the Elias forum: Digests of Essential Elias.

Home

Introduction

Digests

Transcripts

Exercises

Gems

Library

Search

Donate

blueprints

Paul’s note: this digest, published in January 2004, covers a wide range of related ideas from dreams to dream-art science, from preconventional to conventional to postconventional stages of personal and collective development, from relationships with self to others, from outer to inner senses, from aspects of essence to holonic personality, and much more.

“Blueprints for reality” were originally introduced by Seth in Jane Roberts’s classic The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1. (1977) in the dream-art science sessions (700-704). They are nonphysical blueprints or designs that filter all projections of causal source energy. Thus, they form a set of constraints – what Seth called root assumptions – that color all manifestation in our multiverse.

It also implies that there is a type of “intelligent design” involving a Creator and a Design. However, Elias has not yet provided as much detail to the blueprints concept as he has for others, and for good reason. We’re dealing with domains of consciousness that are hidden from the five senses and yet provide the very source energy, archetypes, or involutionary givens for all constructions in our multiverse (Framework 1/Regional Area 1). So this idea is easy to distort because it expresses something immaterial that is causal in ways we don’t yet fully understand in physical terms.

A key challenge is that modern and postmodern sciences still don’t have a working theory of consciousness. They are still based on materialist empiricism that ignores and marginalizes all attempts to include subjective and intersubjective experience. Furthermore, their paradigms don’t yet include any awareness of the developmental stages of unfolding consciousness within the very researchers whose belief systems (memes) bias the very data producing experiments used to create their edifices. And yet they claim to be the sole way of knowing what’s real and true. For example, quantum physicists claim that they are on the verge of formulating a “theory of everything.” This oxymoron still governs the very institutions that embrace these narrow worldviews. Besides, it was Douglas Adams (1952-2001) who succinctly articulated “the theory of everything” almost two decades ago (which I sometimes refer to as “the Adams Axiom”):

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” Cut dialogue from Fit the Fifth, Original Hitchhiker Radio Scripts (1985).

But seriously, there must be a way, a paradigm, a praxis that can begin to identify, manipulate, and work directly with these nonphysical, hidden, invisible domains in waking state, dreaming state, and dreamless state. But that would require a significant paradigm shift, one that includes a viable postmodern theory of consciousness. I believe that the information outlined by Seth/Jane Roberts and Elias/Mary Ennis make a significant contribution to just that, along with the work of Ken Wilber (the endnotes in this Digest explicate this assertion).

So what are blueprints?

One way to imagine blueprints is to admit that everything you know is backwards, limited, or inverted. In other words, we want to look at this concept from a wider perspective. For example, consider for a just minute that the idea of a single flow of absolute linear time is based only upon the perceptions of bodies-in-time and their five senses. In that sense, then, our bodies are really time machines that allow us, as consciousness, to exist, perceive, and literally create space-time and energy-matter. Our body/minds thus color our perception of time based upon their own intricate and as yet not fully understood design. But where does the design and the Designer exist?

According to the perennial wisdom traditions, there are levels of reality and levels of selfhood. Regarding levels of reality, the physical level is just one of several, the thin outer crust of a wider, nested nonphysical set of levels that range from matter to body to mind to soul to Spirit. Seth called them Frameworks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Elias refers to them as Regional Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Regarding levels of selfhood, Seth talks about the:

  1. outer ego
  2. subconscious
  3. inner ego
  4. pyramid energy gestalts
  5. All-That-Is

Jane Roberts’s version from Aspect Psychology included:

  1. focus personality
  2. nuclear self
  3. source self
  4. pyramid energy gestalts
  5. All-That-Is

Elias’ version includes:

  1. objective awareness
  2. avenues of communication
  3. subjective awareness
  4. pools of consciousness
  5. all of consciousness

It’s important to point out that these are nonlinear structures! That is, they aren’t steps on a ladder but are nested in intricate ways. Still, all three cover roughly the same basic, deep structures that map nicely onto the perennial roadmaps from ancient Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Taoist, Kabbalist, and mystical Christian sources as well as the extensive cross-cultural synthesis found in Ken Wilber’s Integral Psychology (2000) p. 197-217.

