Sunday, October 22, 2000-2
© 2001 (Private/Alabama)
Participants:  Mary (Michael), Buddy (Zindu), and Lisa (Yaulyn).
Elias arrives at 5:31 p.m. (Arrival time is 20 seconds)

ELIAS:  Good afternoon! (Grinning)

BOTH:  Good afternoon!

ELIAS:  (Chuckling)  Proceed!

BUDDY:  You seem playful this afternoon!

ELIAS:  Ah!  And I may be! (Chuckling)

BUDDY:  All the better! (Laughter)  I asked you during our last conversation about a famous focus, and you told me to be searching.  When I asked the question, I thought I knew the answer, as probably you’re aware and accustomed to.  Lisa and I had an experience at the Alamo in this focus, and it was quite odd because of a gentleman that we met there and because of some feelings that we had there.  Was I Davy Crockett? (Pause)

ELIAS:  Not the actual individual, but another individual closely associated.

BUDDY:  I see.  Was that Daniel Boone? (Pause)

ELIAS:  No.

BUDDY:  William Travis?

ELIAS:  Yes.

BUDDY:  I would also like to ask ... Lisa and I have a feeling that she was connected with Queen Elizabeth.  Can you tell us what that connection was? (Pause)

ELIAS:  Chambermaid; lady in waiting.

LISA:  So I did die in her service?

ELIAS:  Correct.

LISA:  Poisoned? (Pause)

ELIAS:  Correct.

BOTH:  Cool!

LISA:  What was his connection with that focus? (Pause)

ELIAS:  In service to the queen in knighthood.

BUDDY:  There’s a picture that’s over your head.  Does that serve any significance to Lisa and myself?

ELIAS:  And what is your impression?

BUDDY:  My impression is that initially, I was one of the people in the background watching what was going on.  I bought her a card with a message in it, and she framed it and hung it on the wall.  We’ve seen that picture a number of times, and we’ve been drawn to it.  My impression now is that I’m the knight, and she is the person holding the sword. (Pause)

ELIAS:  There is significance in imagery; not in actual presentation of this actual picture, but in symbology, as a representation of interaction that you have shared in other focuses, and as a representation of a type of relationship.

BUDDY:  Oh, so I’m her knight in shining armor!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (Laughter)

BUDDY:  Given that, Lisa and I have been revolving around one another basically all over the world in this focus.  We’ve worked on projects that were the same project and have not met, that we know of, except one time earlier.

LISA:  These are very unusual projects — in the Middle East, for example; remote locations.  We actually met once in a church when I was a young girl.

BUDDY:  The reason I bring it up is because when we’re having sex, it’s very unusual that we don’t see streams of focuses.  I may see her as an adolescent, I may see her as she is now, or I may see her as someone from the distant past, and she sees me the same way.  We change physical appearance, and we’re both sensitive to it.  We both know where we are, and we see the same images.  It’s not necessarily limited to during sex, but it happens most often then.  So, can you comment on that, and tell us why it would be predominantly having to do with that?

LISA:  And what is it?

ELIAS:  Very well.  I shall express to you, the action that you are engaging is allowing yourselves to view different aspects of yourselves.  You are viewing other time frameworks, other focuses, other aspects of yourselves, each.

Let me express to you that all of the aspects of you each [are] expressed now within this space arrangement.  There are no different space arrangements.  There are no different time frameworks.  It is all now, and it is all here.

Therefore, all that you view to be as expressed in other focuses, as expressed in different aspects of yourself within this focus, they are all present now and within this space arrangement.  You merely view singularly, and view one predominantly.

Therefore, within the expression of most time frameworks, moment by moment, you view each other as one particular expression in that singular identification.

Now; at times, you relax your focus of attention, and as you relax your focus of attention, and you are not paying attention intensely to what you are viewing and allowing yourself this openness, you may also allow yourself to view these different aspects, which are all you and which are all present.

Let me express to you, your focus, as expressed within any one particular manifestation and the attention that is held in that manifestation, appears to you objectively to proceed uninterrupted.  You allow yourselves to think of your attention as an ongoing state which holds no interruptions.

