American Election: The Third Wave
Topics:
”American Election: The Third Wave”
“The Power of the Individual”
“The Different Angles of Death or Dying”
“And this is a significant mark in your history, for at no other time have you done this.”
Saturday, October 22, 2016 (Group/Hinsdale, New Hampshire)
Participants: Mary (Michael), Aaron (Todd), Ann (Vivette), Anon (Anon), Bonnie (Lyla), Daniel (Zynn), Debbie (Tamarra), Denise (Azura), John H. (Lonn), John (Rrussell), Julie (Fontine), Karla E., Kyla (Amie), Lynda (Ruther), Michele (Lola), Natasha (Nicole), Anon (Lystell), Pat (Treice), Paul (Paneus), Peter (Magnus), Rodney (Zacharie), Val (Atticus), and Veronica (Amadis)
ELIAS: Good afternoon!
GROUP: Good afternoon, Elias!
ELIAS: This day we will be engaging two subjects, two subjects that many, many, many, many individuals are engaging presently. And if you are not engaging one, you are definitely engaging the other. Therefore, it will include you all, and beyond.
The two subjects that we will be discussing this day are death and elections. (Group laughter and chatter) Death in the different angles of death, for there is not only one angle of death. There are different angles, there are different sides of it, and perhaps this will offer some information to many of you in relation to both sides of it—not what occurs AFTER you die; I have expressed that many times and in detail—but what is occurring and what the experiences are, and perhaps even answering some questions in relation to those experiences BEFORE an individual dies, and what the experiences are in BOTH directions. For it may be surprising to many of you that what the individual—or (looking at Polly on his lap) in present circumstances we shall express BEINGS—are experiencing that are moving in that direction of generating that choice and have not generated the choice yet, but are moving in a direction of that. [Note: Polly whined here!] Their experience generally is considerably different from what you perceive it to be.
And we will be discussing elections, for I am aware that all of you, in varying degrees, are either watching and observing what is occurring in relation to your country’s present elections, or you have opinions about them, even if you are not following what is occurring. And the individuals in your country are not the only individuals observing this election.
Generally speaking, when the country of the United States generates their presidential elections, much of the rest of the world is interested and watching. But in this year, the entire world is watching and are interested, and it has created considerable divisions in opinions in relation to the presentment of the traditional two parties and two candidates. But it has also created an emergence of a third wave of individuals, which is considerably different from what has occurred in your history to date, that there is a tremendous surge.
And let me express to you, for those of you that were present or involved in the movements that were occurring just subsequent to your midpoint of your previous century, and all of the movements and expressions that were occurring in the decade of your 1960s and all of the revolutionary expressions that were occurring, even then, in the tremendous division that was expressed at that time in your history, the alignment with your two parties was strong. Even then, in relation to young individuals that were given the vote—at a younger age than the previous age—and that were allowed to participate in your elections, aligned themselves with one or the other of the traditional party systems, even with all that division.
Now you have moved in a different direction, and it is tremendously encouraging. It is also, if you observe it, an obvious expression of this shift. For you have created a third wave in which there is a considerable number of individuals emerging,—and it is growing—of individuals that are expressing a refusal to align with either of the established parties and directions, and are refusing to align themselves with either of your present candidates.
And in that, does that mean that there is a significant potential that another candidate would actually win? Not likely. But there IS a potential for other angles to be expressed. In relation to your system, you have guidelines of what determines the winner and the loser. And those guidelines are not simply a majority. The guidelines are a specific majority.
And in that, what this third wave is generating is a potential to upset those guidelines by numbers of individuals moving in a direction of expressing themself as being important as an individual. That rather than casting their lot with one side or another, and allowing that to sweep them away in that wave, they are choosing to express themselves in their individuality and the importance of being themself and the importance of their individual choice.
And therefore, in not aligning with either direction and creating this third wave of energy and power, they are not casting their lot for the lesser of two evils or casting their lot against one or the other, but removing it entirely and casting it in an entirely different direction. And the factor that they already are aware that they won’t win is not important, for they are not doing it to win. They are doing it as individual choice and as an expression of the importance of the individual.
And this is a significant mark in your history, for at no other time have you done this. And in that, what you are doing is generating a statement in relation to the importance of the individual, that YOU are important and YOU matter, and what you think, what you feel, what you believe matters. And that you HAVE choice and it doesn’t have to agree with any majority.
And that in that, each individual that is moving in that direction is incorporating the perception that they are alone or very, very few, and that they are doing it for themselves, but they expect that it will have no bearing upon what is occurring. I will express to you, that perception is incorrect. It IS having a bearing.
You will likely not win, but you already expected not to win, and that is not why you do it. But in that, you ARE tipping a scale in a different direction, and not in the either/or direction, but in the balance direction. And in that, you are also perhaps beginning to feel—even if you don’t objectively know it yet—you are beginning to feel a power, a strength.
In that, let me express to you, there is a tremendous amount of energy that is occurring and that is being expressed. And how that is expressed, you all are feeling it. You don’t necessarily attribute it to what is occurring outside, but that has a tremendous factor to do with what you are feeling. When you feel individually, personally empowered more so in a day, part of that is this tremendous wave that is occurring, that the individual is powerful. And there are many more of you individuals than you think; many more.
It is also influencing individuals in a manner that is being displayed in behaviors. The divisions are creating an influence in energy in which individuals are either moving in a direction of feeling and expressing less push to express their opinion or to prove their rightness to other individuals, or it is influencing individuals to express their opinions more, and more strongly.
Therefore, these waves are also adding to some of this division with individuals, that individuals are expressing considerable passion in whatever direction they believe. But it is also creating confusion and fear.
There is a considerable amount of question and fear and uncertainty, and not only in your one country. Throughout your world, individuals are uncertain and confused and afraid. For the two individuals that are the figureheads that are the obvious choices for this one position are both moving in directions that are emphasizing divisions, that are perpetuating divisions. And the closer you move to your date of elections, the stronger they are expressing that energy of division.
And in that, it is creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty with most individuals. In this, regardless of who is the winner, the people are confused, and the people are uncertain as to what to expect. What will happen? It is influencing a tremendous amount of future projecting. It is very much influencing away from being present and away from now.
In this, this is one piece that I would acknowledge every individual that has joined that third wave, for they are somewhat unconcerned with what the future holds in that capacity, and are in different capacities justifying that to themselves by expressing that whatever occurs now, you will change it in four more years. And therefore, they are not concerning themselves with what may be occurring now.
However the individual justifies it to themselves, what I will acknowledge is that in empowering yourself and expressing that importance of your own choices, and following what you believe, remember: believing is what you trust. I am not speaking about belief systems, but what you believe, which is what you trust.
And in that, as you move forward, remembering to be in today and now and being present and reminding yourself of your individual reality, that that is what you engage. Are any of you residing in the capital city?
ANN: Close. Not quite.
ELIAS: Not quite.
ANN: Across the river.
ELIAS: Are any of you residing in the White House? No. Are any of you residing in the Senate building? No. You all reside in your own homes, in your own communities, which are likely contained in a small area. Even if you reside in a large city, you reside in one area of that large city. And what you concern yourself with is what actually affects YOU every day of your lives, what is happening in YOUR life. I would express to most of you, whether you can discover a reasonable space to park your vehicle becomes more important at times than who is sitting in the capital city. (Group laughter)
In this, this is what I am reminding you, that that is what is important: what you are doing and how YOU are influencing, and how you are engaging and what energy you are projecting in relation to everything else.
For I would express to you that what those candidates do not recognize yet, for neither of them is self-aware enough to recognize, is that everything you do is affecting throughout your entire world, every one of you. And you don’t have to be a president to be affecting. You are equally as affecting as any of those individuals, perhaps even more so, for you do have more self-awareness, and therefore you are more intentionally directing your energy and where it is moving.
