Sunday, January 14, 2001-1 (Private/Phone)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Joe (Holden).
Elias arrives at 11:09 AM. (Arrival time is 25 seconds)
ELIAS: Good morning!
JOE: Good morning! (Pause) Elias, I’m in a rather abstract
mood here, so....
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha!
JOE: (Laughing) ...which you probably already know!
But if you don’t mind, I would like to have a general discussion about
essence and reality creation.
ELIAS: Very well. Choose your direction.
JOE: Well, it’s probably going to be scattered, so bear with me
here.
ELIAS: Very well.
JOE: I’m trying to discern exactly how encompassing an individual
essence creation is, relative, say, to other essences, and this is what
I’ve kind of gleaned from the information from different sources.
When you say that we create all of our reality, I take that literally,
that every tree, every blade of grass, every car that passes, every animal
that comes into sight we create individually as our creation. What
I’m not sure about is, if I’m sitting on a post and a friend of mine is
sitting on another post and we’re watching a car go by, we both see the
same car, or at least I think we see the same car, or something very similar
to the same car. We both agree that yes, the car is blue; yes, it’s
a certain model. But there are actually two cars that we’re looking
at. I’m looking at the car that I’m creating, and my friend is looking
at the car that he’s creating.
What I don’t understand and have no comprehension of whatsoever is,
at what level does this agreement come about, that these two things are
created each individually by each essence, but yet exactly the same? (Elias
chuckles) Deep subject, huh?
ELIAS: Let me express to you, Holden, this is a confusion that
most individuals within your physical dimension hold objectively, for you
are associating in familiar terms, and those familiar terms are expressed
in segments or separation.
This is the manner in which you have created this physical dimension.
This is the blueprint for this physical dimension, to be separating and
to be segmenting all expressions, all things in your reality, and all of
your associations. Therefore, as you turn your attention to questions
concerning consciousness and essence, you also associate in the familiar,
what is known to you. This is how you filter information.
In this, as you begin to turn your attention to concepts such as consciousness
or essence, and the concept of being all and creating all as consciousness
and as essence, the concept of all-inclusiveness and no separation does
not quite fit into what is known objectively by you within your physical
experience of this physical dimension.
Now; in viewing an example such as what you have presented, of two individuals
in the same space arrangement and same time framework viewing their environment,
and the same action of the same physical matter which is being created
— your vehicle which may be passing by, so to speak — your automatic association
and what is known to you objectively is to be viewing and assessing that
situation as an agreement, as you have stated, and as two separate actions
and two separate creations.
Now; how you move yourself into reconciliation with this association
of the lack of separation, but also simultaneously continuing to incorporate
some expression of separation ... which you are, for as you view yourself
in what you have expressed as creating all of your reality and creating
all of the expressions of it, but also creating an association that the
other individual is engaging the same action, therefore is creating another
reality of their own....
JOE: But is that the case?
ELIAS: This is what I am expressing to you. This is the
identification of your automatic association.
In this, in attempting to reconcile the lack of separation and the automatic
incorporation of separation — which you are, in a manner of speaking, grappling
with simultaneously — you create an association that there exists a third
reality, of which you express to yourself that both individuals are in
agreement or creating an agreement to simultaneously view that expression
of the third reality, and your explanation to yourself is that you filter
your viewing of that third reality through your individual perceptions.
Now; this is the basis of the confusion and the lack of objective understanding
of reality in its essence, so to speak. For in actuality, there is
no third reality, first of all. There is no official reality, in
those terms. Therefore, there is also no agreement that is necessarily
being created between yourself and the other individual to be viewing the
same experience or the same objects.
Now; this moves your attention and your curiosity in the direction of
your question. What is actually being created, and what are the mechanics
of that creation, and how is that expressed in terms of no separation?
In response to that questioning, I say to you, in the lack of separation
of consciousness, the expression of essence is merely a distinction of
aspects of consciousness that are expressed through the identification
of personality tones and directions of attention. In this, each distinction
of essence is a personality tone and a collective of attentions in certain
directions.
