Sunday, February 16, 1997 ©
Participants: Mary (Michael), Vicki (Lawrence), Ron (Olivia), Cathy (Shynla), Jim (Yarr), Gail (William), Jene (Rudy), Bob (Simon), Drew (Matthew), Norm (Stephen), Reta (Dehl), and Jill (Kacchi).
Note: In my perception, there was some rather unusual conflict being experienced this evening. I perceived conflict between individuals, conflict within individuals, and also individual conflict with the information being delivered. Also, I noticed less "indulgence" on the part of Elias, with regard to his responses to expressed belief systems within questioning. All in all, it was an unusual evening.
Elias arrives at 7:00 PM. (Time was twenty seconds)
ELIAS: Good evening. This evening, we shall look to a brace of manifestations in comparison, as we continue our exploration of unofficial information. (
Within your physical manifestation, there exists molecules. Molecules contain atoms. Many molecules may contain the same atoms. You may choose to observe molecules containing all the same atoms. Let us say you choose to be observing one hundred molecules, each of these containing the same six atoms. As you observe these molecules, you note that their behavior is not the same. It is different, but they contain the same components. For all intents and purposes they are the same, but they behave differently.
You view scientifically your known universe to be a chaotic creation. It is in actuality an immaculately precise, ordered creation which reflects its order in like manner of all manifestations. You may view one hundred individuals of the human species all holding the same physical components which are the make-up of the physical manifestation and each of these one hundred shall behave differently, just as the behavior of your molecules.
The order of your created universe is absolutely precise. Just as were you to be creating of a three-dimensional multifaceted object you would need to be absolutely precise with your angles to be fitting together the pieces immaculately, so you have created this physical universe. You view only chaos for the reason that you do not understand the order, for you do not understand unofficial information. You view irrationality or unpredictability as chaos. They are not synonymous. Energy and consciousness is unpredictable. It is not chaotic. It is unpredictable for it is always allowed choice. There are always probabilities. There are no predetermined actions. This is not the same as chaos.
Much activity occurs, as we have stated, continuously within your objective focus concerning unofficial information within every moment of your manifestation. You choose not to be acknowledging this information. It is not only available to you, but it is also presented by you, to you. Your response, as in accord with your belief systems that you have been taught, is to be not acknowledging and following of this unofficial information; for within your belief systems this appears to you to be irrational, unstable, and also irresponsible. This is in line with your belief systems and the value systems, not value fulfillment but the value systems, that you have established for yourselves objectively.
You have instituted psychological rules for yourselves which you view as guidelines; methods of responsible action and living. You view these to be efficient. I suggest to you that the efficiency of these is that they are efficient in conflict. They are quite efficient in producing conflict, confusion, dismay, duplicity, convolution; but as to their efficiency within creation, of trustfulness and listening to yourself and movement and affectingness within consciousness, they are lacking.
You choose to be moving into areas that you engage unofficial information. You draw experiences to yourselves to be illustrating examples of unofficial information. You allow yourselves the opportunity to view, within objective everyday reality as you think of it, scenarios that you may understand, that you may see before you your creations of probabilities. You allow yourselves presently to be hearing your own voice more clearly, but as you are so familiar and accustomed to disavowing this voice, it matters not that its loudness increases! You continue to discount its shouting.
At times, you allow yourselves to think and believe that the cosmos is offering you information to be benefiting you. Once again, this is a discounting of self. You are speaking to you, and you are learning to listen to you. As you are learning to listen to that voice of which we have spoken previously, its clarity becomes more profound. It begins, within your perception, very quietly; that quiet whisper, that soft voice that you almost do not hear; but as you focus your attention more upon that small voice, it becomes more audible. It becomes clearer, and as you lend yourself to the acknowledgment of subjective activity and knowing, the clarity of this voice increases. The sound becomes louder. It also becomes more effortless to be allowing this subjective voice and incorporating this in a mergence with objective reality.
We have spoken of the drama that you create. We have spoken of the quiet whisper. We have spoken of the continuous unofficial information. As you now present yourselves in a variety of areas with unofficial information, do not discount this information. Your daily activity shall parallel these interactions. You have chosen to be interacting within this forum. You have asked. In this, you have initiated agreements with yourselves. Therefore, your activity outside of this forum shall mirror what you have chosen. You shall be, and you are, presenting yourselves presently, more and more, with opportunities to be engaging your periphery. If you wished not to be engaging this action, you would not be continuing within this forum. Therefore, I shall ask the question this evening! If you have chosen to be engaging your periphery and widening your awareness and listening to your subjective unofficial information, why then do you not listen? (Pause) And you also Shynla may be within our background, but are not excluded from this interaction! (Cathy is sitting (hiding) behind Elias)
VICKI: Sometimes its hard to figure out which is the inner voice and which is just a really loud belief system that's in opposition to the inner voice.
