Session 629

Sweala and Grelko, Part 1


“Sweala and Grelko — Part 1”
“The Myth of the Fallen Angels”
“You Even Create Other Individuals”

Sunday, June 4, 2000
© 2000 (Private/Phone)
Participants:  Mary (Michael) and Howard (Bosht).
Elias arrives at 1:07 PM. (Arrival time is 18 seconds)

ELIAS:  Good morning!

HOWARD:  Good morning!  How are you?

ELIAS:  As always, and yourself?

HOWARD:  I’m doing fine — much better after speaking with Mary, I must say!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  We enjoyed exchanging our wonderment at certain focuses we’ve come to know, and I was so pleased that she received the book on Sarah Purser in a good frame of mind.  I was concerned about that.  That woman is a marvelous artist! (Elias chuckles)  Thank you so much for leading me to look into that a little further.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome.  You may be acknowledging of yourself in allowing yourself to be offering these objective connections!

HOWARD:  I have, and I am, and it’s ... well, it’s been a wonderment!

I want to talk about a follow-up to the myth — which we’ve spoken of briefly, or at least I believe it was brief — regarding the fallen angels, and the reason I’d like to follow this up is that the way I see the current understanding of the fallen angels is more from a religious point of view, and not necessarily the correct meaning of the metaphor.  So, I have this little statement here which I would like to put out to you, and it goes like this.

What is the idea behind the fallen angels and the war in heaven that is spoken about in our legends and myths and written about in our sacred texts?  My book — We The Angels — is based upon this war, which you have said was bleed-through and distortion from another dimension.  I can accept your assessment because I can see the validity of the bleed-through.  Still, the fact remains that this theme is so widespread that it has become a myth in many cultures, and is included in some form or another in several religions.  Therefore, I feel it must have validity for this dimension also.

I realize the term “fallen angels” is a metaphor, and could be describing many things.  One could be that the Dream Walkers move into physical expression.  Another could be that the creator wishes to experience physical reality, where the thought of the thinker becomes a reality.

The third, which is the most prevalent and lineal-minded, cuts off all debate.  It states that the big guy had two sons, and he says to them, “Here is what I’ve created.  I want to retire and go fishing.  So, here’s the deal.  I’ll turn everything over to the one who has the best plan for what to do with my creation.”

So the first son says, “I’ll fine-tune this reality and make it into something I can be proud of.”  The second son says, “I’ll take this reality and make it everything you dreamed of, and I’ll dedicate its success to you.”

So the big guy didn’t take long to choose the second son’s plan, which upset the eldest son, thus birthing the war in heaven, the concept of good and evil, and the so-called “Law of One” — that is, service to self versus service to others — while establishing in a backhanded manner the idea of “as above, so below.”

Now, I find the third to be completely bogus because it is man-made and created only with one purpose in mind — to perpetuate the status quo.  The other two, however, are valid, because there are no strings attached and no predictable results expected.  Do I have it right, and if so, when did the idea of the fallen angels introduce itself to our knowing, and when did it get distorted?

ELIAS:  I shall express to you that in a manner of speaking figuratively, all three of your examples are applicable, the third being slightly more abstract in its symbology than the expression of the first two.

But as you view other-dimensional focuses and that you are all interconnected and there is in actuality no separation, you may allow yourselves to view that it is not unusual, so to speak, or even uncommon that you may be inserting certain ideas or creating certain philosophies within this physical dimension in relation to experiences that may be occurring within other dimensions.

Also, these ideas or philosophies are translations into your reality in the design of your reality.  Therefore, what may be occurring within other realities may not necessarily be associated in tremendous similarity to what you identify within your legends, so to speak, or your mythology in this dimension.  But as I have stated, you create a translation which fits the imagery and the design of this particular dimension.

