Saturday, January 20, 2001-2 (Group/Castaic)
Participants:  Mary (Michael), Ariel (Taniel), Ben (Albert), Bob (Syman), Bobbi (Jale), Cathy (Shynla), Daryl (Ashrah), David (Mylo), Debi (Oona), Donovan (Winston), Gail (William), Jene (Rudim), Jenaro (Archer), Jim (Yarr), Jo (Tyl), Laura (Alon), Liz, Lou (Barrah), Lynda (Ruther), Margot (Giselle), Nicky (Candace), Norm (Stephen), Paul 1 (Caroll), Paul 2 (Xutrah), Reta (Dehl), Rodney (Zacharie), Ron (Olivia), Rosie, Sharon (Camdon), Sheri (Milde), Steve (Anton), Sue (Catherine), Vicki (Lawrence), and seven new participants: Alicha (Lupele), Judy, Megan (Ambrose), Mercedes, Tom, Venita, and Yvonne.
Elias arrives at 2:47 PM. (Arrival time is 27 seconds)

ELIAS:  Good afternoon! (Various enthusiastic greetings in unison from the group)  Ha ha ha ha ha! (Everybody cracks up)

(Grinning)  I shall allow you an open forum this day, in which you may present your questions if you are so choosing, and I shall comply and respond. (Chuckling)

NORM:  Orientation for Dehl and Stephen?

ELIAS:  Very well.  Dehl, soft; Stephen, common.

NORM:  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome. (Elias chuckles, Vic starts giggling, and everybody cracks up)  Lawrence!

VIC:  Elias! (Laughing, and Elias chuckles)

RETA:  Well, I’ll take the next one, if no one is ready.  We were talking about the children that are making the shift go faster.... (Elias does a head-cock and everybody laughs)  And not only were we talking about it, but the other day, I saw it in two other books.  I haven’t read the books yet, but one was a Cayce Foundation book.  So the knowledge is coming out many places, all over the place, and the acceleration of the shift, and understanding.... (Elias starts to chuckle, and everybody laughs)

ELIAS:  Ah, Dehl! (Grinning, and everybody cracks up)  We meet again! (Applause, hooting, and much laughter)

RETA:  Well, we had 101, and we’re on 104 now!

ELIAS:  And I extend tremendous affection to you, Dehl, (grinning) in your continuous state of confusion! (Much laughter)  Ha ha ha ha ha!

Let me qualify and express to you that these nine children are not accelerating this shift in consciousness, nor are they expressing any movement that you are not expressing also.  They are merely representatives, and in this, they merely express an example of a shifting in awareness and a shifting in energy of consciousness.

But I may also express to you, you are correct that there is an acceleration of this shift.  As you move in this new millennium, you also are inserting this shift into your objective awareness and your objective expression of your physical dimension.  Therefore, it becomes more and more evidenced within yourselves and within your world, and information is being presented more and more, as I have expressed to you previously as so it shall have been.

RETA:  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are very welcome, my friend! (Chuckling)

CATHY:  Okay, I have a question.

ELIAS:  (Another head-cock)  Very well, Shynla! (Laughter)

CATHY:  You have to hurry up, you know, ‘cause people like get in there if you don’t! (Elias nods humorously, and everybody laughs)

I would like to know how an intermediate views a roomful of people, and don’t ask me how ‘cause I would be telling you if I had any clue, and I don’t!

ELIAS:  (Chuckling)  Therefore, I shall express to you what in actuality you DO already know!  Ha ha!

An intermediate individual may be interactive in a group, such as you are, and this individual shall allow themselves to be noticing individuals — not one entity, but allow themselves to gravitate to certain individuals — for the awareness of the intermediate individual is upon self, and therefore the existence of the group is unimportant.

CATHY:  Oh, that’s so true! (Laughing)

ELIAS:  HA HA HA HA HA! (Everybody cracks up, and Elias chuckles)

VIC:  I have a question since we have a little pause here.  I had an experience I’d like to get some input on.  I’ll make it as brief as possible.  It might sound nuts, and it is nuts, but this is the deal.

CATHY:  P-I! (Laughter) (P-I is personal invalidation)

VIC:  Well, it does sound nuts to me!  But that’s okay — it has my attention.  I went to the bank, and as I was leaving the bank, I had an exchange with a man, a security guard who was standing next to the door.  As I was leaving, he said, “Have a very good evening,” and he said it in such a way that it really got my attention.  I turned and I looked at him, and he smiled and nodded at me in such a way that it was really weird.  It was like he knew everything there was to know about me.  He knew me intimately — he knew EVERYTHING — and it was just this really intense moment, and as I walked to my car and drove home, I was really struck.

I guess it probably would have never come up again, except for that evening I happened to mention it to Ron, and I don’t even know why I would have brought up such a small experience, but when I did mention it, Ron proceeded to describe this man in detail to me, and to tell me that he had been at the same bank the day before, and had had the same experience in reverse.  In other words, he started the exchange with the man, but it was the same experience in reverse, and when he told me that, I knew that there was something ... there’s something in that experience.  There’s some information in that experience for me about how I create my reality.  I know that.  But I can’t ... I don’t know what else about it, and so I thought maybe you might have some input on that.

