Friday, May 12, 2000-2
© 2000 (Private/Phone)
Participants:  Mary (Michael) and Joseph (Dainel).
Elias arrives at 2:05 PM. (Arrival time is 22 seconds)

ELIAS:  Good afternoon!

JOSEPH:  Well, good afternoon, Elias! (Elias chuckles)  It’s nice to hear from you again.  I didn’t realize, it’s been about six months!

ELIAS:  Ha ha!

JOSEPH:  I’ve been reading a lot of sessions since then, and I hope I’ve come a long way in my understanding.  I feel like I’ve made some progress.  First of all, I’ve read up to session 300.  Occasionally I find questions that I had in my mind answered, so I wouldn’t have to ask them of you.  But there are many more things that I could not get answered from reading those sessions.

First of all, though, I want to thank you.  In that last session I asked you what the problem was with why I was getting headaches at work, and you gave me an answer, and I used that to try to change something about my thinking, and the headaches went away like magic.  It was marvelous!  It was like a modern-day miracle! (Elias chuckles)  So, I want to say thank you very much, and acknowledge that in this session.

ELIAS:  You are very welcome, and you may acknowledge yourself also! (Chuckling)

JOSEPH:  I asked you quite a bit, too, about problems I am having in my sex life, and you gave me a considerable amount of help.  I have a lot further to go on that, though; months.  There are many unresolved issues left there.

But before I take up that subject, I have a question that my friend George gave me some months back.  I don’t know if he still has it, but I’m going to ask it anyway, and you can answer, and I can relay it to him.

George says, “If you decide to have another session with Elias, would you please ask him whether I have fragmented again, since Patel calls me Miklos instead of Joffree,” which is what you had called George in a session, “and if so, what my family, alignment, and orientation are now, if they have changed?  Thanks.”

ELIAS:  This is not an identification of fragmentation.  This is in actuality — and he may be investigating of this — a naming in physical focus of another focus that his essence participates in.

JOSEPH:  Repeat the last two words?

ELIAS:  This is a focus in which that essence participates in.

JOSEPH:  Focus of essence participates in?

ELIAS:  Correct.  Now; let me express to you, in similar manner to individuals referring to Patel as Paul, the essence of Patel may at times refer to an individual in physical focus by a preferred name.  This is not an identification of fragmentation or of essence name.

JOSEPH:  Well, that explains something about Patel, but I don’t think it quite answers all of George’s question.  I don’t think he knows ... it still doesn’t say whether George is still Joffree, or ...?

ELIAS:  Yes.  He continues to be identifying with the same essence tone and aligning with the same essence families.  There is no fragmentation which has occurred.

JOSEPH:  Okay, okay.  So it’s the same thing you gave him then?

ELIAS:  Correct.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Well, thank you very much for that.

Elias, I have been wondering about the sexual orientation of intermediate, so I inquired of Mary — I talked to Mary about that — and she gave me a description which was quite a bit different from what I had been holding from the previous sessions, and after I had been thinking about it for a while, all of a sudden I thought, I know a couple of people that fit that description perfectly.  They don’t fit the description of intermediate from one of those early sessions, but they fit with what Mary described intermediate as being like.

So, I’m going to ask you if two people that I know are intermediate.  One is my very best friend, Warren, and the other is a co-worker, someone I work closely with, another stock person in women’s shoes where I work, and his name is Larry.  Would those two people happen to be intermediate?

ELIAS:  First individual, yes.

JOSEPH:  Warren is intermediate?

ELIAS:  Yes.  Second individual, no.

JOSEPH:  Well, that’s interesting.  What is Larry?  Is he common?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  There are two Larry’s where I work.  One is a salesperson, and one works with me in stock.  So you’re talking about the one who works with me in stock?

ELIAS:  I am identifying with the individual that you are referring to.

JOSEPH:  Alright.  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome.

JOSEPH:  Could you give me Warren’s families, the one he aligns with and the one he belongs to?  I would guess the Milumet.  I don’t know what the other one would be.  Am I correct?  This is Warren.  He’s my best friend.