As to identifications of creators and the physical manifestations within your physical dimension, you ARE essentially, in actuality, the creator.  Therefore, you are merely projecting into an expression of a physical reality, based on its particular design, YOUR creation.  Therefore, what you express within your ideas is also, once again, a translation of the knowing that you hold, and fit into the design of this particular physical dimension.

These concepts, so to speak, are not conflicting, for as essence and as consciousness, you incorporate other focuses within other dimensions, and you also are the creator and the creation within this particular physical expression.

As to the third expression or identification of myth, you may identify or recognize that all three participants — the father and both of the sons — are one being, so to speak.

HOWARD:  Yeah, I can see that.

ELIAS:  And therefore, the expression of all three is incorporated into one action and also is not necessarily conflicting, for the expression is offered as a creation and subsequently offered to the other two aspects of the self, which one expresses that it shall continue the creation in the choice of its design.  The other expresses that it shall continue the creation in acknowledgment to the creator.  Both expressions may be viewed as an acknowledgment and validation of self, and the acceptance of self and its abilities.

Therefore, in all three of these examples, you have created a type of imagery that is not inconsistent with the expression of essence.  It is merely a translation, and therefore also incorporates an element of availability for distortion; not necessarily that the explanations in themselves are distorted, but that they may be interpreted in an expression of distortion.

As to your identification of the fallen angels in correlation to the Dream Walkers becoming physically manifest, there is no inconsistency in this particular idea either.

As to your questioning of when the element or factor of distortion has been incorporated into this physical dimension, I express to you that at the point in which essences chose to become entirely physically manifest and designed this particular physical dimension in accordance with that choice, there was also created the action of separation for the purity of the physical experience in relation to the design of this particular physical dimension.  At that point would be the time, so to speak, in which the window was incorporated to be offering the expression of distortion, so to speak, as you began incorporating belief systems.

HOWARD:  I understand; I got it.  You have reaffirmed my original thought, I guess, ‘cause I did have thought creating in such a way that it was saying to itself — or to wherever thought originated — “Think of another way to be,” and by so doing, they separated themselves.  So, thank you.

ELIAS:  You are welcome.

HOWARD:  Another theme that I kind of wore out in the book was continuing with the axiom, “as above, so below.”  And it occurred to me some time ago, after some brief questions, that the idea of karma was an invention to try to make a link between the cause and effect in the physical world with something in the eternal realms.  That’s the way it’s written.  But I would probably say that the person who authored this or came up with this idea in the first place felt his actions were eternal, and then would have eternal reaction to it.  And so, karma was thus invented.  Is that kind of correct?

ELIAS:  Let me clarify.

Initially, the belief in what you identify as karma was created in association with the knowing of the natural movement of energy that you create — how you naturally manipulate energy — and in this, you naturally draw to you what you express.  What you project outwardly, you also seek to draw to yourself in a type of mirror action.

Now; in the knowing of that type of flow of energy, but within the expression of separation and the forgetting, so to speak, the incorporation of the idea of karma was inserted into your reality, not yet as an expression of cause and effect, but as an explanation for the movement of energy that you held an awareness of — and continue to hold an awareness of — in drawing to yourself like expressions to what you project.

Now; in subsequent time frameworks, you have expanded upon that belief and incorporated another aspect, which is the expression of cause and effect.

HOWARD:  Okay.  Very, very interesting!  I don’t know if you’ve had this question put in such a way that your clarification has come forward as clear as it has, but I certainly understand it exactly.  Wow.  That’s a good one!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  (Laughing)  I’m glad I asked it! (Elias chuckles)

I’ve had an ongoing ... I’m going to slip this subject into something a little more personal.

I’m having an ongoing problem with my publisher, and when I wrote this back in January, it was quite difficult because I was trying to determine where the books were being sold so that I might at least notify or call the retailers and see if they had any kind of program for book signings or if they would be interested, and I got a rather shocking reply that they had purged their records and they couldn’t help me.  And I was thinking, well, what’s going on between DeVorss and myself?  I wrote, “What can I do to help them, help me, and all the other authors?”  Then I said, “I’d like to buy them.  Are they for sale?  What’s going on there?”  I guess I can look forward and take total responsibility for this, and I can say, well, apparently this is something you wanted to create, but it strikes me that they are equally stuck in something, and I just ... if there’s anything you can clarify, I would appreciate it.

