Thursday, October 30, 2003 (Private)

Participants: Mary (Michael), Jon (Sung) and Erin (Melody)

Elias arrives at 1:16 PM. (Arrival time is 22 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good afternoon!

JON AND ERIN: Hello. (Elias chuckles)

JON: Well, how should we proceed? (Laughing)

ELIAS: It is your choice! (Chuckles)

JON: I was just curious what would happen if I said that to you, instead of you saying it to me first. (Elias chuckles)

I guess the first thing I’d like to talk about is my objective direction. I’ve been dealing with my job and sort of figuring out if I want to do it or not. Some conflicts have come up, so it sort of made me think about that a bit.

I see people who sort of have their thing, like this is what they like to do. They know what they want to do and they’re happy doing it. For me, if I try and follow what I want to do in the moment, it seems like there’s no consistent thing. One week I’ll be really into one thing, and the next week it will be something completely different, and next week will be different. It keeps changing. Originally I said I need to find my thing, but I’m thinking well, maybe I don’t. I can just do what I want to do and let it change.

ELIAS: Correct, yes.

JON: But that’s also difficult to have a job or have... I’m not sure exactly what my question is. So, if I did just do what I want to do all the time, then I could somehow just let that work out and I could just always do what I want to do and have it change, and not do something consistently.

ELIAS: Correct, and this is becoming increasingly more common with many individuals, not limiting themselves to one direction but allowing themselves to be directing of themselves, generating many different directions and engaging their creativity, and allowing themselves the freedom to generate income in association with what they want to be creating and doing.

The key is not what you do. The key is knowing that you are not acquiring money but that you are creating it, that YOU are manifesting it. Regardless of how you manifest it, the key is the knowing that YOU are what is generating that, which may be quite challenging, for what is familiar is to generate an association that you are acquiring money from other sources, that PAYS you, when in actuality you are creating it.

But this is not the manner in which you think. This is not familiar to your understanding, but this is actually what you do. You create it in whatever form you choose to be creating it, whether it be in alignment with mass beliefs that you engage employment and you view yourself to be receiving money from some company, or whether you choose to be more self-directing and generating that money in other manners.

What creates the possibilities and the avenue in which you create money in association with your own directions and creativity is your trust of yourself and not doubting yourself, knowing that you do possess this ability and that it is merely a matter of trusting your own creativity and implementing that. That does not require sameness and it does not require moving in one singular direction. That is what your societies promote as the ideal direction, but it is not necessarily ideal to each individual. For you may generate more than one curiosity and interest, and therefore may choose to be expressing yourself in many different directions, which is entirely possible.

It is not necessary to limit yourself to one direction. There are some individuals that choose to be moving in that type of expression, for it is an expression of comfort. There are some individuals that choose one direction, for it is their preference, and there are some individuals that incorporate many preferences.

JON: Sometimes I think I’m generating this money. I need to feel like I have some idea of how am I going to do that. It’s like I could sell this and generate, or I think I need to have some...

Let’s say I’m doing something that, I don’t know, it’s just basically something I don’t share with anyone else. I just want to do something, build something on my computer or whatever, and there’s no sort of outlet. I guess I would have to generate money to do that and trust that I would generate money in some means and not really know what that is, or care. I would just end up doing that in some way...

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.

JON: ...without actually necessarily having to put effort into generating money.

ELIAS: Correct, correct. But to create, to manifest, this does require action, for that is what manifesting is — an action. Therefore, if you incorporate no action, you also shall not generate a manifestation. But the action matters not. You can incorporate ANY action and allow yourself to generate the manifestation.

JON: An action being...? What is an example of an action versus no action? An action being physically doing something, or an action being...

ELIAS: Yes, doing, not merely thinking. Thinking does not create manifestations. It does not create reality, for that is not its function. Therefore, you may not incorporate merely thinking of what you want and continuing to express merely that direction and manifest, for this is not the function of thinking. In a manner of speaking, you may be thinking and wishing for a manifestation, and you may continue to incorporate that movement for extensive time frameworks and not manifest what you want.

But in genuinely trusting yourself and in genuinely recognizing and knowing — not merely thinking but knowing — that you do not acquire, that you create, you manifest. In knowing that, you may incorporate any action and also manifest money in conjunction with it. (22-second pause) In a manner of speaking, at times it may appear to you to be almost magical. For as you assess situations in logical, rational interpretations, intellectual, in that intellectual assessment you attach different imageries in relation to each other.