ELIAS: At times, you may experience confusion as you are learning to be listening to this inner voice. I have offered you much information as to the identification of your self; and as you are listening, even the act of recognition that you are confused is an exhibition that you are attempting to be listening to self. I have expressed to you all many times that your self shall not betray you. You, regardless of what you may express to me, do not believe this!
RETA: Do not believe which? That we will not betray ourselves?
ELIAS: Yes. You hold a very strong belief system of the duplicity of self. Therefore, you do not believe, when you are told, that you will not betray self; but I express to you, in complete immaculate sincerity, you shall not betray yourself! You shall move to your own value fulfillment and you shall also, as does all consciousness, add to the value fulfillment of all consciousness simultaneously.
DREW: It is hard to know when ... Actually, I'm going to read it. It's amazing to me how often you start talking about things that I've been thinking about all week! In efforts to create the quiet moments that you talked about so that I can be more aware of unofficial information, how can I be sure that the voices I hear or the impressions I get or the intuitions I feel are real, and not created by my imagination out of the desire to perceive these things? As an example, I was walking by some stores one night and from the corner of my eye, or from the periphery, I saw what I thought was a police officer in uniform. When I directed my attention more carefully, I saw it was actually a wooden cigar store Indian. So did I actually see something more than the Indian, or was it just an optical illusion that I wished to be more than just a cigar store Indian?
ELIAS: Respond, Lawrence! (Much laughter) (He's picking on me!)
VICKI: It wasn't an optical illusion. It was reality.
ELIAS: Very good. This is an example once again of how you discount yourself, for you hold the belief system of the duplicity of self. Therefore, you differentiate. You examine or notice unofficial information, and you automatically differentiate and express that you have experienced hallucination, imagination, non-reality. What is non-reality? Is there non-reality? (What's up with the questions?)
DREW: I think it wasn't so much a question of whether or not it was real, but whether it was something I was creating or something I was tuning into, whether it was subjective information I was becoming aware of, or by imagining it, thereby creating it.
ELIAS: Then I pose to you, what is the difference? Subjective information is creation. You create your reality, and it is reality. There is no part of your reality that is not real.
The question is not necessarily which choices within your small voices are yourself, but rather which choices you believe to be "right"; for all of the voices within you are yourself. All of the information within you is presented to you by you. It is not your definition of imagination or non-reality. It is reality, as imagination is reality. It is only a question of which choice you shall choose within your probabilities that you observe.
You allow yourself to view certain probabilities. It is amusing that you present yourselves with too few probabilities in your estimation, or too many probabilities in your estimation. You have not enough choices, or you have too many choices. You always have conflict, for you are not within your narrow margin of perfection. But you are within your vast expanse of perfection, always. (Smiling)
All probabilities are actualized. Think to your intent within your individual focus. As you think to your intent, you offer yourself what you view as necessary in a guideline. You believe, within your belief systems, that you may not efficiently move without precise guidelines to be showing you your ... all together ... path! (Not one person joins in, and Elias looks at all of us very humorously) Once again! All together ... path! (And we all say path together, cracking up) Very good! Which you have no path, for you have forgotten to build your path! (Much laughter) As you have forgotten to create your purpose also! (These dead guys do have a great sense of humor! Hey Kip! Would this be a multidimensional joke???)
Your purpose, as we have expressed, is to experience; but you are correct that within each individual focus you also hold individual intents, and as you hold these intents you create desires, and within this you create probabilities to choose from within a pool aligning with your intent. You are always speaking to you! You are only confused, for you are experiencing yourself to be at your fork in your road, or your path, (grinning) at each given choice, regardless of how mundane it may appear, and your thought is, "Which choice is the right choice?" Therefore, you create your drama around your choosing; and as you have created this physical focus, this manifestation, this experience which incorporates great emotional focus, you perpetuate your drama for your experience. Eventually, as you continue within this forum, you begin to be realizing that you may be choosing efficiently without your extremeness of your drama, and that your effortlessness appears in this quietness. As you tire of your drama, you shall begin to listen to the quietness and you shall begin to trust. I shall, before breaking, express trust, trust, trust, trust, trust, trust, trust, trust! (Looking to everybody, and we lose it) Break!
BREAK 7:42 PM RESUME 8:00 PM (Time was one second)
ELIAS: Continuing. You may initiate your questions, if you are choosing.
BOB: Okay, I'm choosing. You said to Vicki that because she was experiencing confusion, that was an indication of her grappling with unofficial information. Is that to imply that if someone is not confused they are not interacting with unofficial information as readily?