ELIAS:  Let me express to you quite specifically, Bosht, do not concern yourself with what is being created outside of yourself, but allow yourself to be recognizing in reality, not merely in concept, that the imagery that you are viewing IS your creation.

No establishment, no individual, no aspect of consciousness may be creating any expression with regard to you without your creation of it first. (Emphatically)

Therefore, you are inquiring as to how you may be helpful to yourself and to this company and to other individuals — other authors, other artists, so to speak — and I express to you once again, the most helpful expression that you may offer to other individuals, to corporations, to establishments within your reality, and to yourself is to be allowing yourself to genuinely move your perception into the recognition that you in actuality ARE creating all of these actions, that you are creating EVERY aspect of your reality.

There is — and you may underline this sentence.  There is no expression of your reality that any other individual creates.

YOU alone create your reality through your perception.

This is extremely important, for as you continue to view the surface imagery that holds the illusion that other individuals are creating any element of your reality, you also continue to discount your participation and your ability, and as you continue to discount your reality, you continue to frustrate yourself and limit your choices and limit your expression of your abilities.

You create obstacles in your movement, and the greatest obstacle that is placed in your movement is the expression that there are some elements of your reality that you in actuality are not creating, and this is incorrect!

HOWARD:  Okay.  I sure wish I could get that....

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha!  Let me express....

HOWARD:  I....

ELIAS:  I shall express to you, Bosht, that this is a very, very unfamiliar concept within your physical dimension, and it is extremely difficult for individuals to be expressing in actuality the recognition and the knowing — in objective terms — that you all do individually actually create every element of your reality.

This in itself is one of the most difficult hurdles, so to speak, in your movement into acceptance, but it also is a tremendous key — that you recognize within yourself individually the acknowledgment that there remains some aspects of your reality that you do not believe you create, for regardless of how intensely and seriously many of you express to yourselves and to each other and even to myself that you recognize and that you believe and that you know that you create all of your reality, these are words.

HOWARD:  Well, perhaps the word or the phrase “co-creator” ought to be changed to participant.

ELIAS:  You may substitute.

This terminology of co-creator may be incorporating a TREMENDOUS avenue for misunderstanding.  It may be incorporated undistortedly IN SOME EXPRESSIONS, but only in the realization first that all of your reality YOU are individually creating.  For the incorporation of this type of terminology of co-creator holds with it the assumption that other individuals or other aspects of your reality — even your weather — are entities in themselves that are creating your reality for you or with you, and neither of these actions is correct.

In this, I shall express once again, all of your individual, unique reality is created through the expression of your perception.  This be the reason that I speak with you so very frequently concerning this subject of perception, for your perception, as individually expressed by yourself, IS in actuality creating every aspect of your reality, EVEN your interaction and viewing of other individuals.

HOWARD:  Uh-huh.  Okay, I see that.  It’s ... well....

ELIAS:  (Chuckling)  Let me express to you that as you are interacting with Giselle each day, you are in actuality interacting with the Giselle that you have created through your perception, and beside that Giselle is actually, physically, molecularly, in solidity created another Giselle, which is the projection of that essence.

Therefore, you interact with two beings within your physical space arrangement, for the Giselle that you view is the creation of your perception, which is quite solid, quite physical, and holds the same solidity and physical expression as the Giselle which is created in physical projection that recognizes itself in that attention as Margot.

I express to you that your creation of this individual — this focus of attention of Giselle in the expression of Margot — is created or designed in relation to the blueprint that you have designed in knowing that expression, that focus of attention of that particular essence.  But the actual physical manifestation that you interact with is your own creation within your reality, and is quite another entity, in a manner of speaking, from the entity which is physically manifest in equal solidity and corporeal expression as the focus of that essence of Giselle.