In this, what I would express to you is regardless of what individual wins this race, remember what I have expressed previously: it is not the winning or the losing that is important; it is the process. THAT is what is the most important factor: what you are DOING, not the end result. In this, whichever individual wins that race, I will express to all of you that you have little cause to be fearful or to be tremendously distressed, for their affectingness in relation to you individually is actually minimal. And in that, their affectingness period is minimal.
Therefore, regardless of what their opinions are and what they are expressing so passionately, you are all people, and people talk. That is what you do; you speak. And you speak passionately at times and you speak loudly at times and you speak obnoxiously at times, but that is all you are doing, is speaking. You are merely expressing words.
And in that, those words are less affecting than you may allow them to be. You allow them to be more affecting by being afraid or by being distressed or by expressing considerable opposition to any of them. They are not important enough for your opposition. They are genuinely not important. YOU are important, and what you do and your lives and what you contribute, THAT is important. What they do and what they express is not important.
Therefore, whatever you choose is the right choice for you. If you choose one of the established candidates, then that is the right choice for you. If you choose neither, then that is the right choice for you.
And in that, it is the same for every other individual. They are not generating a right or wrong choice either. They are merely choosing in relation to what they believe is right for them.
And in all of it, in the final statement, all that it means is what you feel about it. Once you cast your lot, it is merely a matter of what you feel. If you feel confident, if you feel relief, if you feel bad, if you feel good, that is genuinely what your prize is for casting your lot. It is what you feel once you do it. And that is all it means. For when you do it, that is what you have. You may have a token that you can display that announces that you cast your lot—
ANN: Yeah, you get a little sticker. (Group laughter)
ELIAS: Ah! And in that, you can be proud of your sticker! (Group laughter) And you can express that you are wearing your sticker with tremendous pride and how important that sticker is. That is your prize. That is what it means. You won a sticker. (Group laughter)
I am not discouraging any of you from participating; not at all. I would encourage you to participate, because it is your country. And in that, it is a part of what you chose to participate with. Therefore, I would encourage you to participate. You chose to be in this country. You chose to be manifest in this design. Participate in it! But know that your prize for participating in that aspect of it—
LYNDA: Is a sticker.
ELIAS: —is a sticker. (Group laughter)
Yes?
JOHN: I have a question. So I would say that…
ANN: Who are you, first? (Group laughter)
JOHN: That’s a very existential question. I think that—
LYNDA: But who are you?
JOHN: Sorry. Yeah. [Gives name]. (Group laughter) So for example, I registered to vote, only so that it appears that I’m registered to vote. If I seek employment in the next year, then I look like an upstanding citizen. But I don’t always do the voting. So that said, right, there’s always been a third wave of people who don’t vote, even though they can, which is nonparticipation, and which we’re talking about. And there’s always some people—
ELIAS: No! I am not speaking of nonparticipation.
JOHN: Okay. Okay.
ELIAS: Not at all. No. This is not nonparticipation. This is actual participation. This is a wave of many, many, many individuals that are actively participating, but not in the framework—
JOHN: Right. You’re encouraging people to participate, as opposed to what’s historically been the case of people not participating and not voting, I guess.
ELIAS: And that is your choice also. Yes. That is a choice. I encourage you to participate merely in relation to your choice to be part of a community, of a country, and in that, to not create more separation by isolating yourself or removing yourself. Not that that is not a choice; it is. But I do encourage you to participate, for this is what you have chosen. And it is the design that you have chosen.
In this, you don’t have to agree with everything about the design. You very well can disagree, for you are an individual. But in your disagreement, do you entirely remove yourself and disassociate yourself and disconnect? It is no different with your country or your community than it is with individuals that you interact with, or all of you present in this particular room this day. You may not agree with every other individual that is seated in this room. Does that disagreement influence you to isolate yourself and remove yourself from the other individuals entirely? I would express that I would encourage not, for you ARE interconnected, and it is not necessary for you to agree with each other in every direction. But you ARE interconnected. And in that, you ARE participating. When you remove yourself, you are creating additional separation.
Now; I will express a concession in that, that dependent upon the individual and the position that the individual occupies at the time, and what they are addressing to themself in their journey, in their awareness, they may choose at times to remove more so than other time frameworks. And that is definitely not bad, and it is definitely not wrong. Therefore, in nonparticipation, dependent upon what the individual is expressing and what they are engaging in relation to their direction, that may be a beneficial choice for the individual at that time.
Moving in a direction of “I disagree, therefore I choose not to participate” is a separating expression. That is different. That is not the individual moving in the most beneficial direction for themself in evaluating and perhaps disagreeing, and evaluating what their own awareness is and what their choices are and what they want to align with or not, and choosing not to participate in a time framework in which they are developing their own clarity. That is different from expressing almost arbitrarily, “I merely disagree and therefore I choose not to participate.” That creates a separation. And what the individual is doing is devaluing themself: “I am not important enough to participate. My direction does not count. It is not important enough to be noted.” And that is a self-devaluing. And I would very much always encourage other than that.
Yes?
PAUL: Hi, Elias. This is Paul (Paneus). Just to clarify what you are saying, so if I want to lend my support of this third wave when I go cast my vote, is it such as writing in “Third Wave” or casting for one of the other lower-tier candidates?
ELIAS: Whatever you choose. Whatever is YOUR choice and your expression. The object is not what is important. The factor that you are expressing YOUR choice is what is important. You could vote for your dog. (Group laughter) It matters not. That is not the point. The point of this third wave, which is different from any other time framework in your history to this point, is that the individuals that are moving in this direction are aware that the reason they are choosing in this direction is because they are expressing themself and that they will not align themselves with one or the other. They are being given only two choices, and if they choose neither of those two choices, whatever the object is of a third choice, that is not the point. The point is that they are choosing different. They are expressing themselves and not aligning with what is being given them.
RODNEY: Elias?
ELIAS: Yes.
LYNDA: Wait a minute! Wait a minute, Rodney. Announce yourself. (Group laughter as microphone is passed)
RODNEY: This is Rodney. It seems to me that this third wave… Historically, we’ve been getting to be more and more and more and more polarized, not just in these two parties, but almost any avenue that you look at it’s becoming more polarized. It seems that way to me. This third wave definitely is splintering those two opposites. So it seems to me what you’re saying is an indication that the degree of polarity is lessening.
ELIAS: Yes.
RODNEY: Would you agree with that?
ELIAS: Yes, I would agree with that.
Now; what I would express to you for clarification is that in relation to historical expressions, this is not the first time that you have been tremendously divided and polarized within your country. It is not the first time in history that different groups have been tremendously polarized. And I would actually express that I am understanding what you are expressing, in that it seems that there is a growing polarization.
In the time framework of approximately eighty years, that is actually correct. Not in relation to your entire history, but in relation to this previous eighty years you have been moving more and more and more in a direction of generating this division and this polarization.
RODNEY: Since the First World War.
ELIAS: Yes.
RODNEY: Okay.
ELIAS: I would express that you have been moving in that direction somewhat after your First World War, more so from the slightly before the midpoint of your previous century, before the ending of your Second World War. That is when this movement began in this direction of splitting, in a manner of speaking, and dividing and moving more and more in directions of that polarization. And there have been many inclusions in that that have added to that division. Many of the movements that many of you considered to be significant and moving forward and moving in a direction of more acceptance or equality have added to this polarization considerably.
Many of you that move in directions and incorporate the ideas and opinions of civil and equal rights for all individuals, all genders, all colors, all creeds, all cultures, in one direction you can express that that is a movement forward and that you appreciate that. In another direction, it has been a considerable contributant to this polarization, for it generates fear.
All of you would likely express to myself that what you definitely prize and value are equality and freedom. Equality and freedom create fear. Humans are afraid of equality and freedom.
Freedom equates to chaos and lawlessness and turmoil. Equality equates to power and aggression, that this individual is equally as powerful as this individual. Therefore, this individual can be equally harmful as this individual.