ELIAS:  Very well.  In explanation of your experience, I may express to you, what you have created, and also what Olivia has allowed to be created in that experience, is an expression of blinking, but with an objective awareness of the blinking, and involves a recognition, in experience, of the lack of separation.

In objective thought processes that you engage in attempt to explain and reconcile within yourself the concepts of the lack of separation of essences, of consciousness, you allow yourselves limited genuine objective understanding.  In this, as we have discussed many times, as you allow yourself an experience, you also allow yourself more of an objective assimilation of some of these concepts.

In this type of experience, what you create is an allowance of yourself to be aware of a momentary blinking.  This is not the type of blinking in which you may be projecting your attention from one reality to another reality.  This is a type of blinking similar to that which you may engage in relation to another focus, which we have termed previously to be a merging with another focus of your essence.

In that action, you momentarily allow yourself the experience of another aspect of you, another focus of you.  This type of experience is slightly different, but more expansive.

What you are allowing yourself to experience and view is an actual recognition of the lack of separation between yourself and another essence. This is significant, for it allows you an assimilation of that experience, and is helpful to your objective understanding that you create all of your reality.

The other individual is you.  The reason the other individual exchanged energy with you, and you hold an awareness that this individual is expressing a clear knowing in intimacy of you, is that this individual IS you.

In this, in the moment, you have allowed yourself to not be engaging your perception or your creation of the other individual.

As you recall, we have engaged conversation and explanation as to the mechanics of each individual’s perception.  This is slightly different in what you have created.

The usual action, in a manner of speaking, that you all engage in the mechanics of perception is to be interacting with another individual and creating your perception of another focus of another essence.  You draw a blueprint from that essence, and you create your own projection of that individual, and this is what you interact with.  This is the manner in which you create all of your reality and all that occupies it.

In this experience, you have allowed yourself to turn your perception momentarily and not be interacting with your creation of that individual. Therefore, you are not interacting with the individual that you have created from the blueprint of that focus of that essence.  You have momentarily dropped that veil of separation and are directly exchanging with the other essence, and as there is no separation, the other essence is also you, and therefore does know you intimately.

I have expressed to you previously, the one individual within your physical dimension that you do not know intimately is yourself, for you have created this veil of separation.  All other individuals within your dimension that occupy your planet you intimately know, and you interact with them intentionally as providing yourself with a continuous reflection of yourself, that you may allow yourself to intimately know you.

In this experience, in dropping that veil of separation as you being a separate individual, a separate entity from that individual, a separate essence from that essence, there is no longer the association in objective experience of the expression of separation.  Therefore, there is an unfamiliar encounter in which this individual is presented in genuineness AS you.

There are not separate entities of essences floating through the cosmos. There is no entity of the cosmos! (Laughing)  You all are aspects of consciousness.  You all are all of consciousness, and there is no separation, and in actuality, there is no differentiation.

You create an illusion of separation, an illusion of separate individual entities, for the purpose of the experience of this particular physical dimension and its design, and in your movement within this attention in this physical dimension, you create the imagery to fit that illusion, and you create this mechanism of perception, which is your projection instrument, which projects your energy and creates all of the aspects of your reality — all of the other individuals, all of the physical matter, all of your expressions.

In actuality, outside of the design of this physical reality, there are no expressions of separation.  Therefore, there are not the associations of separate essences.  The identification of essences is merely a designation of personality tones, and each of those personality tones projecting certain qualities.

You reflect this in your manifestation, in your individuality in physical expression.  You may express many different qualities of yourself as you, but they all are you.  They are not separated from you.  Consciousness is expressed in very similar manner.

I have expressed to you many times, this particular physical dimension is quite diverse, and allows for an extremely precise reflection of consciousness in all of its diversity ... and in your terms, complication! (Grinning)

Therefore, what you have allowed yourself is a momentary experience of a lack of separation, and in that experience, you incorporated an action of blinking to facilitate that allowance of that experience.  But in that blinking, as I have stated, you have not turned your attention away from this particular focus of attention.

VIC:  Right. (Short pause)  Okay....

LOU:  I have a question! (Laughter, and inaudible comments)  Thank you for the energy you’ve been sending me recently, but I’d like to know my vibrational tone color.

ELIAS:  And what is your impression?

LOU:  I get a light shade of blue.  Am I on the right track? (Elias laughs) I’m not sure, ‘cause I go to blue since I’m Sumari. (Elias chuckles)  But I’m wishing for a confirmation.

ELIAS:  You are correct, and you may identify this as what you express in this physical dimension as powder blue.

LOU:  Powder blue?  Oh, okay.  This is my friend, Alicha, and she would like to know her essence name, her family, her alignment, and her orientation, and how many focuses she’s had in this dimension.

FEMALE:  Go for it! (Much laughter)

ELIAS:  As you express within your physical dimension, all of the vital statistics! (Everybody cracks up)

JENARO:  Actually, he forgot type of focus.

