Transition versus Shifting
“Transition versus Shifting”
“Other Aspects of Yourself”
“A Recap of Orientation”
Friday, April 1, 2005 (Private/In-Person)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Ken (Alida)
(Elias’ arrival time is 19 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good afternoon!
KEN: Good afternoon! And I meet with you again!
ELIAS: And so we do.
KEN: Well, this is wonderful. (Elias chuckles) I have been reading very much of your previous material that is on the website. I like the Digests. I read about disengagement and transition as being two totally separate topics, and transition, I have to have been doing that for quite a while. (Elias laughs) It’s about the only way to explain some of the things that have been happening the last few years.
KEN: The point being that I can only go as far as what I can understand and work with, and then I can integrate it and not go crazy, not have the guys with the white coats cart me off. (Laughs)
ELIAS: I am understanding.
KEN: One of the things I was looking at was that the Shift looks like it has some characteristics, and transition looks like it has some characteristics...
KEN: ...and they are very subtle, the differences. It has to do with how we’re dealing with beliefs. I guess with transition is the fact that I’m doing things like nature of personal reality, like belief work of letting some of them go, keeping some that are needed but letting others go and stuff like that, when the Shift is just to accept them.
ELIAS: Let me clarify, for within physical focus the action of transition is not to be shedding the beliefs, yet. Therefore, in that action, it merely allows you to generate more of an ease in accepting the beliefs and generating a preparation for nonphysical transition, to be shedding those beliefs. But you are not actually shedding any of those beliefs while you continue within physical focus.
KEN: Even the ones that have been damaging to this lifetime, like... Well, I guess the fact is I’ve been mollifying some of them, like I let go of some of the things about poverty-consciousness beliefs and have allowed for myself more of a life of ease in Seattle.
ELIAS: I am understanding. What you are doing is every belief incorporates many, many influences — some of those influences you perceive to be damaging or you perceive to be negative, but there are other influences that you would not perceive in that manner — therefore, what you are doing is you are acknowledging the belief and accepting the belief, and in that accepting, allowing yourself to choose different influences that are more in keeping with your preferences.
KEN: Ah! So accepting the belief is the key to both the Shift and transition while physical.
ELIAS: Yes, yes.
KEN: Okay, that’s really good. So really, they are very close together.
KEN: I was discussing outside with the other people, they are quite surprised I am not a final focus, but that my final focus is delegating me to do some of the work, some of the groundwork.
KEN: My final focus appears more to be a female lifetime in Iceland, the point being that I have agreements to bring three people into the world, and I’m choosing to very happily accept these agreements.
At least one of those essences got really worried and prompted a most hilarious dream. The dream was that this particular focus was working with doctors in Seattle to see if they could find ways to have me, as a 51—year—old male in a male body, be able to bring in a new life. (Both laugh) That would be, of course, a big trick! When I was writing it down, I just absolutely cracked up over it — boy, you’re kind of an impatient essence! (Both laugh) But the insight I got on it was that he was worried that because I was making breakthroughs in this lifetime on how reality actually works, my stories and essays that I started out mentioning last time, he was worried that I might just say why do I need to continue on the planet? The trick is to know how reality works but still to be willing to play the game at the same time.
ELIAS: Ah, I agree!
KEN: One of the things that was brought up about being in contact with other focuses and stuff is a modification of that, some special version of that this time, which is tuning into the subpersonalities that make up this essence. I have a subpersonality that I call Day Job Ken that handles the computer work. I have a subpersonality that I call Seattle Ken that maneuvers me around the Seattle area, finds the best restaurants in the area and things like that, kind of helps me out there. I have one called Travel Ken that handles hotels, rental cars, airlines — and very efficiently, too. I have one that I call Traffic Cop Ken that’s like a line supervisor that helps to keep all the other ones in line and keep the transition smooth. And I have some others that have to do with other locations where I’ve lived that are a little more on the neglected side. Is this the same idea as what you referred to in the past of getting in touch with your other focuses?
ELIAS: Other aspects of yourself, not necessarily other focuses. Other focuses would be that which you in your common vernacular would term to be other lifetimes. But what you are exploring are other aspects of yourself in this one focus, which you have many different aspects of yourself.
KEN: I have one that I tuned into that is fully nonphysical that has the unusual name of Tussin Ken; that’s one that has a long story behind it. (Elias chuckles) You probably can see some of what’s going on, like some of the assistance I’ve had with getting into altered states. That one sort of hovers around the Akashic records, which is like the card catalogue for the big library of all the stories of all of our lifetimes, and then also actually does some of the job of a spirit guide for at least three people, even while I’m on this physical planet. That’s one that I’ve been working with very heavily just recently.
