Friday, August 7, 2009 (Private)
Participants: Mary (Michael), Daniil (Zynn) and Natasha (Nichole)
(Elias’ arrival time is 21 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good morning!
BOTH: Good morning, Elias!
ELIAS: (Chuckles) And what shall we discuss?
DANIIL: Inna says hello and thank you.
ELIAS: And you may offer my greetings.
DANIIL: Inna had the feeling that in some way the channeling phenomena is changing or winding down, because she feels like it is not as intense anymore in some ways and sites seem to be closing down and all that. How do you comment on that? Are we entering a new phase in some way or...?
ELIAS: These are two different questions. (Pause)
As to the question are you entering a new phase, so to speak, yes, which is obvious. You are all experiencing it. In relation to that, there are two facets. Individuals are experiencing this wave in intense manners, which generates either the individual to move in the direction of retreat and to be less interactive and to actually in some capacities seek less information for they are already overwhelmed, or the individual may be somewhat retreating but is seeking more information.
Therefore, in this time framework, it is somewhat a time and a situation of a type of polarization. There is little middle ground. Individuals are moving in one direction or another, and individuals are viewing their reality somewhat more black and white, for the gray is too confusing. Individuals perceive that it is more difficult to offer themselves answers or to understand what is occurring in their world, what is occurring around them and what is occurring with themselves. For it is different and new, and new is not always defined as good.
NATASHA: Yes, but what are the two facets you are talking about? You can either retreat or you can seek information or not seek information?
Now; in relation to the other question in association with channeling, that is not receding. That is not moving in a direction of being less or being less intense or offering less information or offering less new information. What is occurring in relation to that action is that many of the individuals that are physically focused that are engaging the act of channeling in relation to energy exchanges, and many even in association with channeling their own information, are experiencing much of what all of you are experiencing in overwhelm. But there are additional factors in that overwhelm, which can also be viewed in other individuals engaging in other actions that are what you would term to be publicly oriented.
Individuals that are interactive with the public, so to speak, in capacities of examples or helpfulness or even in what you term to be instruction are experiencing that overwhelm in somewhat of a measured more intensity, which is understandable, for it is moving in conjunction with this wave, and this wave is addressing to communication. In that, it also emphasizes all of your actions, interactions. It emphasizes how you interact, which includes your guidelines. As I have been expressing recently, this wave is orchestrating individuals becoming more aware of their genuine identity.
This is an enormous step in this shift. For identity, in many capacities, is not what you think it is, and therefore, this creates considerable confusion in itself, generating the action of separating the attachments of identity from the genuine identity. Not that you are eliminating or forgetting the attachments and not that they are not a part of your reality; they are. But what you are doing is discovering the difference between those attachments and what is the genuine identity.
NATASHA: Can you give an example of an attachment to identity using either of us? I just want to see it, I want to experience it, because I’m not sure where this separation lies.
ELIAS: Very well. Let us examine very real and in one capacity easily identified attachments. What is your core belief, your core truth?
ELIAS: And yours?
ELIAS: Loyalty and integrity.
Now; these are your core beliefs. Therefore, a part of that would be associated with your genuine identity — but only a part, a small part. The larger part would be the attachments.
Loyalty and integrity — what can be attached to loyalty or to integrity? What experiences do those core beliefs influence? What do you offer to yourselves that you have learned in relation to those subjects, those words? The words themselves carry definitions, associations. In this, integrity, how would you define integrity?
NATASHA: Again, as I said before, it’s not doing what doesn’t feel right to be doing and all things that would be aligned with the right thing to do.
ELIAS: And another aspect of integrity would be truth or truthfulness?
ELIAS: Therefore, another attachment to integrity would be how you view and associate with lying or untruth. And how would you define lying?
NATASHA: I don’t necessarily label it bad. Sometimes lying is very beneficial...
ELIAS: But how would you define it?
NATASHA: Lying is not expressing the truth, at least in my view.
ELIAS: Very well.
NATASHA: Calling the black thing white and vice versa.
ELIAS: Which is an accurate definition of lying, in your terms of lying. And what would be truth?
NATASHA: The truth would be again absolutely expressed in the same way, without any deviations or hiding — face value.
ELIAS: Without hiding. That would be correct or accurate, an accurate account, a truthful account. But what is truth? Truth is relative. And what is lying? It is relative.
In this, these are examples of attachments to that core belief, that core truth. The core truth in itself of integrity merely influences you in certain capacities to be what you are in this manifestation, which, in turn, at times influences how you express; but it also carries many judgments and many attachments of what is not necessarily you intrinsically but what you attach to yourself in relation to your identity, for it is associated with your core truth.
Loyalty — what is loyalty?
DANIIL: Loyalty, I have probably several definitions. One is trying my best to help a friend or a project or another undertaking, taking something to the end. Loyalty is being ready to help. Loyalty brings in an idea of loyalty to whom, to my friend, to me or to what. I think loyalty is doing my best toward a chosen goal or a person or project.
ELIAS: Which, obviously you can view how that would include many attachments. All core beliefs, in like manner to any belief, can include many attachments.
Loyalty is an action of standing by — standing by an idea, standing by a concept, standing by a philosophy, standing by an action, standing by an individual, standing by yourself. It is the action of not supportiveness but supporting. It is the action of supporting unwaveringly whatever is being expressed that you agree with. You are not loyal to what you do not agree with. You are loyal to what you do agree with.
