Tuesday, December 23, 2003 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Don (Allard)

(Arrival time is 19 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

DON: Good morning. Well, you know, Elias, this is maybe the least prepared I’ve felt for a session, which may be a good thing. (Elias laughs) So I have my “B” questions for you today.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: Do I have a focus as a 19th century philosopher that’s still known of today?

ELIAS: As an observing essence, yes.

DON: Did I observe Kierkegaard?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: This is just a small question. You mentioned to me once that I have six focuses that we’d call famous. Already in the sessions I’ve had with you, we’ve identified seven. How would you account for that? Have I inserted some new ones into time or...?

ELIAS: As I have expressed previously in association with different focuses, the numberings are not absolutes for they fluctuate, and dependent upon the agreements of different essences, an essence may be incorporated as an individual. It is not that one essence assumes the focus of another essence, but in the mergence of essences, dependent upon the duration of the mergence and the particular direction of the mergence, it is possible that two essences may be directing of one focus for they may be in what you may term to be a state of mergence, to which there would be a fluctuation of the tone of the focus throughout the focus, which is not unusual, for this occurs with all focuses, with all essences to some degree regardless. But there are situations, so to speak, in which more than one essence may be merged, and therefore may be associated with certain focuses, regardless that they are different essences.

You also add different focuses within any time framework. Therefore, the numbering also fluctuates. At times, you may even decrease the numbering of focuses, whether they be famous or not.

DON: It seems like I recall in some session you said that when you typically give numbers of focuses in this dimension, that number will not include those focuses that have fragmented to become another essence. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Correct, yes.

DON: So through fragmentation, for example, that numbering as you would give it could easily decrease.

ELIAS: Correct, or it could increase.

DON: Now, you’ve said that it’s not uncommon for it to be correct that a focus could be said to have two directing essences. Would it be uncommon or does it exist, say, for one to have 1000? I pulled that number out arbitrarily.

ELIAS: It is possible.

DON: You know, I used to have that thought before I’d read any of your material, that it could be in some sense correct for a thousand people to say that they were the directing essence of some focus. That’s why I wondered.

ELIAS: Yes, and in this, remember, I also merely make a distinction of observing essences and directing essences for your benefit, for in actuality they are essentially the same.

DON: It seems to me that the way I’ve interpreted that, there’s a fundamental distinction and an important one, in that if I observe a focus I may have all of those experiences, but I’m not making the decisions. Is that a fundamental distinction between them?

ELIAS: Not entirely. For, these are challenging concepts for individuals within your physical reality to be generating an actual accurate comprehension of objectively.

Now; this is not to say that you may not understand, for you may through your conceptualization sense genuinely generate an understanding of these types of actions and concepts, so to speak. But as you begin to genuinely recognize that there is actually no separation and that there are no actual divisions even within essences — essences are consciousness — that is merely a designation, so to speak, of different tones of consciousness and different personality energies of consciousness.

I am aware that generally speaking, within your physical dimension as you process information with regard to what is known to you objectively, you generally categorize all of the information that you offer to yourselves in singular manners and in association with entities or things, and it is challenging to objectively understand that although you are familiar with things, with manifestations within consciousness, consciousness is not a thing and therefore it is not singular. There is an action which is continuously occurring, an energy which is in continuous movement, and within that energy there are different qualities or expressions, so to speak — which even “expressions” is not an actual accurate term to be attaching to the energy of consciousness — and this action in its continual movement incorporates no separation. Therefore, I may express to you that although you are the essence of Allard and I am the essence of Elias, you are myself and I am you.

Therefore, as I express numberings to you of focuses or identifications of directing essences or observing essences, these are terms that are presented merely as an avenue that allows you somewhat of an understanding of the vastness of actions that occur within consciousness.

As to the distinction between an observing essence and a directing essence, it is not as black and white as you have presented. For just as you are directing yourself as a focus, you are also receiving energy from all of your other focuses. Therefore, there is an influence of all of your focuses that influences choices that you engage. You may choose directions and you incorporate your individual free will. Therefore, no other focus is forcing you to be generating any particular direction or choice, but there is an influence in energy, which you choose to incorporate or you choose not to incorporate. Very similarly, the action is expressed in association with directing and observing essences in relation to any particular focus. They are both influencing each other in energy.