ELIAS:  Essence family, belonging to Vold; alignment — yes, you are correct — Milumet.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Well, that’s good for that.

Next door to me is a very elderly lady, around 96, who lives with her daughter, Sister Bernadette.  I call her Bernie.  Bernie is a few years older than me, and she’s become my closest friend over the past two decades.  She’s been living with her parents and taking care of them.  Her father is now deceased, but she lives with her mom, and I have the strongest feeling that on some level, I made some kind of a commitment to being by her side; in other words, living next door to her and giving her the help and support and friendship, et cetera, et cetera, that she needs.  Do you want to say anything about this?

ELIAS:  I may express to you that you do engage other focuses with this individual also.

In one focus, you participate in the relationship of siblings, which influences this particular focus now, in your drawing to this individual and your desire to be helpful and interactive with this individual.

This relationship also provides you with an expression of interaction, which is a natural flow of energy that is consistent with your particular orientation [of soft].

JOSEPH:  I have a feeling, too, that my whole life will change once the mother passes on.

ELIAS:  The dynamic of the relationship may change, but I shall express to you also that this is a probability.  It is a choice, and therefore it is not an absolute.

JOSEPH:  When you say that Bernie and I are siblings in another probability, in another focus, and this influences our relationship, are we male and female like we are now, or is it some other gender?

ELIAS:  Male and female within that focus also.

JOSEPH:  Is that concurrent now in this ... is it another century?  When is this other focus that’s so strong?

ELIAS:  This other focus is occurring within the time framework of what you designate as early 1800s, within the physical location of Prague.

JOSEPH:  Wow!  That’s fascinating.  Was there a dependency there of any kind that was marked as unusual?

ELIAS:  You share a closeness with each other.  In your terms physically, as influenced by your belief systems, you may be identifying that you each create a type of interdependency with each other.

JOSEPH:  That persisted beyond childhood into adulthood?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  In the last session we had, you connected me with the key of F-sharp major, and I had questions about what kind of meaning this might have, and I’m wondering if I’m anywhere near the mark on that, so I’m gonna tell you what I’ve been thinking about.

F-sharp major, first of all, is a key that has as many accidentals as is possible — six.  Music written in that key is usually difficult to learn, and that could mean something that could symbolize something about a life packed with challenges and personal life difficulties.

Also, the key is peculiar because it’s right on an order of a change.  The same notes are used for G-flat major, so you can go from either F-sharp major to the other sharp keys, like to D major, then E major, or you can go in the other direction, F-sharp major to G-flat, and it goes down to the other keys.

This peculiarity seems like it has some symbolic significance to it.  It’s like a continental divide.  The symbolism seems to be betwixt and between, something unique and unusual.  I’ll let you express on that for a while, okay?

ELIAS:  I shall say to you that within this particular focus, the identification of this particular note or sound and its vibrational quality may be associated with you as an individual focus, and I shall also express that your impressions are correct, in that you align with this particular note, in a manner of speaking, in association with the design of your particular expressions in this focus, being changeable and not static, so to speak; that within this focus, you create much movement, and within your interactions, you also hold the expression of altering your movement in relation to situations and other individuals.  Therefore, the expression of the vibrational quality is, in a manner of speaking, a type of symbolic element which is descriptive of this particular focus.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Well, thank you for that.

I started getting bleed-throughs or affirmations about other focuses way back in the 60s.  I was intrigued when you said the shift started ... well, you said it’s been going on for a long time, really, almost centuries.  At one point, you said it’s been going on since the year 600 AD or something like that, but you also mentioned that it’s been going on since the beginning of this century.

Anyway, as I said, I started getting bleed-throughs or information more than 30 years ago, and it really totally dried up in the 80s some time.  I have a feeling, after talking to Mary about this, that the fact that I haven’t gotten any more information — spontaneously, I’m saying, ‘cause all that information did come spontaneously — is because my life settled down, and that information was stirred up because my life was ... things were so unsettled in my life.  I was making much more radical changes.  Like for example, for the past 20 years, I’ve been living in one place and having one job, and after I settled down into that, as I say, this stuff stopped coming to me.