Now; that may seem somewhat black and white, but in actuality, it is not. For you may disagree with many actions or many expressions or behaviors or even ideas and continue to be loyal. For you may be being loyal to a friendship, which you agree with the idea of the friendship, and therefore, you may be loyal to the friendship and also disagree with many aspects of the friendship or with the other individual.
You may incorporate many judgments in relation to the subject, but the loyalty is that you will support the baseline regardless whether it is right or wrong, for there is some other aspect that you are loyal to.
Integrity would be that you very much move in the direction of what you perceive or deem to be true, right, accurate and valid. If there are expressions that do not fit, those identifications you will move in opposition to them or you will ignore them.
In this, there are also other beliefs that may not necessarily be your core truth but may be strong beliefs that you hold and that you engage frequently or consistently...
NATASHA: Let me interrupt for a second and ask. In this case, what are the attachments? The attachments actually are the beliefs that are behind all of the behaviors that you are expressing? What do you mean by an attachment? I’m not quite clear.
ELIAS: The attachments are the associations, what is learned, what has been taught, and through that, what your experiences have been in relation to that subject of the core beliefs, so to speak. Therefore, throughout your focus you have incorporated numerous experiences in relation to your core belief of integrity. You have generated numerous judgments in relation to that, be they good or bad, what you choose to draw to you, what you choose to push away, the assessments that you generate in relation to that subject. The associations are those evaluations that you generate in relation to experiences [and] that incorporate that attachment of good or bad.
NATASHA: What you are saying, then, literally, automatically the label exists just because of my integrity core belief, and without much thinking, I am just labeling things?
ELIAS: Yes, and you do this throughout the course of your focus. It becomes very natural, and you do it very automatically many, many times without thinking. You merely act. In that, were you to face yourself or present yourself with a questioning of integrity, why you express in this manner, your natural response would be “for this is me.”
NATASHA: It is natural; that’s what was in my head.
ELIAS: Yes. Therefore, if it is natural, it is me. It is a part of me. Therefore, you equate that with who you are and what you are, and therefore your identity.
NATASHA: You said it’s a very small part or a very large part. It’s a very large part?
ELIAS: THAT is a very large part. The very small part is the aspect of that core belief that influences you merely in your beingness, which as I expressed, at times that can influence how you express. But more so, your attachments influence how you express than the influence of that core belief in relation to your identity, to who you are, to what you are.
That aspect of integrity, without all of the attachments, would merely be this small aspect of yourself in your genuine identity that is a lens of how you perceive yourself, not necessarily how you interact with other individuals or what you do. That is more influenced by the attachments.
In the genuineness, that integrity does not necessarily include all of those judgments. It merely influences you in a gentle manner to allow you to be you, to seek out what you can find and define as authentic — which would be another term for real, but real is all around you. All that is expressed is real. It may not be genuine; it may not be valid...
NATASHA: But it exists.
ELIAS: Correct. Therefore, in this example, you can see that that core belief without the attachments does not incorporate those judgments. It merely influences you or encourages you in your own beingness to discover, to expand your consciousness in relation to authentic-ness or what is real.
In association with loyalty, the aspect of loyalty that does not incorporate the judgments, apart from the attachments, the loyalty aspect encourages you to naturally support — not in a matter of judgment but in a matter of beingness. That is a natural beingness of you, which would be an element of your identity. All of the attachments to that loyalty are not, but they feel as though they are. They appear as though they are. For you have expressed them so consistently so much throughout your focus, throughout your lifetime, that it is difficult to separate those attachments from who you are.
NATASHA: If you take the whole core belief and identity and how you think about yourself, and if you remove the judgment part, you get this natural identity part that we need to discover. So attachments are equivalent to judgments in this case, either good or bad. Correct?
ELIAS: Yes, and the subject itself is neither good nor bad, regardless of what the subject is. Thus, even integrity or loyalty, the subject itself is neither good nor bad. It is all of the attachments, it is all the associations and all that you have learned and all that you have been taught and all that you have experienced in relation to it that create the good and bad, that create those judgments of what is good and what is bad, which are very strongly influenced by your experiences — your good experiences and your bad experiences, which are your associations, that evaluation of what is good and what is bad. Those are the associations with the experiences.
In this, you posed the question of whether this action of channeling or the information that is being offered is weakening, so to speak. I would express to you, there is so much information that has not been presented yet, that you have not been ready to receive yet, that the flow of the information merely becomes stronger as it continues, rather than diminishing and become weakened.
In this, as you are moving intensely and generating more experiences in association with shifting and moving more fully into the throes, so to speak, of identifying more — more of yourselves, more of your world, more of your reality — whether you understand it all or not, you are moving headlong in that direction.
NATASHA: That’s what I don’t understand, because to me I’m not moving at all.
ELIAS: Oh, but you are.
NATASHA: I’m just feeling this numbness, literally!
ELIAS: I would express, the manner in which you can gauge that you are actually generating movement is the recognition that you are not entirely complacent, and you are not — that there is no interest in any direction, there is no curiosity in any expression, there is no wonder in any subject, there is no encouragement or push to decipher. Those are all very much present, and as long as those are very much present, you are moving and you are engaging this shift.