You automatically do not move in the direction of seeing the positive in that; you see the negative. You see the fear, the threat. If everyone is equal, everyone can equally hurt each other. If everyone is equal, everyone can equally threaten each other. Everyone can equally be harmful. Therefore, equality is not good. Someone should be more powerful than the others. And freedom is not good, for if you allow freedom you definitely will incorporate chaos.
RODNEY: So this third wave, is it impacting that issue that you’ve just described?
ELIAS: Yes. Yes. Because it is generating a very real emphasis on the individual—not groups. Not groups, but the individual. The reason you are afraid of equality is because of groups. The reason you are afraid of freedom is because of groups. Because groups of individuals can hurt you or threaten you, or they can express in manners that you don’t agree with, or they can overpower you.
But this wave is moving in the direction of NO groups, but the power and the strength and the importance of the individual and their value. And in that, it is very different from anything you have created thus far in your history. You have not moved in this previously.
Yes?
ANON: Hi. I’m [gives name]. So on that subject which you’re talking about right now, about the power of the individual, - which you have been expressing for some time how that is becoming more apparent - by that do you mean that the individuals are becoming more aware of their inherent power in their own lives?
For example, let me relate that to myself. Like for myself, my power I don’t see coming from any one particular decision of this election or any one other choice. I simply feel my empowerment because I’m aware that I choose my own experience entirely. That’s where my empowerment comes from. Is that what you are speaking of ultimately?
ELIAS: Ultimately. But not everyone incorporates that perception. Not everyone is self-aware to that degree. But they are moving in that direction, and they are beginning by recognizing that they don’t have to follow a group to be important, that they ARE important in themselves, and that their direction, their choice, matters and is important, even if it is only important to them, in their perception. They are generating a step in that direction of what you are expressing.
There are many, many, many individuals at this point that are not that self-aware, but they are moving in that direction, and they are expressing in that direction and they are becoming more aware, much more so than when we began with this forum, in which there [were] relatively small numbers of individuals that were moving in that direction of actually even considering that they create their reality, that they are directing of themselves and becoming self-aware. At this point now, that is tremendously grown, and not merely in one country but throughout your world.
And in that, this is a symptom of it, that individuals are expressing the idea of not aligning themselves at all, and moving in a direction in which winning is not the ultimately important factor. That is tremendously different.
Even if individuals pastly believed that their choice would not win, they would be more inclined to cast their lot AGAINST an individual merely to take away from what they DIDN’T want to win. In this, that factor of winning for many individuals has lost its power. That is not the most important factor at this point. The most important factor is their own voice. That is more important than who wins or who loses.
ANON: I’ve just got a question, tying that into the current religious wave. So this expression of the third wave, as you called it, is that related to the religious wave, or is it just simply a progression of our expansion?
ELIAS: Both.
ANON: And on the religious wave, I wanted to ask at some point, is that continuing for some time yet? Because there seems to be a lot of movement and action presently that seems to be related to the religious wave. Is that going to come to some harmony or some kind of realization at the end? Or is that too soon for that? Is that going to take more time?
ELIAS: First of all, what I would express to you is that none of these waves are expressed or designed for a definite outcome. It is not that you are engaging a particular wave to move to a certain position and then it is done, for now you have accomplished that. Each of the waves have been designed by all of you collectively to raise your awareness, to expand yourselves, to emphasize certain parts of your belief systems that influence you in manners that you may not actually agree with, or that aren’t beneficial to you. Not to discount the belief systems, but to emphasize all of those constructs that are surrounding all of your belief systems and that are so influencing of you and how you express that every day of your existence. And these waves are created to emphasize all of that and to give you more choices by aiding you in expanding your awareness of your reality and of yourselves.
Therefore, in relation to an outcome, no. It is not designed to create a specific outcome. It is moving in the direction of ending, this particular wave. It is not at its end yet, but it is moving in that direction, in which your final wave will likely begin. But in that, it is definitely continuing to emphasize these different aspects of religious beliefs and the influence of them and how you have, in a manner of speaking, convoluted them in a capacity that is not beneficial and that in some capacities is even harmful, and how strongly your opinions are rooted in this belief system, especially in relation to what you consider to be right and wrong.
And you still, in this very time framework, are expressing that. I would wager to say that most of you, if you were to encounter an individual in this very moment that would be expounding on Christianity, you would be raising your hackles. (Group laughter) You would not be tremendously welcoming and accepting.
ANON: Perhaps less so.
ELIAS: Precisely. And in that, that is part of the point, that that Christian individual, that Muslim individual, that Hebrew individual, they are all the same as you, and they are shifting also, in different capacities.
And the point is to be accepting. You don’t have to agree or like what another individual expresses, and you can be accepting. And acceptance is not “You are wrong.” That is not acceptance.
We shall break, and we shall continue shortly.
(Break after 59 minutes for 1 hour 10 minutes)
ELIAS: Continuing. Any questions as to the previous subject? Yes?
ANON: I was curious to know what kind of segment or the percentage of the U.S. population we’re talking about in regard to this third movement that they’re involved in. Is it like 20%, 30, 40?
ELIAS: At this point presently, it fluctuates between 25 and 30.
GROUP: Ahhh!
ELIAS: Which is a significant number.
ANON: And it’s likely to increase?
ELIAS: It is. It IS increasing. Therefore, it is likely to continue to increase.
ANN: This is Ann, and I’m just - I don’t know if it’s related or not, but it’s related to the election. But I’m very curious why so many people, even when she was First Lady, have a visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton. What is it that brings that out in her, more so than I think any other politician that I can remember in my lifetime?
LYNDA: Not Donald Trump? (Group laughter)
ANN: Actually, that’s a good question. I think people don’t like Donald Trump a lot. But there’s something about Hillary, in my opinion, that brings out this visceral hate. I mean like people who hate Hillary Clinton, I think they hate her more than people who hate Donald Trump hate Donald Trump. Do you have anything to add to that?
ELIAS: Very much so. There are several factors. One factor is that she was the First Lady. That is one piece.
Now; in relation to that piece, the general perception of individuals in your country, not necessarily in the world but in your country, is that the role of the First Lady is very much in the direction of a lady in the context of lords and ladies, that the role of this individual is to be demure and quiet and supportive. And it is a perception that has been carried through for generation after generation after generation, which stems from your very deep roots in Victorian expression, in that your particular country is very rooted in a Victorian ethic and in a type of Christian culture—and I acknowledge that you perceive your country to be what you are fond of terming as a melting pot, but your country is very rooted in a Christian ethic.
And in that, once again in relation to the religious wave and religious beliefs, this is a significant factor in how you perceive certain roles. The role of what you term to be the First Lady is to be the example of the ideal, supportive woman to the man. Your country is very rooted in that expression, that regardless that you have generated a considerable movement in relation to once again, equality, and civil rights and women’s roles changing, and what you think of and perceive as being more modern and therefore including this factor of equality, even women incorporate factors of this perception of what that particular role is supposed to be. And when an individual deviates from that, the general population turns, and it generates a perception that that individual is not good.
In addition to that, in relation to her role in that position and the let us say antics that occurred in relation to her husband’s role, her partner’s role as essentially the king, and in that, although the king is and has been through history allowed to play and have their indiscretions, and that as the king it is almost viewed as a badge of accomplishment, most kings generate those actions with more discretion. What is your perception of Henry VIII?
LYNDA: Off with her head!
ELIAS: Generally not good. And not tremendously respectful, because this is an example of a king that was not exercising discretion and was quite flamboyant in exploding and exploiting his escapades.
This individual’s partner, in the perception of the country, did the same and flaunted,—although denying—played into the media expression of what was occurring in relation to an indiscretion, and in that, perpetuated it.
And in that, as you all term it to be, it became a scandal. It was not actually a scandal. I would express that there are very few of your leaders that do not engage in the same type of scandal. (Group laughter) It is not a scandal. But to that Victorian ethic, it is a scandal. It is deviating from the perfection of the role.