ELIAS: You create the confusion at the moment of the intersection of unofficial information. You know and acknowledge immediately, momentarily. It is only subsequent to this, which may be within what you classify to be a second, that you discount this information and argue with yourself in defense of your belief systems. Initially though, you accept this unofficial information. Each of you are aware when you are presenting yourselves with unofficial information. As you tune yourselves to your own clarity more and more, you shall allow yourselves to view more and more how you acknowledge unofficial information, even though it may be momentary. You may, in retrospect, look to events and express to yourself a noticing of sensing, or feelings, or fleeting thoughts. You shall recognize, even though you have chosen to discount this information.
RETA: Can I ask a question along that line? I don't know whether the outcome is gonna be like I want it, but about three or four years ago I was really into writing and I ran across an article about how to start a newsletter. Then a year after that I was sorting through papers and I threw away a lot and I kept that one again. Then about a year ago I was sorting through papers, even six months ago, and I looked at that and said, in unofficial information, that I was going to need that, but I think I threw it away. Now my question to you, can you tell whether I threw that away? (Much laughter)
NORM: Come on, Reta!
RETA: Well, it's either gotta be in the box or I threw it in the trash, and now I want to give it to Vicki because it was so darn good, about how to start a newsletter. I know that's not very nice, but that was really unofficial information. Twice I saw it, that I needed it. (Huh? No desire or time here to start a newsletter!)
ELIAS: You are correct that this is an example of unofficial information expressing itself to you. As to your questioning, I shall once again express to you that I do not engage parlor tricks!
RETA: Okay, but it was a perfect example. I should have known.
NORM: Can I ask a question in regard to your beginning statements here in regard to chaos and perfect order, to see if I understand what you mean by perfect order? Paraphrasing perfect order could be that you're maximizing the value fulfillment of everything?
ELIAS: In one respect, yes.
NORM: The molecules that you were talking about with the six atoms, they each have their own value fulfillment?
NORM: They want to go towards their value fulfillment then, right?
NORM: Every atom, every molecule in the subjective universe wants to do that, then?
NORM: Is there a better ... The definition of perfect order, I'm trying to understand what order means in your terms, then. (Pause) The unofficial order is really what I'm looking for.
ELIAS: The elements of creation are not random. They may appear to behave randomly for elements may behave irrationally, but this is only for the reason that you do not completely understand the action that they engage. No thing within your reality, within your created universe, moves in chaos. Everything is perfectly ordered, including yourselves; although yourselves you do not understand also! Therefore, you do not see the order of self. You may look to elements that you view to be outside of yourself, although they are not, and you may see, to the best of your present ability, order. Then you may look to yourself and you may not view complete order; but all of creation is ordered. All of creation is precise.
NORM: May I paraphrase in a different way, then? All of creation is creating continually, and that creation is as perfect order in its creation?
VICKI: I have a question regarding all probabilities are actualized. I guess I was always viewing the pool of probabilities as this stagnant place where at some point in time you choose to actualize one of many, and the other ones just kind of lay around there stagnant until you choose to actualize another one. But from the discussion last week, I get that this isn't necessarily how it works. All probabilities are actualized presently. Is this correct?
VICKI: Therefore, they are influencing of your choices. I'm still not real clear on that, but one question is, within that pool, any probability you would choose would be in alignment with your intent? Is this correct? Or would some be more beneficial or efficient within that intent?
ELIAS: These are two different questions! In actuality, all choices that you choose within probabilities are in alignment with your intent, directly or indirectly. But as to your second question, yes; some choices of some probabilities may be more beneficial or efficient than others, but they all shall be within alignment of your intent. It is your choice. You may choose to be crossing to the opposite side of a lake within a boat straight away, or you may choose to reach the same destination by walking around the shore. You shall arrive at the same destination. Your action in actualizing your destination is different, and is your choice. One is not "worse" than another.
There are many variables involved. You may be choosing what you think of as the most expedient method, for this within your belief systems is "better" or "good". This within other terms may not necessarily hold the same definition. You may choose, within variables of your intent, to be experiencing the walk around the shore. Many times, you may demonstrate this behavior as you are illustrating certain experiences to yourself for your noticing. This is not, underline, karma, underline! You are not experiencing repeated or drawn out experiences in a karmic fashion! You may choose, for your own clarity within a given experience, to not be experiencing within the most expedient method. Quick is not always the most efficient, although within your belief systems you view rapidness as best. The more quickly you learn something, the better you are. The more quickly you accomplish something, the better you are. In actuality, speed is not the deciding factor. The experience and the clarity of the experience is of importance. (Pause)
VICKI: To paraphrase a question for Michael; within interaction with other individuals, what happens if the crooked little sapling's roots start to strangle the straight little sapling's roots? (Laughter)
ELIAS: (Chuckling) Very inventive! The bent sapling may not strangle the straight sapling's roots unless the straight sapling believes that it may, for energy may not be annihilated. Therefore, there is no destruction. It is only your belief systems that creates destruction, or the illusion of destruction. I have expressed to you that your reality within waking state is not an illusion, but you may illude yourselves through your belief systems and you may create illusion that you believe something is being destroyed or annihilated, but in reality there is no thing as annihilation. There is only restructure. There is no death. There is no destruction. There is reformation. Therefore, you may create the illusion of the roots being strangled and the straight little sapling being annihilated, but this is an illusion, for it is dictated by belief systems. In reality, it continues. (
This also is an element of your drama. You enhance your senses and your emotion, your experience, with the drama and excitement of the moment within the experience. Even fear is an acceptable experience within extreme, within much drama for the experience. I express that the sapling's roots were not choked, and acknowledge well done in listening.