What appears to you as lack of movement is that you experience what you define as a lack of motivation, which is not actually a lack of motivation, it is a difference in motivation. Your motivations are changing. Therefore, it appears that you incorporate a lack of motivation, for you are defining your motivation in what was, “what I have always been.” There is a telling statement. That is the statement of the attachments to your identity: “what I have always been,” “what I have always done,” “that is me.” But it is not. It is what is familiar; it is what you have attached to your identity. It is what has motivated you, and it is what is not motivating you now. But it is not that you are not motivated.
NATASHA: I get it now. It’s very closely tied together, identity with the lack of motivation, because it’s kind of seeking for an identity, and old motivators are not working any more because you are not what you thought you are.
ELIAS: Correct, and therefore, no, you are not motivated to be generating or expressing or behaving in those old familiar attachments, for they are not genuinely you. Therefore, not knowing objectively what that genuineness of you is, you define that you are unmotivated. Which you are not, but that is a very real definition for what you are experiencing.
Now; in relation to the ongoing plethora of new information, as you are expanding, also information expands that can be offered to you. You are entering into a new phase, so to speak, and one of the aspects of this element of identity and attachments that are so ingrained in you, in all of you, is independence.
This, I will express to you, will be becoming a difficult subject, for this is a term that you very much prize. This is not a term that you view as negative. This is not a term that you view that you would willingly give up. This is a term, this is a concept that you strive for. This is a jewel that you view as very precious and that each one of you very much wants to hold and to keep. Those that view that they do not incorporate that jewel covet it. It is a very strong subject, and you are upon the brink of addressing to this attachment. This is an attachment; this is not your genuine selves.
NATASHA: Independence is an attachment?
ELIAS: Yes, very much so. Independence is the action of holding to and moving away from. It is the action of separation. Independence is the embodiment of separation.
NATASHA: So probably in real reality, there is no such thing as independence?
ELIAS: Correct. This is a significant subject, for you view being independent as very good and noble, and strength.
NATASHA: Strength to me is not as much being noble as being self-sufficient.
ELIAS: Ah, self-sufficiency! Let me also express to you that independence is not the lack of dependence, and the expression “to move away from independence” is not being dependent. These are two terms that you view very black and white, very opposite of each other. The movement away from independence is not the movement into dependence.
Independence is the embodiment of separation. It is in action the movement away from. It also is the movement of shutting out or receding from receiving. Therefore, it is also the movement away from receiving. When you generate the action of independence, you are generating an action of moving from, not moving to — moving from in general, but also from receiving. And you view this as very good. The more independent you are, the better you are.
What couples with independence very strongly?
ELIAS: That is how you define independence. You define it as being freedom. It is not. But this is the manner in which you define it. But what other expression couples very strongly with independence?
DANIIL: Well, that’s what in metaphysics many people term this ego. So much emphasis was placed on melting down and getting rid of ego. It was that independence makes you close, makes you more (inaudible). When I thought of winning the lottery, I discovered that I’m cautious about it, because I thought I already use money to pay for getting rid of personal problems. So if I win a lot of money, I will have no problems, but I may lose my entire context. I’d be so independent I will be out of touch with life.
ELIAS: Excellent point, which most individuals do not consider.
But what does very strongly couple with independence? The more independent you become, the more what you become?
ELIAS: Perhaps, perhaps not.
NATASHA: More disattached.
ELIAS: Yes, but the more independent you become, you also become more responsible. You are responsible for yourself; you are responsible for your environment; you are responsible for all that is around you; you are responsible for all that you perceive belongs to you or that is attached to you. For if you are entirely independent, you are responsible for interacting with, caring for and maintaining whatever is in your charge, whether it be objects or individuals or creatures or any manifestation. It is in your charge. You are entirely independent, and therefore, you are more responsible.
DANIIL: If you have a company, you have to take care of employees. You have to take care of assets. You have a big house and you have to take care of that. You have investments, boats, whatever, and you have to take care of all that.
ELIAS: Correct. Even if you are not generating large amounts of manifestations, even if you are choosing to be an individual that incorporates very little possessions, so to speak, but you perceive yourself to be entirely independent, you are responsible for what is within your perceived charge. Even if what is in your perceived charge is merely a wagon with a few objects that it contains.
NATASHA: To me, independence is totally different than what you are describing as responsibility, that you are responsible for this and that, whatever or whoever. I see independence as not being responsible for anything, but that’s probably me. What I’m seeing also in what you are saying about independence and associations is that there is no such thing as independence, actually.
ELIAS: Oh, there is independence!
NATASHA: What you just described, all these responsibilities, these are attachments and things that are attached to it. There is no true independence.
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct, but it is very real in your reality and in your perceptions. You are correct. It is an illusion, but it is also very real. It is an attachment.
Explain how you would define independence or responsibility as not being associated with each other, and that the more you are independent the less responsible you would be.
NATASHA: That’s how I view it ideally.
ELIAS: How would you express that?
NATASHA: I wouldn’t need to do any of those things that were just described. I wouldn’t need to take care of everything. With just my will, I could do anything.
DANIIL: So you are saying you wouldn’t have to go to work?
NATASHA: Of course. I could do just...