Now; in relation to her as the partner, the factor that she supported it, that she remained supportive of him, created a very angry perception with many individuals. It created a perception with male individuals of being weak and not to be viewed as capable of being responsible. It became viewed by female individuals as a slight. It is a time framework in which female individuals were continuing to express themselves in a movement of equality that was not ended in the time framework of their reign. And in that, female individuals viewed that action of being supportive as very similar to what they were at the time fighting in relation to abuse.
I would express that within your decade of your 1990s and half of the decade of your 1980s, this was a TREMENDOUS subject with women in your country and several other countries. And at the time, it was a newly opened room, so to speak. There were many, many individuals that were passionately expressing in defense of female individuals not only being viewed as equals but also as not being subservient to male individuals. Her expression of being supportive in a subject that most individuals viewed as a tremendous scandal created a perception in which individuals began to suspect her and not trust her, long before she ever considered moving in the direction that she is now. She was already labeled with the scarlet letter.
And in that, to overcome that scarlet letter, which she was aware of, she pushed considerably to present herself in positions of power to alter that perception. What in actuality that did was the more she pushed and the more power that she acquired or expressed, the more individuals suspected and the more they rejected.
Therefore, there is a division, even within one of the individuals—her—in which individuals are considerably divided. Some individuals are of the perception to risk supporting, not certain but willing to risk that support of this individual. Other individuals are very passionate in tremendous dislike, and yes, I would even agree hatred. For that perception has built and built and built for a considerable time framework.
And at this present time framework, it has moved to a position in which every action that she engages that any of you might describe as a mistake—which we all are aware there are no mistakes—but every action that you would consider a mistake in a manner of speaking drives another nail into her cross; and in that, there is tremendous scrutiny. And her opponent has capitalized on that factor also and fueled that fire. And yes, there is a tremendous division.
I would express that the struggle, let us say, in relation to equality and freedom and self-expression for women, for female individuals, has been being fought equally as long or longer than for other ethnic groups. I would express to you that although in political and historical terms your African-American individuals did not acquire their vote until considerably recently, in your sixth decade of your previous century, although women acquired that vote in the second decade of your previous century, regardless of that they have struggled more than the ethnic groups and continue to do so.
And in that, an individual such as this individual being placed in a position to be the representative or the figurehead of all women in your country, in a manner of speaking, is a severe slap to many individuals, for she has fallen too short of the ideal of what that figure should be.
Now; conversely, I would express that it is all very purposeful, and it moves in tremendous harmony with what is occurring in relation to this shift, in beginning to crumble those structures, those constructs that are tremendously strong of what you should be or what you shouldn’t be, or what your figureheads should be and what ideals they should be held to, and in that, recognizing that all of it is entirely contradictory.
You paint a picture of your President and his First Lady, your king and queen, of what you want them to be. And then there is the picture of what they are that you ignore, but you know, but you ignore. And you continue to hold the image of what you want them to be, or what they should be.
And in that, in this shifting time, they are moving more into that direction of being the same as you and not being that ideal. And individuals don’t like that. You want your figureheads to be special. You want them to be not human. You want them to be the ideal, not the same as you. And definitely not to be making mistakes, not when you place yourselves in their hands.
But that is the point of this third wave, that there are more and more of you that are choosing not to place yourselves in their hands. You place yourselves in your own hands, and you allow them to be what they are and do what they do, but you are in your own hands; and THAT is significant.
But that is the reason that there is such a tremendous division and the reason that individuals express such passion. If they dislike this individual, they very much dislike this individual.
DANIEL: Is she a leader personality?
ELIAS: No.
ANN: Is Donald Trump?
ELIAS: No.
ANN: Is Bernie Sanders? (Group laughter)
ELIAS: No. (Chuckles)
JOHN: I have a quick question, which is—I wonder if you would react to this statement. And I know that things will change. You’ve talked about government as an institution and that will change significantly over the next hundred years, but that doesn’t mean it will go away. So humans generally congregate, and they naturally organize. And in the context of humans naturally organizing, people are going to organize around shared objectives. And so in that, there will always be some type of governance, and there will always be some types of governance with certain roles and responsibilities, however loosely they may be defined in the future. But that will always be a component, right, of humans as a species?
ELIAS: That would depend on how you are defining governance. If you are defining governing as it is established to this point, no. If you are defining governing as an action of a cooperative without a head, then yes.
You will continue, for you are correct that as humans you naturally do move in connection with each other, and you naturally do seek each other out. You are not a species that naturally moves alone or singularly. Therefore in that capacity, yes, that it will be natural for you to generate groups of cooperatives, but not in the same capacity as you are accustomed to now, in which you could theoretically express that your design of government is a cooperative of a sort. But there are designated hierarchies of that cooperative. And in those hierarchies, there are varying degrees of authority.
As you accomplish this shift, that is a part of the change in how you express yourselves and, in a manner of speaking, how you govern yourselves in moving away from the structure of authority and hierarchies into a structure of a cooperative in which there are no hierarchies or authorities.
JOHN: No checks or balances?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. I would express that you naturally would do that. You naturally, in expressing a cooperative, in a manner of speaking, would be expressing those checks and balances, because you are continuously sharing. You are not placing any individuals in a position of authority that must be checked in that capacity, therefore the checks and balances would be expressed naturally in a more balanced capacity.
No individual is set in a position of authority or hierarchy to be monitored; but rather, individuals incorporate different groups to function in different capacities, and in that, within the groups share all of the responsibilities and share all of the structure or idea of the direction and purpose of the group. Therefore, no one is monitoring another. All are sharing together in a common direction.
In the structure that you have presently and that you have built through history, it has always incorporated the hierarchy, and the structure has always been built in relation to certain designations of authorities and different levels of authorities, and building those levels of authorities higher and higher to a point. Which is how you derive your ideas of the pyramid, and you use that symbol of the pyramid in many capacities, in business. Government, to this point, is a business. And in that, you are all of its drones.
ANN: I would say it’s more of a mafia than a business.
ELIAS: I would express that quite literally you ARE its drones; that the government incorporates its levels of hierarchy and authority, and in that, there is a considerably limited number of individuals that occupy those positions of authority. And they dictate—or so you allow them to—what you as the drones will do, and how you will function and how you will exist.
And in that, you are afforded the illusion of some freedom, and in that—and this is quite literal—until you become more self-aware. Then you generate ACTUAL freedom, for then YOU are generating the choices. You are not merely responding to what you are told to do.
You are told to attend school. You are told to generate certain jobs. You are told what jobs are necessary, what occupations are important. You are encouraged to engage certain directions to fill those needs, so to speak, that the government has designated as important. YOU may not agree that they are important, but the government has established that this is important, and therefore you as the drones do that.
In association with this structure—and I am not expressing good or bad in relation to this, it merely IS the structure that you have created—and in relation to that structure, you are very similar to bees.
ANON: Is money used as the way to communicate that command nowadays?
ELIAS: Yes.
ANN: Or to keep the control?
ELIAS: Yes. Most definitely. For in that, what is perceived as needed or important will be designated a higher value. And therefore, the drones that choose to move in that direction will incorporate more money. It is a lure.
ANON: So the C.E.O. is the most effective drone?
ELIAS: Not necessarily the most effective, but I would express perhaps the most coerced.
LYNDA: That’s good. (Laughs)
ELIAS: Not necessarily the most effective, but definitely the most suggestible, for they are moving in that direction willingly and accepting the dictate without question, and believing that it is to their own greatest benefit. And therefore, they are busy drones, but they are drones.
I would express that in many capacities the drones that are the least effective and the least convinced are the poor and the students. The students are given information and knowledge, and then in an insidious manner denied using it, and that generally creates rebellion. And in that, this is what creates your revolutions. Generally, revolutions are created by the young.
And in that, the other individuals that are less likely to be moving as willingly in the direction of these false enticements are the poor, and therefore what you term to be nonconformists.
But now, all of YOU will become nonconformists also, regardless of what you do or who you vote for. You are already nonconformists, for you are choosing for yourselves first. (Chuckles)
LYNDA: Wow!
