within your reality continue to express a distinction between beliefs and truths. The distinction that is expressed is that beliefs are some thing that you believe or you do not believe, and that truth merely is and is outside of the expression of beliefs.

Now; beliefs are not a thing, and it matters not whether you believe them or not. They ARE, regardless, and they are expressed regardless. Many individuals may express to themselves and to other individuals that they do not incorporate religious beliefs. This is entirely incorrect. They may even express to themselves that they do not incorporate any expression of religious beliefs, and they do. All of you express some religious beliefs, for all of you express some beliefs within every belief system — not all of them, but some.

In this, as you generate this distinction between expressions that merely are and those that you believe or you do not believe, this sets a definition within yourselves of what a belief is: some expression that you either believe or you do not believe. But whether you objectively recognize that you BELIEVE some expression or not does not entirely incorporate a bearing upon whether it is expressed or not.

DON: It only reflects the attention the belief is given when it’s being expressed, it seems like.

ELIAS: It reflects your opinion and what you think, but not necessarily accurately defining whether you actually express a particular belief or not. This is the significance of recognizing and identifying specifically what your expressed beliefs are and what their influences are, as we have discussed previously.

Now; I offered an example with that group of individuals in the discussion of truth, or the belief system of truth, in a very simple expression, that your sun rises and sets every day. But that is a matter of perception, and the perception is influenced by beliefs. It is dependent upon your position. In your position, yes, the sun rises and sets every day in accordance with your beliefs and your choice of position to support those beliefs.

DON: By position, do you mean physical location?

ELIAS: Yes. Your physical locations are not accidental. You choose to be manifest and experiencing within certain physical locations in association with the expressed beliefs that you are incorporating in any particular time framework, which change. Individuals move and alter their position in reflection of the expressed beliefs that they are incorporating in that time framework. Within a different position, your sun does not rise or set every day. Therefore, it is not an absolute.

This is quite a simple example but effective in illustrating that there are some expressions, some actions within your reality that you do not question and that you do not pay attention to, for they merely are, but you express them daily and the concentration that you express in association with those beliefs is strong. Therefore, the beliefs themselves are quite strong and quite influencing, and this is what you identify as your truth.

DON: An example I’ve been thinking of recently, that I think I would consider a truth in this sense, is a belief I have that still feels like a truth to me somehow. You said recently — well, some time ago in a session that was only recently transcribed — what we term as love is not limited, and therefore we incorporate the capacity to love many individuals simultaneously in equal measure. But what feels to be a truth to me is that while our capacity to love may not be limited, our time and attention, given the singular focus that we have, certainly are, and thus our objective expressions of love that we’re capable of are limited. I mean, we live a finite number of seconds as a singular focus. I understand intellectually this is a belief, but this really does feel like a truth to me.

ELIAS: And this is the point. It is not the point to identify your truths and discount yourself or to attempt to eliminate it or even change it, for many of your truths are also your preferences or expressions that you value. As I have expressed previously, value is not necessarily always associated with what you define as positive or comfortable. There are many experiences and expressions and actions that each of you incorporate within your focus that may not necessarily be positive or comfortable, but this is not to say that you do not value them.

In this, your truths are associated with absolutes. Once you move a belief into the position of being an absolute, it becomes your truth.

DON: Such as what I’ve done with my belief that my time and attention are limited.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: That feels absolute to me.

ELIAS: Correct, and therefore you generate that as a reality, for it is inflexible. It has become an absolute and now it has become a truth.

DON: So in this, this is an example of the kind of thing that we will be addressing to in this wave now. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Which you are ALREADY addressing to. It has already begun.

DON: And in this action of addressing, what will we be doing? Recognizing...?

ELIAS: Allowing yourselves to become more intimate with yourselves in identifying more aspects of yourselves, more clearly identifying specifically your beliefs and allowing yourselves the examination of those beliefs and generating the evaluation of how you choose to express them.

In this, in a manner of speaking, you are accessing, in relation to your truths, the choices that you incorporate with them, the manner in which you associate your attention with them, discovering that within your truths some aspects of your truths you prefer and some you may not. But you are allowing yourselves a more clear understanding and allowance within yourself to distinguish objectively which aspects of your truths you prefer and which aspects limit you, therefore offering yourself choice.

DON: Just recently, starting very shortly before this wave actually started, I started generating imagery around intimate relationships, in particular imagery showing me my truths that time and attention are limited, my truths that exclusive relationships are quote “good,” and those that are not exclusive are bad. I think I believe that it’s a truth that deceit is bad, and I’m just thinking now that I’m generating this imagery pretty directly as part of my own addressing, my own part of this wave.