VICKI: I shall "relay" the message!
ELIAS: Very good!
BOB: You refer to probabilities being in alignment with intent. Is it even possible for any probability to not be in alignment with intent?
BOB: How is that, in light of your example of the lake? Because technically there's no direction in which you could go that could not ultimately lead back to your destination. So could you give me an example of a probability that would not be in alignment with intent?
ELIAS: You may choose, within an individual focus, to exchange with an alternate self. Each of your alternate selves may independently choose intent. It is not necessary that the intent be the same as yours, although generally it shall be; but it is not a rule. Therefore, you may exchange and intersect with an alternate self within one focus. In this, an alternate may continue, which is you, but is not you. Those choices then, chosen within probabilities engaged by this alternate, may not be in alignment with your intent, but you are not separate from this alternate. (Pause)
NORM: Why is it even necessary to have a pool of probabilities or a blueprint? Why is it necessary? I can create anything I want anytime I want, can't I? Anywhere, anytime?
ELIAS: Why, why, why? (Grinning) Shall we, once again! Why shall a small child stomp through a puddle?
NORM: Because he wants to!
NORM: But he doesn't necessarily have to ask that the puddle be there at some point in his life. I guess I don't understand my complete freedom of action, and this pool of constraints.
ELIAS: Ah! You view as constraint, but you hold no constraints! You are not constricted to a pool of probabilities. You allow yourself a pool of probabilities as efficiency for less confusion within your singularity of focus and attention within an individual focus, but you are not bound by this pool of probabilities! You may pull from outside of this pool at any moment. There are no bounds. There are no closed systems!
NORM: It is more efficient. Is that because of cooperativeness with others?
ELIAS: (Intently) You have designed this dimensional focus for this particular type of experience. You are one aspect of you. There are myriads of you's. You are ultimately a multidimensional being. Therefore, you singularly look to one focus and one choice of experience, but you do not experience one focus and one experience.
NORM: The alternate focuses take care of the lack of infinite multidimensionality of this one focus?
ELIAS: They are all you, and you are all they.
NORM: I would like to ask some questions in regard to the pool of probabilities and the creation of the so-called cellular body that I am operating. That pool of probabilities, does that influence the biochemical nature and the neurological nature of this body?
NORM: However, I have complete control over the realignment of the neurological and biochemical nature of this body.
NORM: And it's not a difficult task to do, within this probability.
ELIAS: Correct ... although you do not believe this! Therefore, you create difficulty! (Grinning, and laughter)
NORM: I'm trying damn hard to believe this! I was attracted to a book, and it was in regard to some unusual things that happen in the Philippines. It was about the psychic surgeons. Do you have knowledge of this in any of your aspects or focuses?
NORM: They have four different procedures that they do. I'm trying to correlate that with the ideas that I have in regard to the unofficial worlds.
ELIAS: This is unofficial information.
NORM: Yes, I realize that. They do have the capability then, of opening the body without blood and knowing where to go in the body to take care of, for example, a cancerous portion of the lungs or of the liver or what have you, and remove that cancerous portion and then close up without a scar.
NORM: They have the ability then, to discern. There is a great deal of cooperation between the seventeen trillion cells that I have in my body. For example, cancerous cells don't have the cooperation and are forcing the cooperation of the others? The unofficial consciousness of these people that know how to do this, they can discern where the body has a problem by looking at it unofficially? Is it because of a difference in cooperation between cells?
ELIAS: You are fascinated and amazed by unofficial information that you may physically view, which falls into the same category as parlor tricks! You view what you term to be psychic surgery as amazing. You each hold the ability to accomplish these acts. They are unnecessary. They are no different than your physicians within your western medicine with their scalpels. It is unnecessary to disturb the structure of the physical expression to alter a creation!
You do this for your own amazement. This is to acknowledge to yourselves your abilities, although you do not acknowledge your abilities! You believe that some individuals upon your planet are blessed and gifted within certain abilities that all else do not hold! You all hold the same abilities. There is no lack of cooperation between cellular structure within your physical expression, in the expression of cancer. The individual that has created what you view to be cancer has merely activated, within their own cellular structure, an action of dis-ease, in alignment with their desires.
NORM: And intent.