ELIAS: Yes?
RODNEY: You were going to change the topic here pretty soon.
ELIAS: I am. (Group laughter)
RODNEY: Great.
LYNDA: (To Rodney) Are we keeping you awake? (Group laughter)
RODNEY: You are.
LYNDA: That’s so cute.
ELIAS: (Laughs) I merely offered the opportunity for any other questions in relation to the previous subject. Yes?
KYLA: Sorry, just one more question about the subject matter.
GROUP: Say your name. Say your name, blood type.
KYLA: I just was curious about, is this reflection that is the collective conscious, have we generated this to… so the pot is boiling over, to bring to our attention. This election is astronomical in its effect on everybody’s lives, even if you’re not political. It’s very interesting. It’s a very interesting circus, I should say. Is this a reflection of our collective consciousness of something that maybe we’ve created that perhaps we need to bring to our attention and acknowledge, in order for change overall to take place, beyond the election?
ELIAS: Yes. And that is what you are doing. At this present time framework, you have not created a catastrophe.
Let me express to you, for a considerable time framework individuals questioned myself as to the future and what will you create, and will you create a catastrophe to further this shift, and what disaster will you create or will you create the apocalypse to further this shift, for you could not fathom moving in a direction of that type of change without some type of apocalyptic event. And I have consistently expressed to you no, you are not creating an apocalyptic event. No, you are not creating the apocalypse. You are not creating the end of your civilization. No, no, no.
And in this, let me express to you: not only are you not creating some apocalyptic event or some tremendous disaster, but you also are not creating expressions or situations within your world that all of you will rally around, or that is sparking a common passion. Your most recent expression of that was within that time framework of your sixth decade of your previous century that we were expressing previously, in your 1960s, in which there was tremendous change occurring. There was civil rights movements. There was equality movements. There was a police state that was perceived as or spoken as a war, which was never actually declared a war.
And in that, there was tremendous passion that was being expressed, not only in your country but in many countries throughout the world, in which there was tremendous dissension and division—not unlike now, but unlike now in that there was no third wave.
In that, there were subjects that there were multitudes of individuals that were passionately being expressed. You have not created those types of expressions now. You have no Second World War. You have no First World War. You have no war that is sparking tremendous passion. In actuality, your previous war sparked the opposite, and many individuals VOLUNTARILY participated. Therefore, there was not a tremendous expression of opposition. There was no scream for change.
You are not generating those types of expressions that develop into revolution. Every one of your revolutions has been led by discontent youth and the oppressed. Let me express to you that there is plenty of oppression, but no one subject that is being expressed in a manner that incites that type of passion in multitudes of individuals.
And one of the reasons is beyond that you are not creating that type of change to move you into more and more of this shift, but beyond that, a natural development is that you are moving more and more and more in the direction of the individual, not the group; the power of the individual, the power of yourselves to change your own reality, regardless of what is being created in everyone else’s reality. That the individual is being more and more empowered to choose, what YOU choose, what YOU want, what is important to YOU.
And in that, as more attention and more awareness centers on the individual rather than the groups or the collective, there becomes less and less reason to rally around any type of construct. And therefore, you are not creating the apocalypse, and you are changing very effectively, and you will continue to change efficiently. And yes, it is bringing more awareness. More and more individuals are becoming more and more aware.
And even the individuals that align with one or the other in this race are becoming more and more aware of the division. Even those individuals that are staunchly continuing in the construct and moving in the direction of what is familiar are becoming more and more aware and are feeling threatened by what they perceive as the opposition, for there is such division. And THAT must be addressed. And you WILL.
DANIEL: What about other countries such as Russia that on the surface appear to be (inaudible) and rally around one single leader…
GROUP: (As the microphone is passed) Just repeat it.
DANIEL: Can I be a nonconformist? (Group laughter) Would you comment on countries like Russia that superficially appear to rally behind one leader and the national idea kind of like one czar and one patriotic idea, and there is no division on the surface?
ELIAS: Yes. And what I would express is there are two factors in relation to that also. One is that it has become considerably important for that country and several others that are in similar directions to express a unity of a sort, because they have experienced such division. They have experienced such division for such a considerable time framework, generation after generation after generation, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, in which there has been such tremendous division in which they have felt and experienced such disconnection—disconnection among themselves, disconnection from the world, disconnection in relation to their country.
And in that, this also is a new expression for that country and some other countries in similarity, in which they are discovering their connections. You are discovering these tremendous divisions that have existed but you weren’t seeing. They are discovering their connection that has always existed but they weren’t seeing.
And in that, they are expressing not genuinely in the capacity of looking to the figurehead and rallying around that and placing all of their trust and their direction in that figurehead. What they are doing moreso is expressing more connection within themselves as not only peoples but as a country, undivided, and expressing that unity and that interconnectedness and the importance of that. I would express that in that, they are evolving also, in a different capacity, and shifting.
The figurehead is attempting to exploit that, which will not generally be successful. It has not been tremendously successful. And that is what is creating so much conflict; not necessarily merely conflict in relation to other smaller satellites, but the people are not in support of that action of exploiting their unity. Therefore, there is conflict in both directions, the satellites and the individuals or the groups that are being told in the same fashion as the drones of your country, being the drones of that country, but the drones in that country are not necessarily complying with what they are being enticed to do. Which is creating considerable conflict.
The conflict in your country presently is being expressed in a different capacity, but it is all the same. What you are exploring and discovering is the importance of the individual. What they are discovering is the importance of the connections, which you require both. You require those connections, but you also require that self-expression and the importance of the individual.
Therefore, in a manner of speaking, your world is a metaphor for all of you as individuals. There are other countries that are generating other actions that may seem to you presently as less important or conflicting in different capacities, and then you have certain countries that you have always set as your models that in your previous century dawned as your superpowers. And in that, they are your figures. They are what you look to as metaphorically the most important aspects of yourselves, and your countries reflect that.
Just as one of your superpowers, which we discussed previously in relation to the United Kingdom, generated their expression of being independent from the European Union. Some individuals viewed that as an expression of separation. I expressed to all of you that that was an expression of independence and of self-expression: “No, we are not willing to merely move in the collective blindly. We want to choose.”
And each of these superpowers, so to speak—which is very inaccurate terminology, but—each of them represents a different aspect of you as individuals and reflects that. And what struggles and directions you move in, they are moving in, for the collective is moving in. It is a reflection to you. And what is a reflection?
DENISE: Opportunity for choice.
ELIAS: Yes! (Group laughter) The presentment of choice. The presentment of choice.
ANON: Where’s our sticker?
LYNDA: Yeah, where’s our sticker?
ELIAS: You did not vote yet. (Group laughter and Elias laughs) You must cast your lot to win the prize. (Chuckles)
Now; we shall move to our second subject, that of the different angles of death or dying.
Now; in this, the first aspect that I would present to all of you is there are different directions that individuals engage in relation to that choice of death. Some individuals move very quickly and very decisively in a choice. Other individuals or beings (Elias looks at Polly, on his lap) move in a direction of entertaining methods or engaging an entire direction in relation to that end choice. And in that process, let me express to you: the majority of beings that choose a method that incorporates a significant process leading to that choice, meaning generally a dis-ease or severe illnesses or dementia or depression, these are all methods that individuals engage that are generally lengthy. They are directions; they are not only methods. And in that, the being is exploring that direction.
Now; what is significant to remember is the difference in perception between individuals that are observing and participating with that being and the being itself. Which are at times and for the most part, although there are exceptions—but for the most part these perceptions are very different.
The being that is engaging a direction that eventually does lead to that choice of death is not perceiving themselves to be entertaining that subject, regardless of what is occurring around them, and regardless of what they are actually even being told.
Example: An individual, let us say, is creating some type of illness or dementia or depression or dis-ease, and has developed that manifestation to a point in which the individuals around that being are aware that what they are doing is leading to death. And physicians may even be expressing to that being or individual that this is the outcome: you will die. This is a very definite statement. Even with that much of a definite statement, that individual’s perception is not the same.
