Session 200705261

Peppermint to Increase Circulation

Topics:

Session 200705261 (2279)
“Peppermint to Increase Circulation”
“Dreams, Probabilities and the Stock Market”
“Factors in Global Warming”
“The Brain Clamp and Separation”
“The Bubble Analogy: Matching Energy”

Saturday, May 26, 2007 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Steve (Yuki)

ELIAS: Good morning!

STEVE: Hey, Elias, is that you?

ELIAS: (Laughs) Yes, my friend. And what shall we discuss?

STEVE: Well, you know what they’re calling you at Blueflash, don’t you? (Elias chuckles) They’re calling you “the Goliath in the sky.” (Elias laughs) I thought that was pretty funny.

Let me see here. Let me check my notes. It’s been a long time since we chatted, huh? (Elias chuckles) First, let me praise your past performances. You told me about peppermint, do you remember?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: (Pause) Elias, did I lose you?

ELIAS: No.

STEVE: Oh. Do you remember when I told you about peppermint?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Okay. You had to search your memory banks there, huh?

ELIAS: (Laughs) I responded immediately.

STEVE: Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you. (Elias chuckles) Okay. It actually had the effect you said. I was stunned. (Elias laughs) It actually increases the circulation. (Elias laughs) You knew that, didn’t you?

ELIAS: Yes. (Laughs)

STEVE: And here I was, “ye of little faith.” But the point is, it would be able to cure the problem if I could keep my foot in it for twelve hours a day, but I don’t think you’re supposed to do it for more than fifteen minutes at a time. What do you think the limit is before you cause yourself some kind of harm, or get too much peppermint inside of you or whatever?

ELIAS: I would express that you could incorporate this action for a reasonably extended time framework without engaging any damaging effects. As an example—

STEVE: How much is extended? Like two hours?

ELIAS: You could.

STEVE: About two hours?

ELIAS: Yes, you could.

STEVE: That’d be like twice a day I could do that?

ELIAS: Yes. You could, and this would not generate any adverse effect.

STEVE: All right. Well, that might do it. Thank you for that.

ELIAS: You are welcome.

STEVE: Ah. I guess if I start feeling punk, I should discontinue though, right?

ELIAS: I would agree.

STEVE: Okay. Well now, the other thing is, you know when we talked about that stock? And I had that dream. It was called Dian, and it… I had a dream three months before [that] the day it was going to report earnings that it was going to be at a price of 14 on that day, just before it reported earnings. And it was at 17 when I had the dream, and you confirmed pretty much ahead of time that that dream was an accurate statement of the probabilities. And lo and behold if Dian didn’t go to 13.9 at the exact moment earnings were reported. So, 17 to 13.9, the dream was 14 that you confirmed, that’s about as close as I’m ever going to get it, huh?

ELIAS: (Laughs) Congratulations.

STEVE: So, I made… I had another dream about it, the same stock, and I parlayed both those dreams into $9,000.

ELIAS: I am greatly acknowledging of you, my friend.

STEVE: Well, thank you for that. And I had another dream. I’ve never had a dream wrong yet, by the way, with something very specific, but this one was about a stock called IBM, also known as International Business Machines. And I had a… I think it was about a month and a half ago, that on its earnings day, which will be in two months, it’ll be at 100 when they report earnings and then the earnings will be better than expected. This will be somewhere around July 18th that it’ll report—not precisely that day—and then it’ll go up after the earnings are reported immediately because of the unexpectedly good earnings. When I had the dream it was, I think, around 97 or something, went down to 94, but then it went on a streak and went all the way up to 108. And I’m thinking boy, it’s got to come back a long way to get to 100. But now it’s at 105, and I’m just wondering if the probabilities at this moment are still for it to go back to 100 on the day that earnings are reported, or has something intervened in the meantime changing the probabilities. Can you just tell me if the dream probabilities are still on or not?

ELIAS: Presently, yes.

STEVE: I’ll be damned. Well, I swear we make quite a team, huh? (Elias laughs) All right.

Then, let’s see. Bennet wants to ask… There are two things that people ask you all the time. What the hell is that called? Essence name? And Bennet is a guy on Blueflash who contributes quite a bit, and I think he’s about a 20-year-old kid and he delivers pizza. (Elias laughs) Does that help any, figuring out who I’m talking about? (Pause) Do you need more information on who I’m talking about?

ELIAS: No. And you are inquiring for essence name?

STEVE: Yeah, he wants to know his essence name and… What’s that other thing people ask you? Oh, what family.

ELIAS: And is there an offering of an impression as to essence families?

STEVE: He didn’t give any impression, no. Does that make him not as accurate?

ELIAS: No. Essence name: Niku (NEE-koo), N-I-K-U.

STEVE: Okay, well that’ll delight him. Niku—whatever that is. Okay.

ELIAS: Essence families: belonging, Tumold; alignment, Ilda.

STEVE: All right. Thank you for that. Now we’re going to… Eric L. wanted to know if I was one of his focuses. He’s over at NewWorldView, and he… There’s something that told him that, I don’t know, I can’t remember why he said that.

ELIAS: Counterpart.

STEVE: Counterpart. All right. Okay.