ELIAS: Quite efficient.
KEN: It’s interesting how many focuses make up a lifetime — you know, like how many focuses does it take to screw in a light bulb?
ELIAS: (Chuckles) As I have stated, there are countless you’s of you.
KEN: One thing — this is an interesting one, it was one of the Michael channels that I’m involved with that actually said this — was that one way to look at it is that there is only one I, which is the spark which is made up of All That Is, and then there is a whole bunch of me’s.
ELIAS: An interesting expression, and accurate.
KEN: When I’m looking at the other focuses and looking at what we would call reincarnational focuses, there is also one that I tuned into that was a concurrent focus, kind of like the same timeframe...
KEN: ...who was a woman living in Indonesia that was working in a hotel and happened to have kind of an interesting experience with the tsunami, and used the tsunami as not transition but disengagement.
KEN: What was most fascinating about that, it took me awhile to tune into what was actually happening there. What actually happened first was that the disengagement kind of provided me with extra energy at the time of the 26th of December. On the 27th in the morning, before I started my week of being internal before I did my stories and games, I was lying in bed in very, very tense trance state, and I figured out later that the very, very tense thing was like getting in touch and having the internal work being done of getting in touch with this one from Indonesia.
ELIAS: I am understanding, which is to be acknowledged that you allowed yourself an awareness of that focus, for those individuals that participated in that mass event intended to be expressing energy outwardly to those of you that continue within physical focus. It was a collective choice to be generating a significant volumous message to be paying attention to cooperation and not to be engaging in opposition.
KEN: It’s interesting what happened with it, too, was that in the United States it was like suddenly getting a turn around from the Iraq thing to suddenly doing humanitarian aid, even if it took Bush a little time to figure it out so he could send 25 million dollars of aid. (Laughs) It changed finally to, I think, 25 billion.
ELIAS: Which was the point.
KEN: So, the focuses then, first off, include what we call reincarnational focuses, but also include concurrent focuses...
KEN: ...and then separately also would include parallel focuses, like a probable focus, right? Or would you call those aspects of this essence?
ELIAS: The probable selves I would designate as probable SELVES, not necessarily as focuses, and they are associated with each focus. Each focus creates...
KEN: The probables.
ELIAS: Yes, which are essentially other aspects of yourself also. But they do incorporate their own choices.
KEN: Oh, absolutely do. One of the things I was wondering about was like each one of them are very autonomous, because through the Michael essence, which kind of gets into being mindful of what we’re learning in each of the focuses and lifetimes and stuff, the point being that some of these breakthroughs are considered ideal but I’m not making these breakthroughs in every one of my probable selves. Some of my probable selves are still dealing with poverty consciousness, or a probable self that flunked out of college very badly and then made himself unemployable.
That actually was part of my memory focus, memory essay, the fact that I tuned in in a dream and then actually examined the dream through a microscope, so to speak, examining that memory line as opposed to my regular life memory line, and seeing that it is totally different and seeing how parts of them were the same.
KEN: That was the impetus, though it was a few years ago, it was the impetus towards my writing the essay about memory now.
KEN: The point is is that we have lots of different memory lines that each have their own past, present and projected future, or a future that’s lived or future that’s projected, one or both.
ELIAS: I am understanding.
KEN: And I don’t have to wait for the probable selves to learn the same lessons that I’m learning.
KEN: That would be a good one that I got from the Michael channel...
KEN: ...which, by the way, I am now, too. There are three fragments of the Michael overself entity that hover around me. I’ve been seeing you hovering around me some, too, lately. I’m very appreciative of this.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome. (Chuckles)
KEN: This is all very fascinating information. Oh, and then another completely... We can change the topic?
ELIAS: Very well.
KEN: Orientation — I got through some of the early material on that, the male/female/other, and now I got started with common, something-or-other, and then soft. Soft feels right to me.
KEN: Part of it that made me feel even more right was when Lynda outside was talking about integrating the subjective and objective, that that’s what soft does but the other two don’t.
KEN: What was the third one?
KEN: So common, intermediate and soft.
KEN: One thing I’m not sure about, I’m not even sure what the website gets in there, is how did it progress from male/female/homosexual to common/intermediate/soft?
ELIAS: First of all, the identification of male/female/other was not associated with the choice of homosexuality.