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: So, an obvious question with an obvious answer, this new imagery I’ve been generating in this wave of addressing to truth is not just coincidental.

ELIAS: Correct.

Now; in this, as you continue your examination and you continue to evaluate and present to yourself more of an identification of the influences of these truths that you incorporate, you may also allow yourself to view that you acknowledge that you do incorporate these expressions as your truth, but they are YOUR truth and they actually are not absolutes.

DON: That’s an interesting way to put it. I can see that they are absolutes to me, but it’s very obvious they aren’t absolutes to everybody.

ELIAS: Correct. They are absolutes with you. It is not necessary to be absolutes with you, but as you express within your common vernacular, it is what it is, and it is not bad. You may be incorporating your truth that honesty is good and that deception is bad. That is your truth. But it may be an absolute with you and therefore absolutely affecting YOUR expression and what YOU generate, motivating you to express yourself in what you perceive to be an honest fashion and not to be deceitful, but another individual may express a different truth.

DON: What I find myself expressing with regard to that one is not that I behave that way but rather that when I am deceitful or somehow fall into a situation where it seems that I have been deceitful, I generate the consequences and the judgments in my imagery for myself...

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: ...in terms of other people being hurt and the like...

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: ...and I still reflect this belief.

ELIAS: Yes! But it also is influencing in association with expectations, for if you incorporate this truth concerning honesty being good and deceitfulness being bad in absolutes, if another individual is expressing deceitfulness in your perception, you also express the judgment in association with them. You express the judgment that an individual that is honest is good and one that is deceitful is bad, for your measure of your judgment is expressed in your truth.

DON: Both, judgment that I might have on someone else and judgment that I receive if I don’t measure up to my own expectations.

ELIAS: Correct.

Now; in this example, you may be examining that truth within yourself and you may choose objectively to continue to express some aspects of it. You may continue to choose to express that you view honesty to be good, and you may set your guidelines within yourself concerning honesty and deceitfulness in association with YOUR behavior and YOUR expressions, and this is merely a choice associated with your preferences. But once you recognize that it is individually YOUR preferences, you begin to allow yourself to relax your rigidity in association with yourself and with other individuals.

DON: That would be very different than now, because now I feel that currently I have no freedom with regard to this expression. It feels very much like cause and effect.

ELIAS: Yes, which is what you generate and which is another very strong belief, that if you generate one action, you automatically create an effect in association with it. (Pause)

DON: Well, I’ll have to... I don’t really have much else to say about that. (Elias laughs) I wonder, I really have been feeling stuck lately and feeling like I want the relationship I’m in but I don’t want it to be exclusive, and yet judging that as being bad and finding the consequences of my own beliefs reflected back to me in my imagery. I’ll have to ponder.

ELIAS: But this is what you create, my friend, and this is the significance of genuinely addressing to your truths. For I may express to you repeatedly the identification that you create all of these actions and you may intellectually incorporate somewhat of an understanding of that, but in actual practice, in actual choices and actions, this is quite different.

DON: Oh, quite!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha! For it remains a concept that you are actually creating all of this, and the reality is reflected in your truths.

DON: Let me check the time here, just a moment. (Elias chuckles) We’re getting close to the end.

On another subject, I’ve been playing with trying to come up with numbers in my impressions, and I’d like to run this just off the top of my head, the number of focuses I might share with different essences and see how close I am.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: With you, and I’ll try to do this spontaneously, 26.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: Really?

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! You have surprised yourself!

DON: (Laughs) Ayla, 31.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: Allesander, 77.

ELIAS: Six.

DON: Seventy-six?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: Rollo, 101.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: Jene, 147. (Pause)

ELIAS: Seventy-one.

DON: Seventy-one, about half. Sofi, 46.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: That’s good enough! (Elias laughs) Well, I think that’s about all I have, Elias.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Much to assimilate and to process, as you express. Ha ha ha! I shall be continuing to be offering my energy to you, my friend, in encouragement and in helpfulness. This wave is strong.

DON: Yes, it feels strong, doesn’t it?

ELIAS: And this wave may be one of your most challenging. (Chuckling) But do not be daunted, for it also may be your most empowering.

DON: Oh, I can sense that, yeah. Turn the automatic into something we have some freedom of choice about.

ELIAS: Yes. Therefore, until our next meeting, accept my encouragement AND my continued reminder to be incorporating more playfulness. (Laughs) Be playful, my friend.

To you in great affection, as always, and tremendous fondness, au revoir.

DON: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 12:21 PM.

©2006 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.