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha!  Very well. (13-second pause)

Essence name, Lupele; L-U-P-E-L-E. (loo-pel’)  Essence family, Ilda; alignment in this focus ... alignment fluctuation.  In this focus, you choose to be fluctuating between an alignment of Sumari and Milumet.  Orientation, common.  Total numbering of focuses in this physical dimension, 1412. (The group murmurs, and Elias chuckles)

LOU:  I’d also like to submit a game piece.  In the waves of consciousness, on the ten belief systems of affectingness, in the category of truth, Sumari? (13-second pause)

ELIAS:  Acceptable.

FEMALE:  Ah! (Scattered laughter)

LOU:  Did somebody else have that too?

FEMALE:  That’s on target! (Elias chuckles, and a short pause)

BEN:  Elias, could you say something more about how more than one essence can contribute to one focus? (Everybody cracks up)

CATHY:  You had to go there, didn’t you? (Laughter)

ELIAS:  (Grinning)  And what is the nature of your direction in this questioning, Albert?

BEN:  How can that possibly work?  Is this a rare occurrence?  Does this happen with everybody?  Is it just to blow my mind? (Laughter)

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!  I may express to you, no, it is not rare. Relatively speaking, it may be viewed as common.  Essences may couple themselves together ... which is another expression of separation, in your associations! (Grinning)

But in this, essences may choose to be in cooperation with each other.  There may be two or more essences that may engage this type of choice, and as I have expressed to you, one shall be designated as the dominant or primary essence, and that essence shall be directing of the focus, so to speak, for the most part.

Now; in the common expression of this type of manifestation, for the most part, throughout the duration of the physical manifestation, that one primary or dominant essence shall be directing of the focus.  At times, there may be an exchange in which one of the other essences may choose to be expressing as primary momentarily, but this is much less common.  As I have stated, for the most part, one shall be designated as the dominant expression.

The other essences or essence that may be involved in this type of manifestation, generally speaking, do not express objectively; do not create objective interaction or objective expressions outwardly within the awareness of the individual.  Therefore, the individual, in a manner of speaking, basically may be associated with one essence.  The other essences or essence in each individual manifestation of this type are creating a cooperation for specific experiences.  They are choosing to be allowing those experiences without actual expression and interaction physically.

I may express to you also that in these types of manifestations, the individual is not experiencing confusion or a lack of identity or conflict within their identity.  The individual attention is directed by one attention, and therefore the individual identifies themself as one individual.  This is not an expression of multiple personalities, as may be designated in your beliefs within physical focus.  The individual does not experience those types of manifestations.

But at times, uncommonly, there may be a momentary exchange of position of the directing essence, and this may manifest in some differences of expression in which the individual may express a new, different inspiration, a direction of different type of experience, [or] may express in their own creativity a very different type of that expression.  As an example, you may be viewing an individual expressing creativity in an artistic expression.  We may express that of painting, for this is an easy example for your associations.

In that, an individual may be expressing a particular type of painting and design of painting throughout most of its focus, and within one time framework, which may be in your terms extensive — for months, may be for several years — it is dependent upon the choice of these essences in their exchange — and the type of painting expressed may be entirely different.  And in this, the individual shall notice, and may experience a curiosity as to the difference of their own experience in the expression of their creativity.

Objectively, the individual may express to themselves and to other individuals that they are curious as to how this type of painting is expressed.  It does not seem to be their own expression.  It is not familiar to them.  But the association of the individual themself shall not alter. You do not experience a feeling of being another individual or someone else. (Chuckling)  It is merely exhibited in some objective expressions that the individual may engage.  The individual maintains a consistent awareness and association of self in these focuses.

This is quite different from what I have expressed as exchanges of aspects of an individual, for the experience in those types of exchanges may be quite different, and the individual may experience actual personality alterations or lack of memory of previous experiences objectively.  But those are experiences that are created within the different aspects of an individual experiencing a projection of one essence.

BOB:  Does the secondary essence create a physical expression of his own, or is he just along for the ride?

ELIAS:  In these types of manifestations, the secondary or the other essences that choose to cooperate in this type of action are not necessarily expressive, for the most part.  As I have expressed, they may be at times, but this is much less common.

BOB:  So is the purpose of that ... and you said it was somewhat common.  Is the purpose of the secondary essence’s participation for a different type of experience than one which he creates himself?

ELIAS:  Yes.  This allows for the essence to be participating and experiencing a physical manifestation through the design and choice of another essence.  It does not interact in the choice of the primary or directing essence.  It does not move in objective expressions.  It is experiencing a different type of movement, a different type of experience, allowing itself to be participating in a physical manifestation, but viewing the creations of that physical manifestation from a different angle.

BOB:  So it’s experiencing a reality that it does not create, per se. (Laughter)

ELIAS:  (Grinning)  It IS creating a reality.

BOB:  By compliance.

ELIAS:  It is creating a reality of observation.

BOB:  But it doesn’t have any control of it.

ELIAS:  Its purpose is not to be controlling.  It is observing.

BOB:  And by choice, moment by moment, it could pull out at any time.

ELIAS:  Yes.  It is not to say that as any essences choose to be in cooperation with each other in a particular manifestation, that they may continue that action throughout the entirety of the focus.  This is the choice of each essence.

BOB:  And to some extent is sort of a deal that moment by moment has to be continually agreed upon.  One can’t just pull out after saying, “Yeah, I’ll come along for the ride,” and then go, “Nah, I changed my mind.”  You have to have some sort of agreement in consciousness....