Well, here we go. Let me ask you if you could give real quick answers to these things, just one sentence: Is global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels? There’s a big debate in this country. Is it due to the burning of fossil fuels? I mean, obviously we’re causing it, but are we causing it by the burning of fossil fuels by increasing the cosmic radiation, which are the protons coming from other stars and the sun, maybe through increased volcanic activities causing global warming? Or maybe… I don’t know exactly how that would work, but that’s another theory. Or is it some third method that we’re causing global warming with?

ELIAS: It would be the combination of actions that you engage within your reality that are altering the system, so to speak, of your planet.

STEVE: Okay. It’s a combination, but what are the ingredients?

ELIAS: It would be associated with certain materials that you engage, also alterations in the configuration of your planet in relation to the entirety of the ecosystem.

STEVE: All right, so then you’re ruling out cosmic radiation—is that correct that that is not it?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Not it? Because they have gone up in the same time period that the warming has gone up. Are you quite sure that that’s not a factor?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: And the burning of fossil fuels, is that not a factor?

ELIAS: Yes, that is.

STEVE: That’s the main factor?

ELIAS: That would be one factor.

STEVE: What’s the main one? Do you have a reading on that?

ELIAS: I would express that the combination of many actions that you engage in association with your planet in altering its ecosystem is changing your atmosphere, and is changing your weather patterns, and is changing the configuration of your planet. Your planet generates its own natural cycles, and it generates its own natural changes in its own configuration, but you as individuals within your reality are also altering the planet’s natural systems. Which, in this, there is an affectingness within your atmosphere which involves radiation, but that is not being expressed as an external effect; it is the reverse.

STEVE: Well, but does that allow more radiation in then, from cosmic rays?

ELIAS: What is occurring is that you are changing the atmosphere, and therefore that changes what is received and what is released.

STEVE: Let me get back with you on this, we’re getting too involved. We’re going to run the clock out. I’d better get back with you at another time. (Elias laughs) Just one sentence on what’s the reason that half the bees in the world are dead in the last year or too?

ELIAS: That would also be associated with this subject.

STEVE: You’re saying the same reason?

ELIAS: It would also be associated with this subject, alterations in the global ecosystem which are affecting many, many, many species.

STEVE: What is this alteration you’re talking about? Are you talking about we’re burning too much forest? Or what do you mean?

ELIAS: That, and the inclusion of chemicals.

STEVE: That’s killing the bees?

ELIAS: You are altering your own ecosystem. You are altering your atmosphere.

STEVE: All right. But half of them all died within the last year. I don’t think they were dying before that.

ELIAS: I am understanding. But what individuals are not recognizing in association with your planet is that in recent time frameworks you are very steadily increasing these probabilities for massive alterations in your atmosphere and massive alterations in the configuration of the ecosystem within your planet. I will express to you, in this present now, viewing the energy that is being expressed collectively and the actions engaged collectively within your reality, there is a very strong potential that within ten of your years there will be considerable alterations in your populations of wildlife, whether it be insects or whether it be creatures.

STEVE: Well, how about humans? Are we in trouble in ten years?

ELIAS: (Pause) That would depend upon how you define “trouble.”

STEVE: Well, I’d like to keep living.

ELIAS: You will. Your species will continue. But the manner in which it continues may alter.

STEVE: In ten years, huh? Let me stop you, because this is very interesting. It should be pursued in full at another time, because I’ve got to get to this unusual problem of mine before we run the clock here. Thank you for all that.

I’ve basically run everything that you can possibly do to try to get rid of this problem I’ve been complaining about for five years, the effect on my brain [that] reduces my telepathic ability, etc. We’ll call it my brain clamp problem that I’ve talked to you about every single session I’ve had with you, and that basically there was about a four-month period since I talked to you that I was so concerned over this feet infection that I wasn’t concentrating any longer on the brain clamp problem, and so that basically fulfilled the non-concentration thing that we were shooting for, for about four months. And it would still come into my head. That would be inevitable every day, and a number of times I managed to not really pay much attention to it. When it would come into my head I would ease it back out, avoid it, [and] whereas in the past that would have been a good technique to reduce the level of this brain clamp, over the years now this thing has gotten stronger and it resists not only that method now, but everything else that we talked about.

Thinking about my whole self as “I” has no effect on it. I had real good luck a year and a half ago with just figuring out that this thing was all just kind of bullshit and it was just something I made up and there really wasn’t any deep-seated problem of any kind, and all I had to do was believe that I could just be rid of its influence, and I was able to get some good action with that for a couple of weeks. Now that doesn’t turn the trick anymore.

I did read something by Vickie in a session where you confirmed to her saying that if you half accept a belief or whatever, if you don’t get to the end and you discontinue, sometimes it’ll reconfigure even stronger than it was in the beginning. That seems to be what’s happening now.

So let me tell you a few other things about this and see if we can’t devise some kind of damn strategy on this thing. First of all, I don’t know what this thing is. I don’t know if it’s a belief or if it’s just something that… Here are the possibilities: I told you I was pretty telepathic, and even twenty years ago I was able to create a stomach flu in one second on a couple of occasions just by worrying that I would get one. And it was the real thing! And for example, now I can create a sore throat virus in one second at will. Every time I think about it or it comes into my head, I worry about it slightly, it’ll happen, bang! I have done things like that a number of times, and that’s basically maybe what all this thing is rather than tied to some belief. It’s just that I realize that I could create a worsening of this problem that was already there from having my subjective lay it on me, as we’ve discussed before, for a different reason, to stop me from doing things telepathically it didn’t like. And once I found I could glom onto that and make it worse at will by having a worry that I could, then somehow knowing that caused me to be able to have this part of my consciousness grab ahold of the machinery of it and operate it for its own purposes.