For example: You engage your employment, you perform a task, and you receive, in your assessment, money for the engagement of the task. Therefore, there is a cause and effect. There is an action that appears to be directly associated or related to another action, and this is what you expect. But you may generate an action, for example, of going to the library and perhaps researching information, and in that action, you choose to be creating some design or some manifestation in conjunction with the information that you have collected, so to speak, in the library.

Now; you may generate a manifestation, and for what appears to you to be an unknown reason, you receive — in your estimation — money in your post, unexpected. You shall not automatically associate the action with that reception but it is related — IF you are recognizing and knowing that you are generating that, that you are not actually receiving in that situation, that you are expressing an openness and a trust and a knowing within yourself and are incorporating an action, a manifestation, and in association with your beliefs, you are also generating another manifestation of money in conjunction with your manifestation.

JON: It’s a matter of trust that if I completed this action or moved in this direction, I would generate money in conjunction with that and know that would happen. Cool.

ELIAS: It also opens a door for you to be listening to your communications of imagination in conjunction with your creativity and to allow your creativity to flower. The more you listen to the communication of imagination, the broader spectrum you employ to be generating the manifestations that you want.

JON: So, let’s see if I understand that. If I engage my imagination more, that opens up more possibilities of ways of generating things?

ELIAS: Yes.

JON: I was also curious; I knew in some sessions you offer directions to people that they might be pretty good at doing or have an ease in doing what they wanted. Are there any such directions for me?

ELIAS: What are your preferences? NOT thinking of work, what are your preferences? What do you prefer and enjoy doing?

JON: Well, I like reading, writing, music, physics, biking, interacting with people, traveling — lots of different stuff.

ELIAS: And you may move in any of these directions and generate money and fun. You may engage your own creativity in activities that you enjoy. As an example, you express that you enjoy reading, you enjoy biking. In some moments, in some days, you may be generating the action of reading in association with other individuals and generate money, and enjoy the pleasure of merely reading. You may in other days choose to be biking, and engage other individuals to be incorporating the action with you and generate money.

JON: Would I have to necessarily engage other individuals in this action?

ELIAS: Not necessarily, but it may be incorporating more fun, and that also is an element. Generating the playfulness and the fun creates more of an ease. It also does not conflict with your beliefs and allows you to ease into directing yourself without overwhelming or frustrating yourself. For, the belief remains that you acquire money. Regardless of how you may intellectualize this, this is an expressed belief. Therefore, allowing yourself to begin to move in expressions that you want and you enjoy and you prefer, but also engaging other individuals in that activity, allows you to begin to direct yourself and trust yourself, but not struggle with the expressed belief of acquiring. Eventually, as you move into more of a trust of yourself, that becomes less important.

JON: So the fun is kind of a diversion from my struggling?

ELIAS: Yes.

JON: Okay, cool. I was thinking Mary’s job is pretty cool, doing this energy exchange with you. Do I have an aptitude for doing that, possibly?

ELIAS: If you are so choosing.

JON: I figured that would be your answer. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Michael incorporates no other abilities than do any of you. The difference is an expression of openness and an allowance, a willingness to be allowing, a choice to be participating, and an acceptance of the role that that creates. That is the difference, NOT abilities.

You may engage any ability that Michael expresses, for you incorporate the same abilities. It is merely a matter of your willingness and your openness to be participating and to be generating that cooperation. If you are so choosing and if you generate an interest, you may engage interaction with Michael and you may be expressing your curiosities, and he may be helpful in discussion with you.

JON: Thanks. (Pause)

ERIN: Let’s see. For me, lately I’ve been really facing myself with a lot of things, and I feel like I’m not really ready to talk about any of it.

ELIAS: Very well.

ERIN: I just get confused, so I don’t think I’m even going to go there. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Very well!

ERIN: I mean, maybe I’ll decide to, but I don’t think so.

ELIAS: This is acceptable. (Erin laughs)

ERIN: I thought I would play the game just a little bit, the other-focus game, the famous focus game, all the games. (Laughs, and Elias chuckles) My first question is, I’m wondering if I was correctly interpreting at the Kentucky group session at dinner, and I wonder if it was correct, my interpretation that Fontine is Abby Longfellow’s mom? (Pause)

ELIAS: Yes.