Therefore, it is the individual attention’s choice which qualities they shall be expressing in any particular moment. This is the reason that I express to you that generally speaking, and what you would consider to be for all intents, there is not actually a distinction between an observing and a directing essence. The only distinction that we may actually express in association with any particular focus between the observing and the directing essence is that the individual chooses a stronger alignment with what may be termed as the directing essence, and therefore would be associated with the essence families of the directing essence and would generally be more associated with the essence tone of the directing essence. But it is the choice of the individual what they shall express in relation to the directing or the observing essences.

DON: I’m really glad you went into this, because one of the problems that I’ve had in accepting a lot of what you’ve had to say throughout these sessions is the definiteness, in my perception, that you’ve used when you say, for example, somebody has 981 focuses in this dimension, or “‘Is this a focus of this person?’ ‘Incorrect.’” My intuition, since long before coming across you objectively, has been that these things just really are not that definite.

ELIAS: Correct. In this, as I have expressed previously, any numbering that I offer to any individual or any identification of yes or no in relation to any question concerning another focus of that essence is expressed in that moment. But it is relative to that moment and within another moment it may be different, for it is the choice of not merely the essence but also the focuses.

This is a point that many individuals do not yet understand clearly, the significance of each focus of attention and the power of each focus of attention, and the free will and choice that is not bound to what they think of as being directed by another entity that they assess as essence. Generally speaking, individuals continue to view this concept of essence as being some type of entity that is greater and more powerful and larger than themselves, and they view themselves to be less significant and not entirely directing of themselves or of their choices or of their directions, that there is some other higher power that is actually directing of them, and this is actually not true.

I may express that it is a powerful truth that you incorporate within your truths, but it is not true. The example with observing and directing essences bears out the power of the individual and the individual’s choices. I have also expressed many times, essences are not intrusive. Therefore, there is NO expression, NO action that shall be expressed unless it is accepted by any particular attention, and attentions are not always physically focused.

DON: This has been great. Again, it’s felt to me fairly recently, maybe over the last few months, that what I’ve been thinking of as my skepticism of some of the things you’ve had to say really now feels like it’s because the literal interpretation I’ve been making of some of what you’ve had to say just doesn’t comport with the conceptualizations I’ve had for years.

ELIAS: I am quite understanding, and in this, what you are conceptualizing is more accurate. But I may express to you, as I have previously with other individuals, it is challenging to be offering this information to all of you in increments that you may be understanding as you widen your awareness and to be accurately offering these concepts to you within the limitations of your language — and not merely your language, but also in association with how you automatically process information in regard to what is known to you within your physical dimension.

Now; I am aware that some individuals do express some skepticism in the information that I offer to you, for they view it to be at times inconsistent. But what these individuals are not recognizing yet is that as you all continue to widen your awareness, I also am allowed, in a manner of speaking, to broaden the information that I offer to you, and I may express to you more of the abstract and more of what is not absolute. For in your widening of awareness in increments, you begin to allow yourselves a greater understanding and knowing of what I am offering to you in these concepts.

But I also, in compliance with each of you, offer information only to the capacity that you are allowing within your objective understanding within any time framework. As you widen more and as you generate more experiences in conjunction with your inner senses and your objective experiences, you engage conversation with myself and your questions change, and the responses to your questions change, for you are allowing yourself more of a capacity to assimilate.

DON: You know, your energy feels different to me today. (Elias chuckles) A different sort of strength coming through?

ELIAS: Quite!

DON: I don’t notice it now; I felt like I noticed it as soon as you came through.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) But this also is associated with yourself in your own allowance to be open to that directedness and more of a power in that energy. Which is also significant, my friend, for this is another evidence to yourself of your own movement and your own widening and your own recognition of YOUR power. For, the energy that I express to each of you is matched to the energy that you are expressing to me.

DON: As I say, I really appreciated that. Instead of asking a question, I feel like sitting here and soaking it up subjectively for about five minutes.

ELIAS: Very well. (Both laugh)

DON: I also believe that’s the wrong thing to do, so...

ELIAS: Ah! (Laughs)

DON: ...I have another question here.

ELIAS: Very well.

DON: When I first had a session with you last year, you confirmed that I had been in transition four or five years. You’d still say I’m in transition right now?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: I wondered what I might look at in my life, what maybe has changed in my life, having entered transition, as compared to a probability in which by this time I had not yet entered transition? What kind of things might I point to or see in my life that are different because of that?

ELIAS: A probable self that has not engaged the action of transition is not widening as clearly or as quickly as are you.

DON: And I do have a probable self...

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: ...I assume, that has not entered transition?

ELIAS: Yes.