ELIAS:  No.  This may be....

BOB:  So this primary essence could find themselves left high and dry by this secondary essence at some point. (Laughter)

ELIAS:  (Grinning)  In those terms, yes, for the primary essence is directing of the focus, and needs not the participation of the other essences to continue the projection and the creation of that focus.  The other essences are observatory.

PAUL1:  Are these other essences....

BOB:  So do you miss me?

ELIAS:  HA HA HA HA HA! (Everybody cracks up)  Always, my friend!

Vic’s note:  I sure miss these exchanges between you and Elias, Bob!

PAUL1:  I have a follow-up to that.  In this hypothetical case of an essence “along for the ride....”

ELIAS:  Ha ha!

PAUL1:  Is that essence necessarily engaged in a cycle of manifestation, or is it testing the water, so to speak?

ELIAS:  Generally speaking, that essence does engage in other manifestations and is participating in their own projections of attention manifest within your physical dimension, yes.

PAUL1:  And is counterpart action involved in this relationship, this essence mergence?

ELIAS:  Counterpart action is a continuous involvement within your physical dimension.

Now; there may not necessarily be the same counterpart action created between the observing essences as the directing essence.  The observing essences may be creating different counterpart actions, for the attention is focused differently.

PAUL1:  Good enough! (Elias chuckles)

VIC:  I have a quick follow-up on that too.  Is this action you’re talking about ... does this explain my feeling about this focus of Sweala that Margot has brought up in sessions, my feeling that this is a focus of mine?

ELIAS:  Yes, I shall validate in this questioning.  You are correct.

VIC:  Okay, thank you.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome.  And now you may rest!

VIC:  Yes! (Laughter)

ELIAS:  (Laughing)  I shall be initiating our break, and we shall return, and you may continue with your questioning.

BREAK:   3:31 PM RESUME:  4:25 PM (Arrival time is 17 seconds)

ELIAS:  Continuing.

RODNEY:  Elias, on the subject of counterpart action, most of our counterpart actions, as I understand it, are on a subjective level.  We’re not objectively aware that they’re going on, but if we have a situation where it moves into a relationship where both people know that they’re engaged in a counterpart action, it seems to me that if they’re drawn to each other, the development of dialogue around this counterpart action could actually enrich it, make the experience more fruitful, and I was wondering if you would comment on that.

ELIAS:  In a manner of speaking, for in the situation that both individuals hold an awareness of their counterpart action, they may allow themselves more of an objective understanding of their own experiences and their lack of separation.

They may allow themselves more noticing of their interactions — or the lack of physical interaction and the affectingness that may be occurring without physical interaction — which offers you information concerning self and an understanding of your interaction with other individuals, [and] acknowledges your ability to be understanding and creating experiences without physical engagement of participation or physical manifestations.

Individuals that hold an objective knowing of counterpart action with each other allow themselves, in a manner of speaking, an objective sharing of experiences that they engage singularly and together.  They offer themselves an objective awareness of the other individual within certain time frameworks, which allows for less of a separation in your association AS individuals.

RODNEY:  As you were saying that, what came up for me was, if two or three or four people wanted to engage in, say, the dream experiment, where they were lending energy to, let’s say, an exploration of lucid dreaming, if they were running a counterpart action, it seems to me that that implies a lack of separation, and selecting that kind of an individual to do that kind of exploration with would even heighten the exploration.

ELIAS:  Not necessarily.

NICKY:  Why?

ELIAS:  This is dependent upon the choice of the individual, and their allowance in an openness of their own awareness and their engagement of their individual periphery.

You may be engaged in a counterpart action with another individual, and you may create an objective agreement to engage in this type of activity, and you may not necessarily engage it easily or that it shall be facilitated more efficiently with that counterpart merely for the reason that you are engaging a counterpart action.  This is the choice of each individual and their allowance of their openness.

You may be NOT creating a counterpart action with another individual, but allowing yourself more of an openness to the energy of that individual, and therefore you may engage that type of experience more easily with that individual.

RODNEY:  Okay.  Thank you.

BOB:  Would that be because our counterpart actions are not necessarily some sort of objective cooperation, but maybe subjective agreements that create objective interactions, but those interactions don’t necessarily appear to be cooperative on an objective level?

ELIAS:  Many times, yes.  You are correct.  There is in some situations objective awareness and cooperation, but the action of counterparts is not dependent on that awareness.

BOB:  But sometimes they’re almost traumatic, in objective reality.

ELIAS:  At times, yes.

NICKY:  This kinda leads to what Mikey wanted me to ask.  He refers to , and he interpreted it to be that the rationalization and logisizing of one’s creation is typically an expression of a lack of acceptance of self, and when you logisize and rationalize a belief system, it can therefore be related to a lack of acceptance of self?

ELIAS:  At times.

NICKY:  At times?  Okay, then....

ELIAS:  At times it may be an automatic response.

NICKY:  Okay, which is related to...?

ELIAS:  This does incorporate an element of influence of belief systems, but you create many expressions within an individual focus which are automatic responses.  You are quite familiar with particular manners of creating your reality in your own expression of singularity.