KEN: That is a choice I did not make, but I still feel “other.”
ELIAS: Correct. But the identification of male/female/other is associated with what you create within the blueprint of this physical reality. You create genders. One gender is male; one gender is female.
Now; you also create the possibility of the combination of male and female as another gender. That is the identification of male/female/other.
Now; the reason that it is associated with these orientations is that within the blueprint of your physical reality, you assign energy to these genders. You associate gender with all of your reality in some capacity.
KEN: In this lifetime or focus.
Now; in that, one energy is male. The male energy is represented by the intellectual. One energy is female. That is represented by the intuitive. The third, the other, would be what you would term to be in the middle. That would be the soft. The common is associated with male energy; the intermediate is associated with female energy; the soft is associated with both.
KEN: The word “soft” comes from the feeling of a person’s life or something like that, or how is that?
ELIAS: I chose these terms as common, intermediate and soft, for the common is obvious — most individuals are of the common orientation, therefore.
KEN: Even people in female bodies?
ELIAS: Gender matters not. Gender is not associated physically with orientation. Most individuals within your physical reality are of the common orientation. It is the dominant orientation.
KEN: That’s because society uses the intellectual and almost discourages the intuitive. Is that part of it?
ELIAS: Somewhat, but it is somewhat the reverse. The common perception is what creates your society, for they are the majority.
KEN: (Laughs) Chicken and egg!
ELIAS: Now; as I have expressed from the onset of this forum, in agreeing to be physically manifest within this physical reality and choosing to participate, you agree to manifest at the least three manifestations, and the reason is to experience all three of the orientations.
The intermediate orientation in some manners is somewhat in-between. The common orientation, were you to set them in groups in a line formation, the common would be in one position. The intermediate would be in the center position.
KEN: And then soft would be on the other side?
ELIAS: Soft would be in the other end position.
Now; in that, the intermediate is less dissimilar from the common. Although they do express their own unique perception, they do generate some similarities to the common orientation in behavior and in expressions. The soft displays less similarities to the common, and therefore, the choice of choosing the term of “soft” in being an expression of no distinction, or little distinction, of objective and subjective.
In this, these three orientations do incorporate some quite distinct differences, and the two of the intermediate and the soft generally do experience some sense of oddity, that they do not seem to quite fit into the officially accepted reality.
KEN: That is for sure! (Laughs)
ELIAS: For they do express differently than the general collective, which would be the common.
KEN: By the way, when I saw the word “soft” being used, I was reminded of myself as a very little kid, that my favorite color was yellow and I called the color yellow “soft.”
ELIAS: I am understanding.
KEN: That was very interesting. (Elias chuckles) Now I like blues and stuff too, but I did bring a yellow shirt here, so I’ll be wearing that tomorrow.
ELIAS: Very well. (Chuckles)
KEN: Lynda was saying that intermediates experience the subjective and don’t have any interest in putting it out to the objective. Is that how the difference...?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. Intermediate individuals process information subjectively, and in that, they are not necessarily objectively aware of HOW they process information. In their experience, it appears to them that they merely in a moment offer themselves an awareness of their conclusion, but they do not incorporate an objective awareness of the process that they engage to generate that conclusion or that product. Many times this is somewhat frustrating...
KEN: To them or to others, or to both?
ELIAS: Somewhat to both, but more so to the individual that incorporates the intermediate orientation. For as is the situation with most individuals, they attempt to be generating in the same manner as the common, for that is deemed the norm. An intermediate individual generates tremendous difficulty in accomplishing that type of action, for they do not incorporate, generally speaking, an objective awareness of what they are processing.
KEN: I guess the difference with me is that I do my subjective experiences but then I have my journal and write out what I did...
KEN: ...and I have my dream and I write down the dream.
ELIAS: A soft individual incorporates an awareness of both. They incorporate the awareness of the objective and the subjective, and they express both. Common individuals, generally speaking, do not express the subjective, or do not incorporate much of an awareness of the subjective, for their attention is focused upon the objective.
KEN: Now, obviously they dream like anybody else...
KEN: ...and they would obviously have things happen to them or experience subjective types of experiences...
KEN: ...but they end up just letting it go or not even trying to bring it into...?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. It is dependent upon the individual, but they incorporate a different action in that.
In dreams, you are generating a subjective action. But in the recall of dreams or the awareness of dreams, you are engaging your objective awareness in association with your subjective awareness. Therefore, you are engaging them both simultaneously, and you incorporate an awareness of engaging them both. A common individual may recall dreams and may generate that quite easily, for that is an objective action, but the common individual shall be more literally concerned with the imagery of the dream.