Now; what occurs in transition as you continue within physical focus varies, and is also the choice of the individual. Some individuals choose to be engaging this action of transition quite strongly and offer themselves what they would term to be unusual experiences and explorations in different manners, which may be more associated with actions that occur subsequent to death. But not all individuals that engage this action of transition do so in that direction or for that purpose.

Many individuals that engage transition within physical focus are engaging that action to facilitate the acceptance of their beliefs and the awareness of their beliefs and truths in conjunction with the movement of this shift in consciousness, to generate less challenge, less difficulty, so to speak, in expressing that acceptance of their beliefs and their truths and generating more of a trust of themselves. This is very common for individuals within this time framework to be generating, although there are many individuals that generate the action of transition in a manner in which, as you are aware, they are classified as incorporating dis-ease.

This is the reason that I have expressed to individuals, addressing to a misconception that if you are engaging transition as you continue within physical focus that that automatically designates that you shall immediately move into the action of transition subsequent to death, that is not a rule. That is the choice of the individual and how they are engaging transition, for what purpose, as they continue within physical focus. Some individuals may be engaging transition within physical focus and not move into the nonphysical action of transition immediately following death.

DON: So I’ve been engaging in transition more in the direction of what you were saying, when you say that it’s an action to help notice one’s truths and address to one’s truths and other beliefs?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: You know, I feel like I’ve had a very easy time with the truth wave. I don’t have much to say about it, but it’s been much easier so far than I might have expected, I guess. (Elias laughs) Are we still in the midst of it, collectively?

ELIAS: Oh yes!

DON: “Oh yes”? (Laughs)

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Quite strongly. This wave shall not dissipate soon.

DON: Oh, is that right?

ELIAS: This is a powerful wave and individuals are engaging it in powerful manners.

DON: It really seems to have me thinking a lot again, but thinking in a way that I’ve really been appreciating lately. It feels to me as if I haven’t been trying to create with my thoughts over much, but it does feel like I’ve been doing a lot of translation with them. Would you agree with that?

ELIAS: Yes, which is a significant alteration.

DON: Is it? It’s hard to even remember now.

ELIAS: (Laughs) And this is the point, my friend, in moving into these unfamiliar expressions and allowing them to become the familiar, and the familiar to become the unfamiliar.

DON: Another question I have, Myranda suggested recently to me, just in playfulness, that it’s time we fragment an essence. As soon as I read her email, I had the impression that we already have, perhaps more than one. But one came to me particularly. I don’t get a name very clearly. If I were to translate this essence’s tone as a name, it might sound Italian or Mediterranean, like Garibaldi or Giovanni. But I do translate this essence’s energy fairly clearly as a picture of a human. I see him as a fairly short, stocky man, male definitely, that looks Mediterranean, and is, again, fairly small but very powerfully built, has a lot of physical strength. He also has kind of a surly attitude, one that really doesn’t remind me of either Myranda or me. Would you confirm that? Do you have anything to say about that?

ELIAS: This is a focus.

DON: Oh, it’s a focus; it’s not a fragmentation!

ELIAS: It is a fragmentation, but you are identifying a focus of that fragmentation.

DON: I see. And is the name also the name of a focus?

ELIAS: Yes. But I may express to you, as you continue your investigation, that the tone of the essence does translate into what you would identify as that cultural name associated with Italian.

DON: Garibaldi? Is that a very good translation?

ELIAS: That would be the focus.

DON: That is the focus, okay. What would you say this essence’s name is?

ELIAS: And I shall leave this to you to be investigating, for you have expressed quite well in your identification of the fragmentation and one of its focuses.

DON: Now, this would be a fragmentation strictly between... Well, “strictly,” after our earlier discussion! (Elias laughs) But you would approximate it as being a fragmentation between Myranda and myself?

ELIAS: Yes.

DON: After what you said at first, you’ve scratched about the rest of my “B” questions here. (Elias laughs) That really was useful to me. Let’s see, no, don’t want to ask that, don’t want to ask that... (Elias chuckles)

You had a session with — I’ve forgotten his essence name — Gottlieb not too long ago, and during this session you confirmed some impressions that he had without him objectively relaying them to you. Now, that really fascinated me in trying to imagine what your perceptions are during a session and during that exchange, using “perception” for lack of a better word. I had the sense that what you were doing was a different action than, say, the action of somebody thinking a question and you just giving the answer.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: I was kind of imagining that there was no translation on your part of the impressions that he had. I had a conceptualization, sort of like an energy template matching or...

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct. And understand that with each individual, I am interacting with you each quite individually and am quite aware of your energies and your directions and your motivations. In this, in relation to that individual, I incorporate an awareness, in your terms, of the sensitivity of what the inquiries were, and incorporate an understanding of the reason that the inquiries were presented in the manner that they were, (and) therefore chose to be compliant with his request.