So over all we’re dealing with a roadmap of the psyche nested within physical and nonphysical levels or domains. Blueprints help us to understand how we create our physical perception in relation to nonphysical structures that actually filter consciousness. Again, blueprints have been known in some form for thousands of years, from the involutionary currents of Vedanta, to Plato’s forms, to Jung’s archetypes, to Sheldrake’s morphic fields. As we’ll see, blueprints exist in Regional Area 2, along with other deep structures like Source Events and equations, for example. But Elias hints that there are also aspects of Regional Area 3 and 4 that are nested within these blueprints. They range from blueprints for our individual body/minds all the way to the entirety of Regional Area 1. So there are different depths to blueprints depending on which aspects we look at.

Finally, don’t confuse the map with the territory. Consciousness is like an ever-opening flower. At some point in our becoming, all maps become useless once we “remember” that we are the Designer and the Design. So take what follows with a grain of salt.

“There are myriad different ways to search, but the object is always the same. Don’t you see that the roads are different? One comes from Byzantium another from Syria, still others wind through land or across the seas. The roads are different; the goal is one.” – Rumi

“All roads lead to the inner self!” – Seth/Jane Roberts

Elias “gems”

ELIAS: “... You design the material manifestation within your sleep state. You draw your blueprints within your sleep state. You execute these designs within your waking state, and you manifest the materialization of these. But as I have expressed, you need not actually engage [a] sleep state, just as you may daydream and you are not within your sleep state, but you are within communication and you are engaging subjective information that you may physically materialize, if so choosing.

“... This is how you have designed your physical focus to efficiently proceed. Each area of consciousness has its task, so to speak. Objectively, within your waking state, you create. You create physically. You manifest. Subjectively, within your sleep state and also within other altered states, in your terms, you create; but you create your blueprints for your physical objective manifestation.” [session 166, April 20, 1997]

Elias “gems”

DREW: “Can I ask for a clarification about something? We are essence. So when Lawrence [Vicki]says we sleep so that we can communicate with subjective reality, or when you say we will intersect with essence, what is the we you’re talking about? Because essence is really what we are, wrapped in a bunch of belief systems. Is that not true? So the purpose of sleep, as I understand it, is to set aside our belief systems long enough for what? I’m a little confused by this. It’s not we’re here and essence is here, and so we sleep to communicate and then we come back with information from essence. We are essence. And so what is that interaction that’s going on?

ELIAS: You are correct. You are essence; but within physical focus, you recognize only one aspect of your essence. Therefore, within sleep state you allow yourself the opportunity to be in communication with all other aspects of essence.

DREW: When you say, ‘You allow yourself to be in communication,’ what is the you you’re talking about?

ELIAS: This you, within this focus.

DREW: Okay. And so sleep essentially is a way of defocusing. Is that not correct? I mean, our physical focus doesn’t go somewhere during sleep, communicate with essence, and then come back with information, does it? Or do we just defocus, in a sense? And why would we even need to do that if essence is communicating through us all the time anyway?

ELIAS: This is correct also, but you are objectively focused. The you that you recognize is objectively focused ...

DREW: But that’s just a belief system. This is not ...

ELIAS: No. You have manifest within an objective physical focus. In this, you hold many belief systems; one of which is that you are singularly you. In this, you do not allow yourself objectively to be listening to all of your other aspects of self. Therefore, you provide, within your creation of physical focus, an outlet; just as you quite creatively provide yourselves within physical focus outlets from your objective focus within different areas, as we have spoken previously. You provide quite efficiently physical space arrangement that you collectively agree upon, and allow yourselves permission to not explain. You may enter your Bermuda Triangle, which you all collectively agree upon as a space arrangement within your physical focus for unofficial information and occurrences. You may ‘pop out’ within this space arrangement, and this is acceptable. It is not acceptable upon this present street! (Laughter) But you may travel to a physical location upon your planet which you have designed en masse collectively as your ‘out.’ You also provide this to yourselves within your sleep state.

DREW: But subjective information is coming in whether we’re aware of it or not and whether we believe it or not. But there are certain types of subjective information that will not get through unless we defocus, like communication with other aspects and that kind of thing?