KEN: It would be more important to them to interpret the dream regarding what is going on in their life, I guess, maybe.
ELIAS: What the significance of the imagery of the dream is in relation to what they are generating objectively, yes, and they interpret the imagery much more literally.
KEN: Like if they see another person in the dream, and of course, the other person is very likely just an aspect of themselves...
KEN: ...because mutual dreams do happen, but not that commonly.
ELIAS: They would interpret the other individual as literally being the other individual, and question...
KEN: “How dare you show up in my dream!” (Laughs)
ELIAS: Or perhaps question the meaning of why they presented that particular individual in their dream imagery. They are quite literal concerning the imagery.
A soft individual recognizes the dream imagery as being equally as abstract as waking imagery, and therefore is not as literal in translating of dream imagery and generates more of a periphery in association with their dream imagery, incorporating more allowance for interpretation, abstractness, and also for feeling and what feeling an element of the imagery generated. Therefore, there is more of a symbology rather than a literal interpretation of dream imagery.
KEN: Now, an intermediate person would be very... It would be hard for them to recall a dream?
ELIAS: No. Intermediate individuals engage considerable dream imagery. They incorporate considerable dream activity, for this is a subjective action. They do many times recall their dream imagery also, although their dream imagery may appear to be somewhat more abstract than that of the soft, for they are attempting to translate the subjective action, and that may not necessarily translate accurately into physical expressions.
KEN: The intermediate is actually likely to have as rich, if not even richer, dream lives. They just may have a little bit more of a difficulty in interpreting.
ELIAS: Yes. They integrate more of a challenge in generating an interpretation of their dream imagery, but they do generally incorporate considerable dream activity.
KEN: Good stuff here. Let’s go a little bit more into the global mass type of reality that we’re creating here.
Last time in our phone session, you said the Shift is going exactly right as far as what is going on in the United States and stuff like that, which, of course, was a big surprise to me because it kind of looks like the old “heck in a hand basket,” to put it delicately, and in 2005 you say that everything is exactly on schedule. (Elias nods) Wow. So there is hope for the United States?
ELIAS: And the entirety of your world.
KEN: That’s good, that’s good. (Elias chuckles) But everybody in the world is going through the Shift in their own way...
KEN: ...and some are probably wanting to put the brakes on it, particularly the Christian fundamentalists who think hey, they’re starting to get things better than I am! They’re maybe saying that inwardly, and then kind of saying hey, stop here. Wow. (Elias laughs) Like you said, and some of the stuff I’ve been pondering since our phone session, and I wonder, that’s a big one, if that’s a fear reaction over Bush getting re—elected. I guess you bring in what you fear, as far as me choosing the probability where he did win.
ELIAS: At times, but in that, you may also be engaging the action of generating a contribution in energy to the viewing of differences and the movement into the acceptance of differences through the recognition of them and the strength of how they are perceived in such absoluteness.
KEN: Showing some of those people the shades of gray.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.
KEN: Too many of them seem to think that you have only black and white and nothing in between.
KEN: It’s interesting how many different teachers of different kinds are talking about Shift, and how many different ways it’s been coming through. The Michael Teachings talk about how we progress in awareness levels, the first one being survival, how to survive one’s planet; the second one being building a civilization, learning right and wrong, learning that you don’t just walk up to somebody and say hello, how are you doing, I’m going to kill you. (Laughs) That kind of thing just doesn’t seem to... Then once that’s done, the third one is achievement-oriented, where competition came in — I’m me, you’re you and I’m going to win, learning how to excel in the game of “Let’s Play Office,” and things like that. The fourth is relationship oriented, learning that I can relate to you and starting to learn empathy and starting to learn to just relate to you as another individual and stuff. Then the fifth one being philosophically oriented, “let’s put it all together now.” The Shift from the Michael thing is moving the world from the achievement—oriented to the relationship—oriented and going kind of from that, and can be as intense as we want to make it.
ELIAS: Correct — or not. In this, you are incorporating similar information. It is all moving in the same direction. It is merely being presented in different manners that different individuals may draw themselves to, and with some individuals, that they may challenge their curiosities in incorporating several different manners in which the information is being presented, as a challenge to integrate or incorporate all of them in different manners within themselves.
KEN: Putting the puzzle together.
KEN: That’s been the way I’ve been looking at that, as different people have their different puzzle pieces.