ELIAS: Correct. There is no lack of cooperation cellularly. Subjective information is offered to your physical expression, which responds with precise and immediate cooperation. You all hold these cells. They are a part of your manifestation. You choose to activate or not activate certain actions within certain cellular structures.
NORM: In the future then, disease should be treated, if it is to be treated with the help of somebody else, by that somebody else informing or helping the individual understand that he himself has created the disease, and to make sure that this is his choice, that this is what he wants to do.
ELIAS: There is no necessity to be making sure that this is the individual's choice, for if this was not the individual's choice they would not manifest!
NORM: I'm sorry! I said that wrong! I agree with that! (Laughter) But some people, in the shift, may not know that yet, and so for a time there is going to be a need for people that can explain that, if they want to take care of or improve their health.
ELIAS: Within the shift or what you view as future time periods, in regard to manifestations of dis-ease within any form physically, action of other individuals, incorporated within cooperation of the manifesting individual, shall be only to be reminding the individual body consciousness of its original state of efficiency.
I wish not to be appearing as discounting of the ability of these individuals that fascinate you so with their manifestations of psychic surgery. This indicates a trustfulness of self, and a movement into understanding of physical expression and the reality of your physical expression; what it is; although they have not quite reached what you would term as your physical goals, within an understanding that any disruption of the flesh is unnecessary.
NORM: That's right. The person could just uncreate it.
ELIAS: But as has been stated previously, there are times that individuals lend energy to another individual within consciousness, to be reminding of the physical expression of its natural state.
NORM: There was another concept that I thought was quite inviolate, and that was the fact that there is a body around me, an unofficial body that is my protector, so to speak. Those people that were operated on psychically had to allow the psychic surgeon to go past that. Some people call this the astral body. They had to allow the psychic surgeon to go by there, for him to be able to do what he did.
ELIAS: Absolutely. This action is a cooperation of both the individuals. You do not hold a shell around you, but you do possess an energy field around you which will not, not can not but will not, be penetrated or intruded upon without permission.
NORM: Just wanted to make sure that I was thinking correctly there. Thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome.
DREW: May I ask about intent? Last night I was creating some quiet time through meditation, and I asked myself what my intent was and the answer came back so strongly that I was actually moved to tears. The answer was simply to be happy. Is that possible as an intent?
ELIAS: I express to you that all individuals within this dimension and this focus hold this desire. Not one individual, ever manifest within this present now, does not hold this desire. This is not necessarily an intent. It is a desire that you express to yourself. Now, continue with your quietness and discover what shall create your happiness. This shall be your intent.
DREW: I'm trying to get a handle on what an intent is, what I would be looking for in terms of that kind of answer. Is it something that I will be manifesting objectively? Is that my intent?
ELIAS: You are manifesting objectively, from the moment of your emergence into physical focus.
DREW: Am I manifesting my intent?
DREW: So I'm doing it now.
DREW: I just have to figure out what I'm doing! (Laughter)
ELIAS: Very good!
DREW: Oh, that's good? (Laughing)
RON: That's why we're here!
ELIAS: You are moving closer! You continually are manifesting your intent. Your intent is a direction.
DREW: You use the metaphor of the lake and arriving at your intent, but in fact you never really arrive. Is that correct?
ELIAS: For you are within it continuously.
DREW: It's a state of being.
ELIAS: Yes; a state of becoming.
DREW: A state of becoming, in a particular direction.
ELIAS: Correct, for experience.
DREW: So for example, intent may be just things like the pursuit of knowledge?
DREW: Or creative expression through music or the arts? Those are intents?
ELIAS: Correct; for the experience within physical manifestation.
DREW: So it is not probable or even possible that my intent may be different from what I am physically manifesting now?
ELIAS: Your intent is not synonymous with your manifestations, but you do not manifest outside of alignment with your intent. Therefore, you may manifest actions. You may manifest choices within probabilities that may not be expressive in the moment of the exactness of your intent, but within experience they lend to the actualization of your intent.
DREW: That would be the walk around the shore.
DREW: So it's possible to go your entire life, my entire physical manifestation, and never really directly efficiently manifest my intent. I may take a continuous walk around the shore, without ever really physically manifesting directly my intent.
ELIAS: You may, but this also is a choice. Your thinking magnates to an end product. Your thinking magnates to an accomplishment and finality, a destination in goals, an arrival at a point; to which you have then accomplished. Of course, beyond this what you shall do we shall not imagine, (humorously) but this is never a question, for you are continuously striving for your end point. There is no end point!
DREW: I think of it almost as a resonance, where your physical manifestation is in alignment with your intent and there is a certain ... resonance is the best word I can come up with.