ERIN: And Steffano, is that Abby Longfellow’s dad? (Pause)

ELIAS: Observing.

ERIN: I wonder if I share a focus with Matt, where my name is Donna with a Jewish last name, maybe Manschowitz, and he is a person with no legs. I don’t know his name.

ELIAS: Yes.

ERIN: That was from a dream. For the famous focus game, I decided I’m not really ready to know who my painter focus is. (Both laugh)

ELIAS: Very well.

ERIN: But I think that the dancer focus is Vaslav Nijinsky.

ELIAS: Correct.

ERIN: Oh, that’s just so exciting! (Laughs, and Elias chuckles) I also have a connection, I believe, as a directing focus of Marie Antoinette. (Pause)

ELIAS: No, a family member.

ERIN: Because I have in my head all the time that little statement “Let them eat cake,” and I felt like I said that. Why did I say that? (Laughs, and Elias chuckles)

ELIAS: The family member shares your sentiment. (All laugh)

ERIN: I must have been close to that person. I also wonder if I have a connection, I’m not sure if it’s directing or observing, with Eva Peron.

ELIAS: Observing.

ERIN: And also with E.E. Cummings? (Pause)

ELIAS: No, but you do incorporate a focus in that time framework that is known to that individual and is an admirer of that individual.

ERIN: I was thinking about becoming an observing essence, because that...

ELIAS: You may, if you are so choosing.

ERIN: Okay. (Laughs) Because I also admire him a lot. Is my mom’s essence name Seela, S-E-E-L-A? (Pause)

ELIAS: Include H subsequent to S.

ERIN: S-H-E-E-L-A? (Elias nods) And my dad’s essence name, Darsha?

ELIAS: Correct.

ERIN: I was wondering if I’m correct with my assessment of Matt as a soft orientation. (Pause)

ELIAS: Qualify which individual.

ERIN: Darj, essence name.

ELIAS: Correct.

ERIN: I recently had a dream where I was in a supermarket with an individual and I was about to present a paper. There was a conceptualization or a diagram in the dream. I was associating with Don and working on this paper, and we were going to go have some cappuccino together and talk about it. I ended up standing him up because life got in the way.

I’m wondering specifically about the conceptualization. There was a center point which put out a force, and there were two elements that were orbiting the center point. The force that the center point would put out would draw in these two other elements. I’m wondering what is that conceptualization or diagram that I remember from that dream?

ELIAS: A tile.

ERIN: So I’ll have to do some impressioning about the tile.

ELIAS: And what its function is. But you may insert it, if you wish.

ERIN: Okay, yes.

ELIAS: (Nods) Done!

ERIN: The building which I previously was talking about that’s in the shape of almost a spider, I think that its function is similar to diplomacy. That was my translation. (Pause)

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, for it is engaged by individuals in specific types of exchanges — not of objects, but of cultures and ideas.

ERIN: I was wondering if you could address to a misconception that I have. See, I know that it’s a misconception already, which is why I’m asking. I think that individuals that have a lot of focuses in this dimension are experienced and so they find it easier, and that individuals that have few focuses are less experienced and they find just normal daily things more unfamiliar. I just have this misconception. I’m not sure where the misconception is. I was wondering if there was some clear explanation.

ELIAS: This is a common misconception. Many individuals express this association, and it is quite incorrect.

Some individuals that incorporate many focuses in this dimension may generate an objective association with that, justifying their dissatisfaction with what they may be creating in a particular focus. Therefore, they express that as they incorporate many focuses within this dimension, it is natural that they are bored. That is merely an excuse and a justification for what they are generating in their own expressions in association with their individual beliefs.

There are many individuals that incorporate many, many, many focuses in this physical dimension, and in any one given focus, as an example one that may be expressed now that you may associate with, and they may be generating a tremendous excitement and newness within their experience.

Some individuals may generate very few focuses in this physical dimension and may not necessarily generate that type of excitement. If you are examining different expressions or understanding the curiosity or the interest of an essence, if they incorporate very few focuses in this physical dimension, they may not necessarily incorporate preference for this particular physical dimension. Therefore, the focuses may or may not generate an excitement or a perception of curiosity and freshness and exploration.