ELIAS: No, this is not what I am expressing. I am not expressing hypothetical or theoretical or concept. What I am expressing is what you actually do in your actual existence now.
NATASHA: Independence is associated with responsibility, is taking care of things.
ELIAS: Yes. Ideally or conceptually, you are correct. There is no independence, and therefore, there would not be those attachments. In that, responsibility would not be associated. But you are existing in this reality presently, and you are moving in the direction of exploring more information and more of who and what you are, to move you into that position of recognizing what are the attachments, what is genuine — not what is real. For what is genuine, and that real and genuine freedom, lies in that genuineness of who and what you are without those attachments.
Not that the attachments are bad or that they must be eliminated, but they can be recognized as what they are, they can be recognized as attachments, and therefore, you also can incorporate the freedom to move beyond them or move outside of their constraints. These are very strong influences in your reality, in your existence. In prizing some of these very strong influences, it creates also very strong limitations.
I would express to you, it would have been futile for myself to present the subject of independence to all of you in previous years. You would not have understood. You would not have allowed yourselves to even accept the subject, for you were not yet upon the brink of your own discoveries of your own identities to allow you to question independence. Your automatic association with that word is good, is freedom. Independence with you is synonymous with freedom.
DANIIL: This goes beyond money or exchange, right? I can think of an example where someone had a lot of money, who always paid his way, and felt himself separated. Then somehow the person loses all his possessions, and he has to accept donations. He can’t be that responsible in the old sense to everybody else, and that makes him more accepted, more open. It relaxes him a little bit, right? That is more like it starts with the outward. But it doesn’t have to start with money and be about money, right? It goes much deeper somehow?
ELIAS: Correct. It is not necessarily associated with money and it is also associated with money, for it is associated with ANY subject. It is associated with ALL subjects. Regardless of whether you incorporate money or you do not is not necessarily a bearing upon how you perceive yourself to be independent.
DANIIL: So what is lack of independence? How would I feel moving away from independence? Let’s say, in a relationship I am affected more by my partner, by my friends, that I am part of the same pool of energy somehow. It’s almost like losing identity, in a way, where this is breaking down the barriers somehow. But how would you describe that? How would I feel?
ELIAS: You are very correct. You are very close. For the letting go of independence is the movement into the recognition of interconnectedness. That does not invalidate or diminish your uniqueness or your identity. It expands it, for there becomes the genuine recognition that it is not necessary to be separated from, that there is actually more freedom in being interconnected. There is more power in being interconnected.
Let me offer you one very simple but very powerful example: essence. What is your essence name?
ELIAS: That identification of a different name creates a separation in your associations: you are you in this physical manifestation, and essence is some other manifestation. Theoretically, you intellectually understand that it is an extension of you or that you are an extension of it. But in either scenario, it is an it, and so are you. Therefore, there are two its. That is a separation.
The independence plays into that, that you are independent from that it. You are you. You are independent of that it that is essence, and there are many, many, many manifestations that are physically expressed that are each and all independent of that it. They each generate their own choices. They each incorporate free will. They express their own behaviors and ideas and directions. Not that this is bad, and also not that it is invalid or that it is not real. It is real and valid. But the more the independence is expressed and the more the independence is glorified and viewed as that prize, the more the separation is expressed, the farther the chasm becomes in the whole — the whole of what you are, the genuineness of what you are. For you have separated yourself in that independence from what you are, from who you are.
But the idea, the mere idea of relinquishing that independence is horrifying. What shall you be, a slave to essence? But you ARE essence! And in that, in your independence, you are already a slave to you, to your manifestation! Freedom does not lie in independence. The ability to continue to move away, to move from, lies in independence.
NATASHA: So let me ask you this. What is freedom, then?
ELIAS: Freedom is the genuine knowing of your genuine self and its interconnectedness, the boundlessness of yourself as all that is, the recognition that all is interconnected, that you are interconnected, and therefore, all resources are available to you. It is unnecessary to win the lottery, for all resources are available to you. They all ARE you. They all belong to you intrinsically.
When you are separated from, now you have created a structure where all is not belonging to you, all is not interconnected with you, and there aspects of reality that are removed from you. Therefore, there is the continuous push to strive in whatever direction. Even an individual that you term to be homeless strives, strives to attain.
NATASHA: Elias, let’s interrupt for now, and we will continue because we have more questions. Thank you so much.
ELIAS: Very well. We shall continue momentarily.
(Session time approximately 1 hour, 5 minutes; short break and resuming)
NATASHA: Thank you. So I have a follow-up question. What motivates your freedom when you are free? What would be your motivation?
ELIAS: Discovery. Exploration and discovery.
NATASHA: That’s why people like travel so much?
NATASHA: We just had a conversation with Mary. I can’t stop myself from asking you this, but in her current situation, how to apply this?
DANIIL: We were taking about if I am working, I can pay rent, I can pay for sessions, I can pay for traveling, and I can do whatever I want to do. But if I stop working, then it seems like I am moving into being dependent. In my understanding of you, dependency is a another form of independency, and you would suggest to move closer to everything and people trying to work it out. How would you comment on that? If we stop striving for independence, then how do we not fall into dependence? What is the new part?
ELIAS: Very well. It is not a situation of independence or dependence.
Now; let me express firstly that in relation to identity and interconnectedness, there is an element of value, how you value yourselves.