They are not perceiving that. They may recognize that they are ill, but they are not perceiving that they are actually moving in that direction of death. The exceptions to that—and not all of them—but there are exceptions in which if an individual is creating extreme discomfort for an extended time framework, discomfort in the manner of pain or tremendous anguish, those individuals generally are generating the perception that this is the direction that they are moving in, and they are doing that almost with the intention of engaging that choice.
But other than those extremes, for the most part beings in general, when they are moving in these types of directions they are not generating a perception of death, even if they are one day removed from that choice. They are not creating the perception of death.
There is a difference—slight difference, literally slight—between humans and other beings. Other beings do not think in the same manner or the same capacity that you do. They think, but they do not think in the manner that you do. Therefore, other beings other than humans do not necessarily even identify that they are ill. They identify what they feel. They recognize that they may be uncomfortable at times. They recognize pain. They recognize that they may experience thickness with their energy, but they do not perceive themselves to be sick. They do not perceive themselves to be ill. They don’t think about that.
Humans do. And they accept, partially—this is what I am expressing in the SLIGHT difference—humans do think about it, and they partially accept when other individuals or physicians express to them, “You incorporate this dis-ease. You have cancer. You have liver disease. You have a kidney disease. You have a heart disease.” The individual will accept that partially and accept that they are ill. Does that mean they generate a perception that they are dying? No. Very rarely. Even if you express to them, “You are dying,” they will listen and nod, and when you leave they will dismiss that entirely. They do not incorporate the perception that they are dying.
Therefore, what YOU are experiencing if you are the caretaker or if you are a family member or if you are another individual interacting with that individual or that being that is quote-unquote (very clearly and directly to Bonnie) QUOTE-UNQUOTE, “dying” (group laughter), YOU perceive it as dying. It does not perceive itself as dying, until the moment it chooses death.
At the moment it chooses death, it changes. And then that being knows. But until that moment, that being, that human or other being, is continuing to hold the perception that they are continuing. They are not dying, regardless of how ill they may be. They are continuing, and they will continue, and that is their perception.
Now; one of the reasons that this occurs, that the being does not perceive themself to be dying, is because you incorporate corporeal bodies. Your body consciousness incorporates two functions that are not physical. One is to hold memory; the other is to preserve and maintain existence. Your body incorporates a very strong function to maintain existence, to remain alive.
In that, because your body incorporates such a strong mechanism to remain alive, your body communicates to you that you are not dying. And you believe it. And you continue.
This is also the reason that many beings may incorporate what you view as lethal illnesses or dis-eases, and they may continue to express for considerable time frameworks. They may continue in that state, and in your perception worsening, for a year or two years or five years.
The reason this is an important subject presently is that there are very many individuals that are experiencing some aspect of this subject now. There are many individuals and beings that are disengaging from your reality, for many different reasons. But that presents a situation in which there are many, many, many of you that are engaging these situations in which you are involved and participating with individuals that are creating that type of reality, in which they are moving in that direction but they are not actually disengaging. And that can be considerably difficult for most of you.
For you automatically will all express, “What do you want?” for your partner or your parents or your children or your creatures or anyone. You want them to be happy and healthy. You don’t want them to be sad, and you don’t want them to be ill, and you don’t want them to hurt. You don’t want them to be uncomfortable. And therefore you project in the direction of what you want for them, which is quite natural. And do not misunderstand; this is not wrong. It is a very natural expression.
The ones that require the aid are not those beings that are afflicted or dying. The ones that require the aid are those of you that are not. Those of you that are not, that are in the position of being the caretakers or the supporters or the helpers—you are the individuals that require the help.
And the first aspect of help that I offer to you is to know that the perception of the afflicted one is very different from your own, and that they do not perceive themselves to be as afflicted as you perceive them to be. Even if they complain, even if they are uncomfortable, they do not perceive themselves to be as damaged as you perceive them to be.
The additional piece that I would offer to all of you is that none of you at any point, at any moment, are helpless. Helplessness is a very strong feeling that individuals express in relation to what they love. For you place expectations upon yourselves to provide for what you love in the most and greatest capacity that you can to generate that love and assistance and support.
You want to be their ocean. You want to be that enormous body that supports everything, that can bear the weight of anything and everything. You can support it all, and it will all be buoyant, and it can all float from your support. That is tremendously noble. And it is also not possible.
But beyond being not possible, it is not necessary, for you are already that ocean. You do not have to be grander or greater or stronger or more powerful than you already are. You already ARE that ocean. And you already ARE supporting, regardless of how much you perceive that that is inadequate. It is not.
Every moment that you can exist and not be depressed—and I am not expressing depression in the capacity of what you are accustomed to presently, in relation to psychological terms. I am speaking of actual depressing yourself, depressing your energy. Not sad, for sad is yours to hold. Sad is your feeling. It belongs to you. And you have the right to express that. I am not speaking of sad.
(Slowly and gently) But you have, being that ocean, the choice in every moment to not be projecting into what could be, what might be, or what would have been, or what is coming. This is the most exceptional and least hopeless gift: that you can BE, not merely give. To BE present. To not project into what could have been, what might have been, and what I dread, what I don’t want for this being, what I express terror in anticipation of with this being, but rather to be aware of now.
Even in the experience of despair, of anger, of physical displays of discomfort or pain, to not deny yourselves, not ignore what you feel, but also to BE present and recognize that all of these feelings that you are experiencing, all of this turmoil that you generate, all of this anxiety that you have expressed is for the most part moving in its base of either anticipation of what you perceive to be inevitable, whether that be death or whether that be disability, or the aching that you feel for what you perceive to be the expression of less than/could have been.
(Quietly and intently) I will express to each and every one of you: that could be expressed of all of you, for dependent upon what you choose, in some manner you have generated a choice that creates another choice of less than what you could have been, but moving in a direction of more than you might have been in different directions. All of you can be expressed in that manner. Regardless of what any individual is generating and experiencing, they are not creating less than what they could have been. They are not cutting themselves short. They are fulfilling their journey.
And they do not always even understand every aspect of their own journey. Do any of you? (Group laughter) Just as all of you do not understand every aspect of your own journeys, they do not understand every aspect of their journey either.
And are you always satisfied and happy and excited about whatever you are experiencing? I would express no.
GROUP: No.
ELIAS: Do you complain about what you are experiencing at different points?
GROUP AND ELIAS: Yes.
ELIAS: And so do they.
Do they want to be experiencing discomfort? Generally, no. Are they happy in that? No, not necessarily. Are they angry at times? Yes. And so are you.
And how you be that ocean is by allowing that. Allowing that anger, that illness, that discomfort, that method, that journey, that direction, however it is played.
If you go to the theatre and you choose to watch a play that is a tragedy, do you appreciate it? Most likely yes. Will it influence you to weep? It might. Will you feel uncomfortable? You might. Will you celebrate that play? Likely yes. Was it well acted? Did it move you?
Every individual is creating their own play. Does that individual’s play move you to tears? Then they are successful.
Yes?
ANON: So this choice… (Pause, as microphone is passed) Hi, it’s Anon again. So on this choice of dying, I’m thinking that if you were to ask any of these individuals, like perhaps one that has one of these elongated diseases, or perhaps if you had asked the person who has one of these quote-unquote “accidents” just before, whether this is a choice they want to engage, I believe most of them would say no. So what I’m asking is at what level is this choice made? You’ve said there is no such thing as a subconscious. So it is merely out of their awareness?
ELIAS: The actual choice of death?
ANON: Yes.
ELIAS: The actual choice of death is very objective. Every individual, EVERY individual, WITHOUT exception, at the moment that that choice is engaged, they are objectively aware of it. They are objectively aware of generating a choice to move and die or not.