It does things now that it never used to, like I’ve got this problem with my feet and I’m trying things to stimulate my immune system to help the feet, or I’ll look up antibiotics on the internet or I’ll try to get health concerns, and damn if this problem, this brain clamp doesn’t increase—for no reason, just because I’m doing those things. And it creates I would basically say everything I really want, everything I really value. When I try to do it now, when I try to think of my whole self as “I,” when I try to be in the now, to trust myself, there’s probably a… Let me see if I can read it to you: When I try to go into an altered state, when I try to meditate, when I put a blindfold on myself with my eyes open to try to go into an altered state, when I smoke marijuana, when I try to cure my feet, when I try to use my inner senses to divine the degree of energy in the horses before a horse race to bet on one, it blocks me from doing that. Well, there’s some more, but you get the idea.

What the hell is this thing that is doing all that? Do you have any sense of that? Can you… can you talk to my subjective awareness? I mean, you have an ability to actually chat with my subjective awareness. Can you find out from my subjective awareness what this thing is? I don’t know whether to accept it or what the hell to do with it. I don’t know what it is! What’s your answer so far? (Both chuckle)

ELIAS: First of all, one of the most significant obstacles that you continue to engage is an element of separation.

Now; let me express to you, within your reality separation is an element of the blueprint, of the design of your reality, and therefore, it is beneficial to you all in some capacities. But you can express separation in certain extremes, which creates an imbalance, and that can create difficulties, conflicts, and it can create obstacles in what you want or what you want to accomplish.

Now; I am aware that you and I have discussed previously attempting to view yourself, as you expressed, as “I.” In this, perhaps you are misunderstanding what I discussed with you, for you continue to be generating this separation of what you view or how you define your objective self and your subjective self. Your objective self, you view as you. That is the you that is the thinking you and the doing you, and that element of yourself you view yourself or perceive yourself to be directing. But you separate the subjective awareness of yourself as if it were a separate entity, and in doing so, you generate this association that this elusive subjective self incorporates its own mind and therefore generates its own choices independent of you. And herein lies the greatest difficulty, for that association is incorrect.

Now; let me also explain to you that although it is incorrect, it does not diminish the reality of what you are creating, for the more that you express this association of this separate thing, this separate entity that you perceive incorporates an ability to control you, the more you actually create that, and the more powerful it becomes, for this is the energy that you are offering to it.

STEVE: So I should never defer to it then, huh?

ELIAS: When I expressed to you to allow yourself to move into an expression of “I,” what I was encouraging you to do was to integrate your associations of the objective and the subjective. They move in harmony.

Now; remember what we discussed in our recent group interaction. [1] With that, I offered an illustration of energy. I incorporated the analogy of the leprechaun. Do you remember?

STEVE: Yes.

ELIAS: Very well.

Now; in this, if we view the objective and the subjective awarenesses, you can view this perhaps in somewhat of a different manner that may be easier for you to integrate these concepts and generate them as one—for in actuality, they are.

STEVE: Can you speak louder, or is that impossible? You’re somehow distant from the phone, or something’s different this time to make you less loud.

ELIAS: Very well. In this, first of all, remember: Objective imagery is abstract.

Now; what is meant by that is if you were to figuratively visualize yourself, you are a source.

Now; from that core source, which is you, extends energy, somewhat similar to a bubble that may entirely surround you. You are in the middle of the bubble, and you are the source of the bubble as you project energy, which you do naturally in every moment of your existence. It extends from you outwardly and creates this bubble of energy.

Now; that bubble of energy is magnetic. And what it does is it attracts whatever matches it in any position of the bubble. It does not discriminate between good or bad, comfortable or uncomfortable, right or wrong; it merely attracts what matches. In this, you receive energy, and you configure it through perception. You also generate energy, which contributes to that bubble, and THAT contributes to perception. And from that, you create whatever you create within your reality.

Now; the objective imagery is the imagery and the actions and the manifestations that you create that match any element of that bubble. The bubble is the energy, and that can be associated with the subjective. The subjective is—

STEVE: Okay, say the last sentence again.

ELIAS: The bubble can be associated with the subjective. The energy that is being projected to create the bubble can be associated with the subjective movement. In this,—

STEVE: Is that the energy that I knocked out my electronic equipment with? That I affect the slot machine with?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: I got a lot of trouble with that.

ELIAS: For what you do is, the subjective identifies the subject of the energy. The objective creates the imagery that matches that. (Pause) Therefore—

STEVE: The objective creates what?

ELIAS: The objective creates the imagery that matches the energy.

STEVE: What were you saying prior to that? The subjective does something?

ELIAS: The subjective identifies the SUBJECT of the energy, which is associated, of course, with your beliefs and the types of associations that you generate in relation to your beliefs. As an example, an individual may generate an association that they dislike rain, and therefore, if it rains, the individual will be projecting an energy of opposition, for they dislike the rain.