Now; the essence has chosen to be focusing and exploring within this physical dimension, but may perhaps generate tremendous more interest in association with other physical dimensions or partially physical dimensions or other areas of consciousness. It is, in actuality, dependent upon the essence. Many essences that generate many, many, many focuses in this physical dimension incorporate a tremendous attraction to this dimension in association with its complexity and its diversity and the many different avenues for exploration in this particular dimension. This be the reason that they incorporate many, many, many focuses.

Individuals that generate few focuses in this physical dimension, dependent upon the individual and their beliefs and their direction and what they allow themselves in their focus, may exhibit a strong curiosity and a strong drive for exploration and an expression of newness and unfamiliarity; but they may also express quite the reverse — a lack of interest, a feeling of not fitting in, of not belonging, a lack of motivation.

There are many different expressions that individuals automatically associate with certain expressions or qualities. For example, many individuals attach certain associations with a designated final focus, for they think in association with linear time. Therefore, the final focus is associated with the last, and that all the other focuses are accounted for and are, in a manner of speaking, the burden of the final focus. A final focus may generate very similar qualities to what you associate or think of as an initiating focus.

It is dependent upon the individual focus and their direction and what they allow and what their interest is, and whether they generate an interest in what they are exploring in their particular focus. It also is strongly influenced by the individual’s expressed beliefs. But an individual that incorporates many, many, many focuses in this physical dimension is not necessarily wiser or more experienced or generating more of an understanding of their physical reality than any other focus. It is not dependent upon how many focuses are incorporated by the essence. It is the direction of the individual and how they choose to explore, for each of your explorations are your own.

ERIN: Thank you.

ELIAS: You are welcome.

JON: I was wondering if it would be possible that if I wrote down a bunch of different impressions that I got, if I could get a blanket confirmation on those without going through them. Is that allowed or not?

ELIAS: It would not be accurate, for there are fluctuations. You generate an impression and the impression may be somewhat correct, but it may deviate slightly.

JON: I’ll just forget that, then. (Elias laughs) Let’s see, some small things. I was curious — is a dude named Jean Baptiste LePage of the Lewis and Clark party, is that a focus of mine?

ELIAS: Observing.

JON: Am I an observing essence of Nikola Tesla?

ELIAS: Yes.

JON: Was I a dude named Chirac in the French Revolution, in that timeframe?

ELIAS: Interesting terminology. (Jon and Erin laugh, and Elias grins and chuckles) This “dude.” Yes, you were this “dude.” You ARE this “dude.” (Chuckles)

JON: Cool.

ELIAS: (Humorously) Is this a new terminology for “individual”?

JON: Well, it’s not really new but it’s a terminology, I guess.

ELIAS: Ah. Very well! (Chuckles)

JON: I’m curious about non-official probable selves versus additional ones that are recognized historically by people in history books later and so forth. What happens if a non-official probable self interacts with an official one of someone? Before, you mentioned that I was a non-official probable version of myself, but Mary, that I know, is an official one. Would our interaction be official or non-official as viewed by history?

ELIAS: It is dependent upon which history you engage.

JON: It doesn’t matter. So I guess it would be...

ELIAS: It is dependent upon which probable history you engage, whether it shall appear or not.

JON: Let’s say the official version of me does not interact with Mary, but the official version of Mary still interacts with me, the non-official version of myself. So later, the historical version of Mary’s life would include this interaction with this non-official probable self of me?

ELIAS: Yes.

JON: Yet if you looked at MY official history, it would not include any interaction with Mary, if my official version didn’t interact with Mary. There would be a discrepancy.

ELIAS: If the official did not, yes. Although, that is also dependent upon how the interactions are recognized. If the interaction is recognized by the official of the non-official, it would be recorded.

JON: If the interaction is recognized by the official person of...?

ELIAS: Correct.

JON: Right. Like for instance, Mary being the official version interacting with me, the non-official version, it would be recorded.

ELIAS: Yes.

JON: What is my official probable self version doing? I’m just curious.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Similar actions to yourself, but somewhat more rigid.

JON: Really? More rigid, huh?

ELIAS: You allow more flexibility.

JON: And I’m not the official version? (All laugh)

ELIAS: But you are, in your reality.

JON: Oh, yeah, I know, but...

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Therefore, you also are in THIS reality, for you are recognized within the official. In a manner of speaking, both versions, in your terms, co-exist within the official reality.