ELIAS: It is quite difficult to express to you all the concept that the walk around the shore is not "worse", that the boat crossing the lake is not "better" or more efficient simply for the reason that it is faster. All of your choices are in alignment with your intent. The reason that you pursue these questions, the reason that your thought processes move within this direction, is that you engage this forum, for this is in alignment with your intent; to be offering yourselves information with regard to the shift and to the action of transition. Therefore, you inquire with these questions, but you limit yourselves within these questions also, for your intent is not singular within this focus; this being the reason why you have asked for this forum and this information.
You look to this focus extremely singularly. You are offering yourselves information through this forum to be understanding of more than a singular attention. This physical existence, universe, manifestation, dimension, focus, is not all of you! All that is within this expressed creation of this universe that you view is one expression, one language; this being why you ask of these types of questions and why you experience confusion, not quite knowing; for you are beginning to offer yourselves information which engages your periphery and allows you to widen your awareness.
You look to absolutes within this focus. You ask, "Are there mathematicians within non-physical focus?" All that you view within this known created universe is of your own language. It is within your perception. It is not all that is! It is one focus, one very creative, elaborate, glorious focus, but one; and you simultaneously experience countless. You may not number your experiences outside of this particular dimension! You are grander than grand!
I shall break once again, and we shall continue ... briefly!
BREAK 9:07 PM RESUME 9:24 PM (We missed Elias' initial arrival. Gotta turn that tape machine on a little faster, Ron!)
NORM: Last week we talked about links and consciousness units, and the primary activity or action, and electromagnetic energy units or EE's. Does it require, by the links, to have EE's to perform action? Is that a concept that is correct?
NORM: And it cannot be done without it? Action cannot be done by links without EE's?
ELIAS: No! (Grinning, and Norm laughs)
NORM: Can you explain?
ELIAS: All of energy is consciousness. Therefore, links of consciousness make up all manifestations, all motion, all elements. You may not create electromagnetic energy without consciousness, but electromagnetic energy is not a building block, so to speak, of consciousness.
NORM: But of action?
ELIAS: It is an action; a force.
NORM: So in the process of action, EE's are created.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, for all of consciousness and all of energy is action. Therefore, all things are created in action.
NORM: Now that's a mandella! (Laughing)
BOB: I have a question. Would the shift mark an end to experience?
BOB: So experience continues forever, even after the shift.
BOB: But only within this focus and other focuses. Let me put it another way. Do you still engage experience?
ELIAS: Yes. (Grinning)
BOB: For the purpose of becoming.
ELIAS: Yes. (Grinning)
BOB: So this notion of an end to disease is to some extent a waste of time because disease is simply experience and since all experience is valuable, then the notion of any change in the nature of things is a waste of time.
ELIAS: No! (Grinning)
BOB: (Cracking up) You just won't let me, will ya?
ELIAS: You choose collectively what you shall create within mass ...
BOB: Mass like mass, or mass like lots of people?
ELIAS: (Humorously) Mass like lots of people! (Much laughter)
BOB: Okay. Just wanted to make sure!
ELIAS: In this, you create what you desire and choose. If, within the mass consciousness cooperatively within agreement, you choose to discontinue the creation of disease, you shall; although you do, for all time is simultaneous! (Grinning)
BOB: So the shift already happened, or is happening.
DREW: Your question was related not to mass belief systems though, but to individuals. Is that correct? Because I've had that same question in my mind, almost a sense of what's the point?
DREW: Well, why bother worrying about dying of cancer? Why worry?
BOB: Well, you don't need to.
DREW: You don't need to, and worry is probably the wrong word. You've got to be very careful of the words you use around here! (Much laughter)
BOB: You can choose to worry if you choose to worry!
DREW: Yes, but in terms of making an effort to correct certain situations that manifest, that you choose to manifest ... How am I doing?
BOB: You can't correct it if it isn't wrong! (We're cracking up)
DREW: But you can change a situation that you manifest. If all experience is neither good nor bad and it's all for the experience, why bother trying to change anything? I can hear the answer already! Let me see if I can come up with the answer. (Elias is grinning) Well, there could be many answers! The first one that comes to mind is, don't try but accept. Which leads me back to this, then what's the point? I understand it's for experience and it's for learning, and therefore let the disease happen and don't make an effort to correct it, to change it. Let your life go where it goes and just be accepting of whatever comes along, because all experience is neither good nor bad. And yet in practical daily terms, if happiness is our desire, not all experience leads to happiness! Now that may be a matter of acceptance, and yet it all becomes, after a while, seemingly pointless to me. I've been dealing with this a little bit in terms of not only frustration, but almost a sense of meaninglessness to the effort, which brings us back to the word of effortlessness! Am I making sense in any way? Does anybody identify with what I'm talking about? (Yes, many of us have been on this hamster wheel!) Can you help me with this?
ELIAS: What is the point? All probabilities are actualized. Therefore, what does it matter? Why must you place right, wrong, good, bad upon a choice to give it value? Why has it no value within itself? (He is in the question-asking mode tonight!)