ELIAS: You are moving off the direction. Within your sleep state, you hone your direction. You clarify to yourself. You communicate, and you provide yourself with information to materialize.

DREW: And that communication would not take place, does not take place, subjectively while we’re physically focused, while we’re objectively aware.

ELIAS: Not materially. You design the material manifestation within your sleep state. You draw your blueprints within your sleep state. You execute these designs within your waking state, and you manifest the materialization of these. But as I have expressed, you need not actually engage [a] sleep state; just as you may daydream and you are not within your sleep state, but you are within communication and you are engaging subjective information that you may physically materialize, if so choosing.

DREW: We can only do that by altering our state of consciousness, and in a sense, coming back with that information?

ELIAS: This is how you have designed your physical focus to efficiently proceed. Each area of consciousness has its task, so to speak. Objectively, within your waking state, you create. You create physically. You manifest. Subjectively, within your sleep state and also within other altered states, in your terms, you create; but you create your blueprints for your physical objective manifestation.

DREW: And it’s impossible to do those two things simultaneously?

ELIAS: All things are simultaneous! (Grinning)

DREW: Yeah, that’s why it seems like a contradiction to me somehow, but I won’t dwell on it. I’ll think about it.” [session 166, April 20, 1997]

DREW: “[I’d like to discuss] ... a couple of dream experiences ... excuse me, sleep experiences. I don’t really know if they were dreams. One of them involved imagery, and it was recurring imagery. I recognize this imagery, having had it at least once before and fairly recently. It was an image of toys that had been spilled out of a toy chest kind of chaotically on the floor. I may have been laying with the toys. I’m not sure. But after I had this imagery, I woke up and remembered having had it recently. I’m wondering if you could interpret for me; first level.

ELIAS: The toys ... first layer ... spilled chaotically upon the floor, outside of their container and their place, is imagery that you suggest to yourself of feelings of disheveledness within self; a dissatisfaction with arrangement of objective imagery. It appears to be chaotic or unsatisfactory to you. Therefore, you create imagery that is connected to the feeling that things are not in place.

DREW: Now, that’s imagery of subjective feelings, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

DREW: So is my subjective self telling me that my objective reality is somehow out of place, or that there’s reason for me to have feelings of uneasiness or discomfort with my objective reality?

ELIAS: As I have explained previously, your objective and subjective consciousness are not separated and are not at odds. Therefore, they mirror each other, and they express the same elements to you within different expressions. Therefore, within your objective imagery and feelings, you feel the same. You may create the feeling in a slightly different manner as to your imagery, but the feelings shall be mirroring each other subjectively and objectively; a discontentment with elements not being within their proper place, within your belief system.

DREW: Okay, but there is information that comes to us through our dreams that is not available objectively. All of our dream imagery is simply ... not simply, but is a mirroring of both subjective and objective reality? The imagery is created by a combination of both, and mirroring of the two? It’s always been my impression or understanding that a certain amount of information comes to us through our dreams, and is not available objectively.

ELIAS: It is not that this information is not available, but you do not always allow yourself the freedom objectively to understand all of your imagery and all of your creations. Therefore, you allow yourself more freedom within dream imagery to be expressive.

DREW: Of?

ELIAS: Of your reality. Within your dream state, you relax your belief systems. You allow more freedom within your movement and understanding and acceptance. You may view within your dream states that you may engage actions that are unacceptable within waking state to you. You may engage many activities within dream state which appear to hold no conflict and are completely acceptable, and as you awaken you look to this imagery and you are appalled, for you re-engage your belief systems which are not accepting of these activities. You may avail yourself of the same information within waking state, but you block this as you filter through your belief systems.

DREW: Is the recurring imagery, the fact that I’ve chosen the same imagery more than once, significant within the imagery itself? Or was this just a way for me to get my own attention? Why would I use the same imagery?

ELIAS: Recurring imagery is a method to be attaining your attention within areas that you feel needs your attention and your addressing to. This may be an issue that you presently hold within this focus. This may be pertaining to bleed-through information from another focus. Within this particular scenario, this is relevant to this focus.

DREW: I really didn’t need the imagery to tell me I’m not happy with objective reality right now!