In this, in actuality, you may think to yourselves of any manifestation as similar to what you have created objectively in your reality that you recognize as your motion pictures.  As you view a motion picture, it appears uninterrupted; a stream of movement.

In actuality, it is segments of pictures blinking, flashing, which creates an illusion of continuous movement uninterrupted.  Your creation[s] of your manifestations are very similar to this action.

They appear objectively to be a continuous stream uninterrupted, but in actuality, you are continuously blinking in and out and in and out, but this blinking is occurring so very rapidly that your attention is not noticing of it.

Now; in certain time frameworks, you relax your attention.  This continuous steadiness of stream of motion is held, as you hold your attention tightly in tension.  In that tension, you create a singularity of focus.

Now; as you relax that tension, that singularity of focus, you defocus your attention, and as you defocus your attention, you become aware of the blinking, and what you view is the movement of your attention from one area to another.

(Intently)  Now; this is not a projection of your attention to another space, and this is not the drawing to yourself of another focus FROM another space.

It is merely an allowance of yourselves to be viewing rapidly one focus to another focus, as you are allowing yourself to not hold in that tension to the singularity.  Therefore, you allow yourself to view many of the aspects of yourselves simultaneously.

Now; as to your question, in relation to why shall you create this type of action within these time frameworks in which you are engaging physical sexual activity together, this is quite understandable, in actuality, for you are defocusing your attention.  You are allowing yourself to concentrate merely upon your physical body functions.

This requires very little concentration objectively.  It requires very little of your attention.  You are not engaging thought.  You are not engaging concentration upon activities outside of yourself.  You are merely holding your objective attention in physical body functioning.

Your physical body, I shall express to you, requires a very small objective attention for its functioning.  You pay very little attention to the actual functions of your physical body, and they function quite accurately.  You do not pay attention to your physical breathing, to the functions of your organs.  Even in the manipulation of physical movement — as you walk, as you manipulate your appendages — you do not require thought and objective concentration to be manipulating the energy of your physical body consciousness.

In the physical action of sexual interaction or intercourse, you require very little objective attention, but you do not necessarily move your objective attention to other activities.  Therefore, you are holding a quantity of your attention in this action, but little attention is required, and in this, there is a great quantity of your objective attention which is not necessarily being occupied.  But it is relaxed, for it is not distracting itself into other activities or other communications.

BUDDY:  Makes a lot of sense.

ELIAS:  It is not creating analyzations.  It is not philosophizing.  You are not creating an attention upon the analyzation of emotion or thought.  You are allowing a free flow of energy.

Now; in this relaxed state — regardless of the physical body tension — in the relaxed state of attention objectively, you allow yourselves to become aware of the blinking, and therefore you allow yourselves to view other aspects of yourselves, of each other, and of your interactions.

Now; I may express to you also, both, that you may incorporate the recognition of this action that you incorporate easily as also an example concerning attention.  For in other expressions within your objective movement, you assess that it is necessary that you concentrate your focus of attention and that you may not be incorporating many actions simultaneously, for you do not hold the ability to be engaging many activities simultaneously, for your attention shall not accommodate that.  This is incorrect.  You offer yourselves clear, objective examples of how you may be manipulating your attention in many different directions simultaneously, and it functions quite well. (Pause)

LISA:  I want to ask some questions about ... last night, Vic asked you about co-creation, and she was kinda headed in one direction with that.  In our last session, I talked to you about an interaction that I had with Buddy near the fire.  There have been others, but that was the first one, so it really got my attention.  We created this single manifestation, or we became a single manifestation, and I was curious as to how that action was different than what Vic was describing as a co-creation, or is it different?

BUDDY:  We feel as though we merge together and occupy one space.  We feel as though even our organs and bodies and everything...

LISA:  ...are shared.

BUDDY:  And I apologize, but I have to excuse myself for a moment.

ELIAS:  Quite. (Buddy leaves the room)

What we were discussing yestereve is in relation to what you think of as group manifestations, and the identification that even though you may be creating imagery that appears to be a manipulation of a group in one direction, in actuality, it is similar creations in similar objective imagery that is expressed, but that each individual is creating their own expression for their own reason.