Now; what will occur in that is, if they engage the rain that they dislike, their energy will be being projected in a particular manner which will attract situations and experiences that the individual dislikes, for their energy is already being expressed in that manner. They already generate the association: “I dislike the rain. I dislike days in which it rains.” Therefore, upon a day that it rains, the subjective identifies the subject of the energy, which is opposition. Therefore, opposing energy is being expressed, and that attracts different experiences that the individual will find uncomfortable or—

STEVE: I guess I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying. Now you’re saying that subjective identifies opposing energy. What’s putting out the opposing energy?

ELIAS: You! The individual.

STEVE: I am? What part of me?

ELIAS: The individual is the source. It is not what part of you; it is all of you.

STEVE: You’re saying my objective and subjective are putting out opposing energy that my subjective then responds to? Is that what you’re saying?

ELIAS: They move in harmony with each other, my friend. Therefore, the associations that you generate objectively are what you are also doing subjectively.

STEVE: Well, who’s initiating this opposing energy?

ELIAS: They move together.

STEVE: So together the subjective and the objective are putting out opposing energy—opposing who? (Laughs) What are they opposing?

ELIAS: You.

STEVE: What is this opposing energy opposing?

ELIAS: You! For you generate the separation that the objective and the subjective are separate entities, and that one you control and the other you do not.

STEVE: [Inaudible]

ELIAS: And therefore, this is the association that you generate, and this is what you create. You create—

STEVE: I still don’t get who. Are you saying that the objective isn’t doing any opposing but the subjective is?

ELIAS: BOTH are.

STEVE: Who are we opposing?

ELIAS: Yourself.

STEVE: They’re opposing themselves?

ELIAS: YOU are opposing YOURSELF.

STEVE: I’m opposing myself…

ELIAS: There is no “they.”

STEVE: Yeah. I understand. So, my objective and subjective are opposing the things that I want to do? Is that how I should say it?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Okay.

ELIAS: But that is YOU.

STEVE: So, there’s no belief involved that I have to accept? It’s just an opposition machine I’ve created? Is that correct?

ELIAS: It IS associated with beliefs.

STEVE: Which belief is that?

ELIAS: It is not one belief, my friend. It is more a matter of how you are associating with yourself. You are not viewing that you are actually doing this. You are generating an association that there is some other source that is affecting you.

STEVE: Oh. Okay, originally it was my subjective’s idea to stop me from being telepathic in certain ways that it didn’t like. You agree with that, don’t you?

ELIAS: Not necessarily. And I have expressed that to you consistently in all of our conversations, but I am aware that this is what you believe.

STEVE: You mean that’s not accurate? I mean, it gave me this disease right out of the blue before I even knew I had a subjective or an objective or any of that. It just happened, right after I was doing some strange things telepathically.

ELIAS: I am understanding—

STEVE: And it continued to express that over and over and over again.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

STEVE: That it was willing to go along with me not having the disease as soon as I created a situation where I wouldn’t be doing that anymore. I mean, the evidence leads to only one thing.

ELIAS: It is not a matter of “it” or “they”—it is a matter of YOU. YOU did that.

STEVE: But it’s following my intent, is it not? Regardless of what parts of me are doing it.

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: It’s my intent not to use my telepathy in intrusive ways. Isn’t that correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: That’s why I have this disease originally, right?

ELIAS: Not entirely.

STEVE: Not entirely?

ELIAS: You created this in relation to your own associations that those actions are bad. And therefore, to prevent—

STEVE: But twenty years ago I had no idea they were bad. That’s when I started, twenty years ago.

ELIAS: Whether you objectively THINK some action is good or bad or not does not necessarily mean that you do not incorporate beliefs that generate associations that certain actions ARE good or bad.

STEVE: Okay, so you’re saying maybe this isn’t my intent, maybe my intent had nothing to do with it. Is that what you’re saying?

ELIAS: What I am expressing is first of all, your intent is a general theme of your focus, and that can incorporate many, many, many, many different specific avenues. And in that, whatever you do is in some manner in alignment with your intent, for your intent is what generates the direction of your value fulfillment. Therefore, in that, in some capacity whatever you do is some type of avenue in relation to your intent.

It is not that an individual expresses an intent such as a timeline, so to speak, in which they should be generating specific actions, and if they generate some action such as you have with this manifestation that that is ordained or destined to be for it follows your intent. Once again, that encourages you to be a victim of some outside source, which is incorrect.

STEVE: All right. So, maybe it’s not specifically my intent, maybe it’s my belief in these things. But see, that isn’t even the problem now, because that problem is solved. That problem is taken care of. The problem we have now is this opposition machine.

Let me give you some other facts: On three occasions I managed to get some real rapid relief from this problem, all having to do with on two occasions siding with it, going along with it, genuinely thinking “Well, maybe this is for the best, we’ll just keep this situation going even if it doesn’t…“ But the other one was when I actually tried to make it worse, because I had this sore throat problem, and the muscle contraction is to my benefit in getting rid of the sore throat if I actually make it worse, and muscle contraction is one of the things that this disease causes. So I actually was hoping it would get worse, and it kept getting better, and I wanted it to get worse, and instead it would just get better. So, in other words, it just opposes WHATEVER I do, even if it’s to make it worse, or if it’s to make it better. Whatever choice I make, it makes the opposite.

ELIAS: I am understanding. Which is quite understandable, for—

STEVE: That makes sense to you, okay.

ELIAS: Yes! For you are viewing this as an “it,” as some separate source.

STEVE: Okay, so what do you want me to do instead?