HOWARD:  Oh, wow.  And of course, she sees me as she wants to see me.  We had a discussion about this, by the way, three nights ago. (Elias chuckles)  I expressed my displeasure over a loan we had made, and demanded that we get it back because our savings account had been depleted, and she said to me, “I’ve never seen you like this person before.  You’ve changed everything.”

That night, I didn’t sleep well.  I woke up in the morning, and for the first time that I can even remember, I had aching bones, and my shoulder blades felt like they had been broken.  I suffered through the day with it.  It was not a sharp pain — it was a deep ache, and my neck was sore.  I briefly thought that a focus of mine or someone that I’m close to had gotten their collar bone broken.  It went away, but it was a remarkable event because I had done nothing physically.

ELIAS:  I shall express to you that this is not an expression that you have incorporated in relation to another focus, but this is a physical manifestation that you have created in this focus of attention in response to your interaction with your partner and your movement in addressing to, in part, certain beliefs that you hold that have been influencing of your actions and interactions and your projections of expression.

In this, you have imaged this association with those beliefs in a type of chastisement of yourself within your objective reality, and that has manifest in the expression of discomfort and fatigue of upper torso, so to speak, neck and shoulders, as they are representative of your association with supportiveness or holding up of the central holding place, so to speak, for your beliefs, which you associate with your head.

HOWARD:  (Laughing)  Yes!

ELIAS:  Therefore, the imagery is translated into physical expression, that the holding place for beliefs that you align with or that are influencing of you becomes quite heavy, and the aspect of yourself that supports this holding area or holds it up, so to speak, in your physical terms, becomes quite weary of this expression, and therefore, you offer to yourself this physical feeling of achy-ness.

HOWARD:  Yes.  Well....

ELIAS:  Now; let me also express to you, in relation to this example that you have expressed, that what your partner has allowed herself to view is an expression that is projected by you yourself and is incorporated into her perception — or her configuration of you through her perception — with less of her own interpretation.

Now; you all create this action at different moments, so to speak, and you may express to yourselves figuratively, in a manner of speaking, that this is an action of another type of bleed-through; not of one essence concerning different focuses of that one essence, but in relation to one individual’s perception and creation of their reality of another individual, as designed by the blueprints of the other individual.

And within certain moments, an individual shall allow an expression of the other individual to bleed through or to be expressed without the veil of their own interpretation or translation, or with a much thinner veil of their own interpretation or translation.

Be remembering in our discussion this day of karma, you all hold an inner knowing, so to speak — which is an element of the remembrance — that there is no separation, and that you shall draw to yourself expressions in like kind, so to speak, of what you project.

Therefore, this is very influencing of how you create the designs of your perception in relation to other individuals, but you also allow for the other individual’s expression without your interpretation or your translation at certain moments, and within those moments, you express surprise, for you receive a projection of energy that you do not expect, for it is not of the design of your translation of the other individual’s expression through your perception.

HOWARD:  Right.  Well, that happened.  You used two words there that ... I received a big setback.  It was a very heart-rending thing.  I submitted a screenplay which I thought was marvelous!  I was already accepting academy awards for it, and I got a review back that just tore me apart.  I couldn’t believe it.  Now, you’re a playwright, or have had various successes in past focuses.  Everything he said is correct in terms of his criticism, but to rate the plot structure poor and the dialogue poor....

ELIAS:  Ah!  I shall stop you momentarily.  Listen to your words in your assessment of the expression of the other individual, for this serves as yet another example of how you create through your perception.

First of all, you express that all that the other individual is expressing, so to speak, in the critique is correct.  Therefore, you are offering yourself the....