DON: I had suspected something like that.

ELIAS: Now; dependent upon the direction of an individual or upon their own clarity or lack of clarity, I may not necessarily engage that type of action with another individual, for it is important in my conversations with each of you that what may be accomplished is that you understand what we have discussed. If you are not generating a clarity in your own impressions or your own inquiries, you shall not generate a clarity in what I offer to you in response.

Therefore at times I may request the individual to be expressing their impressions or their inquiry, for it is necessary for their own understanding of our conversation and their own clarity as to the subject that they are inquiring of. But if an individual is generating a clarity already and is merely seeking validation but generally already knows what the answer is, it is not always necessary that the individual be expressing that to myself.

DON: That exchange did fascinate me for several reasons, and everything you’ve said makes sense.

ELIAS: At times, this individual generates a powerful clarity; at times, he generates less clarity and some cloudedness, and in those time frameworks we have engaged questioning back and forth, so to speak. Ha ha ha!

DON: One thing that occurs to me is that subjectively, for example, all of his impressions could be said to exist at once, and yet you were able, and you were not reading his thoughts...

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: ...yet you were able to distinguish between the impressions within time.

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: I’m not looking for a comment, really. I just found that fascinating. (Elias chuckles) It makes me kind of wonder what your experience really is like.

ELIAS: It incorporates no thought, my friend. Ha ha! It is merely an energy exchange.

DON: Now I feel like asking you a similar question to Gottlieb. I have a conceptualization of a little bit of what that feels like and yet I can’t put it into words.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

DON: I’m losing it now. Oh, but I had it a second ago. Would you say that was in the right direction?

ELIAS: Yes, I am understanding.

DON: So that was not an inaccurate conceptualization?

ELIAS: Correct.

DON: At one point, I don’t remember it exactly, you described somebody’s energy or mind as a bee. I thought that’s not only fun but it’s kind of interesting, and one can get some insights from that kind of analogy. I wonder if you would offer a like analogy for what my energy feels like.

ELIAS: Very well; one moment. (15-second pause) In terms of what you would associate with as a physical manifestation, I would liken the expression of your energy to that of a ferret.

DON: A ferret! (Both laugh) Yeah, well, that fits.

ELIAS: Busy and curious, but also incorporating some mischief. Ha ha ha!

DON: Thank you for that. You know, we still have 15 minutes. I do have one other thing, but also I’ll just mention that during that first longer discussion we had, I had a very strong sense of us interacting subjectively on the same subject. I get no need to even ask for a confirmation of that. You’ve said this many ways many times.

ELIAS: Ah, but now you are allowing yourself to actually experience what I have expressed to you.

DON: I really did feel it there.

ELIAS: Which is another validation and evidence to you of your movement in widening your awareness, that you are allowing yourself to be aware of these experiences.

DON: I have a question for Jene. In the session that we shared with you recently, at one point you said to her, and I’m quoting here, “...and you cannot objectively move into a genuine expression and understanding and reality that you actually create it rather than acquire it.” That was in the context of creating versus acquiring money. Her question is, “Why do you say ‘cannot’ rather than ‘do not,’” in that?

ELIAS: For I am addressing to the individual, and in this, I may express “do not,” but there is a stronger emphasis expressed in “cannot,” which is more accurate in association with the expressed beliefs. It also is more accurate in relation to the REALITY of expressed beliefs. In the time framework, this was much more accurate than “do not.”

Beliefs are quite real and they influence a very real reality. Therefore, as I have expressed previously, it is ludicrous to be expressing that they are MERELY beliefs or they are JUST beliefs as though they incorporate some element of non-reality, for they are quite real and they influence every moment of your physical existence.

DON: One quick question. Is Koko the gorilla a focus of essence?

ELIAS: No.

DON: We still have 15 minutes, Elias — well, less than that now — but I really feel done for today.

ELIAS: Very well. I shall express my encouragement to you as always and perhaps we may incorporate a longer conversation at our objective meeting in physical proximity.

DON: That would be great. Actually, Allistar, I think, is going to join us.

ELIAS: (Chuckles) Very well!

DON: This has been great today, Elias. Thanks for everything.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome, my friend. I express to you great affection as always and tremendous encouragement and supportiveness. In tremendous fondness, my dear friend, au revoir.

DON: Au revoir.

Elias departs after 52 minutes.

(1) From 10/17/03.

©2006 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2003 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.