I’m going to ask about each of the lives, but first I want you to comment about why these spontaneous connections with these other lives, or for that matter, other types of spontaneous information, stopped coming.  Is my impression correct?

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct — that in this, you, in similar manner to many other individuals, create what you may term to be unofficial information within time frameworks that you offer to yourself more reinforcement in noticing elements of yourself, and you offer expressions that may be, in a manner of speaking, helpful to you in a type of comfort, so to speak.

This allows you to continue to focus your attention in some manners and some expressions upon self, even within time frameworks in which your attention diverts strongly to occurrences and actions which are occurring outside of self.

In these time frameworks, such as what you are expressing presently ... and at times, it may be expressed with some individuals more strongly holding the orientation of soft, for what you are allowing is an extreme in the subjective communication that shall match what you perceive to be the extreme in the objective communication.

In this particular orientation of soft, you engage a continuous awareness of the objective and subjective movements.

Now; this is not to say that you hold an objective understanding of both of these types of awareness, or that you continuously hold an objective definition for either of these awarenesses, but you do hold an awareness of the movement of the actions and the directions of both of the subjective and objective awarenesses within one focus.

Now; let me qualify and express to you, not all individuals that have chosen the orientation of soft shall create this same type of extreme interaction and the matching of the subjective and the objective imagery or communications, but it is not unusual, in your terms, for an individual that is of the orientation of soft to be creating this type of action.

What is occurring outside of you and within your objective awareness appears to be unsettled, and in a manner of speaking, extreme, and therefore, in a response to that, you create a likeness in extreme with the subjective imagery and communication.  Therefore, there may be an allowance of more bleed-throughs, more recognition of what you term to be unofficial information, more activity in which you shall be objectifying subjective movement or communication, which may express itself within elements of your creativity, or it may express itself quite strongly within visualizations or dream state, meditations, even experiences associated with substances, which may appear more intense within those time frameworks than it may manifest within other time frameworks.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  I want to ask you, as I said, back in the 60s I started having these, and I remember I was in a sociology class in college, and there was a movie about widows, and all of a sudden I had the strongest image, or sense rather, that I had a focus as a widow in Canada that was unusual, because the person was extremely isolated physically from other people because of the location.

ELIAS:  You are correct.  I shall express to you that this individual occupied a time framework which you associate with the beginning years of your 20th century.

JOSEPH:  Early 1900s, in other words.

ELIAS:  Correct.

JOSEPH:  That’s what I figured.

Okay, I’ve felt for a long time, too, that my father and I had some connection during the early 1700s, and I connect that with Handel’s “Water Music.”  There was an occasion during the first performance of it, when a big crowd was on the banks of the Thames, as the music was being performed on the boats going down the Thames, and there is some connection between a rejection between my father and myself.  I was thinking about the father I have in this focus, who is now deceased, and I don’t know whether I was the father or if we reversed roles in this focus ... this is very hard to say.  In other words, in this focus, I’m the son and he’s the father, and in the other focus, it was reversed — I was the father and he was the son.  I think in both of these focuses, it was a case of rejection of one or the other, and I feel like probably I was the one who was rejecting more than my father, so that would mean that in this other focus, I dumped my son, so to speak, and in this focus, I rejected my father psychologically.  Do you want to tell me if my impressions are correct?

ELIAS:  Yes, your impressions are correct, and I shall express to you, I am quite understanding of your explanation.  You have created a similar relationship in reverse manner, and in this, do NOT move in the association of existing belief systems expressing karma, for....

JOSEPH:  It’s just that we try different experiences in different ways, using different types of relationships.

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct.

JOSEPH:  Yes, I understand that.  Can I go on to another one now?

ELIAS:  You may.