ELIAS: But you shall be reinforcing yourself and be creating of this. You may express that you do not need to be gaining your attention, but this is where your attention lies.

DREW: And imagery and dream experience is a form of expression.

ELIAS: True.

DREW: And yet, is it not also an opportunity to incorporate new information and new direction?

ELIAS: Yes.

DREW: So if I’m expressing unhappiness with a certain part of my life within dream state, would I not be laying the blueprints to change that within objective reality also within dream state?

ELIAS: If you are choosing.

DREW: If I am choosing.

ELIAS: You may be choosing to continue, within your attention, to be viewing the dilemma.

DREW: For purposes I may not be aware of now, like addressing belief systems or motivations or those kinds of things? Would that be true?

ELIAS: This is possible, or you may be choosing to be holding your attention, for you wish to continue your attention within this area.

DREW: For the experience, period. (Elias nods) Which gets us back to this whole question of, at what level am I making these choices? You choose. I know! You’ve said that! But I can’t understand why ... I know the answer to the question ... why I would choose experiences that I objectively feel I’m not happy with. For the experience. It doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t make sense to me, if essence is loving, why we would continue to create conflict, particularly once we’re aware of it. I don’t understand that. I don’t expect you to explain it in one evening, but ...

BOB: Is happiness better than unhappiness?

ELIAS: Quite! (Grinning at Bob) Very good!

DREW: And yet, given the choice, which you say I have, I would choose happiness because I’m not happy with this experience!

VICKI: But you don’t!

BOB: Yeah, so maybe you want to be unhappy!

ELIAS: I shall offer to you that objectively you may not be enjoying your choice. Therefore, you may not ‘want’ to be experiencing what you have created, and you may also temporarily not understand how to be objectively connecting to your choices, although this is temporary; this being the same as crossing your country to cross your street. You may temporarily lose objective sight of your choices within probabilities.

DREW: It’s particularly confusing in light of your confirmation tonight of my intent.

ELIAS: The conflict is that you hold, as do all other individuals, a very strong belief system in good and bad occurrences. Some activity, choices, and occurrences are good and acceptable. Some are not.

DREW: Are choices made outside of belief systems?

ELIAS: Your choices are filtered through belief systems; this being why we address to the acceptance of belief systems, therefore eliminating much of your conflict.

DREW: So if I have a strong belief in good and bad and my choices are filtered through that, why would I make choices I believe to be bad?

ELIAS: You also think within a very small framework, as do all individuals. You are preoccupied with your attention within the immediate. All of you may look to experiences within your focus, and as you are removed from these experiences within time framework, you may express to yourself and to other individuals that you hold an understanding of the reasoning that you were creating of that reality within that moment. You may also be accepting of that creation. You may view the benefit regardless of its pleasantness or unpleasantness within experience; but as you are within an individual experience that you have chosen and that you have created, you do not always view beyond your bubble.” [session 167, April 27, 1997]

ELIAS: “As you within your present focus within this culture see fit to honor this day for your mothers, we shall be introducing a new subject matter this evening dealing with families, which shall also encompass your subject of genetics and those belief systems which are attached to this subject matter.

... Now; as you are aware, you choose to be entering into physical manifestation, and within this choice you choose parents. These individuals are already physically focused. You choose where you are wishing to be entering physical focus, at which time period, at which season, with which parents, and with the knowledge of the probabilities of other family members; whether you shall be incorporating yourself into a family of only one child, or twelve. The choices that you choose within non-physical focus before entry into physical manifestation are many. They are quite complex and extensive, for there are many elements that you must incorporate and consider as you are entering into physical focus.

The agreement on the part of the parents is merely to be incorporating a child. The essence entering physical focus is the one which is choosing of most of the probabilities and alignments. You may have speculated to yourselves previously that this is equal in choice and agreement upon the part of the entering focus and those of the parents. I shall express to you that the only agreement that the parents hold within physical focus is that they agree to be parents and have a child. The focus entering is the one which makes the choices, of which parents to be choosing and which family to be aligning with. I am not speaking of essence families. I am speaking of physically focused families.

You will notice, within your physical focus within families, that some children bear resemblances to one parent and some children bear resemblances to the other parent. Some bear resemblances to both parents. These are choices that the focus aligns with before entering physical focus.