Now; this aspect of value in association with independence or dependence includes other individuals. For if you are generating independence, what are you independent from? You can express theoretically that you are independent from essence or from some higher power or from guides or from God or whatever you choose to express esoterically. In actuality, if you are generating independence, that includes other individuals. You are independent of other individuals. If you are expressing dependency, you are dependent in relation to other individuals. You are either independent of or dependent upon.
Now; in relation to your example in the recognition of independence and how it creates separation, it is a matter of recognizing that the solution to independence is interconnectedness.
Now; what does that mean? Interconnectedness is the genuine recognition, and beyond recognition, acknowledgment of your own value, and therefore how that is a part of relationship. If you must move in the direction of defining in opposites — which would be quite understandable, for your reality includes a base of duality, which you would term to be opposites, which I term to be complements, but it matters not — therefore, if you were to define what is the opposite of independence, it is not dependence; it is relationship.
Relationship is the reverse of independence. In relationship, you recognize supportiveness and interconnectedness. You recognize connection in relationship. Therefore, in relationship, it is not necessarily a matter of dependence. You incorporate the example of independence and responsibility and money, and if you do not incorporate the money, now you are forced, so to speak, into a position of dependence, dependence upon an outside source to be providing what you define as necessary.
Now; this is not a matter of redefining what you deem to be necessary. What you deem to be necessary in your reality and what you deem to be needed to sustain yourselves is very real, and beyond real is valid. Unlike what many individuals express in their perception of myself that I am far removed from your reality and therefore do not understand what is necessary or what is needed and the validity of that, I very much do. I have expressed recently, regardless of how you are shifting and what ultimate outcomes may occur in relation to shifting in association with exchange, presently you are functioning in the established structure of exchange. It is real and it is valid. Therefore in your example, in recognizing that independence sets the structure of separation, and in moving into the acceptance that letting go of the independence allows you to move into the interconnectedness, that moves into setting the structure of relationship.
In genuinely evaluating what your individual position is in relationship, how do you value your position, and do you value it equal to your independence? For if you value relationship, and you value yourself in your genuineness in your position as you merely in your identity, [it] is no longer a matter of dependency for it is a matter of allowance and receiving. Remember, independence moves away from, which it also moves away from receiving. Receiving is therefore viewed as dependence. It is viewed as acquiring from another source. You do not credit yourself with that. Therefore, you are dependent upon the outside source.
But if you are valued in relationship, all that you perceive as outside sources now becomes part of you that you can receive from any direction, now that interconnectedness is not separated. Therefore, if there is a perceived need or necessity, that can be fulfilled from any direction — be it another individual, it matters not, for the other individuals are also the interconnectedness. They are the relationship. You are ALL the relationship. It is, in a manner of speaking quite literally, the same as the relationship that you incorporate with yourself. Can you give to yourself? Can you receive from yourself?
You posed the example of an individual that is very independent, that incorporates their own company and the structure of that and all of their employees, and subsequently the individual does not incorporate money any longer. Previously, the individual was independent and also coupling with responsibility for all that is in his charge — therefore responsible for all of these employees, the building structure itself, the promise of the business, all that is involved with this business. This individual is responsible for and has built in the perception of independence. Now the individual incorporates the lack of money to sustain that independence and that responsibility, but that individual is not in existence in your world alone.
That individual, in their independence, in their responsibility, in their striving, in their building — just as all of you — has generated their contributions in that interconnectedness. Whether they recognize it or not, they have. Their very existence is sewn into the fabric of your reality. Therefore, if the individual can begin to recognize their own value in that fabric, each thread holds value. Without it, there is no fabric. If they recognize their own genuineness, their own value in their identity, and recognize that interconnectedness, that relationship that is the fabric, that lack of separation, they can allow receiving.
The allowance of receiving is the recognition that this is a part of what is intrinsically them, what they already own. Each of you IS that fabric. Without you, there is no fabric. You are intertwined. In that, if one thread of the fabric becomes somewhat unraveled, is the whole fabric unraveled? No. It continues to hold together.
Therefore, in your example of your individual and his company, he discovers himself with no money and therefore perceives no means to continue to generate that independence and responsibility any longer. But as that individual is not alone and has generated the contribution of the thread to the fabric, the other threads of the fabric in different capacities will become aware that this thread has in some manner begun to unravel. In a manner of speaking, it is as simple as the silkworm. If the silkworm is spinning its silk, it is aware if an aspect of that silk is unraveling, and it will mend it. It will glue it again.
In this, regardless of how independent and how secretive an individual may perceive themselves to be, to guard their independence, in some capacity — for you do not exist in this reality alone — that individual will generate, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally objectively, some action of moving some aspect of attention of the fabric to the aspect that is unraveling, and the fabric will move to mend the unraveling.
Even in situations in which an individual holds to their independence and their associated responsibility so strongly and generates such guardedness of it to a point in which that individual becomes so separated that the individual becomes so overwhelmed and so defeated, so to speak, that the individual chooses to disengage, or in your terms chooses suicide, even in that, the other threads of the fabric move together in tighter weave to mend the unravel.
Therefore, the question of importance is in each individual’s independence, what do they value more, the independence or their value? Are they valuable enough that they can trust the rest of the fabric? Or can they only trust themself in their independence to generate what the perceived need or necessity is?