ANON: Very well. And let’s say the situation when somebody dies in an automobile accident, like that scenario. And why would the individual, having presented themselves at that moment, that choice, choose one way or the other, or choose to die? Is it simply because they review where they are with their life to that point? Because if you asked that individual BEFORE the accident, they will say, “No, I do not choose to die.” So what is the process by which they arrive at that decision?
ELIAS: Now; what I will express to you is that can move in both directions. You could ask an individual that is considerably depressed, “Do you want to die?” and they may say yes, but they don’t do it. Or they incorporate a considerably lengthy time framework to accomplish that, in a very similar manner to an individual with cancer.
In your scenario, if you ask an individual do they want to die and they express no, and they engage a collision with a vehicle, and in that they are aware of that moment to disengage or to not, what is the criteria? Curiosity. It’s simple.
There is no review of life in that moment. It is not a matter of your life flashes before you and you review all of your life and you evaluate if you are ready to disengage or not. No. That is a fallacy. It is a story.
There is also no pull from what you term to be “the other side.” There is no other side. But there is no pull in the OTHER direction. There is no pull in either direction at that moment.
At that moment, it is literally merely a choice. And in that, in that moment, it is a matter of simple curiosity: which choice is more curious in the moment? Am I more curious about this direction, or am I more curious about continuing in this direction?
Your children, your parents, your friends, your partner—no one weighs in to that decision. There is NO pull from the physical aspect, and there is no pull from the nonphysical. It is genuinely a neutral position in which the individual presents that choice to themself, which direction are they more curious about.
And there is no actual subject of being more curious about. It is not “I have more to do in physical focus. I have more to accomplish in physical focus,” or “I don’t know what lies beyond and I want to explore that.” No. There is no pull whatsoever in either direction, and there is no subject in either direction. It is merely a matter of a choice: what am I curious about in this moment?
ANON: So returning to the automobile accident, the generation of that experience, the actual physical impact and so on, does that occur after the choice? Or is it that they’ve already generated this experience, and then they present themselves with a choice? In other words, what I’m asking is, so this individual has an automobile accident and perhaps they are quite damaged as a result of that, but they choose not to die. They then—
ELIAS: That is dependent on the individual. Does the accident predicate the choice? Not necessarily. Does the choice predicate the accident? Not necessarily.
ANON: Well, I’m asking about what is conceivably realistic in that situation. For example, can the individual, having chosen not to die, then reconfigure their perception so that the automobile accident never occurred?
ELIAS: Could they? Is it possible? Yes, it is possible. Is it probable? No. Is it likely? No. For that is the experience that they generated, and there are no accidents. Therefore, in that, theoretically yes, it is possible that the individual could alter that entirely and create an entirely different scenario in which that experience did not occur, or it did occur, but they could insert a different probability into your physical reality and move that experience into a probable reality. Yes, it is possible. It is highly unlikely.
ANON: But given that it’s highly unlikely, would not the fact then that they are unable to accomplish that influence their choice? They may say, “I don’t want to be crippled,” or something like that.
ELIAS: No. No. For in that moment there is no pull in either direction. There is no judgment whatsoever. There is no expression of evaluation of like or dislike, comfortable or uncomfortable, want or not want. There is neutrality, and the only influencing factor is curiosity: what holds a slightly more curious expression than the other?
And in that, that is highly individual. And in your scenario, the individual may be in that position and may choose not to die, and may have chosen a direction that is considerably challenging and considerably uncomfortable and difficult. And you would express, “Why would the individual do that?” Why not? It is an experience, and it was no more or less attractive than the other experience.
DANIEL: How does the notion of value fulfillment play into that?
ELIAS: Now THAT is a different subject. Value fulfillment is expressed in relation to whatever you are individually exploring, and that applies to all beings, not merely humans. Everything incorporates value fulfillment.
In this, value fulfillment is not connected with time. You think it is, and that, in a manner of speaking, convolutes your perception of life. For you express if an individual lives a long life that they are generating a considerably long exploration of their value fulfillment. Or if they incorporate a very short life, how could they possibly have generated their value fulfillment in such a short time framework? A baby that dies at one day old, or an individual that dies at a hundred and twenty.
Time is not a factor for value fulfillment. Interest is the factor for value fulfillment. When there continues to be a spark of interest, there continues to be value fulfillment. This is a subject that is considerably difficult for very many individuals to understand or comprehend, even individuals themselves in relation to their own value fulfillment.
In this, individuals that may be expressing dementia or depression and continue in that direction for years may question themselves. They express they don’t want to live. Why do they not die? They don’t want to continue. Very common words: “I don’t want to be here.” But they don’t die. There is some factor of interest that continues. And the interest may be in the discomfort.
NATASHA: Is the person aware of this interest or no?
ELIAS: Not always. Not in the capacity of defining it. Are they aware of it? Yes. Do they understand it? Not necessarily. Are they aware that they are concentrating on being miserable? Yes, for they are doing that. Are they aware that they are unhappy or that they are angry? Yes, they are aware of that. Do they necessarily understand what they are generating? No. But many of you do not understand what you are generating in any particular given moment.
Yes?
PAUL: So to clarify, Elias… (Pause while the microphone is passed) This is Paneus. The point of decision to disengage is rendered when their interest in pursuing their value fulfillment ends?
ELIAS: Yes.
PAUL: So as an example, like when JFK got shot, at the moment the rifle was fired he lost interest in pursuing his value fulfillment?
ELIAS: Yes.
PAUL: Oh! Cool. (Laughs)
ELIAS: Yes.
RODNEY: Hey Elias?
ELIAS: Yes?
RODNEY: You present the making of a choice—this is Rodney—as though it’s a one-time thing, and depending on what that choice was, there may be many… When would be the next (inaudible)? I mean, I would think the choice would be made possibly again and again and again?
ELIAS: No. No. You can move in a DIRECTION that appears to be leading in that direction, as that being what you think of as an inevitable end.
RODNEY: No, I’m saying what if presented, “Do I want to die or don’t I want to die?” and the answer is no, is that good for eternity? (Group laughter)
ELIAS: You don’t present yourself with the question “Do I want to die or don’t I want to die?”
RODNEY: All right.
ELIAS: You merely present yourself with that moment of that choice: continue/not continue in relation to physical existence. And you do that only once. You don’t do that more than one time. Even individuals that express in what is so commonly expressed presently of near-death experiences, no, the individual is not actually choosing death and returning. You choose that once only. Only. You do not present yourself with that choice more than once.
RODNEY: And if you don’t (inaudible)
NATASHA: That means that all those miracle experiences…
ELIAS: The value fulfillment was not accomplished. It was not finished.
ANN: Well, it sounds like if you present yourself with a choice of death and you CHOOSE death, then that’s it. But if you choose life, then you’re going to die (inaudible) time, aren’t you?
ELIAS: But that was not death.
ANN: So you only choose death.
ELIAS: Yes.
GROUP: Oh! Right! Choose once. Over and over. And we do!
ELIAS: Yes. You only choose death once.
ANN: Well, that makes sense.
LYNDA: It lasts a really long time.
JOHN: I have a question. So in the context of what you’re talking about here, I’m going to call it, just for the sake of this, proactive disengagement, and it’s something that comes up, right? In personal experiences that people have, but also from the policy, right? Which is two things, right? One could be pulling life support, just one example, when the objective awareness is not there, or what is called assisted suicide laws. And could you comment on both of those in the context of this, but also in the context of general policy?
ELIAS: I would express that it is no different. Regardless of the method, they are all merely methods. Therefore, it is all merely a difference in methods that you choose in relation to that subject. When the individual has accomplished their value fulfillment, they will incorporate a moment in which they recognize they can choose death. And if they do, they have fulfilled their value fulfillment.
The method is an individual choice of preference and, in a manner of speaking, is somewhat irrelevant. How they choose is very individual.
For the individual being, the method is quite literally insignificant or unimportant. For all of YOU, it is important. For those of you who are participating, the method is considerably important, for you interacting with that react and are responsive to what the individual is doing in their method.