They choose which parent they shall align with within physical manifestation. They choose which parent they shall align with within behavior, within emotional focuses, within thought focuses, within manifestations of personality type. They also align with certain family histories. Within the choice to physically manifest, you also choose alignments that are physical elements. You are not randomly born into physical focus and then hold genetic qualities that are, within your physical family tree, alone.

You also carry genetic qualities which are manifest within other of your own focuses. Some individuals have expressed this as reincarnational genetic qualities. We do not express reincarnational genetic qualities, as all of your focuses are simultaneous. Therefore, they are not past and previous to you, that you are carrying forward these genetic qualities; but as you may view already within this tiny amount of information, there is much to be considered by the focus choosing to manifest within physical reality.

Some essences choose to focus into physical manifestation and not be genetically aligning with physical family orientations. Therefore, you may view certain family histories which exhibit certain qualities that one individual may deviate from. Let us express as an example, you may view a family which holds a history of heart disease for many generations. A child born into this family may grow and may not develop and exhibit these qualities throughout the entirety of their focus. In like manner, you may view families with what you consider to be quite excellent health, and one individual within the family deviates and exhibits many dysfunctions within health areas. These are individuals that choose not to be aligning with the genetic codes of their family members.

Genetics is not an absolute, and it is not an inevitable creation. It is a choice. You choose to align with these genetic codes or not. Most of you within physical focus choose to be aligning within the mass creation of genetic codes. Therefore, you also may learn much of yourselves and your lineage within an individual focus based upon your genetic encryption, but you also carry genetic codes of your other focuses. This also is a choice, but this choice moves beyond the mere alignment that you choose within physical focus of your parents and family; for within your creation of physical manifestations of essence, you choose to be creating all of your focuses within each particular dimension with very similar physical elements. Therefore, your genetic pattern is very similar within all of your focuses. This is not to say that you may not manifest different displays within action within an individual focus. You may hold genetic codes of basic health throughout all of your focuses, and you may also within an individual focus choose to be disregarding this and creating of disease which does not manifest in alignment with genetics.

As we have spoken of focuses of essence holding similar tone, they also hold very similar creations physically. Your choice of circumstances may be quite different within each manifestation, but the elements that make up the physical manifestation are generally quite similar. We have spoken of this previously, but very briefly.

As you enter into any physical manifestation, you acquaint yourself with the physical manifestation of your parents. You choose these individuals quite carefully, in alignment with your individual intent and the direction that you are choosing to follow within probabilities within your individual focus; for these individuals that you shall manifest born to shall be quite instrumental with you, and shall be influencing quite heavily within your experience.

Some individuals choose not to be aligning with family at all. Therefore, at very young ages they are disassociated from those individuals that they choose to become physically manifest through. Some choose the experience of physical manifestation through birth through a certain individual for the experience which is gained within that time period and then disassociate, moving into their intent and direction involving other individuals; such as with Rose. (1)

There are many aspects of consideration, as I have stated, within this action of manifestation. We have expressed that although you create this physical form from its inception, from the moment of its first cell, you within essence do not necessarily enter into the body consciousness at that moment. Each essence chooses at which point they are desiring to be entering into their design of their physical manifestation. Some essences may choose to be creating of a physical body consciousness, and not enter into this consciousness at all. In these cases, the physical manifestation does not continue. These may be looked upon within your view as miscarriages within your gestation, and also as aborted forms. This is not to say that these forms are not actual individuals, for they hold individual body consciousness. They only do not incorporate also the entirety of essence, for they have chosen to experience only partially. This, in differentiation to a focus which is born and continues, is an agreement equally between the entering essence and the parent; being obviously for the experience of both individuals, and often for many other individuals also which these experiences are affecting of.

But as we move to individuals choosing to become manifest within what you view as the normal cycle of lifetime, the entering focus shall gather all of the information which constitutes the physical blueprints for manifestation within alignment of the physical individuals which they shall be interacting with within family. These alignments generally are quite strong. As I have expressed, there are individuals which choose not to be aligning with family, but within your accepted norm generally, most individuals choose to be aligning within the designs of family.