JOSEPH:  I’m wondering about my relationship with George.  Again, I was living with him from 1967 to 1976, and during the second year I was living with him, I saw him as a cleric.  I mean, it was visible to me, just as if I was standing there right next to him.  George is not a cleric now, and he was also at that time taller and thinner, and I had the strongest feeling that I was a heretic and he was an inquisitor.  Would you please confirm that?

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct, within what you identify historically as the Inquisition.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Another impression I had is that my present interest in astrology comes from my focus in ancient Egypt.  I have absolutely no idea what dynasty; you might provide that.  But also, there was an individual that I was connected with.  This person’s name is Richard, and I moved to Chicago and lived with him, and we couldn’t get along.

It was just such a violent relationship.  I had such an intense fear of him, groundless fear.  There was no cause for fear in this focus, so the fear must have come from another focus, but it’s strange.  I don’t understand, because I also have a strong impression that I was the murderer.  I murdered him, so why would I fear him?

Also, I feel that I was very high up in society in ancient Egypt, because I think the astrologer, or whatever I was, was very close to the Pharaoh.  Would you confirm any of this, and add anything more that you want?

ELIAS:  I shall express to you that your impression of another focus in that particular culture is correct, and your identification of yourself as an individual that studies the heavens, so to speak, is also correct.

JOSEPH:  Say that again.  I didn’t hear the beginning of that sentence.

ELIAS:  Your impression of yourself as an individual that is studying the heavens is also correct.  In this, your association with this other individual, and your....

JOSEPH:  Oh, I didn’t tell you — I think we were brothers.  Is that correct?  Were we brothers, Richard and me?

ELIAS:  In a manner of speaking, but not in what you would term to be biological.

JOSEPH:  Okay, just close.  More like friends?

ELIAS:  No, for you participated in the relationship of brothers, but did not share the same mother.

JOSEPH:  Okay — brothers, but not the same mother.  That’s interesting.  And was I the murderer?

ELIAS:  In that particular focus, you created an action which ultimately lent to the other individual’s disengagement.

Now; how that has been affecting in this focus, in your association with the individual in this focus and the reason that you have experienced this intensity of fear, is that there has been allowed an expression of energy within that individual which is underlying and is incorporated in a type of association in this focus.

In this, the individual does not express violently, but projects an energy that may be received in interpretation as threatening.  Are you understanding?

JOSEPH:  Yes.  Is that totally in this focus, or is it because of something that took place in this previous focus that is bleeding through?

ELIAS:  Both.  It is an expression of both.  That is what I am explaining to you.

JOSEPH:  Okay, so we had a very disturbed relationship in the Egyptian focus?

ELIAS:  I shall express that you have engaged an intensity of conflict.

JOSEPH:  Yeah, okay.  Was I in a high social position in that particular focus in Egypt?

ELIAS:  Relatively speaking, and I shall be encouraging of you, if you are so choosing, to be investigating of this focus further and offering yourself more information concerning that focus, for there are elements of that focus that do parallel this focus.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  My relationship with Richard is completely ... well, he has been gone for about 20 years almost.  There was a point when I just realized I couldn’t have anything more to do with him, ‘cause I would just get these violent feelings towards him.  Our relationship ended when I took a rickety old chair and knocked him over the head and broke the chair — it didn’t hurt him.  After that I just refused to have anything more to do with him ‘cause I just couldn’t get along with him.  But that’s almost 20 years ago, and it’s just a curiosity now, ‘cause it doesn’t really affect my life now.  Do you understand me about that?

ELIAS:  I am understanding what you are expressing, but this is merely one element of that focus which parallels this focus presently.  There are other elements of that focus that also parallel this focus presently.

JOSEPH:  So there are other influences that I’m going through right now that connect with that focus?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  Okay, that’s very interesting.

Way back in the 70s, I was painting, and one painting that I did, I didn’t think much about it.  I didn’t think of it as anything more than just imagination.  But since reading the sessions and hearing about how we have lives in other dimensions, I wondered if this painting was bleed-through from another dimension.