ELIAS: Recognize that there is no “it.” YOU are doing this.

STEVE: I’m creating the whole thing…

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: …and therefore, what shall I do about it?

ELIAS: You… (Pause) It is important that you pay attention to what you are doing, for YOU are creating this. Each time you want to incorporate some action, regardless of what it is, you generate this automatic association that there is this separate entity that is thwarting all that you do, when in actuality it is YOU doing it.

STEVE: Okay, so I just… If I just keep the concept in my head 24 hours a day that I am creating this, that’s going to make it go away?

ELIAS: That will be a step in that direction. That will be a beginning point.

STEVE: Not the endpoint though, huh?

ELIAS: A very significant beginning point, for one of the most important actions to engage with this manifestation is to stop reinforcing it, to stop continuing to move in directions that perpetuate it. And—

STEVE: And those directions are?

ELIAS: Precisely what you HAVE been doing, viewing it as not you.

STEVE: Yeah. Well, is there more to your recipe? Or is that just what I do until it goes away or it doesn’t go away?

ELIAS: Pay attention to what you are actually doing, my friend, and genuinely pay attention to your energy. When I express that, let me define that in a different manner to you: Pay attention to not merely what you are thinking, but what you are FEELING.

STEVE: Well, when it comes into my mind, I’m usually feeling anxiety that I’m going to upset it, and—

ELIAS: That is the point! That is the point. That is your moment in which your energy turns.

STEVE: I’ve noticed it.

ELIAS: And that is the moment in which you begin to generate that opposing energy. YOU are doing it.

STEVE: Oh. Okay, so if the frame of mind… Well, okay, let me interject here and see if you think that these dreams I’ve been having provide the solution to that reaction that I have, making it worse.

Let me read you the fifth dream. The fifth dream was the last one. I asked before I went to sleep, “How do I cure my feet infection? I want to know the answer to that in this dream.” The dream gives me the answer, and I’m quoting—I couldn’t precisely get the exact instruction of the dream, but this is as close as I could get, the following words: “Put this clamp disease out of my life. Don’t worry about offending or not offending it;” that is, don’t worry about triggering or not triggering it to be worse. “Go on as if the whole problem did not exist.” Then in the same sentence I’m writing, “But don’t shy against from engaging it. Do nothing.” And then I wrote, “I know I think what the message was, but I can’t say it exactly and don’t remember precisely how it was stated, but I do remember worrying… well, I think urging or thinking it was to turn it loose, don’t worry about making it worse. Underlying all this maybe is to trust self – although I don’t think that was part of the dream. And now I think I’ve got it right. Wash your hands of the whole thing. Stop shying away from it.”

In my noticing exercises, what I consistently noticed is my fear of offending it. What my dream told me in essence was to stop doing that: “Wash your hands of it.” And then I wrote, “No, it’s not ‘wash my hands of it;’ that’s a little bit too proactive. It was more ‘let the chips fall as they may, even if I do stuff to offend it.’ It was ‘let it loose and stop worrying if I offend it.’”

Okay, that’s the end. When I read that over and over again and try to fulfill it, there’s conflicting statements in it. On the one hand it’s saying put it out of your life, but on the other hand it’s saying don’t shy away from it. Well, if I’m putting it out of my life, then I wouldn’t be giving myself instruction to avoid shying away from it, because avoiding shying away from it takes some kind of an effort—an effort of, “Oh, I’m pushing it now, I’ve got to stop doing that and allow it to come in un-interfered with.” See, that’s not putting it out of your life—that’s concentrating on it.

So okay, so I have that contradiction problem, but what do you make of what I’ve just said during this speech of mine here?

ELIAS: I would express that this is a quite accurate expression of dream imagery and very beneficial. And I would express entire agreement with the imagery that you presented to yourself. And I would also express to you that it is not conflicting; in actuality, this is what I have expressed for an ongoing time framework.

When you create less importance of it, you will allow yourself to—

STEVE: When I try to express what?

ELIAS: When it is less important to you, you will allow yourself to let it go. And in that, part of the letting go is to acknowledge it—rather than continuously opposing it, rather than continuously concentrating upon it and generating significant importance with it, merely acknowledging the presence of it.

STEVE: Well, I’ve tried various methods to just allow it to be as it wishes, let the chips fall as they may, and my first automatic reaction when it comes in is to brace myself. Now, I want to avoid doing that, is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: So I have to proactively stop myself from doing that. Isn’t that correct?

ELIAS: Yes. But in that, merely acknowledge to yourself, “This is present; very well.”

STEVE: Well, okay. So therefore, what would you say… I tried for a while to just notice it when it would come into my mind, and I wouldn’t have an agenda. I wouldn’t have an agenda to avoid triggering it or not avoid triggering it; my only agenda was just to notice it and the anxiety or reactions I would have to it. Now, is that too much doing on my part? Is that too proactive, so to speak?

ELIAS: No, I would express that that would be an effective method of allowing yourself to acknowledge but also not anticipating any good or bad.

STEVE: Well, not much good happened. (Laughs) It didn’t make it worse, but it didn’t make it better. I only did it for a few days, but it seemed to me that it would come into my head more often when I would do that. It would draw more attention to it. I would be noticing every minutia when it would come into my head, and that gave it more power to come in more often.