JON: I was curious, when people believed that the world was flat, was there actually a flat world?

ELIAS: Temporarily, yes.

JON: So physics was basically affected by this, and gravitation and... Basically, if there was a flat world, the earth wouldn’t be spinning around the sun. Days would be different and things would collapse.

ELIAS: Not necessarily.

JON: No? Was there a thickness to it, like it was a rectangular block? Was it like a disk, or what did it look like?

ELIAS: More similar to a disk.

JON: Was there a world on both sides, or was it just on one side and you fell off the edge? Actually, you could walk off the edge.

ELIAS: There was no edge! (Chuckles, and Jon and Erin laugh)

JON: Oh, man! How did the sun get around to the other side, then?

ELIAS: (Chuckles) You are attempting to explain in terms of physics and this is a term of science and mathematics, which is not an absolute and is not a truth.

JON: It was different, okay.

ELIAS: It did not orbit, for the configuration of the universe was different temporarily in association with expressed mass beliefs.

JON: So when Kepler and all these people starting mapping the movement of stars and planets and figuring out these things were orbiting, that actually changed the physics?

ELIAS: Yes.

JON: But the physics would have to be changed before they could discover that, or maybe it was simultaneous with the discovery.

ELIAS: Correct.

JON: What, why... Oh, never mind. (Elias chuckles)

Don/Allard and I were having a conversation about some things and he brought up some stuff that I’m kind of curious to ask you about. He said that the numbers have been given in previous sessions that the average number of focuses per essence is about 1000, and that there is an average of one famous focus per essence. Is that true, first of all?

ELIAS: I have not expressed that there is an average of one famous focus per essence, but that every essence incorporates at least one famous focus. That would not necessarily be an average.

JON: So let’s say that if they have at least one famous focus, is the average number of focuses per essence about 1000? Is that reasonable?

ELIAS: The average incorporation of focuses of essences falls in a margin of approximately 600 to 1000. Beyond a thousand would be more than average, and less than 600 would be few. Less than 100 would be an incorporation of very few focuses in this physical dimension.

JON: Given those numbers, that actually makes this earth even weirder, because that would mean that at least one out of every 600 to 1000 focuses throughout all time in a life today should be a famous focus.

ELIAS: In some capacity.

JON: Since the population of Ohio is about 11 million, there should be like 11,000 famous focuses in Ohio. China has a population of 1200 million, so there should be 1.2 million famous focuses in China.

ELIAS: But this also spans all time.

JON: Yeah, but if there is an even distribution of famous focuses throughout time...

ELIAS: But there may not necessarily be.

JON: That’s one possibility I thought of, explaining that. Either you make the definition of famous be “less famous,” or you’re including famous probable selves and people that aren’t participating in the same probable reality that you are recognizing or...

ELIAS: For the most part I express that in association with what you would consider to be somewhat known within this known reality.

JON: “Somewhat known” being like mayor of a town, perhaps?

ELIAS: It may be. I have expressed that the identification of a famous focus is not necessarily incorporating tremendous fame but may be of notoriety.

JON: Is there a much higher rate of famous focuses in the future? (Pause)

ELIAS: Perhaps not tremendous, but it does increase. As you increase in your linear time, you also do increase in notoriety of individuals, for you increase what you allow in expansion and invention. Therefore, there is an increase in the notoriety of individuals that initiate.

There also is continuously an increase in entertainment, for it becomes increasingly more popular. For as you widen your awarenesses, you allow for greater creativity. You also allow for greater freedom. Therefore, individuals allow themselves to be incorporating more expression of their talents, and you each incorporate more time framework of leisure in which to be entertained.

JON: I think our time is about up. (To Erin) Do you have a last little thing to add?

ERIN: Yeah, just one. Nanaiis had an impression that an essence fragmented of Nanaiis, Melody and Awan, and the name is Indiwa.

ELIAS: Correct.

JON: Thanks a lot!

ELIAS: You are quite welcome. I shall be anticipating our next meeting.

JON: Me, too.

ERIN: You know I will!

ELIAS: And perhaps you shall be less confused. (All laugh) To you both in your explorations, I am supportive and encouraging. In tremendous affection to each of you, au revoir, my friends.

JON: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 2:18 PM.

©2006 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.