The painting is called “Scene on Mars.”  It’s basically a hectogon, with different elements of landscape, like trees and buildings, on different sides of the hectogon.  So, I’m seeing all the sides, I’m seeing upside down, I’m seeing little Martians that look like little wheels and spokes.  Can you confirm if my impression is right, that this is a bleed-through from another dimension?

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct, although it is not a dimensional focus that occupies that particular space arrangement of that particular....

JOSEPH:  Of the planet Mars.

ELIAS:  Correct.

In this, let me also express to you that your images that you have projected in your creation are translations into this dimension that you associate with, and are not entirely accurate, so to speak, in the design of forms of the actual focuses in that other dimension.  They are your translation and identification of those focuses.

JOSEPH:  Well, it wouldn’t really be possible to translate that dimension into this dimension.  In other words, I couldn’t really do a more ... well, let’s not say me.  Let’s say, a person couldn’t really do a more accurate translation, could they?

ELIAS:  You are correct.

JOSEPH:  Okay, let’s go on to another thing.

Back in Iowa City, and again in the early 60s, I met an elderly lady, Mabel, who insisted that I was the son she had lost in World War II.  That son passed away just a few months before I was born.  I’m just wondering if this is a correct impression.  I have a feeling that he died of starvation, and this bleeds through a lot into this present life.  If that is the case, was my name Junior Sandeen in that other focus, and did I really die in a Japanese prison camp of starvation?

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct.

Now; let me also offer you, in addition to this, it is quite common within this physical dimension that a focus of essence may many times associate with another focus which occupies a time framework in close proximity to the present time framework.

What I am expressing to you is that these types of focuses that occupy close time frameworks to each other influence each other in different manners than other focuses may influence you, for the influence manifests in memory.

It may not be influencing you in underlying issues or actions that you engage within this focus.  It may not be influencing you in relation to belief systems.  Where it may be strongly affecting is in the manifestation of memory, which may be exhibited in an intensity to the point in which it shall be or is almost likened to memories that you hold within this same focus.

JOSEPH:  Yes, I understand.

ELIAS:  In this, it may be affecting of you in certain expressions of certain fears or certain tendencies, so to speak.

JOSEPH:  Certain fears, like fears of my survival, like I’m scared that I’m gonna starve?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  The fear, or rather my tendency to want to save every little thing, and hate to throw away the least little bit of food?  Is that what you’re talking about?

ELIAS:  Yes, this is what I am expressing, and this is a different type of influence than other focuses ... may be affecting in your particular focus.

JOSEPH:  Okay, I’m going to go on to another one.  A couple of times I had some contact with the Greek culture here in Chicago.  One time I went with a Greek lover to an Easter service, and I couldn’t stop crying.  I just bawled and bawled during it, and another time I went with my friend Lauren to a Greek church, and we were given a private tour of the place, and again, I just started bawling like crazy.

So the impression I got which I want you to confirm or expand on is, I have another focus as a shepherd in ancient Greece ... not ancient ... well, maybe it is ancient Greece.  I’m not sure.

Anyway, I see the hillside and the rocky terrain all the time in my mind.  I don’t know the details of it, but there was some terrible tragedy, not too dissimilar from the widow in Canada, where I lost something that was so horrible that I can’t be reminded of it.  I’m trying to hold back from crying, even telling you about it.  Would you speak a few words about that?

ELIAS:  I am understanding.  I shall express to you, you are correct in your impression of this individual within that physical location, and this individual has participated in what you in your definitions would identify as tragedy, so to speak, in which the individual, in one time framework of the focus, has created an intimate relationship with another individual, and that individual disengaged.

This has created a tremendous expression of grief within your focus in that time framework, in which the expression is so very intense that the individual has chosen to be isolating of himself, and continuing within this expression throughout the focus.

JOSEPH:  Wait a minute.  I’m not following what you mean.  I heard the words.  Let me ask you if I understand you.  Are you saying that I created such an intensity of grief that I continue to have other focuses where I express the same thing?