Now; once again I shall deviate slightly into an association of your
physical creation within your individual manifestations in this physical
dimension, for as I have expressed previously many times, what you create
in this physical manifestation, even to what you perceive to be its tiniest
detail, is an actual reflection of all that is in consciousness.
I have expressed previously, this is a highly unique and intricate physical
dimension, for it does incorporate a precise and intricate reflection of
consciousness as being all that is in a physical translation, which creates
an ultimate expression of diversity and complexness in this physical dimension.
Now; in this, you may look to your physical body expression and consciousness,
and as you look to the expression in physical matter, the physical translation
of energy in this manifestation, you may allow yourself to view a reflection
of essence and therefore of consciousness.
For as you create a physical body, you express many, many actions and
functions and directions and expressions within that physical form all
simultaneous[ly], and in all of the movement and functions and expressions
of this physical form, in one respect they appear to be specifically functioning
independently of each other, but simultaneously in harmony and cooperation,
and in a type of expression that is so very intricate that they may not
be separated from each other as the expression of the whole of the individual.
Are you following thus far?
JOE: Somewhat.
ELIAS: You may not separate, in your physical expression, your
emotional communication and expression from actual physical interaction
also. As you create one, it interplays with another.
You may not remove certain aspects of yourself and be you. All
that is expressed in your physical manifestation of you are all components
of you, and in the removal of any of those components of you, you are no
longer completely expressed as you.
In this, you are creating a physical reflection of consciousness, that
all of the aspects of consciousness are all components of one beingness.
Therefore....
JOE: One what?
ELIAS: One beingness. Therefore, returning to your example
of the two individuals viewing this event of a passing vehicle, in physical
terms, you are one aspect of attention and the other individual is also
one aspect of attention, and therefore you are each creating the entirety
of your experience and your reality.
Therefore, in a manner of speaking, you are creating the entirety of
the environment that you occupy. You are creating the other individual
to be an element in that environment. You are creating the vehicle.
You are creating its movement. In like manner....
JOE: So I would also be creating the clouds that pass by, the
trees in the distance?
ELIAS: Yes. In like manner, the other focus of attention,
the other individual, is creating the same action. All that is within
their perception, they are creating, including you.
Now; what becomes confusing in this association in physical terms is
your automatic association with separation and viewing that you are two
separate entities, and how you reconcile this within your thought process
is to express that you must be creating an agreement with this other individual
to be viewing the same physical expressions, and therefore, in that agreement,
your identification and definition of this situation is that you create
a collaboration, so to speak, or an agreement that you shall view the same
posts, the same trees, the same clouds, the same vehicle which passes by.
JOE: Yes. It would seem to me, at least from this viewpoint,
that there would have to be a consensus in order for us to both experience
basically the same reality, even though we’re creating the same thing.
ELIAS: And this is the familiar direction of association, for
this incorporates the expression of separation.
Now; I may express to you, in actuality there is no necessity for agreement,
for in actuality there is no separation. You ARE the other individual,
and the other individual is you.
JOE: But then how could we experience the same thing, but yet
differently through different perspectives?
ELIAS: For you are viewing through different attentions.
In the actual expression of no separation, and the recognition that
there are different directions of attention but that there is no separation,
there is no need for what you identify as collaboration. It is an
automatic expression, and it is known and accepted automatically that you
shall view the same experience or physical manifestation, for the most
part, for it is merely one physical creation that is being expressed.
The differences or the diversity of the experience in that creation is
expressed through the different directions of attention.
Now; you provide yourselves with evidence of that which I am speaking
of, even individually within your own individual, singular, so to speak,
experiences. You may incorporate a particular direction of attention
within yourself in an experience, and you shall perceive it in one manner
which shall create a specific, particular experience in that moment.
You may also create the same experience again, and move your attention
in a different direction, and your perception of the same experience shall
be different.
JOE: So basically — how do I put this? — the basis for no separation
versus individuality is simply the focus of attention.
ELIAS: Yes. This is what I have been expressing to many
individuals concerning other focuses of their essence, and it applies also
to the concept of essence and consciousness. They are not separated.
There are not individual sections or separated entities of consciousness.