You also create definite and absolute definitions of terms, of concepts, of actions, and therefore there is an automatic association in relation to these different expressions.  This is not always a lack of acceptance of self, but may be a familiar expression in relation to what may be identified as incorrect definitions of aspects of your reality.

NICKY:  So basically it’s the definitions, redefining our meanings of different words.

ELIAS:  Yes.

NICKY:  So he wanted to know, when you go into the direction of rationalizing or logisizing, objectively at what point in time, if there is a time, you can be aware of the balance between the two, of rationalizing and subjectively meeting of the two in decisions that you make, when you’re looking to do that?

ELIAS:  The manner in which you create this balance is to be paying attention to the avenues of communication that you offer to yourself.  This action of rationalization is a movement, a direction that you express within a thought process.  This is an action that you have created not necessarily in harmony with the function of thought.

NICKY:  Okay, so at what point in time, when you’re starting to think rationally and logically, when you’re wanting to blend the intuition and your natural impulses, at what point in time would one notice, to make a point of noticing and becoming aware of really wanting to make a blend of the two?

ELIAS:  There is no “point in time,” so to speak.

NICKY:  Is there not a blend?

ELIAS:  Yes.

NICKY:  Okay, what might that be?

ELIAS:  But this is not necessarily identified by a point in time, in a manner of speaking.  It is an action that you create in harmony, in paying attention to the avenues of communication that you incorporate within your physical focus, and creating a harmony of functions.

Thought is a function.  This is a creation that you have incorporated in this physical dimension to be defining and interpreting and translating other communications.  Thought in itself is a function.  It is NOT a communication.

This is one of the areas of definition, within your associations, within your reality, which has been turned, in a manner of speaking, and is misinterpreted.  For you define thought as a communication, and you pay attention to thought, and turn its natural function in an attempt to be creating thought in an expression that is not of its design.  This is your action of rationalization.

Your thought process is not designed to be overriding communications.  It is not a communication in itself.  It is a translator.  It is a function that you have created to translate communication and define communication.  The communications are expressed in other manners.  All of your senses are communications.  Your outer senses, your inner senses — these are communications.  Your impulses, your impressions — these are communications. Your emotions are communications.  Thought has been designed in this dimension to translate objectively and define those communications.

BOB:  Is it possible to make a mistake? (Laughter)

ELIAS:  (Grinning)  We have engaged this conversation!

BOB:  I was just trying to help! (Laughter)

RODNEY:  When you speak of communication, you are speaking of us communicating with ourselves.

ELIAS:  Yes.

RODNEY:  When we communicate one person to another person ... I’m at a loss as to how to go about doing that if it’s not through thought primarily.  And of course, I’m trapped in this thought process!

ELIAS:  You communicate with each other continually, and do not necessarily engage thought.  You communicate with each other through language, which is not necessarily initiated through thought.

At times you incorporate a thought process in relation to your verbal language communication, and in those times in which you are engaging a thought process in conjunction with your language communication with another individual, you are creating an action of interpretation and translation of communications that you are offering to yourself.  This creates a thought process, which you are also translating into language.

As you may not be offering yourself a communication in these avenues in a moment, and also engaging communication through language with another individual, you are speaking.  Your thoughts are not engaged.  Your thought process is unnecessary for your communication.

NICKY:  Well, then where is your vocal thing coming from?  What is that relating to, then?  If you’re vocalizing something, isn’t that coming from your thought process?

ELIAS:  Not necessarily.

NICKY:  Truly!  So where is it ... like what....

ELIAS:  It is another function of communication, and is not necessarily driven by thought.  You are not your thoughts.

NICKY:  Okay, cool.  Yeah, I can see that.  But like when you’re talking and you’re trying to express something and you’re thinking something, we ... I mean, that’s where I go.  I try to say it in my head, like here it is and how do I express it.  But that’s not really what’s going on?

ELIAS:  At times.  At times you do incorporate a thought process simultaneous to your verbal language communication, but not always, and it is not necessary.

NICKY:  Truly!  So how do you bypass that baby? (Laughter)  I’d just like to know!  ‘Cause I drive myself nuts with all these thoughts in my head! (Laughing)

RODNEY:  Are you saying that the verbal communication could be coming from my emotional function or from my intuitive function?  Am I using these terms correctly here?  I have a sense I’m not! (Laughter)  I’m trying to get a hold of where verbal communication ... I’m beginning to see that yes, I’m not thinking necessarily while I’m talking.

ELIAS:  Correct.

RODNEY:  But what I’m saying is still making sense, and I’m attempting to see, where is that coming from?

ELIAS:  For you are continuing in automatic associations, that one expression follows another expression, one expression is reactionary to another expression, and this is not necessarily the situation.

RODNEY:  I am saying to you, I’d like to know what part of me is creating this verbal expression.  Is that statement that I just made an automatic response to something?

ELIAS:  What creates your verbal communication is you as consciousness, and creating an exchange of energy with your physical body consciousness to create an action — mechanical — which is projected through your expression of language and verbalization.  You incorporate physical directions, physical interactions of your physical body consciousness.

What you are inquiring is, if my communication is not expressed through my thoughts, what is expressing my communication?

RODNEY:  Well, what I just heard you saying is that it’s coming directly from consciousness ...