ELIAS: Perhaps temporarily, but if you continue and you are not generating a tremendous importance in relation to it, that will dissipate.

STEVE: Okay…

ELIAS: The more important it is to you, my friend, the more you will do it.

STEVE: The more what?

ELIAS: The more important it is to you, the more you will do it.

STEVE: Yeah, that’s true.

ELIAS: Therefore, if—

STEVE: It’s impossible to make it less important at will, but I understand what you’re saying.

The last couple of days I had some good luck with going with it when I checked into my head, and in that way almost overcompensating from pushing it away. I would actually kind of like be pushing behind it, saying, “Oh, okay, good for you. Let’s have you just take over my head.” But that lost effectiveness after a couple of days, and it actually started making it worse. A more neutral approach would seem to be in order, but at the same time…

Somehow I think I have to achieve this mindset, and maybe noticing would do it if I kept with it long enough of… letting it do as it wishes without me encouraging or discouraging it, and therefore allowing it to… If I had a thought of, okay, that would mean I would not curb any of my thoughts about it, so that if it came to my head and I felt like I wanted to think, “Oh, this son-of-a-bitch is here again,” I wouldn’t stop myself from doing that, because stopping myself from thinking that would be kind of like a strategy to change so that I didn’t offend it.

ELIAS: Yes. I—

STEVE: Therefore, if I have a bad thought about it, I shouldn’t not have that bad thought about it. What do you say to that?

ELIAS: I would express that I agree. Yes.

STEVE: So if I have this thought that, “This motherfucker!” (laughs), I should just let that ride without any restriction. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Oh.

ELIAS: For that will allow you to generate less and less importance with it.

STEVE: Well, check this out: A year ago, January 6th, a year ago, a year and a half, I had an awful good two-week run by just saying, “You know, I’m going to just stop deferring to this damn thing. This thing is bullshit, and I’m not going to defer to it anymore.” And I kind of got on top of it, and it receded big time. And then, I can’t remember the exact circumstances but for a couple of days I didn’t do that. I switched to a different method, thinking I could always get back to this other one, but when I’d get back to it, it didn’t work anymore. This thing was even stronger than it started. It was like you could get it down, but then it would spring back even farther if it saw an avenue to do that. What’s your comment on that?

ELIAS: I would express once again, this is associated with how you view what is occurring, and that you continue to view this as some other source opposing you, when in actuality, you are doing it yourself.

STEVE: Oh. So that would be an improper technique even though it worked beautifully for two weeks. Is that correct?

ELIAS: In actuality, I would express that if you genuinely allowed yourself to continue in that direction, it would not be an improper method.

STEVE: It’s forcing the hell out of the situation. It’s forced it into the ground.

ELIAS: Not necessarily. It is allowing yourself to move your attention in other areas, and allowing yourself to generate less importance in relation to it, and therefore, in a manner of speaking, allowing yourself to ignore it.

STEVE: Well, I didn’t ignore it. I was still with it, but I was on top of it. I was the boss.

ELIAS: And I would express to you an encouragement of allowing yourself that empowerment, for much of the time you are not empowering yourself; you are generating your power into some conjured outside source.

STEVE: Well, I don’t think I’ve stated the whole story about this year and a half ago. I think that the actual most important part of it I haven’t said yet, and how it’s just seeing this thing as a belief that I made up out of the clear blue sky, and that this was not some sort of deep-seated problem or belief but it only had existence due to the fact that I created it from scratch. I created this belief like it was a belief and I could just change the belief otherwise, and I suppose maybe that was the part that was making it stand out. Although you know, I’ve gotten it to stand down on a number of things—a number of things—just by force. Like, it didn’t want me to be in the now at first. It fought me tooth and nail with it. It increased my blood pressure, it made all the symptoms that it causes—muscle contractions, brain clamp, all that shit—many times worse from trying to be in the now. And I just said, “Well, I don’t give a fuck. I’m going to be in the now anyway. I know that’s an appropriate thing to be doing and I’m going to do it anyway, and screw you.” And after a while it stopped bothering me with it. Same thing when I would say, “Trust self.” It didn’t want me to do that, and I just said, “Well, screw it. I’m going to do it until you stop reacting that way.” And that’s what happened. And then…I bet you there’s any number of things like that, that it stands down when I stand up. Now what’s your comment on that?

ELIAS: I would express to you, that is the point. That is you being directing of you and trusting yourself and not being a victim, and expressing your direction and not allowing any other expression to deter you. And in that,—

STEVE: So we have two different methods here. The one is to just acknowledge it or notice it or just let it ride, and the other is to take this proactive, extremely forcible action towards it. Those are two completely different methods. You understand that, right?

ELIAS: Yes. I would agree.

STEVE: All right. So either one may be effective or may not be—well, time will tell. I assume that you would agree with that statement I just made?

ELIAS: Yes, I would. And I would also express to you, in the latter method that you have expressed, recognize that the reason you are successful in that is that what you want to do becomes more important than your association of the dis-ease. Therefore, as THAT becomes MORE important, you allow yourself to accomplish.

STEVE: Well, why doesn’t that go against all your teachings of not forcing and not opposing?

ELIAS: I would express to you, my friend, I generally am not advocating of forcing energy.

STEVE: Opposing.