But be recognizing that you associate through the blueprint of what
is known in this physical dimension and reality. All that you present
to yourself is filtered through what is known in objective terms in this
physical reality, and this physical reality incorporates separation purposefully,
and therefore you automatically associate in that known familiarity.
Therefore, the concept of the lack of separation is unfamiliar to you,
and presents to you in objective terms quite a challenge in your ability
to be assimilating an understanding of that type of reality, or the concept
of reality in those terms.
Now; this is also what I have expressed to you as the widening of your
awareness and the incorporation of the remembrance.
The remembrance, as I have stated previously, is not memory. It
is not the expression of recall or remembering previous experience, so
to speak, or previous state of being, in a manner of speaking. The
remembrance that I am expressing to you is the widening of your awareness
objectively to the point that you incorporate a state of being which KNOWS
the lack of separation.
JOE: It would seem to me, in just thinking about this, that we
try to hold on to our individuality within this dimension as something
totally and absolutely separate, whereas individuality in truth would be
a focus of attention within a whole, and not something separated from,
or in truth individual — and I don’t know how to put this — and separated,
so it’s not. In fact, individuality within all that is means something
completely and absolutely different from what this focus of attention would
... or within this dimension, the standard definition would be.
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct, in like manner to the lack of separation
of yourself as a focus of attention and all of your focuses of essence
in this physical dimension also.
Your natural association, your automatic association, is to separate
and view yourself as one individual in one time framework in one space
arrangement, and to view all of your other focuses of essence as being
separate individuals in separate time frameworks in separate physical locations.
You occupy this physical location of a particular continent, a particular
country, a particular state, a particular town, a particular home, and
in this, you associate a pinpointing of specific physical space arrangement
and a singularity and individuality of yourself, and you reinforce this
through the creation of one particular physical body expression, one focused
intent attention, and the creation of physical imagery that you define
as your specific environment.
In this, what you do not recognize is that all physical reality is expressed
in the same space arrangement. Therefore, as you begin to allow yourself
the recognition that although you may hold another focus of attention in
what you define as France in another time framework, such as your 1800s
within your linear time framework, you view that to be another individual
in another physical location in another time framework, and therefore as
separated from you. And if you are interacting with that other focus,
your assessment or your definition of your interaction is that you shall
be creating a physical projection of yourself to that time and space in
which the other individual occupies, or that the other individual shall
project themselves to physically be moving to your space and time framework.
In actuality, you are occupying no time and the same space arrangement.
Figuratively speaking, you may view all of these focuses of attention as
occupying one physical expression, one physical space arrangement, one
physical body, and that the attentions are superimposed upon each other
simultaneously.
Let me express to you, have you not — which I am aware that you have
(chuckling) — incorporated the experience within your one focus of attention
in which you allow yourself a moment to be facing yourself within your
mirror, your looking glass, and in a particular moment, you view the reflection
of yourself and you create a thought within yourself assessing that you
do not appear to yourself the same as you are accustomed to or that you
are familiar with, and that you may not objectively recognize what may
be expressly different, but you know in your assessment that you physically
appear different to yourself.
This is one focus of attention, and even within the one focus of attention,
at times you view yourself quite differently. You translate this
into quite objective, physical terms, and once again in what is known,
and also you incorporate the influence of your beliefs.
You may express to yourself in a particular moment, “I appear to myself
to look older today than I am accustomed to,” or “I appear to myself today,
viewing myself in this mirror, to be younger than I am accustomed to viewing
myself presently,” or “I appear to myself to be viewing my reflection as
brighter or heavier or darker or radiant.”
It matters not. The point is that even within one focus of attention,
you offer yourselves the allowance to view yourselves in different expressions,
and you question that only slightly, for you incorporate your beliefs,
which shall automatically offer you what you term to be a rational explanation
of what you are viewing, or you override what you are viewing through your
thought process and create an explanation to yourself in terms of rationale.
In this, I may express to you, all of these other focuses are present
within you in this one attention simultaneously, and you are present within
all of them, and each attention creates its own individual perception of
its location, of its environment, of its experience, of its interaction,
of all of its reality. They are all present within you.