ELIAS:  Correct.

RODNEY:  ... through my physical....

ELIAS:  Correct.

RODNEY:  Wow.

JO:  So are we channeling.... (Drowned out by comments and laughter)

ELIAS:  It is expressed by YOU.

RODNEY:  That’s a wow! (Laughter)

BOB:  So the only function of thought is experience?

ELIAS:  The function of thought is to be translating and defining communications.

BOB:  To yourself.

ELIAS:  Yes.

NICKY:  Would you say that again?  Thought is translating and defining what?

ELIAS:  Communication.

NICKY:  Communication.  Thank you, sir.

JO:  Can I ask just a small question?  Then would it be accurate to say at all that we’re channeling essence?

ELIAS:  No, for there is no action of channeling.  You ARE.

NICKY:  So it’s an expression of essence?

ELIAS:  It is YOU.

NICKY:  Which is an expression.

ELIAS:  Of you, and you ARE essence.

RODNEY:  And you are essence.

NICKY:  Yeah, yeah. (Laughter, and various inaudible comments)

ELIAS:  You are creating the familiar associations of separation — that you are a focus, and essence is an entity separate and outside of you or different from you.

NICKY:  Yeah!

ELIAS:  No!

NICKY:  Yeah!  Well, I mean, you have to understand that that’s where we’re coming from!

ELIAS:  Ah! (Grinning and nodding, and everybody cracks up)

NICKY:  I mean, it takes us a while to get there!

ELIAS:  Ah!  For you are slow and less than!

NICKY:  Exactly!

ELIAS:  Ah!  And no, you are not!

NICKY:  Do we not?  I mean, we do!

ELIAS:  These are YOUR associations.

NICKY:  Yeah!  Yeah, that’s what I experience!

ELIAS:  This is your discounting of yourself.

NICKY:  You touch on it, and you get away from it.  You touch on it, and you become fearful.  You touch on it, and you go back and forth.  You play with it.  I play with it, and I’m not used to it.

ELIAS:  And this is your choice. (Grinning)

NICKY:  Yeah, I know — this is your choice.

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

NICKY:  Yeah, right!

ELIAS:  You choose to continue to play!

NICKY:  This is true. (Elias chuckles)

GAIL:  Elias?

ELIAS:  William?

GAIL:  I’d like to ask what I was trying to communicate to myself when I was like inside myself viewing the colors?

ELIAS:  Express specific.

GAIL:  Well, I was resting and I was calming myself, and I closed my eyes and I was like inside myself, looking around and seeing colors, and I don’t know what I was communicating to myself.

ELIAS:  You are allowing yourself to be viewing the expression of energy field as an expression of you, a particular type of expression of you.  You create many expressions of yourselves, and your energy field is one type of expression of yourself.  This is an aspect of your creation of self, and in this, you allow yourself to view being within self, and viewing the projection of energy and its physical configuration in color vibrations.

GAIL:  So the colors that I was seeing, or what I remember seeing, translating it into the objective, were pinks and blues and greens and purples.

ELIAS:  This is merely an offering to yourself in objective recognition of what you are projecting in vibrational qualities within the moment.  In this experience, you are offering yourself the opportunity to become familiar with more of your expressions.  As you become more familiar objectively with all that you express and engage, you also allow yourself to become more familiar with your communications, in relation to our previous discussion of your phone ringing. (Grinning)

GAIL:  Yeah, I had another one of those too! (Elias chuckles)

SHARON:  Elias, I have problems with my eyes.  It feels like they have grains of sand in them, and it switches back and forth from one eye to the other, and I was curious — is that another focus viewing through my eyes?

ELIAS:  No.  This is YOU.

Let me express to you, all of you are engaging similar actions presently. You create different types of imagery in relation to this movement that you are incorporating, but you are all moving into an expression of becoming more familiar with you, and in that action, you are allowing yourselves to be creating imagery through other communications, and not associating communication with merely thought.

Therefore, you may be creating physical expressions.  You may be creating repeated experiences.  You may be creating associations with different senses.  You may be creating in relation to other individuals.  But what you are exploring is the recognition of self, and your genuine expressions of communication NOT through thought.

This process, so to speak, is in actuality allowing each of you to understand and redefine your function of thought, and allow you to reincorporate its natural function rather than what you have incorporated as the attempt to override communications through thought.  This is not its function, but you continue to attempt to create that action in relation to thought.

Now; I may express to you that this physical creation that you incorporate, you are creating in similar type of expression to Ashrah.  In moments that you are turning your attention outside of yourself, and you are paying attention to interactions or events outside of yourself, and you are not paying attention to your communication which is occurring within self, you create an irritation within your physical eyes.  You incorporate one of your physical senses to be presenting you with the communication that your attention is desired with self, and therefore there is an irritation as it is projected outside of self.

SHARON:  But I’m driving! (Laughter)  What would I do? (Laughing)

ELIAS:  It matters not.  You may be engaging any activity.  An activity that you engage does not prevent you from paying attention to your own communications.  Your attention needs not be outside of self merely that you are engaging an activity physically that appears to be outside of self, for all of your activity is a projection of your creation.  Therefore, it IS you. (Pause)

NICKY:  Can I ask you for a brief description of what you would define as thought?