HOWARD:  Well, may I say in my defense that it is correct from his point of view, but from my point of view, I felt that his criticism was that he wanted to see the twenty-fifth edit of the screenplay and not the fifth, and I don’t know.  I just couldn’t give it up, that’s all.  But I understand what he was talking about.  It’s just that I still think it’s going to be a marvelous movie.

ELIAS:  Now....

HOWARD:  And I did nothing wrong by perhaps embellishing too much.

ELIAS:  Ah, but you continue to not be paying attention to what you are expressing.  You are expressing judgment of self and expectations of self in relation to those judgments.

There is no necessity for defensiveness without judgment.  If you are expressing acceptance, you shall not express any type of defense.

HOWARD:  Got it.

ELIAS:  Therefore, as you allow yourself within any moment to notice that you are expressing or feeling or creating a thought in defense of self, you may also assure yourself that you are creating this in response to your own expression of lack of acceptance, and judgment.

Therefore, what I am expressing to you is, regardless of your objective expression of defensiveness, you have in actuality created the receiving of expression in like manner to what you project in expectation.

Now; you refer to myself in a focus held within this physical dimension, and I may express to you that critiques have been offered in relation to that focus and its expressions also, and at times, that individual expresses disappointment and discouragement, although I may also express to you that there is a greater expression of arrogance, so to speak, in false acceptance with that particular individual, in which no energy is offered to the acknowledgment in any type of judgment in relation to the expression of other individuals.  That individual himself turns that criticism, so to speak, entirely to self.

HOWARD:  Okay. (Sighing)  I’m just gonna stay with it, and maybe this author’s representative that has made herself known to me, I’ll watch how I interact with her since she’s brand new to me, and see if I can catch myself.

ELIAS:  Very well.  Let me also express to you an encouragement, Bosht, that you DO allow yourself to be recognizing imagery, and allowing yourself to be noticing objectively of how you are creating your own movement in relation to this project.

In this, you may differentiate yourself from the movement of that other focus of this essence....

HOWARD:  Oh, yes.  I just used that as an example.

ELIAS:  I am understanding.  I am acknowledging of you, for that focus does not allow itself to view its own movement, but merely turns this criticism and lack of acceptance upon itself.  Whereas what you are allowing yourself in this focus to be accomplishing is a recognition of the influence of your beliefs, and therefore offering yourself more opportunities and more of an expression of choice, not limiting yourself to narrow directions, so to speak.

Are you understanding?

HOWARD:  Yeah, I am.  Thank you for that clarification.  I thought you were referring to the fact that I ... to my statement, as if I was saying, “C’mon in, the water’s fine.  Let’s wallow in our grief for a while.”

ELIAS:  No!  Ha ha ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  You didn’t want to go there!  Thank you for saving....

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  LOL, I might add!

Vic’s note:  LOL means “laughing out loud” in computer lingo.

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  I’d like to ... I guess I have one thing here which includes both Margot and myself.  I don’t know where our time is, but I’m sure you’ll tell me.  I’ll skip over one, which is that I wanted to talk about where some current books, being channeled material, came from, and I’d like to go directly to the thing that Margot and I discussed also a night or two ago, and relate it to you, and see what you have to say about it.

One night about eleven years ago, Margot and I were doing a meditation.  We were sitting on the floor facing each other.  We had placed a stone ashtray on the floor between us, and in the ashtray was a candle and some smoking sage.  We were experimenting with this method of meditation, and after a while I said, “Someone is with us.”

I asked this person’s name, and after some tongue-twisting attempts, much like I’ve had with TFEs at other times, I finally got the name Grelko; G-R-E-L-K-O.  Then another person arrived who seemed to be a woman whose name was Sweala.

We then wanted to know more about them, and they said they were Lemurians who now live in our dimension; in our dimension, but in the inner earth.  But in the past, they lived in the Boynton Canyon area of Sedona, presumably in another dimension, and were friends of ours at that time.  I struggled with the names that we were, that we had, and I got Olzar and Frela.