JOE: Then, Elias, let me ask you this, and I think I’m following
pretty close to what it is that you’re telling me here. It would
seem to me that each individual focus of attention’s blueprint for experience,
although there may be a lot of leeway one way or another, is pretty well
set at the time of that attention’s incorporation into the experience reality.
(Pause, and Elias takes a deep breath)
ELIAS: In one respect, yes, but let us be clear.
In this, what you set, so to speak, into motion is, in a manner of speaking,
a particular frequency of blinking, which creates an actual focus of attention,
and in that attention, as you set the attention to a particular frequency
of blinking in and out, the attention of the blinking in becomes set as
a direction of that attention, which creates an exclusion in paying attention
to all of the other blinking in and out that you engage.
JOE: So each focus has a different sequence?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. There is a different sequence
or a different frequency of blinking. All of consciousness creates
different sequences or frequencies of blinking, which creates the attentions.
And in this, as the attention is established in certain attentions,
such as some physical attentions — and I may express to you, some nonphysical
attentions also — they are set into a motion and direction that allows
for the exclusion of the other attentions, and this allows for that particular
attention to create its own individual experience and direction, uninterrupted
and without distraction.
JOE: Would this explain, then, probable selves?
ELIAS: In which manner?
JOE: Well, if the focus of attention would be a single frequency,
but within that frequency ... and this is in my own terms too, in trying
to understand this. If each focus was a frequency, within that frequency
would be a myriad amount of sub-frequencies.
ELIAS: Correct.
JOE: So a focus of attention, as basically the carrier frequency,
could branch off and actually initiate a lot of sub-frequencies.
ELIAS: Correct. In this context, yes, you are correct, and
this also may be applied to the explanation concerning all of the aspects
of you, which are not necessarily expressed as probable selves, but all
of the alternate selves of you in one focus.
JOE: So basically, the only limiting factor would be the frequency.
Everything inherent with that, and the capabilities inherent in that frequency,
could be expressed.
ELIAS: Yes.
Now; in this, what you are moving yourselves into in this shift in consciousness,
in part, is widening your objective awareness to allow yourselves the ability
to be continuing to create a reality within this physical dimension in
the expression of individuality and in the expression of the one focus
of attention and its consistency of blinking, but also allowing yourself
to incorporate the expression of expansion in turning that attention to
be incorporating other blinking.
JOE: So basically, what I’m understanding here in objective terms
... let me see. Basically, there will be an overlap of frequencies
in the same blink? (Pause)
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. Let me express to you, it
is the noticing of the blinking itself that you are becoming more aware
of, which incorporates many different actions occurring simultaneously,
not merely the recognition of one action.
You incorporate this movement, this action of blinking, continuously.
But your association with your reality is that there is no blinking, for
it is uninterrupted and created in a flow in which you do not view your
own action of blinking in and out and all that you are participating within.
Therefore, in allowing yourself the recognition of the very action of blinking,
you allow yourself to be recognizing that you are incorporating in actuality
many attentions and many actions and directions all simultaneously.
Within your physical experience, it may be likened to a mundane experience
of yourself choosing to be incorporating an action of engaging in this
time framework your physical computer, and simultaneously you may be listening
to your music. You may be also engaging an action of interaction
with another individual. You may be incorporating the action of reading.
You may incorporate many actions simultaneously and hold your attention
in all of them. This is what you are moving into in relation to consciousness,
in movement within this shift.
To this point within your physical manifestations throughout your history,
so to speak, you have singularly focused your attention in the one frequency
of blinking, and created an association with that one frequency of blinking....
JOE: That we’ve expressed as a focus.
ELIAS: Correct, and in that, you view it as entirely uninterrupted,
and you do not recognize that the action of the blinking is occurring,
for there is no interruption....
JOE: So we view it simply as a singular thing.
ELIAS: Correct.
JOE: When in fact, there is a tremendous multiplicity.
ELIAS: Yes, and you are beginning to allow yourselves an objective
viewing, understanding, and allowance of participation with your attention
in this action. The....
JOE: So basically, I think in the past — and I might be wrong
as to the number, but the idea is the same — I had 51 individual focuses
of essence within this dimension. So each of those 51 focuses, although
they are actually the same essence, they blink, say, in the first century
or the 13th century or the 16th century, but they all occupy the same time
space.