ELIAS:  I have offered.

NICKY:  Brief.

ELIAS:  I have offered! (Laughter)

NICKY:  Not brief!

ELIAS:  It is a function of translation and defining.

NICKY:  Is the interpretation from self?  Is that from self, of defining the information, the communication?

ELIAS:  Let me express to you, Candace, you are complicating!  I am not complicating. (Grinning)

NICKY:  I am.  I do!  But I need to pinpoint this. (Elias chuckles)  Indulge me!

ELIAS:  I may express to you, allow yourself not to be creating this cycle of thought that you are engaging presently.  Allow yourself merely to relax and assimilate.  It has already been exchanged with you, it has already been defined, and you have received it.  Allow yourself merely to assimilate.

NICKY:  Okay.  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are welcome. (Chuckling, and laughter)

JENARO:  Okay, I have a question, Elias.  Okay.  First of all, what is a “writographic stone?”  I think it has something to do with communication.

ELIAS:  What is your impression?

JENARO:  Well, it has something to do with communication! (Laughing)  That’s more of an impression than I allowed myself about a week ago.

ELIAS:  Continue your investigation!

JENARO:  Arrgh!  Okay. (Laughter, and Elias laughs)

Well anyway, I’ve been having these other experiences, where I’ve been allowing myself to merge with other focuses of me.  Like in one such example, I merged with a female focus of me who was having sex, and she was getting it like in both ends, so to speak, and so....

FEMALE:  Jenaro! (Laughter)

JENARO:  It was very like interesting, to say the least, but kind of scary, but it was only scary because of the recognition of what I was allowing myself.  I also allowed myself to merge with what I believe is an other-dimensional creature, but within the physical dimensions, and merging with that creature.  But there was also a hesitation in completely merging with it, so to speak, because of a fear there.

I’ve also been having a lot of dreams lately where more specifically, my dad, who represents fear to me within imagery, was chasing me.  He was being like really relentless and had no mercy, so to speak, but I found that he never caught up with me, and in my ... it’s like, in my moving with this issue, I was allowing myself to be creating what we would term to be extraordinary feats within the dream.

So I’m interpreting all this as communication to myself about these issues of fear that I’m holding, but also allowing myself to realize that that fear is me, and I’m using that fear to help me motivate me in the directions that I am so choosing.

ELIAS:  Partially, for you are incorporating a creation of fear to be motivating in some movement that you are exploring.  You are also allowing yourself to be recognizing and examining, so to speak, your own creations of fear as an expression of you, and moving your attention more in an identification that these expressions are not created in reaction to experiences that you incorporate with other individuals, but as an expression of your experience that you create yourself, and your associations with self in relation to your beliefs, and the influence of those beliefs in relation to your perception, for...

JENARO:  And how I create my reality.

ELIAS:  Correct.  ...for your perception creates a reality which appears to you to be quite solid and definite; absolute.  In allowing yourself this exploration of your actual individual expression of fear, you also allow yourself the opportunity to view that you do incorporate choice in relation to that expression.  For in the perception of fear, you create a communication to self that you are lacking choice, or that choice is unavailable to you.

JENARO:  Well, I think that moves in alignment with what I’ve been allowing myself within holding the awareness of three points within time, of myself and probable selves simultaneously, within similar issues that I’m remembering, and part of that has been acknowledging the other choices, where I created my specific line of probabilities based on my beliefs, which were different within the other lines of probabilities, and that’s the recognition of the choice, correct?

ELIAS:  Correct, and recognizing that all that you experience is your creation.  Therefore, it is not an expression of fear ”in response to,” but rather it is your creation and your association within your beliefs that turn your attention to the expressions of other individuals, believing them to be outside of you.

These experiences are allowing you more of an incorporation of an understanding objectively that these are your creations, and in recognizing this type of projection of energy, you also allow yourself to identify and notice the moments in which you incorporate the role of the victim.  Once you allow yourself the noticing of your creation of that role of the victim, you also allow yourself choice.

JENARO:  Okay, and is this an element of the second part of our agreement?

ELIAS:  No.

JENARO:  Okay, so I’ll work on that one then, and I think I’ve got one more question concerning time and the manipulation of time.  Is my spinning or dizzying method efficient?

ELIAS:  What is your impression?

JENARO:  I would say, it can be at times.

ELIAS:  And you are correct.

GAIL:  Is that why you see a lot of little children spinning around a lot, just on their own?

ELIAS:  At times.  You are correct, yes.  It creates a difference in perception, and your perception is what creates your association with time.

JENARO:  Okay, one more quick question. (Laughter)  Just basically, I’ve kinda like become really frustrated — not a surprise — with the creative process in determining motivation for characters in a story.  I’m kind of getting a little bored with the whole conquest thing, so I was kind of curious as to your input as to other motivations for characters in a story.

ELIAS:  Ah, Archer! (Laughter)  This is YOUR expression of creativity!

JENARO:  Ah.

ELIAS:  And it is motivated and expressed through YOU.  Therefore, look to your own communications that you offer to yourself, and therein may lie your response.

JENARO:  Okay, that’s it.  Everyone else can have a turn now.