DREW: Well, I guess in terms of its leading to what you said all humans desire, and that is happiness. If that's a desire we all share but the choices we make don't lead us there, and yet the choices we make, any one choice is just as good as the other, it almost seems that happiness is unattainable and that we're just essentially ... I don't want to say that! We may as well just kick back and go along for the ride and whatever happens happens and it's all okay. But that may not necessarily make us happy!
ELIAS: And within some focuses this is precisely what you actualize, and within other focuses you do not. Within some focuses, you blissfully drift through your manifestation unconcerned with the whys or the wherefores or the hows or the whats, and you accomplish experiencing attaching no better or worse to all of your experiences. Within this particular focus that you are aware of within your attention immediately, you have chosen not to manifest this type of experience. You have chosen an intent which creates a direction; and in this you follow, through your experiences, this intent. The intent is what is directing of your experiences.
Objectively, you are correct that all individuals seek happiness; but within your objective terms, all individuals do not believe that they experience happiness. Many individuals, within the entirety of a given focus, experience misery, in your terms. This is directly a resultingness of belief systems. Your happiness, or I shall express your joyfulness of self is experienced by self through all of its experiences independent of belief systems, in recognition of the purity of the experience. Emotionally filtered through belief systems, you may not believe that you experience what you term happiness, but you shall follow your intent.
I add to this, as you may question. You do choose some focuses without a specific aligned intent other than experience. These will be your experienced focuses that you may think of within your thought processes as your "drifting through" focuses; blissfully ignorant, in your terms, of anything other than the experiences themselves.
DREW: So it's the addition of intent.
ELIAS: Which allows you a direction within an individual focus. This is what you term as purpose.
DREW: But ultimately, it's meaningless!
ELIAS: No thing is meaningless, for all is affecting of all. Everything, all of consciousness, all of you, is intertwined and interconnected. Therefore, each motion that you create, each choice that you choose, is affecting of all other focuses, is also affecting of all of consciousness. It is so very intertwined that your future and past selves, in your terms, or your sideways selves, in my terms, are continuously affecting of your choices, as you are continuously affecting of future and past events and choices. Therefore, all things are influencing of all others. None is insignificant. All of your actions are important in that they are, within each moment, creating your value fulfillment. If you are not creating value fulfillment, you shall discontinue.
NORM: All consciousness has intrinsically, inherently built into it a desire for action, motion, change? Or I could ask another question. Is there any consciousness that does not have action, motion, change?
ELIAS: No; although it is not necessarily a desire. It is.
NORM: It just is.
NORM: Okay. At all levels, for example, of the hundred molecules with the six atoms each in them and each one of the atoms having millions of links in them, the links in each one of those atoms are shaped in the unofficial world differently. They could be. But in the objective world, they are the same.
ELIAS: They do not hold shape.
NORM: They are linked differently unofficially, but objectively linked the same. Can I say that? Therefore, they have different intents, different value fulfillments. That's what makes them different.
ELIAS: Not necessarily.
NORM: What does make them different?
ELIAS: They are not necessarily different.
NORM: I thought you said that they could be different.
ELIAS: Their behavior is different.
NORM: Okay. Their behavior unofficially or objectively?
NORM: They move differently, right?
ELIAS: They may.
NORM: They may. What else may they do differently?
ELIAS: The example is presented to illustrate the sameness and the unity of consciousness. Atoms you view as entities. Molecules you view as entities. You view yourselves as entities. You also may express to yourselves that you are all alike, that you are all of one species. You all are human. You all view yourselves of an animal classification. Therefore, you are all alike, just as your one hundred molecules containing the same six atoms; but each of you displays different behavior. Each of these molecules may display different behavior in accordance with the arrangement of the atoms. The atoms may be the same, but the space arrangement may be different. Therefore, the behavior shall be different.
The reasoning of this is that information is processed differently with different space arrangements; just as within your species you each are the same manifestations, but you behave differently for your intake of information is different. This illustration also is to demonstrate the preciseness and exactingness of your creation of your universe, from yourselves in your complexity to one small atom, which all behave the same.
NORM: We as a species are the same, being of that species, but each one of us looks differently so that we can have different names. Could I unofficially look at all of those molecules and give them different names and identify them later?
ELIAS: If you are choosing. And what shall be your point???
NORM: I would like to order them alphabetically! (Laughter)
ELIAS: Therefore, you may classify them as you have classified yourselves, in separating farther each individual entity to its smallest degree. But there is no separateness!
NORM: But it's fun to do, though! I just have to go to the bloody end, that's all! (Laughing)
ELIAS: It may be equally enjoyable to you to be altering your perception and your direction, to be accomplishing less separation and more incorporation of all as one. This may be more challenging, for it is more unfamiliar to you.