We then went on to talk about what Lemuria was like in those days, and we found out — or I said by way of interpretation — that Margot and I were priest and priestess in this temple called the Temple of Illumination, and Grelko said very emphatically that the temples in Boynton are still there, although they look like rock formations to us.  So we got really excited about this and shared this information with our friends, and actually went to Boynton and saw the temples, with a little help from our pharmaceutical friends, I must say, but even so, they were there. (Elias grins)

And one evening during this time period, Margot herself had a long conversation with Sweala, and has expressed many times since that she has been in communication with her.  I personally have not been in touch in Grelko, although I feel his presence from time to time.

Now, there’s many things we would like to know about this, and it’s hard to know the questions now, but I guess the first is to confirm the identity of Sweala and Grelko and their relation to us, and the second concerns Lemuria itself and the presence of a Lemurian colony in the inner earth.

ELIAS:  I shall express to you first of all a validation as to your identifications and your relationship to them.

I shall also express to you, as I have expressed previously, the identification of this culture, so to speak, is associated with the creation of another physical dimension.

I may also express to you an acknowledgment of the manifestations, so to speak, of the focuses that occupy that particular physical dimension as also being manifest in this physical dimension.

And I may acknowledge to you in confirmation that there are other expressions of manifestations — within this space arrangement and this physical dimension that you recognize — than those that you objectively allow yourselves to view.

But within the action of this shift and your widening of awareness, you allow yourselves the objective ability to be eliminating these veils of separation that you have created within this physical reality, and allowing yourselves, in objective terms, to be recognizing much more of your physical reality and all of its inhabitants, be they of your similar design or not.

HOWARD:  Okay.  Well, Margot ... she would want this follow-up, I’m sure.  It was her impression, after all of these years, that Sweala and Grelko were actually focuses of ours.  I corrected her and said, “No, they were friends.  We were Olzar and Frela.”  Is that correct?

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct.

HOWARD:  And then you’ve acknowledged that they do physically exist in this dimension with us.  You didn’t comment on the inner earth thing, though.  Is that....

ELIAS:  Let me express to you that these expressions of other beings, so to speak, which inhabit your physical dimension may be expressed either in what you identify as your physical air or within solid matter of your earth.

HOWEIRD:  Okay.  Now, this is really a weird question!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha!  And we shall incorporate this very weird question as the final question of this session!  Ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  I will just simply say that Olzar and Frela are physically also present here, not necessarily as focuses of Margot and Howard, but they could be our neighbors.  Is that correct? (Pause, during which it seems that Elias is carefully considering this question)

ELIAS:  In part, yes.

HOWARD:  Okay!  I’ll work with that.

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  And I do appreciate your information regarding my self-limitations.  I think I’m also experiencing an out-picturing of that with the trauma that’s going on at the workplace with our machines and equipment, and maybe that’s another question.  I’m not gonna ask it, but it strikes me as similar.

ELIAS:  Yes, you are correct.

HOWARD:  Okay.  Well, I will let you go.  We have found one of your little counterparts; he buys papers from us now and then.  He gives us the greeting, “As always.”

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

HOWARD:  Which I had to chuckle at!  Strange little man....

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha ha!  To be offering you an objective reminder that I am always present! (Laughing)

HOWARD:  That I knew the other night, I can tell you!  I was pulling some thoughts together, (Elias laughs) and thank you for the comfort.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome, and we shall continue to be playful and investigating together! (Chuckling)

HOWARD:  Thank you.

ELIAS:  I express to you this day, Bosht, great affection, and you may be offering my regards to Giselle also.

HOWARD:  I will.

ELIAS:  I anticipate our next meeting, and offer to you great encouragement in energy.  To you this day, au revoir.

HOWARD:  Good-bye.

Elias departs at 2:14 PM.


(1)  Elias used the word “fitted,” which I have changed to “fit.”

© 2000  Vicki Pendley/Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

Copyright 2000 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.