ELIAS:  No.  Within that focus, the grief is continued throughout the entirety of the focus.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Was that like decades of intense grief?  It just never stopped?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Was that isolation and loneliness of the widow, was that also decades of isolation and loneliness?

ELIAS:  Many years, yes.

JOSEPH:  That seems to be affecting of a lot of things here in this life, or not affecting, but bleeding through.

There’s one thing that’s rather peculiar.  I’ve lost several beings that I’ve been close to in this life.  I’ve lost my mother, I’ve lost a cat, and I’ve lost a friend, Sonny Boy.  Sonny Boy was probably the strongest one.  When I found out from the doctor that he had AIDS and that he was about ready to pass away, I just went into a paroxysm of grief, where I just beat the floor for thirteen minutes, crying.

But the thing I want to express most strongly about is not that I suffered, but rather that I experienced; that life has many more ... that this present focus has things that are far more painful to me than grief.  In this focus, the grief that I relate to is simply something that I feel is an experience, even though I express so strongly.

Does that have something to do with that I’ve isolated the pain of the grief in other focuses totally, and I can’t experience it here without pain, or what?  Can you tell me, please?

ELIAS:  Let me express to you that an experience may be created in intensity in one or even more focuses of essence, and although they may be bleeding through and they may be identified by another focus, this is not necessarily to say that the experiences within those focuses shall translate in the same manner into the present focus.

What I am expressing to you is that you draw to you an awareness of certain experiences within certain focuses purposefully.  This is not always that you may be re-creating a similar action, but that it may be beneficial to you in creating different experiences, or that the assimilation of those experiences within other focuses may be beneficial to you in offering you information, drawing to your attention in this focus some element of your expressions that you choose to address to.

All of the energy that you draw to yourself from other focuses in bleed-through is beneficial to you, and purposeful, in allowing you an opportunity to view those experiences, to draw upon those experiences, and to offer yourself within this focus other choices.

JOSEPH:  I did that when I experienced these other losses in this focus.  I drew upon the other ones, and I didn’t experience such severe pain this time.  Is that what you’re saying?

ELIAS:  In part, yes.  You have offered yourself the objective viewing of other focuses to be lessening the intensity of similar experiences within this focus.

Some individuals choose to be creating this type of action within dream state.  They may be creating what you term to be a nightmare, that they may be experiencing the intensity of an emotion or a fear, and therefore shall not translate that into their objective waking state, and lessen the intensity of some experiences within their waking state.

You have drawn these experiences to yourself in one manner to be lessening the intensity of experiences that you participate within in this focus, and you also allow these bleed-throughs to gain your attention concerning yourself individually, and your own fear of aloneness.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Alright, thank you.  I’m going on to something else now, Elias.  There’s very little time left, and I have lots more to talk to you about, so I’m gonna have to have another session!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha!  You may continue!

JOSEPH:  I’ve had a cat for about a decade that just disappeared.  Her name was Bernice, and I shared her with my dear friend Bernie that I referred to earlier.  She lives in Bernie’s yard, and lives on my back steps part of the time too.  Probably Bernie misses this cat more than anything.  Fortunately, we didn’t see her carcass anywhere; that would have been a bad experience.  I don’t know whether she’s disengaged, or if she’s still alive and chooses another experience of being incarcerated by somebody.  Can you say anything about that?

ELIAS:  I shall express to you, within this present moment, the creature has not disengaged yet.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Would it be possible for me to find her, or does the cat want to be where it is?

ELIAS:  This creature is choosing to be occupying the space that it is occupying presently.

JOSEPH:  So, I should just let her be where she wants to be?  It’s best to leave her the freedom to be where she wants to be then?  In other words, not worry about trying to retrieve her?

ELIAS:  Let me express to you that in many situations, your creatures hold an intense realization and recognition of their own functioning and of their own choices.  This does not translate into thought and emotion in the manner that you associate within your focus of attention, but creatures recognize their choice to be continuing and to be discontinuing within physical focus.