ELIAS: I am not advocating at all of opposing energy, but I will express to you, each individual expresses differently, and each individual generates a different energy and different associations with different beliefs. In this, dependent upon what the individual is creating and how strongly they are creating, at times it may be more effective for the individual to be more proactive. I would not necessarily identify what you are doing or what you are describing in that energy as forcing; I would more identify that energy as being very determined.

STEVE: Yeah. I’m definitely intending to oppose it, though.

ELIAS: (Pause) In a manner, yes. But that also is serving you in empowering you, and motivating you in that determination. And with some individuals in some situations, that may be what will accomplish the most successfully, for the individual may be so ensnared in some action that it may, for the individual, require more of a proactive engagement to allow themselves to empower themself and to allow themself to break free of that snare.

STEVE: Okay, what is it that I’m standing down, so to speak? I’m not standing down “it,” I’m standing down myself? Is that how I should think of it?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Standing down myself. Not a part of myself, my whole self? I’m standing down my whole self?

ELIAS: No.

STEVE: While I’m thinking of it?

ELIAS: No. You are—

STEVE: No or yes?

ELIAS: No.

STEVE: No. Okay.

ELIAS: In your terms, you are standing down that element of yourself—

STEVE: An element. That’s part of myself.

ELIAS: Yes. –that opposes you.

STEVE: That opposes me. Okay. So, it’s just a part of me. But before you were saying it was the whole damn ball of wax.

ELIAS: No. You misunderstand.

STEVE: Objective and subjective, working together—

ELIAS: They do.

STEVE: --opposing myself; the whole thing, opposing myself.

ELIAS: No. that is viewing the situation quite black and white, and remember the bubble. The bubble surrounds you in every direction, every possible direction. Therefore, there are different actions that are occurring in different directions.

STEVE: All right, all right. So then there was this other dream. And by the way, my dreams have really been coming in, like I told you, and so put a lot of faith in these things. The first one I had, when I said I have this catch-22 problem: I’m being told, and I believe, that this, whatever this is, it doesn’t want me to do anything towards it that’s motivated by me getting rid of it. Okay? It reacts badly to anything I do with that in mind. And so, the problem is that there is no avenue I can take which would not be for the reason of getting rid of it. If I do nothing, it’s to get rid of it. If I do something, it’s to get rid of it. How do I solve THAT problem?

And so, in the dream – I’d asked for that dream when I was awake, and when I went to sleep, immediately I had a dream that I asked that very question, verbatim, to this movie star in an airport. I said, “How do I solve that problem? What am I supposed to do?” She points up to the sky and she says, “Trust the big guy, or the big unit.” So I walked away, and when I woke up I thought, well, that doesn’t make any sense, I don’t believe in God. And then I thought well, maybe there’s a symbolism there that I’m supposed to trust self; maybe that’s what that symbolism was referring to. And so if the solution to my problem is to trust self, to trust self to do what? I’m supposed to just have my thinking mind not do anything and let self take the wheel of the car, so to speak, and figure a way out of this mess without me even lifting a finger? Or what, exactly? Because I don’t…

Let me add that I had four other dreams where I’d be driving along and I’d be in a tough spot, about to fall off a cliff in the car, and self would take the wheel. Or I would ask in the dream, I would chant, “Trust self! Trust self!” until I could urge self to take control of the wheel and make sure I didn’t drive off the road. You’re saying that that avenue of thinking about self as something “other” is not good, and yet the dreams seem to be pointing to that. What’s your comment on that?

ELIAS: They are metaphoric.

STEVE: Metaphoric. Okay.

ELIAS: In that, yes, you are encouraging yourself to trust yourself, but not as some other source, but to allow yourself to trust your own abilities, to trust yourself that you CAN create what you want. It is a matter of trusting your abilities and engaging them.

STEVE: Well, I always thought of self as kind of like different than my thinking mind, because the way you express it in your sessions, like you’ll say well, if you’re up high on a cliff and you want to get down, you can try to walk your way down but you might fall. The most efficient way to do it and the surest way is to just jump, trusting self will somehow figure out a way to get you to the bottom, and your thinking mind isn’t going to know what that way is, and so you just trust in self to find a way. But in all of those packages on trust, you speak of trust as BEING other.

ELIAS: No. Quite definitely not, my friend.

STEVE: All right.

ELIAS: It is very much associated with what I spoke of in our group interaction, generating the illustration that the components of your self that generate the energy to create are the thinking, the feeling and the doing. Therefore, it is a matter of paying attention to all three of these factors and being aware of what you are generating.

It is not always necessary to know within thinking what will occur next in whatever you are doing. If you are generating a direction and holding steady in a particular energy, you will allow yourself to accomplish, and you may present unexpected factors that will further you in your direction. Just as with the figurative analogy of jumping off the cliff, perhaps you jump off the cliff, and in genuinely not doubting yourself and allowing yourself that freedom you may discover many different elements as you move downward that will prevent you from colliding and breaking yourself.

STEVE: You will generate what?

ELIAS: Many different possibilities of how you can cushion yourself and not collide and break yourself.

STEVE: So, who is this “self”—

ELIAS: YOU!

STEVE: — you’re referring to in all of these, all of these sessions? Is that including my thinking mind? I’m supposed to be trusting my thinking mind?

ELIAS: It is YOU. It is all of you. It is precisely what I expressed: it is the thinking, the feeling and the doing.

STEVE: Yeah, but what…? I’m supposed to… I’m supposed to—

ELIAS: That IS you.