KEN: One difference, by the way, is in differences in what you concentrate on versus what Michael concentrates on. Michael has no qualms in allowing us to at least look at different lifetimes from a progression point of view, even though he also is saying at the same time that time is an illusion and there’s simultaneous time, stuff like that. He still lets us look at it from that point of view, of we take time to learn how to survive, then we take time to learn the rules, take time to learn achievement, then relationships and stuff. He talks about how I’ve been-there-done-that on the other four, and now I’m on the philosophy part.
ELIAS: Or in an evolutionary progression.
KEN: You’re concentrating more on each focus simultaneously.
KEN: Michael includes karma, but includes karma from the point of view of karmic relationships, like if I hurt you in one lifetime and then meet you later on, then you’re likely to want to discuss it a little bit! (Laughs) And also from the point of view of attacker/attackee being a single type of action that has to be taken holistically, that you can’t do only side of this without experiencing it all at the same time.
ELIAS: But you are, in the very action.
KEN: In the very action, you’re incorporating both sides of it.
KEN: That’s where karma can fit into simultaneous time, that they can’t be done without both of them occurring at the same time. If you tune in to one side, the other side’s going to bleed-through as it’s happening at the same time.
KEN: I’ve tuned in to that before in my own lifetimes. So you’ve chosen to gloss over the karma part from the point of view of not looking at that level of relationship, unless I haven’t seen that part of the website yet.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. I have chosen not to incorporate the terminology of “karma,” for it reinforces strongly expressed beliefs and reinforces the holding to...
KEN: ...and the line of time.
ELIAS: Correct. It also reinforces beliefs concerning absolutes, that in the actual expressed beliefs philosophically of karma, there are many absolute expressions associated with that. In not incorporating...
KEN: Taking many lifetimes to...
ELIAS: Correct, and the sequential aspect of that, which is a belief and is not actually true.
In that, I choose many times not to incorporate certain terminologies. It is not that I do not speak of the subject, but that I choose not to incorporate certain terminologies, for I am aware that there are automatic associations with those terminologies, and the incorporation of them with many, many, many individuals in a manner of speaking blocks their reception from the information that I am offering, for their association is so automatic and strong, that whatever I am offering in information to the individuals, they do not receive and assimilate, for they are automatically associating with the terminology. Therefore, I choose different terminology.
KEN: Your terminology of “as you sow, so shall you reap” kind of a thing, of treating other people well because if you hurt somebody else, you’re hurting yourself...
KEN: ...you do discuss that.
ELIAS: Yes, for you are creating all of your reality. Therefore, any other individual that you interact with, you are directly interacting with their energy, but the physical presentment of the other individual is YOUR projection; it is YOUR creation. The choice of which individual to be interacting with in any moment dependent upon the type of energy they are projecting is also your choice. Therefore, whatever YOU do, whatever YOU create or express, you are actually expressing that to yourself or doing that to yourself.
KEN: And it is all a choice.
ELIAS: Yes. What is significant is becoming aware of your own energy, how you are projecting it and what that creates in your physical reality, and also being aware of your responsibility to you.
KEN: In that responsibility, part of it is treating others and the world, treating them with respect.
ELIAS: In your terms, yes, and therefore generating less conflict and more clarity within yourself, and also generating the ability to manipulate your reality in the manner that you want.
KEN: Yes, indeed. This is definitely fascinating information. So let’s see, we’ve got about eight minutes left. How about this — if you’re looking at me, do you see things that I’m ignoring that would be useful for me to be more aware of?
ELIAS: In this present now?
KEN: Yes. (Pause)
ELIAS: For the most part, no. I am aware that you are generating a considerable exploration in this time framework and that you are offering yourself considerable information. In that direction, you are providing yourself with interesting stimulation and an interesting direction for exploring new adventure. I encourage you in that. I also encourage you to be incorporating fun, and in that, within your seriousness, also remember to be playful.
KEN: Thank you so much!
ELIAS: You are very welcome.
KEN: I will allow you now, and I honor you.
ELIAS: Very well, my friend, I express to you my anticipation of our next meeting.
KEN: Tomorrow, in the group session!
ELIAS: Very well! I express to you great encouragement in your sojourn and your new adventure. To you in great affection and in friendship, au revoir.
KEN: Thank you.
Elias departs at 54 minutes.
(1) The Digests that Ken refers to can be found at http://www.eliasforum.org/digests.html
(2) That’s what he said, “volumous.”
©2008 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved
Copyright 2005 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.