Now; within this time framework, this particular creature has engaged an experience in which it is being physically affected.  In this physical affectingness, it has not created the choice yet to be disengaging, but is choosing to isolate itself within a time framework in which it shall allow itself to be creating the choice to continue or the choice to discontinue within physical focus, uninterrupted and undistracted by outside elements of....

JOSEPH:  It almost sounds like it wasn’t captured by someone.  It’s just free somewhere, where it’s living on its own somehow?

ELIAS:  Yes, and experiencing what you would term to be an illness, which is providing it with a situation in which it shall be choosing either to continue or not to continue within physical focus, but the choice has not been created yet.

JOSEPH:  So it’s like free and still alive, right?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  Okay.  Well, that answers that.  Thank you, Elias.

I’ve got another cat that lives with me.  It’s absolutely immense, and I have impressions, and I’d like you to correct them or confirm them.  My impression is that this cat came into my life at the same time that my friend Lee was living with me, and we both like very large people, not only for sex partners, but just generally.  We’re very small people.  Somehow or another, this combined energy of Lee and me projected into this creature.  That’s one possibility.

Another impression, a later impression I’ve gotten, is that this cat might have been a reincarnation of another one that I had saved from being starved, but who lived a very short life after that.  Could you confirm these two impressions?

ELIAS:  I shall express to you a clarification concerning your first impression, as to the association of your preference to large physical forms.  In this, it is not in actuality that you have projected that energy to the creature, and that therefore the creature is also large, but that you have drawn this particular creature to you, for it manifests in a manner that is a preference to you, and mirrors your preference in human individuals.

JOSEPH:  Okay, I understand you.  Does that have to do with Lee at all?  Did that strengthen the reason why I would draw this to me?

ELIAS:  Yes.

JOSEPH:  Okay, that answers that.  Thank you.

ELIAS:  As to your other impression of the reincarnational factor, I shall express to you, no, this is not another manifestation of that same consciousness.

JOSEPH:  Alright, that answers that very well.  One other question is — I should have asked Mary this, but I forgot.

A lot of times in sessions, you mention people that we term insane or mentally disturbed, and you tell us quite simply that they’re simply incorporating more of the subjective.  You don’t make a distinction, as far as I’ve seen in any of the sessions, between the way they’re incorporating more of the subjective and the way we will as the shift progresses and society changes.  In other words, I get the impression that this type of characterization or the expression of the behavior of these people is what we’re all going to be manifesting later on.  But I know it’s not true, so would you please clarify that?  Or tell me if it’s in a later session, and I can find it there.

ELIAS:  (Grinning)  Ha ha ha ha!

I shall express to you that certain qualities that are exhibited by these individuals that you deem to be insane ARE qualities that you are incorporating within the action of this shift.

You may allow yourself to be noticing one quality that is exhibited by these individuals that you define as creating mental illness — that they exhibit an ability quite proficiently to be holding their attention within the now and to themselves.  In this, you all shall be creating a similar expression.

Now; these individuals are deemed to be insane, for they create a reality which is unfamiliar and quite different from the reality that you participate in, in your officially accepted reality.  They occupy the same space arrangement.  They occupy the same dimension.  They occupy the same physical elements of reality, and they participate in your physical reality with the same components as do you, but their perception of reality is quite different.

And I may express to you, in these terms, you are correct.  The definition of your reality, as it shall be redefined within the action of this shift, may be quite similar to the reality that individuals that you define as insane are already participating within.

JOSEPH:  Oh, that’s really something!

Well, Elias, our time is way past, so I’m going to thank you very much for all of your information and clarification, et cetera.  I hope I can have another conversation and take up other things that I’ve not talked to you about.

ELIAS:  Very well!

JOSEPH:  Thank you very much.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome, my friend, and I anticipate our continued interaction and our discussions of intrigue!  Ha ha!

To you I offer great affection and encouragement in your continuation of your investigations.

JOSEPH:  Okay, thank you.  Good-bye.

ELIAS:  Au revoir.

Elias departs at 3:11 PM.

© 2000  Vicki Pendley/Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2000 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.