DANIIL: So when you say trust the value, it goes beyond the capacity to contribute, right? Because it’s easy, theoretically speaking, for a young person, educated, talented, to immediately up and change their value. They can always find employment; they can always move from company to company. Even in a society without money they can contribute freely because they like to do it. With value, they can contribute and get money from it.
ELIAS: Is it? I would pose the question to you in manners of ratios and percentages. What would you estimate is the greatest ratio in percentages of individuals that separate, isolate and generate that hiding in independence to the greatest degree that they choose suicide? What age group would you venture is the greatest ratio? The very group that you express is the freest.
DANIIL: Why is that?
ELIAS: Why is that — for they incorporate less experiences than do you. Let me express to you, your greatest accomplishments are witnessed in your failures. Your greatest achievements are born of your failures or what you perceive to be your failures. In that, you incorporate more experiences, more opportunities to evaluate and to view and to even experience your failures, where you perceive you have fallen short, what you have not accomplished, what you have not done, what you have done that has not played out in the manner that you expected or in the manner that you wanted.
Individuals that incorporate less age, less time in this reality, less experiences, have also less failures. Therefore, they have less to view as accomplishments other than ideas, and many of those ideas appear to them to be very illusive. They are concept. They are not real. They cannot hold them in their grasp. Therefore, they also do not view their accomplishments or their contributions.
DANIIL: I guess I’m sitting here and I’m finding myself a little bit confused with different perspectives. Where is the value of potential contribution in terms of I can build something, I can create something, make something, whatever? And there is other value that is different, which is just because I am alive I have value, right?
ELIAS: Yes, yes.
NATASHA: So the first kind of value is, in my mind, somewhat illusive. Some people are born with certain disabilities and so on and perceive themselves incapable of contribution. Many of us supposedly will get old enough to not be able to contribute as much as we used to. I would suspect that the deeper value is still there and is more important.
ELIAS: Quite definitely, yes. That is the point. That is what is so very important, to recognize that value. This is also what prevents individuals, in their independence, from receiving. They value themselves, in their independence, for what they contribute outwardly, which is what you have expressed. In their independence, the more the individual is attending to themselves and whatever is in their charge, whether it be animate or inanimate, the more they are responsible for themself in their independence and responsible for all that is within their reality, their environment and what is in their charge, the more the individual attaches that as valuing themself. In this, once again, the independence serves as a separation.
Whereas, regardless of whether the individual has generated some significant contribution outwardly or not, how do they value themself independent of the independence? [By] recognizing that they are interconnected, that they are involved in this immense relationship and that this relationship is a part of them that can and will sustain them. But that is a matter of trust.
As I have recently expressed, that trust is very strongly influenced by what the individual believes in the moment. I am not expressing beliefs but what the individual believes. As I have expressed recently, believing is an excellent example of how easily and how strongly you do generate trust in any moment, for you genuinely do very easily and strongly trust what you believe.
Therefore, it is a matter of assessing what do you value in yourself. Do you believe that other individuals value you, do you believe that you are interconnected — that when one honeybee falters another moves into position, or do you believe that there is merely one honeybee and must generate the work of all the honeybees or cannot value itself?
DANIIL: There is also an aspect of this as a video game, right? I like to be optimistic, playful about this. I was born; I will die. I cannot do anything about those two things. I will die for sure, regardless, and now there is this period in between. That, on one hand, is important, because it is forever. But on the other hand, it’s part of such big picture that, as I used to think at least, whatever happens, happens, right? If I can find my way around to be comfortable, then I will, and if I have to experience uncomfortableness, then so be it. On the day I die, what I care about is that I left behind an interesting life full of experiences. So I try to move away from being so concerned with how rich or poor or how successful or unsuccessful this past behind will be. To me, it’s more valuable how interesting it will be and how many things I tried. My idea of this fabric seems to be okay, tomorrow I will be on the street begging for bread, but don’t worry, someone will give you bread. But it doesn’t have to be that desperate, right?
ELIAS: Correct. Yes.
DANIIL: One quick question perhaps is — (to Natasha) you may be mad because it’s not from this paper — but how do you see me and Natasha in terms of the real me? Give me few more things.
ELIAS: In what capacity?
DANIIL: We discussed what I am not. I am not those judgments about what I agree with and disagree with and all my loyalty things, but you mentioned one thing that I really am, and that is supportiveness. That’s a big part of me. Supportiveness to many things, right?
DANIIL: What else? How do you really see me? (Pause)
ELIAS: Incorporating a natural curiosity for intricacies. Yes, in relation to your core belief, an aspect of that would be associated with your genuine identity in a supportiveness. Another genuine aspect of yourself is curious in any type of intricacies. It matters not what it is, but the very intricateness of whatever it is or that it even incorporates an intricacy, which in your genuineness of you, all things do. (Laughter) I would express that you generate, which is genuinely you, a natural analytical quality, which is a complement to the intricacies. Therefore, you are inquisitive and intricate.
DANIIL: Thank you. And the same for Natasha.
ELIAS: A genuineness in you that enhances your core belief is passionate. You express passionately in whatever you explore. Whether it be comfortable or uncomfortable, good or bad, there is a genuine intensity and passion. Being consistently neutral would not be you, would not be a genuineness in you. I would express that were you to be consistently neutral for an extended time framework, it would be a definite signal that there would be some significant malfunctioning.