Now; as to an identification of what you express as co-creation, you hold definitions and beliefs concerning this term of co-creation which suggest that in this type of action, each individual participating is creating a partial expression, not a complete expression, and that the combination of the partial expressions creates one whole expression.

Now; as you are aware, in our discussion previously of yestereve, I expressed there is no actual co-creation.  I am expressing this quite literally, for individuals do not create a partial expression to be joined with another expression to create a whole.  You each create a whole yourselves.

Now; you may be creating in cooperation with another individual.  You may be in agreement and in cooperation with another individual, and you may be creating a mergence in which each of you is creating the complete experience, and sharing that experience with each other.

BUDDY:  We haven’t known each other in this focus for a long time.  Is that unusual?  I’ve never heard anyone else say that they do this kind of thing.

LISA:  I have a question related to that.  I assume we’re doing that because of our intents.  Why?  For what purpose are we doing that?

ELIAS:  You are creating these actions for the experience.  You are creating these actions as an exploration in conjunction with relationships, and how you may be exploring your abilities, and what you may be creating together in relationship with each other.

As to your question with respect to other individuals and the commonness or not of this type of interaction, let me express to you that each individual creates their own exploration, and each of you is unique.  Therefore, individuals may be creating different types of expressions of intimacy.

But as to the intensity, or the allowance for knowing, or the allowance of mergence in their individual experiences, I shall express to you that within this physical dimension, this is an experience that is greatly sought after and preoccupies many individuals in their search for their definition and identification of their soul mate, in relation to their beliefs. (Laughter)

I may express to you, this is not bad!  You all hold many, many, many soul mates, and each of them may be creating quite an intensity in your objective allowance for interconnectedness in physical focus.

LISA:  Is that what soul mate means?

ELIAS:  It is an identification of shared experiences and focuses.  This may be expressed in many different manners, not necessarily in what you term to be romantic expressions.  Some are.  Some are created in other expressions of intimacy.  The expression of intimacy between individuals, and the shared expressions of many of these creations of intimacy, is the identification of what may be defined as soul mates.  It is that expression of great familiarity.

LISA:  So my grandmother would be a similar relationship for me, a soul mate.

ELIAS:  In a manner of speaking.

LISA:  We hate that word (laughing) because of the romantic connotations.  Everybody is looking for their soul mate!

BUDDY:  It’s overused.

ELIAS:  And I shall express to you that you may be choosing to explore your response!

LISA:  In what way?

ELIAS:  Why shall it be repulsive to you?  It matters not.  It is an expression.  It is choice, and it is an identification of a belief in many situations, and it matters not.  All that you express within your reality is an expression of a belief.  One is not better than another.

Therefore, it is your creation of judgment that is expressed in your distaste for this terminology.

LISA:  Yeah. (Elias chuckles)  Pretty obviously! (Laughing)  Oh yeah.  Real quickly, I’m a religious focus, correct?

ELIAS:  No.

LISA:  No?  Emotional?

ELIAS:  Yes.

LISA:  Huh!

BUDDY:  Well, in that vein, I think I’m a religious focus.

ELIAS:  No.

BUDDY:  Emotional?

ELIAS:  Yes.

BUDDY:  I said last night that I was a religious focus, and everyone else said — it was like a chorus — no!  Emotional! (Elias chuckles)

As a Sumari, my intent is to create, to express myself through art — and my art is music, I’m a writer — and to affect other people, in one way or another, usually emotionally, through this art.

In my past, I’ve had a couple of people that are famous within this focus that have contributed to my life, and me to theirs, in one way or another, and I would like to ask if it’s because our intent is the same or if it’s because ... if you can tell me why these people and I have revolved around one another for almost 30 years.  The first was Kris Kristofferson.  We had a writing and musical relationship.  The second came along shortly afterwards, which was Willie Nelson, and we revolved around ourselves over about a 25 to 28 year period.  What’s the connection between the three of us?

ELIAS:  You allow yourselves to draw energy and expression from each other in a sharing capacity.

In this, you allow yourselves to offer to each other expressions that may be latent and not expressed in the other.  Each of you offers the other some expression that is beneficial objectively, and that may be a quality within the other individual but is unexpressed.

BUDDY:  That makes sense because Willie has said basically the same thing.  A question I would have along that line then would be this.