NORM: That's for sure! In regard to that, last week you talked about the thing that was now conscious itself, and that was time, and that it can stretch and strain and so on, and that in different dimensional focuses or different dimensional realities time is connected between one and the other. These connections are supposedly called coordinate points, and it's my understanding that there are major coordinate points and minor coordinate points, some of which are in Southern California. The attraction of these coordinate points between different dimensions, times in different dimensions, is for the purpose of exchanging energy. Is what I'm saying correct?
ELIAS: No! (Grinning)
NORM: Where did I go wrong?
ELIAS: Just as I have expressed to you that your mathematics is relative only to this creation of this reality. It is a language within this reality, another language for your further understanding of your reality, but it is relative to this reality. It is unnecessary to hold designated coordinate points to be intersecting different dimensions within consciousness, for all points are intersection points. Now; if you speak to me of energy deposits or what you physically focused term as vortexes, this is different; but as to intersection points for dimensional contact, this is unnecessary.
NORM: Well then, what are vortexes?
ELIAS: These being energy deposits.
NORM: From outside of this dimension?
ELIAS: No! From you!
NORM: Region 2?
ELIAS: No. You hold tremendous energy within your focus. You deposit energy, which you hold in limitless supply, in areas physically located upon your planet within your space arrangement.
NORM: And you're knowledgeable of where these are?
ELIAS: Yes, as you may be also! If you are noticing, you may encounter energy deposits around you.
NORM: It's my understanding that if you were to measure gravitation in these points, it would slightly vary.
ELIAS: Sometimes, in your terms.
NORM: Depending upon the amount of energy deposit.
NORM: Which affects gravitation. Therefore, time is dilated. It's changed.
ELIAS: Time is changed in many areas. You think of time as a constant. You think of time as continuous and consistent, and it is not. It is elastic. It bends and it varies.
NORM: Subjectively ...
ELIAS: Objectively also!
NORM: Yes, we know of the objective, but it may be affected more easily subjectively locally.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. You discount your objective ability! You are not separate from your subjective self!
NORM: Okay, because I can create the energy which changes time, changes gravitation. Right. Okay.
DREW: Michael had a question regarding time, so I'll ask it for Michael. Last week and tonight you said that time is relative to physical reality, but can exist in non-physical reality. Michael was wondering, since we perceive time as a sequence of events in physical reality, does time exist in non-physical reality in other ways, such as color or tone or feeling or something that we wouldn't necessarily recognize as time?
ELIAS: Time is an identification of moments. It is not necessarily a sequence of events. Therefore, outside of this reality it may be interpreted differently, yes. It may be recognized differently, for it is dimensional. Therefore, it may be identified through events which occur within moments.
DREW: But not necessarily a sequence of moments.
DREW: But it's always related to moments in some way.
DREW: One other question. You said last week that no human has accepted, as a reality, simultaneous time.
ELIAS: Save one! (Grinning at Bob, and we all crack up. Ron presented Bob with a certificate this evening, acknowledging this!)
DREW: Is it probable, as humans, to accept as reality that we create our own reality?
ELIAS: Yes, and as you move into your shift this shall become a reality. You also shall understand more, not fully, physically focused, the concept of simultaneous time. Excepting for Lawrence! (Much laughter) (He's picking on me again!)
RON: Can I ask a question? It's kind of off the subject, but I guess it's not really. Was Mary's interpretation of Paul's latest communication accurate?
ELIAS: Yes. I shall be offering acknowledgment of this, for this has been anticipated and awaited. This is an indication of actualizing this mergence of subjective and objective, to which we have spoken previously within our sessions in explanation. Now it becomes objectively apparent, which may be acknowledged; as Michael believes he may not be interpreting of this information of my dear one, for he believes he does not understand these communications. You may express, "Incorrect! There is working understanding."
JIM: I have a brief question. The large cat-creature that Borloh observed recently, was that of her creation or of mine, or sharing?
ELIAS: Yes. We shall ... (To Vic) You are wishing inquiry?
VICKI: Just briefly, this word relay, does it have anything to do with interpretation?
ELIAS: Partially. Continue with your investigation of your equation! You may be interpreting closely to your dream mission also. We shall discontinue this evening. I shall be anticipating our next meeting. Affectionately, au revoir!
Elias departs at 10:09 PM.
(1) I was clueless as to what a "brace of manifestations" was, having never heard the word brace used in this fashion. So, I looked it up. Interestingly enough, the dictionary said this word is a derivative of Old French, meaning "an armful, a fathom". Then, I looked up fathom. One definition said, "A mental depth; intellectual reach or scope, penetration; as, a man of fathom. [Rare.]"
(2) I thought Elias was making up words again with his use of "illude", or maybe meant to say "delude". So, back to the dictionary! Illude is also a derivative of Old French, meaning "to play with, to make sport of; to deride; to deceive; to mock. [Obs.]"
© 1997 Vicki Pendley/Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1997 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.