DEBI:  Elias, I have a question.  I have, as far back as I can remember, gone through periods of time, at least in my adult life, where occasionally a lot of people, say like in a matter of a few days or even a period of a week or so, I’ll get a lot of strangers asking me, “Weren’t you just here?  Don’t I know you?  Did we used to work together?” and that kind of thing.  It doesn’t happen often, but when it happens, it’s like more than a couple of people, usually.  I wonder, am I ... what I wonder is things like, are they bumping into my probable selves?  I mean, what is going on there?  What is that? (Elias chuckles)  What IS that? (Laughing)

ELIAS:  You create this type of imagery periodically to be introducing yourself to you! (Chuckling, and laughter)

DEBI:  Well, then.... (Sighing)

ELIAS:  YOU are creating all of this imagery.

DEBI:  Okay, but I guess I find the stuff that I’m ... if that’s introducing me to me ... I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

ELIAS:  You present....

DEBI:  Am I the person that’s standing there saying, “Hey, don’t I know you?”

ELIAS:  Yes.

DEBI:  OH! (Everybody cracks up)

ELIAS:  And you are waiting for your response! (Much laughter)  Quite efficient!

DEBI:  That’s very efficient!  Okay!

ELIAS:  And perhaps you shall respond to yourself! (Laughing)

DEBI:  Thank you.  And you know, I always say no! (Laughter)

ELIAS:  Ah, and subsequently you present yourself with another time period in which you present this imagery to yourself, attempting once again to introduce yourself to you, and that you may not necessarily respond with no! (Laughter)

DEBI:  So the next time the lady at the pizza counter says, “Weren’t you just here last night?” I’ll say YEAH! (Everybody cracks up)

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

BOB:  What you say is, “No, that was YOU!” (More laughter)

DEBI:  Okay.  Oh, that’s fun!  Okay, thank you.

ELIAS:  You are quite welcome. (Chuckling)

CATHY:  Well, I’ll go for a quick one.  I would like to know if the individuals of Larry and David are intermediate. (Pause)

ELIAS:  First individual, correct.

CATHY:  (Whispering)  Oh, I was right on that one!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

CATHY:  No wonder!  Okay.

ELIAS:  I shall incorporate two questions more.

SHERI:  I have a quick one.  Will you say my essence name?  I’ve never heard you say it!

ELIAS:  (Humorously)  We shall engage this action singularly ...

GROUP:  Ooooo!

SHERI:  You got it!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha ha!  ... in our expression of intimacy!

SHERI:  Alright!

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha!

JO:  I have one.  I had talked to you at one point about color, and how our energy centers show a rainbow, if you will.  There’s another aspect of color that’s more related to it being a particle, probably light and particle, with regard to a color wheel in art, and in that line, the colors make a circle. So I asked you about whether or not this rainbow in our bodies, more or less, was connected between red and purple through magenta, most likely, and you said yes, but the way you said it made it sound like there was more there.

So, I’m wondering if my impression is correct that those colors are connected, but because color is a truth and we are connected with all that is, those colors connect through an infinite set of colors throughout all that is.

ELIAS:  Yes, your impression is correct.

JO:  Thank you.  And so is it helpful at all for us to think of all of those colors being behind our visual perception somehow?  Is this something that you see, in a manner of speaking?  Is it helpful for us to visualize those colors that we’re a part of, but don’t see?

ELIAS:  It is unnecessary.  As to your question, “Do I view?” I do not incorporate the visual sense that you incorporate.  Therefore, the expression of color as a truth is a vibrational quality, and is not translated into what you view within this physical dimension as color.

JO:  And was that a focus of mine who gave me the information about not looking behind, that the physical is all there is, a focus named Wolfgang? (Pause)

ELIAS:  Yes.

JO:  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are welcome.

JO:  Not that Wolfgang, though! (Much laughter)

ELIAS:  Ha ha ha ha ha!

PAUL2:  Elias?

ELIAS:  Yes?

PAUL2:  I have a quick question.  The group has presented itself with information about what I presume is an energy exchange with Elan, and I was wondering if indeed it was an energy exchange, and if so, what family is that essence of? (Pause)

ELIAS:  I may express to you, this is an energy exchange.  I may also express to you that it is not associated with an essence family, for the essence families and their identification are limited to the expression in relation to this particular physical dimension.

PAUL2:  The reason why I was inquiring as to the family is, is there any sort of distortion associated with that energy exchange? (Pause)

ELIAS:  Some, yes.

PAUL2:  Okay.  Thank you.

ELIAS:  You are very welcome, my friend. (Chuckling)

I shall express to you all a tremendous affection and anticipation of our continued interaction.  Receive from myself this day, each of you, an offering of energy that you may incorporate within your sojourn and your discovery of your own relationships with yourselves.  For indeed, I am interactive with you each in an expression of energy.  Do not be doubtful of that!

To you all this day in great lovingness, au revoir.

GROUP:  Au revoir.

Elias departs at 5:17 PM.

FOOTNOTES:

(1)  For clarity, the category is not truth.  The category is waves in consciousness connected to belief systems, and the entry is truth with Sumari.

© 2001  Vicki Pendley/Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved

---

Copyright 2001 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.