As I expressed last night and as I expressed a while ago when I was asking about the Alamo, I have an aversion to being famous.  I don’t want to be told that I was Alexander the Great in a past life.  So, this link that Kris, Willie and I have, is it that I’m contributing to them and they’re contributing to me, and rather than sharing the fame that they have, I choose to just be a contributor to them?

ELIAS:  Let me express to you, it is not a “sharing of the fame,” so to speak.  Each of you is creating of your individual directions and your choices, and each of you creates those directions uniquely, but each of you offers expressions to the other in some expressions that are unexpressed in the other individual.

These two individuals that you are identifying have chosen to be creating a direction of notoriety, recognition.  They choose to be expressing their creativity in a certain manner.  You choose to be expressing your creativity in a similar manner, but with differences.

What holds some importance in these other individuals’ directions does not hold importance in your direction.  Some expressions of your direction does not hold importance to them.  But each of you offers to the other qualities that all of you possess but do not necessarily express fully within each of your focuses.  Therefore, in a manner of speaking, you offer to each other a complement of expression.

BUDDY:  Great.  Makes sense.  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are very welcome.

LISA:  (Sighing)  I asked you about an essence name for a little girl.  Stoe was her essence name, and she was my really good friend’s daughter, and she was killed in a car wreck with her father.  This is the girl that called me Mamasita, and we believe Buddy was her father in Guatemala, because she remembered that also.  But shortly after he came into her life, my friend chose to separate from me, and within a month, the little girl had died.  Katie and I have talked about this, about agreements in energy, and how she must have had an agreement of some type.  What was her purpose?  What was going on there?  What was she doing?

ELIAS:  What is the nature of your concern?  It is a choice.

LISA:  I guess what I’m really wondering is, her time here in this focus was so short, and when she was here, I was very much in the center of her world, and then when I went away, she went away also, and I was wondering if those were connected at all.  More than a concern, it’s just a curiosity about whether there was an influence.

BUDDY:  Her father was also killed in the accident.

LISA:  And she was very close to him.

ELIAS:  I shall express to you that the choice to disengage held an agreement between those two individuals to be creating this action in cooperation with each other.

I shall also express to you, this is merely a choice.  As I have expressed to other individuals — and to a small one — the choice for disengagement is similar to the choice to be relocating yourself to another country within your physical dimension.  It is merely a relocation of your attention.

What holds significance for you is that this provides you with an opportunity to be examining your beliefs in relation to death, in relation to age, and in relation to relationships.

LISA:  How relationships?

ELIAS:  Death becomes more significant in your attention if it is the choice of an individual that you have created a relationship with objectively.

This concerns you, as it taps your beliefs in relation to age, and also, this has created an underlying concern, as it also taps your beliefs concerning relationships with individuals that you define within your terminology as loving — as you love them — that this sets into a motion an expression of fear that they may choose to be disengaging.

Your direction that you are presenting to yourself in this subject matter concerns your belief about your participation ... which it is not about your participation! (Laughter)

But you do hold a belief concerning your participation, and the suspicions that you place concerning yourself as to your choices and your behaviors and how they may be influencing another individual’s reality, and their choice to be creating this type of action, which you view to be quite serious and large.  You view some choices to be small and some choices to be large, in your system of measurement.  This type of choice you view to be large and quite affecting.

You are turning your attention to be addressing to this subject matter to assess how you create your reality, to define how you do not create other individuals’ reality, and how you do not influence other individuals’ reality without their acceptance.

LISA:  But that’s what I was really asking.  Was there some influence that we had agreed to?

ELIAS:  No.

LISA:  No.  But in the case of her father, yes.

ELIAS:  Yes.

LISA:  Okay.  What about her mother?

ELIAS:  Yes.

LISA:  Okay.  I have one other question that I’ve been meaning to ask for a while.  My daughter Holly is Sumari/Zuli, and my grandmother is Borledim/Vold, I think.  When Holly was a young girl, she had so many of the mannerisms of my grandmother.  There is a particular spot on my forehead that my grandmother always used to stroke, and when Holly was a little baby, we would lay down and she would stroke that spot.  There are other things like that, just little expressions that remind me of my grandmother that I see in her.  My question is, is that just something that I see because I’m focusing my attention in a certain way, or is that an expression of a relationship of some kind between my grandmother and my daughter?