ELIAS: Correct.
JOE: It’s just when the focus of attention is, say, within right
now, in the year 2001, at a specific date, at a specific second in time,
the attention of focus is there.
ELIAS: Correct.
JOE: At another point ... and it’s hard to incorporate this into
non-time. But in the time framework, at another instant in time, at a point
in time, I’m in the 13th century.
ELIAS: Correct.
JOE: Or the 12th century or the 18th century or whatever.
ELIAS: Correct.
JOE: But it’s all exactly the same essence.
ELIAS: Yes.
JOE: So that’s the way we incorporate this singularity of focus
within this time framework.
ELIAS: Yes.
JOE: Now, I still don’t quite understand how we incorporate that
... and I think it has to come to, we interpret individuality as separate
and apart from, when in truth, individuality, as far as essence goes, might
be ... it is certainly not the way we understand individuality to be, but
we would almost have to think of individuality completely differently,
as not so much set apart from, but part of and still separate. I
mean, it’s a tough concept.
ELIAS: (Laughing) This is the reason that we speak in terms
of attentions. Shall you place your attention in the direction of walking
across your room, or your attention in listening to music, or your attention
in interaction with another individual, and shall you express to yourself
that you are separate individuals in each of those actions?
JOE: No. The separation I would see would be in my interaction
with another individual.
ELIAS: And this is what I am expressing to you, that as consciousness,
the other individual is you also, and you are them.
JOE: But the other individual is consciousness in its own singular
attention.
ELIAS: Not singular. It is creating a singularity of attention,
just as your attention may be singularly created in focusing in an action
of reading a book or riding a horse or swimming within your water.
You are creating different actions, and your attention is directed in those
actions, but the actions are all being created by you.
JOE: Okay, then let me ask you this. If the actions are
being created by me, who is actually ... who or what ... is it the singular
action of attention who experiences the experience, or without an action
of attention, can all of consciousness experience the experience?
ELIAS: Ah, interesting question! For in the nature of consciousness
to be experiencing itself and its infinite creativity, it creates attentions
to explore its beingness, and this is what you are and this is what you
are doing, so to speak.
JOE: But on a singular level, I mean ... that would mean that
Elias is — at least in my understanding, correct me here — that Elias is
a singular attention.
ELIAS: Yes.
JOE: That Holden is a singular attention, and Michael is a singular
attention, and Shynla — all of them.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, and within that attention,
there are MANY attentions.
JOE: Okay. Yes, exactly. But as a singular attention,
I don’t experience what, say, Elias experiences. I don’t experience,
or at least I’m not aware of the experience of Michael or Vicki or....
ELIAS: For the most part, objectively, you are correct.
Although I shall also express to you, at times you DO allow yourself an
objective awareness of the experience of what you view to be another individual.
JOE: Well, that’s true. When I think about it, that’s true.
But the only thing that I’ve felt along those lines is simply a steadily
developing empathic sense. Am I on the right track? Is that
exactly what it is?
ELIAS: I may express to you, it may not necessarily be defined
as a “developing” empathic sense, but that you are allowing yourself to
be open to an awareness of that sense, and incorporating an allowance of
experience.
Now; in this, these in actuality are merely avenues that allow you to
explore and recognize more of you in objective terms.
JOE: More of me in what respect? As a singular focus of
attention?
ELIAS: Both as a focus of attention and as all of consciousness.
JOE: So basically, and I’m saying a deeper level, but that’s not
really a very good term, not in terms that we’re speaking of, since higher
and lower, left and right, deeper or shallower don’t really exist.
I just have to use that in order to try to express within a vocabulary.
But any experience that has ever been experienced by any part of consciousness,
as a singular focus or whatever, is available to all of us at any time,
if we allow ourselves the awareness of it.
ELIAS: Yes.
JOE: Pretty potent stuff there, Elias!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! (Joe laughs) And creates a tremendous
expression of availability for experience, does it not?
JOE: Yes, but it also brings ... are our belief systems actually
the fibers that weave this veil of separation that we incorporate?