NATASHA: (Laughter) Maybe it’s a signal that I’m done here!
ELIAS: Perhaps. This is genuineness within you. This is an element of your identity, of who you are, of what you are, not an attachment. That can be generated in relation to attachments, but were you to take away all of the attachments, that passion would remain, that intensity in whatever you engage, that aspect of discovery in one more step, whatever it may be, the what can I see and how can I see passionately in one more step — which an easy example of that would be your music. You express engaging your music with your passion, but there always remains that one more step. How can I generate this passion in one more expression, in one more step, one more beyond, regardless of what it is? That is genuinely you.
NATASHA: But then you told me it is also a curiosity as well...
ELIAS: Yes, quite so.
NATASHA: That’s what I notice about myself in some aspects, an attachment, so to speak. Whatever I do, when I start to enjoy it a little, I tend to sometimes over do it, like eating, appreciation for food. Now, exercise, I try to watch myself not to overwork myself, but it is very hard. Where I really get the kick out of it is when I exercise to (panting) until I can’t breath any more. That’s when I get a kick out of it and I get pleasure out of it. I think I become present when that happens, especially with exercise.
DANIIL: And why did you create that hernia?
NATASHA: Yes, I created an internal hernia supposedly after an operation that I had the year before. I start exercising and I start enjoying myself and pushing myself this extra step and I have this pain, this muscle pain, and end up with a hernia. So how does it all relate? Now, my loving food, tasty food. I really have a taste for food, fine food, reading books about it, and me being the way I am, fighting all my life with that.
It is my passion. Whatever I do, if I like it, I do it. I tend to maybe over do it.
ELIAS: And that would be indulgence.
NATASHA: I like to indulge, yes.
ELIAS: And I would express most individuals like or enjoy indulging in some capacity, for this an action of being out of balance.
NATASHA: I know. You told me that.
ELIAS: Correct. But the reason individuals move in this direction of indulgence is that you generate a perception and an association that all is limited regardless of what it is — movement, food, air, energy, feelings — that feeling good is limited. Whatever you do, whatever you experience is limited. There is a limit. The reason that you generate this association is — what is an association? — it is an evaluation of experience with a judgment.
You experience what you enjoy, what you evaluate as good, and that generates a feeling. You FEEL good. You like that feeling of feeling good, and therefore, it is satisfying but it is not ongoing. It stops and starts.
NATASHA: That’s how you can distinguish between them, when it starts and it stops. When it starts, you feel good.
ELIAS: But you want it to continue. This is what creates the indulgence, is the lack of recognition that regardless that the feeling stops, it is not limited. The feeling can be recreated. The feeling can be continued, not continuously, but that it can be recreated over and over and over. But what you become stuck and unbalanced in is wanting to maintain the feeling ongoing, continuously, never-ending, and that moves into the indulgence. That is associated with the limitation: This stops; therefore, it is limited; therefore, I am limited. No.
Your body consciousness recognizes that it is unnecessary and that it requires a significant volume of energy to maintain feelings. Feelings require more energy. This is not good or bad. It merely is. It is the function. The body consciousness knows this. The body consciousness regulates. It starts and stops feelings, for it knows that within the duration of the feelings, more energy is being expended. Not that energy is limited either, but that the body consciousness is uncomfortable generating extended time frameworks of expending that energy to maintain feelings. Therefore, its natural function is to allow the expression of feelings temporarily — to start, maintain temporarily, and to stop, therefore allowing for regeneration. Not that there is a limited supply of energy, but energy is configured. It is necessary in a physical reality to configure energy. That is a process. That is a mechanism.
Therefore, regardless of the volume of energy that is available to you that you contain, it must be configured in manners to function in certain capacities. When you push to maintain certain feelings, what you are doing is you are fighting or you are opposing your body consciousness’ natural movement. You are fighting with it, and therefore, it creates this imbalance.
NATASHA: But how is it with exercise? I’m pushing and pushing and my body tells me I’m tired, but there is a certain flexible... Like my heart rate, I can go higher. I’m not sure when to stop. When I can’t pay the toll, I’m stopping, okay? (Laughter)
ELIAS: Which would be an obvious signal! (Laughter)
NATASHA: Now, to get me into this, I need to push myself to start moving. But once I start doing it, I am enjoying it. My question is am I present when I’m doing it?
NATASHA: I really feel good when I am doing it. Even though it is very hard, I’m tired and blah blah blah, I really do enjoy physical movement, the intensity of movement.
ELIAS: Let me express to you, you can maintain that much more efficiently, effectively and for much more of your time were you to incorporate the action in a more balanced manner, in shorter increments but more frequent, in which the actual time that you engage the action would be more and therefore the feeling would be maintained more than what you do when you indulge and you exhaust.
The point is the stop/start factor. The stop/start factor generates the association that you are not maintaining. You are stopping, starting, stopping, starting, and it also presents the illusion that you are not incorporating as much time, as much volume, when in actuality you are generating more.
NATASHA: Thank you so much.
ELIAS: You are very welcome.
NATASHA: We are almost out of time. (To Dan) Do you have anything else?