ELIAS:  It is not a shared aspect, and it is not an expression that has been created as passed from one to the other.  It is an expression that is influenced by you in agreement with this individual.

Now; this is an example of influences that ARE accepted and ARE affecting in agreement and cooperation.

You have identified in relationship with the first individual some expressions that you view to be comforting, some expressions that you view to be less than comforting, some expressions that at times you view to be confusing, some expressions that you view in admiration.

Those identifications have been held within you and your attention and your energy, and quite defined.  Without verbal communication, you have projected that energy to the second individual — which has been accepted and has been manifest in agreement — that this is your assessment of objective expressions of closeness.  This is your validation to yourself of interconnectedness.

Therefore, in agreement and cooperation with you and your projection of energy, the second individual is compliant, which requires no thought and requires no concentration upon either part, so to speak.

LISA:  Okay.  I have one more question.

ELIAS:  Very well.

LISA:  I’ve been noticing this weekend that I am extremely interested in interactions and relationships — interactions, and my interactions with other people and how they work.  The quote for the gathering was to focus our attention on self and not be noticing the expressions of other people and what they may be creating.  But interactions are so important to me.  Why?

ELIAS:  For you are offering yourself information, and it is quite efficient at times.  At times, individuals focus their attention intensely upon interactions, and the observation of other individuals and what other individuals create, and how you create in relationship to each other.  For as you desire to be turning your attention to self, this may be facilitated at times through the viewing of other individuals.  You allow yourselves to view and assess the actions and movements and behaviors and beliefs of other individuals much more clearly and easily than you allow for yourselves.

Therefore, as you allow yourself a time framework of observation and noticing, you become familiar with behaviors, actions, understanding of movements, and in this, you ready yourself to be turning your attention to self and viewing those aspects within yourself.

Many times you may allow yourself to project your attention to another individual, and afford them permission for their behavior in areas you shall not afford yourself that same permission.  But as you allow yourself to participate in different types of interactions and the observations of other individuals, you view the mirrors, and you ready yourself to be viewing self and offering more of an expression of permission to you.

LISA:  So it’s just a more comfortable way for me to look at self.

ELIAS:  Yes. (Chuckling)

BUDDY:  I’d like to ask you, please, about something that happened to me a number of years ago.  It was in the middle of the night, 2:30 or so in the morning, and I was on the plains in Kansas.  I stopped on the side of the freeway because I was very sleepy; it was real early in the morning.

I’m not sure exactly what happened, but the first recall I have is that I rolled the windows down in my car, and I stuck my arm out the window, and where the arm crossed the plane of where the window would have been, it went into total darkness.  I’m not sure if this really happened, or if it was a dream.

ELIAS:  It occurred.

BUDDY:  It really happened?

ELIAS:  Yes.

BUDDY:  The other thing that I can remember about this occasion is that in my peripheral vision, in the right eye, every time I turned my head there was a teal-colored diamond-shaped light or object that remained in this peripheral vision.  Can you tell me what that was?

ELIAS:  You have pierced a veil of a dimension.  You have allowed yourself momentarily to pierce through this dimension into another physical dimension.  What you have viewed in your periphery is another aspect of you, that which may be termed as another focus of your essence, which occupies that physical dimension and not this physical dimension.

BUDDY:  What did I stick my arm into?

ELIAS:  The other dimension! (Grinning)

LISA:  Cool! (Laughing)  So his color signature is teal? (Pause)

ELIAS:  Similar. (Buddy says something inaudible, and Elias chuckles)

I may express to both of you great pleasure in your company!

LISA:  Likewise! (Laughing)

BUDDY:  We love you too!

ELIAS:  And I anticipate our continued interaction!

I encourage both of you, and offer my expression of energy to you each, and we may be playful together!

LISA:  Alright! (Laughing)  Thank you.

ELIAS:  To you each this day in great affection, au revoir.

BUDDY:  Thank you very much.  Goodbye.

Elias departs at 6:28 p.m.

© 2001  Vicki Pendley/Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2000 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.