ELIAS: Not necessarily, although I may express to you that they
serve to reinforce it. For the veil of separation has been created,
figuratively speaking, in your physical terms, through intention prior
to the incorporation of belief systems. This is the design, the blueprint
of this particular physical dimension, with the express purpose of creating
a purity of experience in a particular direction. Each physical dimension
is created to be allowing consciousness to explore its beingness in different
manners, in different expressions of creativity.
JOE: Following along that line, it would almost seem like our
term for infinite really just doesn’t have any meaning whatsoever.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Quite! Your term for
infinite and infinity continues to hold limitation! Ha ha ha ha!
JOE: (Laughing) Yes. I’m starting maybe to just get
a glimpse of what that limitation is.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha!
In this, I may express to you that within the design of physical association
and what is known in physical terms, without the incorporation of this
shift in consciousness and a widening of awareness, it is incomprehensible
to your objective understanding to view the vastness and the genuine infiniteness
of what you are as consciousness, and what consciousness is.
JOE: You know, I think I can get a glimmer, though. That’s
probably all that’s possible within physical focus.
ELIAS: I am not expressing that it is not possible within physical
focus. I am expressing that without the incorporation of your shift
in consciousness, it would be incomprehensible to you.
But as you are beginning to be recognizing, you ARE moving your awareness
into an expression of wider, and in this shift in consciousness, you are
beginning to allow yourselves movement into a slight objective understanding
of this vastness and infiniteness, and....
JOE: I think your term of slight covers it, at least in my respect!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha! But this is not to say, my friend, that
you shall not continue to expand your awareness and offer yourself more
and more of an objective understanding of these concepts.
JOE: Oh, I understand what you’re saying. I’m not negating
myself in any way. I mean, I’ve pretty much gotten past that, to
the point where I just simply observe, or try to without judgment, and
in doing that, I’ve been able to really be able to see things in much broader
perspectives, along that line of thinking anyway.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) And so you shall continue!
JOE: Well, Elias, I’ll tell you what — it’s fun! Sometimes
I get into these ... I start thinking along what we would consider to be
rather abstract lines of thought, and I like to follow them through, and
I really appreciate being able to discuss them with you.
ELIAS: And I express to you, my friend, that this is the point.
You are offering yourself information, and that information provides you
with knowledge, and that is the expression of becoming familiar with you
and with your reality and what you create and how you create it.
This is the point. (Chuckling)
JOE: Yes, indeed. Am I a final focus?
ELIAS: And express to me what your impression is!
JOE: Actually, my impression of ... oh, whether I am a final focus
or not, along the lines that a final focus has been explained?
ELIAS: Yes.
JOE: I think probably I am.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) Now acknowledge yourself that you are
correct.
JOE: Okay. It’s not that I really think it makes a whole
lot of difference. It’s just simply a designation.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) And you are quite correct in this association
also.
JOE: You know, I am really starting to be amazed, as an expression
or as a mental feeling or however you want to put it. I am really,
really starting to be amazed at the freedom that every individual focus
actually has.
ELIAS: Quite! You express a tremendous ability for freedom,
if you are allowing yourself that movement.
JOE: It also kind of brings a contentment, and with the contentment
comes an even greater ability to be able to express yourself.
ELIAS: You are correct. This may be expressed in terms of
ease and calm.
JOE: Yes, and in doing that, you stop blinding yourself to a lot
of choices that you actually have, at least it seems to me anyway.
ELIAS: You are correct, and this is another action of this shift
in consciousness, that you allow yourselves to be recognizing the tremendous
expression of freedom that is available to you, that you incorporate a
natural ability with.
JOE: Yes. It also ... I don’t know how to say this.
It doesn’t really ... good and bad really don’t have much of an impact
anymore.
ELIAS: I may express to you, my friend, as you continue movement,
you shall allow yourself to view that the associations of judgments in
good and bad and right and wrong become more and more distantly expressed,
in a manner of speaking, and less and less incorporated into how you express
your reality.