DANIIL: Some healing modalities such as Eric Pearl, he has a book. Your question was what, exactly?
NATASHA: A while ago, I was reading a book by Eric Pearl. He is a chiropractor. Just by manipulating with his hands, he is bringing some kind of healing that he is describing. He is trying to describe it from the point of quantum physics. Now, I just recently read the book of another chiropractor, Richard Bartlett, who does it physically slightly different. He is using a little bit different technique. But what I see beneath all this seeming difference in application, I see that they use... He also, by the way, this Richard Bartlett, he also describes health and brings the quantum physics into it, of the particle being influenced and behaving differently when it is observed and not observed. So my question is are they employing the same principle and using the same (inaudible), so to speak, and just the methods are slightly different?
NATASHA: Now I want to know how I can do it, how I can get involved, because his methods and Bartlett... I have the skeptical me in my head. What is going on at the moment when this healing occurs? I understand they are kind of facilitating, helping the other person...
ELIAS: Correct, directing energy. The individual that is receiving is allowing that and allowing themselves to move in conjunction with the facilitator. Therefore, they are allowing themselves to receive, and they are allowing the configuration of energy...
NATASHA: Who configures the energy?
ELIAS: The individual themself actually configures the energy, but they are generating that in accordance with the facilitator and how the facilitator is manipulating and offering energy. In a manner of speaking, it is very similar to an action of, let us say, you incorporate a ribbon and another individual is standing above you and is expressing instructions to you how to tie the ribbon into an intricate bow. YOU are tying the bow.
NATASHA: But you are getting instruction from this...
ELIAS: Yes. YOU are actually manipulating the bow. You are actually generating the action with the ribbon, but the other individual is, in a manner of speaking, offering guidance that you are allowing yourself to receive.
DANIIL: The other individual is the healer or facilitator and you are the receiver.
NATASHA: Does the healer or the facilitator, does this person know how he or she does it?
ELIAS: At times. Some individuals are aware. Some individuals have allowed themselves to genuinely pay attention and to genuinely evaluate and offer themselves information, and at times yes, they are aware of what they are doing in relation to energy and how they are manipulating it and are generating that quite intentionally. Some individuals are intentionally allowing energy to flow with an intention of healing and cooperation with the other individual but are not necessarily entirely objectively aware of what they are doing or how they are doing it.
NATASHA: They are just doing it.
ELIAS: Correct. It is not necessary for an individual to objectively know the mechanics of what they are doing. It can be successful in either direction. Whether the individual is aware of the mechanics or whether the individual is not, they can be equally successful. What is more important is the intention.
NATASHA: Let’s say, speaking about me, would I be able to do something that is on myself or help somebody? Would I be able to do it?
NATASHA: Anybody would?
ELIAS: Yes. It is a matter of becoming aware of energy, recognizing it as very real and tangible, not invisible and illusive but that it is very real and very tangible.
This is the reason that I have suggested to many individuals that incorporate a desire and a curiosity for healing and manipulating energy to practice actually SEEING energy, which in actuality is much easier than most individuals perceive.
NATASHA: I try. I just see an outline, that’s all.
ELIAS: Which is a beginning, and that is enough. That is a beginning. What you did was discount what you’re doing: “I cannot; I ONLY see an outline.” That is discounting, and that prevents you from moving further.
NATASHA: I think it’s something optical. That’s why I’m discounting it.
ELIAS: No. It is quite real.
NATASHA: But the outline on everything I see...
ELIAS: Yes, you are quite correct. Therefore, I would express, you DO see. You ARE doing it. And if you can view that surrounding any manifestation, any object, I would express to you that you are generating this much more naturally and easily than most individuals.
It is, in actuality, an easy action to incorporate. You are correct; every object in your reality incorporates an energy field, regardless of what it is. Whether you deem it to be living or not living, it incorporates an energy field. Living, what you deem to be living, for the most part incorporates a more complicated energy field, for there are more facets involved, and the energy field of living aspects changes, whereas objects generally remain consistent. But you already ARE seeing.
NATASHA: I just know how to look at things, that’s all.
ELIAS: I would suggest to you that you allow what rings true for you and not believe all that is presented to you.
NATASHA: I thank you so much.
DANIIL: I also read the same book, and I try to enter a state where my hands feel it. So when I feel it, it’s a very pleasant feeling. It keeps me focused, keeps me present, I would say. I like it. Sometimes I think of it as stupid, but I still like it. I like that state, but is that helpful?
ELIAS: Yes! Energy is very real and it is tangible. You can feel it. You can see it.
DANIIL: I was trying to help one friend of mine by visualizing the bubble of his energy around him and just somehow saying, “I want him to feel better, I want him to feel better,” and moving, kind of splitting his energy, making it wider and so on. Was I really sending him energy? Was I helpful a little bit?
Now; remember, that is also dependent upon how the individual receives it, but yes. Are you actually projecting that energy? Are you actually impacting? Yes.
NATASHA: I thank you so, so much.
ELIAS: You are very welcome, as always. I shall greatly be anticipating our next meeting and all of your curiosities. To you both in tremendous affection and great lovingness, my dear friends, au revoir.
BOTH: Au revoir.
Elias departs second half of session after 1 hour, 8 minutes
©2009 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved
Copyright 2009 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.