Therefore, in relation to euthanasia or assisted death, in how you term that to be presently, this is another example in which those that are affected more strongly are those of you that are not choosing that but that are participating with it, for that creates a considerable conflict and struggle within the individual.
You naturally move in a direction of wanting to be that ocean, wanting to be that supporter. But you also naturally, in your body, are expressing that preservation of existence, preservation of life. You don’t want it to end, whether it is yours or someone else’s. You don’t want it to end. And that is your perception, that death is an end.
And in a manner of speaking, it is. It is an end that gives way to a new beginning. There are countless ends within your life, but this is one end that is different from all the other endings and beginnings in your life, for this physically removes something from you.
Therefore, in that type of situation, even MORE so, that you are engaging with an individual, or you are in a position as an individual in relation to another being that YOU are generating the decision, and in your perception you are creating a decision FOR that other being that the other being is not choosing themselves. In either scenario it can be tremendously difficult and disturbing for the individuals that are the support, for the conflict is tremendous in this struggle between preservation of life but wanting to support and respect, wanting to be that respect and support and give to—for this is your perception, that you are giving your permission to the other individual to generate that choice. You are not, but that is your perception: I will give you this. That is your final gift to the other individual. Or, it is your final gift to another being, to end their suffering or their misery.
And subsequently, most individuals, with very few exceptions, regardless of how much they think about it and express to themselves that they are entirely in agreement and accepting of this decision, whether they are generating a decision for another being or whether they are assisting another individual in their own decision, subsequently most individuals, with VERY few exceptions, regret it and feel guilt. Both of which are unnecessary, for you cannot generate that choice for another being. You CANNOT. You cannot euthanize another individual if they don’t want to die. You cannot euthanize another BEING if they don’t want to die. They won’t die.
Therefore, you cannot create that choice for another being. I cannot emphasize that strongly enough. Therefore, you have no responsibility in that choice. It is their choice. You can choose to support them in that choice or not support them in that choice, neither of which is wrong. If you disagree with their choice, you can accept it and disagree and not necessarily support them by participating. You can support them in other capacities, but you are important to honor also.
Ignoring or pushing away or overriding your own feelings and what you believe yourselves, or denying yourselves in these difficult situations, is harmful. It is destructive. You don’t want other beings to be unhappy or to suffer. But you will create yourselves to suffer and be unhappy for them. How are you giving to them by being unhappy and suffering for them? What are you giving them? You are giving them an example of misery. And is that what you want to express, misery? That this is your gift? Or do you want to express that your gift is to be that ocean? And all that is required for you to do in being that ocean is to be; not do, but merely be.
PAUL: In that context, do you see things like the medical industry or hospitals becoming more limited, or the dissolution of the medical industry by the midpoint of the century? Because they’re trying to keep people alive and maybe choosing…
ELIAS: But the individual is choosing. And you all are participating in that, in your quest to prolong life, which is not necessarily bad either. How many of you in this forum have expressed many times that you want to live to be a hundred and fifty? (Group laughter)
Let me express to you that no, I would express that in like manner to many other structures, your medical profession and your structure in relation to physicians and medical practices are evolving and changing in capacities that are more consistent with what you yourselves individually are naturally creating, and what directions you choose to move in. Therefore, as you evolve, that evolves also.
The more you evolve and the more aware you become of yourselves, and the more you are aware of your bodies and how to manipulate them, how to generate your body consciousness in the most beneficial and effective manner—regeneration is a considerable topic these days—and in that, the more aware YOU become, the less you move in the direction of requiring physicians to fix you. Therefore, physicians will be moving in their own evolution in a different direction, that they are available to assist in what you are creating, and to aid you in what different manipulations you generate, but not necessarily to be in the direction of fixing you as they have been.
Yes?
ANON: This is a non-related question before you go. I was meaning to ask this, but (inaudible). Am I creating or creating any strong potential of any physical pain, dis-ease or illness or anything like that?
ELIAS: Presently, no.
ANON: Oh. Likely, whenever?
ELIAS: That would be your choice.
LYNDA: Good answer!
ELIAS: Presently, no.
ANN: This feels like a weird question, but after you make the choice to die, has anyone ever regretted it?
ELIAS: No.
ANN: No one, EVER? (Group laughter)
ELIAS: First of all, let me express to you that the first factor would be that in order to regret it you would have to remember it.
ANN: Oh! Now we’re going down another whole rabbit hole.
ELIAS: And let me express in this manner: By the time you DO remember your death, there is nothing to regret.
ANN: I want to remember. I don’t want to forget.
ELIAS: You WILL. You WILL remember, and each of you will remember when you are ready, in varying degrees of time. But in that, initially you won’t remember. And when you do remember, there will be nothing to regret. Therefore, no.
JOHN: Who designed THAT system? (Group laughter)
ANN: Are all my focuses going to remember at the same time, or different times?
ELIAS: Precisely at the same time? No. Correct. Therefore, if you as a final focus disengage, does that mean that every other focus that is occupying physical reality will drop dead at that moment? No. Will they likely continue to express their life for as long as their value fulfillment continues? Yes. Will their value fulfillment likely be expressed more quickly? Yes.
ANN: So if I die—
LYNDA: When! (Group laughter)
ANN: It’s my (inaudible), and I get ready and I remember, and I still have some other focuses here down on earth, will I remember them when I remember MY death?
ELIAS: Yes. (Group laughter and comments)
ANON: A question on final focus, or whatever you call this: can you clarify that? Because outside the physical dimension, everything is simultaneous. So how does that translate to the concept of a final focus?
ELIAS: As I have expressed, the final focus is not a matter of time. It is merely a designated point. I have expressed it in an analogy of a sparkler. Every spark on the sparkler is a focus. They are all sparking at the same time. One spark ignites them all and they all stop at the same time, or relatively speaking. And in that, one designates the beginning or when all of the sparks ignite, and one designates when they all defuse. But it is not a matter of time at all.
ANON: After the final focus and all the focuses cease, what becomes of the essence?
ELIAS: Whatever it chooses. It moves in whatever direction it chooses
ANON: Does that…
ELIAS: This is only one reality, my friend. (Chuckles)
ANON: You’re referring to this dimension. I’m talking about all dimensions. So when you just described the sparkler, are all those focuses in one dimension?
ELIAS: In THIS sparkler, yes.
ANON: So there are multiple sparklers?
ELIAS: Yes. Yes. The factor that you disengage from this one reality does not mean that you are disengaged from ALL realities.
ANON: So then, as essence, does essence always have a sparkler going, at least one?
ELIAS: In some capacity, not necessarily physical.
ANON: Not necessarily physical, but in some capacity?
ELIAS: Yes.
ANON: And is the final focus for that probability or all probabilities in that dimension or all those realities in that…?
ELIAS: Within that dimension.
ANON: Within that… Okay.
ELIAS: Yes. Within that dimension.
JOHN: Unless I misunderstood from what you’re telling Anon, because you said before a final focus could be a non-earth focus and…?
ELIAS: It could be.
JOHN: Yeah.
ELIAS: Yes. But that is not a different dimension.
LYNDA: Not earth. Mars.
ELIAS: You incorporate a very large universe. And you are not alone in that universe. Therefore, yes, that is correct. It does not necessarily mean that the final focus is a human individual in this reality.
ANON: So one last question. Is that designated final focus, all of its splinters and stuff would be also detonated, or just one? That one will be it?
ELIAS: Yes. One. Yes.
Very well, my friends, I express tremendous encouragement to you all, regardless of what your affiliations and your choices are. (Group laughter)
I encourage you tremendously. I also express tremendous encouragement and comfort to all of you in what you experience with each other, and to know that I am quite present—
GROUP: Thank you, Elias. Thank you.
ELIAS: —and that you are being an excellent ocean.
To you all in tremendous lovingness, as always, my dear friends, au revoir.
GROUP: Au revoir.
(Elias departs after 2 hours 5 minutes. Total session time was 3 hours 4 minutes)
Copyright 2016 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.