STEVE: I’m supposed to trust these thoughts that you keep telling us are not reliable?

ELIAS: If they are all three in harmony.

STEVE: If they’re the same as the others?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: If they’re not, then don’t trust them?

ELIAS: Not necessarily. I am not expressing in black and white, my friend. It is not absolute that you can never trust your thinking if it is not in harmony with the other two elements. I am not expressing that you must ALWAYS trust your thinking if it IS in harmony with the other two elements. What I AM expressing is that if all three of these elements are not in harmony with each other, you are very likely to create what you do not want or some expression that is uncomfortable, that—

STEVE: Why don’t you always express it as trusting YOURSELF? Why do you always call it “self?”

ELIAS: (Pause) It is the same.

STEVE: Okay. So, we could just interchange the word “yourself?” Trust yourself?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Okay. So, then… what can I trust myself to do? Can I trust myself to do anything?

ELIAS: Can you? Yes.

STEVE: In other words, if I do in fact trust myself, anything that I wish will be fulfilled, whether it flies right in the face of my intent or not. Is that correct?

ELIAS: (Pause) Theoretically.

STEVE: Theoretically correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: There are no limitations. If my self wants to create a disease in me, to give me a message or for the experience, I can trust myself to change the course of that disease, whether it be a genetic disease I was born with, cerebral palsy, whatever?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: I, if I trust myself, can change that around to whatever my conscious, thinking mind desires. Is that correct? (Pause) Or “wishes;” use that word.

ELIAS: (Pause) Yes, if all three elements are in harmony.

STEVE: So we don’t have to worry about your passages where you say well, your desires are what rules and your wants of your thoughts are not what rules? You’re saying that does not apply?

ELIAS: I am—

STEVE: The sky is the limit, if you can make your thoughts, your feelings and your doing coincide. Is that correct?

ELIAS: I am not contradicting what I expressed in relation to your desires and your wants.

STEVE: You made that statement a number of times.

ELIAS: I am aware. And I express it again now, that your desires DO generate the direction of your experiences, but in that, you are not limited.

STEVE: You can countermand them?

ELIAS: It is not a matter of countermanding them; it is a matter of recognizing that objective imagery is abstract. Therefore, there are countless manners in which your desire can be expressed.

STEVE: Well, if a man desires not to be rich, aren’t you saying that that doesn’t matter? He can be rich anyway?

ELIAS: That would not be a desire. That would be a want. Desires are much more general. Desire moves in the direction of (pause) knowing oneself, or discovering the nature of some expression. Desires are very general.

STEVE: Okay, let me stop you there. We only have four minutes. No matter what the disease is, in spite of the fact you told Jim, 232 Session, that the subjective is going to continue to keep the disease going unless the objective gives it a message to stop. You’re putting that in a pretty …

Okay, so I’ve got a disease, no matter what the disease is—genetic, non-genetic, cancer, heart disease—unless it’s going to kill me, in which case the subjective does get to make the call, I can change its mind, so to speak. I can trust myself to create in a different direction regardless of the fact that the subjective got this idea that I’m supposed to have this disease for experience or to give me a message? I can trust myself to change that scenario, but not by changing the subjective’s mind—

ELIAS: (Forcefully) There is no subjective mind.

STEVE: Well, why would you tell Jim that he had to tell the subjective that the objective wants it stopped? [Inaudible]

ELIAS: First of all, first of all, my friend, you are incorporating these discussions in a very black-and-white perception. And let me express to you, although there may be a message in every conversation that is chosen to be shared with myself, I am also, in every conversation, very specifically speaking to that individual. Other individuals may benefit from the conversations and may glean information that they can apply to themselves in other manners, or in similar manners, but in every conversation—

STEVE: I understand what you’re saying. So therefore I should not at any time, when I have a disease, defer to some part of me known as the self or my subjective, to either cure it or not cure it. I should roll up my sleeves, get involved in the whole thing and control the action with my conscious mind. Are you saying that?

ELIAS: For YOU? This would be a more effective method.

STEVE: All right, there you go. So, all this boloney of me many times in the last couple of years saying, “Goddam, I’m not getting anywhere, I’ll just trust my inner self to take the wheel and I just hope it does what I want, but even if it doesn’t, I’ll just accept that,” that would NOT be what I should do, in your opinion. Is that correct?

ELIAS: I would agree. For you are, once again, generating some other source, some outside source, and it is YOU.

STEVE: Ah. Okay. Well, I guess we’re at the end now. You did good, Elias. (Elias laughs) You had me a little confused on the bubble thing. Maybe I’ll replay that. But when we got into the hands-on what I should do, I understood it perfectly, and I’ll just experiment with different methods now without fear of doing it the wrong way.

ELIAS: (Laughs) Very well.

STEVE: And I think I’ll go forward, and I’m sure I’ll talk to you again soon. And thank you very much for your help.

ELIAS: You are very welcome, my friend. I shall as always continue to be offering my energy to you in encouragement and supportiveness.

STEVE: All right, sir.

ELIAS: I express great appreciation to you, and great lovingness.

STEVE: Well, thank you for that. Same to you.

ELIAS: To you, in dear friendship, au revoir.

STEVE: Au revoir.

[1] Session 2227

(Elias departs after 1 hour 32 minutes)


Copyright 2007 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.