JOE: But then too, I also think that I see how the idea of good
and bad could lend itself to certain experiences, where without the idea
of good and bad, those experiences would be ... actually, I don’t think
they would exist.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) Ah, but this is the challenge and the
exploration that you are creating, the discovery of whether they shall
exist or not. (Chuckling)
JOE: But that even takes things a little bit further along in
this line of discussion — if they did or did not exist. You would
have to experience or align with the belief system in order to find that
out.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) In a manner of speaking, but not necessarily.
Be remembering, you are not eliminating your beliefs. You are
merely moving yourselves into an expression of freedom in relation to those
beliefs in which they are not automatically dictating to you how you shall
be creating your reality, and therefore denying yourself your choices.
You continue to incorporate your beliefs as a foundational element of this
physical reality even within the action of this shift in consciousness,
for it is a foundational aspect of this particular reality, and you have
chosen to design this reality incorporating these belief systems.
JOE: Elias, let me ask you something. This seems even more
abstract. For whatever reason, while I’m sitting here talking to
you, I kind of visualize a comfortable parlor with two big stuffed chairs
in it, and two old friends sitting around talking with each other about
abstract concepts. Do you have anything to do with that?
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! (Joe laughs) [This is] an association
that you are allowing yourself an impression of in relation to a familiar
experience in physical expression which is created in other focuses of
attention of these two essences. Yes, you are correct.
JOE: Okay. I think I understand pretty much what you’re
saying about the belief systems of good and bad. I’m at least getting
to the point where I can look at an action of another individual, where
that action was strictly based on their belief systems, and I can understand
that. I set myself apart from it and I understand it, but I don’t
necessarily align with it. It may seem like a little thing, but it’s
certainly different from where I was, say, years ago.
ELIAS: I am understanding of what you are expressing. Let
me express to you, Holden, you have created an actual different reality.
JOE: Okay, explain that. (Laughing)
ELIAS: (Chuckling) You have turned your perception.
You have offered yourself information and assimilated that information
and turned your perception, and in turning your perception, you create
an actual difference in your reality.
Therefore, it is not merely that you are associating with your reality
differently, for this implies that the reality remains a constant.
It is not that you are merely creating different associations with this
perceived constant as reality, but rather that you have incorporated movement
and a different direction of your perception, which creates an actual different
reality.
JOE: Okay, I can understand that. I’ll mull it over a little
bit further, but I’m pretty sure I’m on the same track and wavelength.
(They both laugh) I have one more question for you, Elias, and I think
we have time here with Mary.
These energy centers, these chakras, which I was going to explore with
you further today but I got off on this tangent of mine, does the central
focus and all of the probable focuses rely on the same energy centers,
or do each of the probable or alternate selves have their own energy centers?
ELIAS: Each probable self incorporates its own energy centers.
Each alternate self incorporates the same energy centers as you recognize.
JOE: Okay, so the same energy centers that I have would also be
affective of all alternate selves, but probable selves are actually almost
— I don’t know if this is the right term — a fragmentation that have their
own energy centers.
ELIAS: Figuratively speaking, yes, although they are not fragmented.
JOE: Yes....
ELIAS: I am understanding of your meaning in your terminology.
JOE: Okay. I know what I’m trying to say, but trying to
come up with the right vocabulary sometimes is a little tough.
ELIAS: (Laughing) Ah, the limitations of physical language!
JOE: Yes, indeed. (Elias chuckles) And I think even a mastery
of it, even a total mastery of it, would be totally limiting too.
ELIAS: You are correct. (Chuckling)
JOE: Well, Elias, as always, old friend, it’s been nice talking
to you.
ELIAS: And to you also, my friend, and we shall continue in our
discussions and your exploration of energy centers and all other subjects
of your fascination! (Joe laughs) Ha ha!
JOE: That’s a pretty wide-ranging order!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha! I express to you a tremendous affection,
my friend, and anticipate our next encounter. (Chuckling)
JOE: Until the next time we sit in our stuffed chairs in the lounge!
ELIAS: Ah, yes! (Chuckling) To you in great affection, au
revoir.
JOE: And you also.
Elias departs at 12:34 PM.
© 2001 Vicki Pendley/Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved
Copyright 2001 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.