Even those individuals choosing to be manifest into families that you within your belief systems view to be negative and dysfunctional or destructive choose these particular parents and families for reasons of their own experience, which is influencing within their physical growth and the intent that they have chosen within an individual focus. As you ask why you choose such parents, they are quite instrumental in motivating within your own intent, to be manifesting in subsequent years what you manifest.

Therefore, there are benefits to all situations, although it may not appear so; for the relationship of the focus manifesting as the child and the focuses which are manifest as the parents is quite intimate and very influencing, even when they are not continuing physically together; for within consciousness they have chosen specifically to be manifesting through certain individuals within certain time periods, which is all very precise.

Many of you have wondered of relationships between family members; children and parents, siblings, and other relationships. These are all, as I have stated, very precise relationships which you have very intentionally specifically chosen within each focus to be manifesting with, to be furthering the accomplishment of your individual intents. Within each focus you hold an intent, and you shall present yourself with influences that shall suggest your intent to you and help to be guiding you into this manifestation. You only hold belief systems of right and wrong and good and bad, and in this you create judgments upon the behavior and activity that is experienced within the relationships; although you have lost sight of the situation that you have created for your own benefit.

Now also, within this choice and manifestation into physical focus, a consideration is also held quite seriously of the influence and benefit which shall be manifest to those individuals that are to be your parents and your siblings. Therefore, they also are contributed to within value fulfillment, within your choice of manifestation. If the individuals that are the parents or the siblings are not benefiting within value fulfillment in your choice to be manifesting in relationship to them, you shall not manifest with these individuals.

Within your physical focus, it does not always physically appear that you are all benefiting. It does not always appear that you are all receiving, but I do not use the word of benefit within a positive connotation. It is an ‘adding to’ experience. You view the word of benefit to be an element that is good. You are benefiting from this relationship. Therefore, you are receiving a good element from this relationship. You are always benefiting. You may not recognize the benefit, but you are always gaining. You gain information from all of your experiences.

You also may choose, within any given focus, to be experiencing what you think of as difficulty. You do not always manifest within physical focus to be carefree and joyous! At times you choose conflict, for this is another physical experience. Therefore, you may also choose individuals that shall perpetuate this experience with you within your physical manifestation. You may choose to engage this action temporarily. You may choose to engage this action throughout the entirety of your focus.

Let us view also those individuals that are choosing, which there are many of, situations within physical focus that to your way of thinking seem negative, or hurtful, or grotesque ... or even evil! You will notice that many individuals choose this type of manifestation to be experienced within young ages. This, to your belief systems, is quite terrible! Within actuality, this is quite efficient; for as you are very young, you have a much greater ability to be focusing subjectively and continuing subjective action and interaction, which as you grow older you define as imagination or withdrawal or whatever; but this provides you the opportunity to experience certain elements within physical focus which mass belief systems consider negative while simultaneously holding the ability to benefit and also be adjusting of self in whichever way you choose, for you hold more subjective leeway within young ages.

We have spoken previously that as you move into physical focus, you incorporate a time period of transition from subjective to objective. You continue to incorporate much of your subjective awareness within young ages, just as you continue within transition to incorporate objective awareness for a time period. As you move into adolescence and adulthood, you also move away from the experiences that you may view within older years as victimization. These are all choices; quite efficient choices, I shall say also! You express to yourselves the resiliency of children. You are quite right, for they hold the ability to drift back and forth between objective and subjective reality. As you move into an acceptance of mainly objective reality, you do not hold the ability to incorporate these actions as well; this being why as adults the same negative occurrences may be involved, and they are much more difficult for the individual to objectively deal with.” [session 173, May 11, 1997]

GAIL: “I have one more question. Tom (2) and I would meditate together, and he set up a situation where I would view a cube, and he asked me to tell him what I saw, and I expressed some imagery. Can you tell me about that?

ELIAS: And express your imagery.

GAIL: It was a cube and it was rotating, and I viewed that it was rotating in the direction of a memory tile, and what was coming into it was tones on one side and color reflecting out from another side.

ELIAS: And what is your interpretation of this action?

GAIL: I really don’t know! That’s kind of why I’m asking you! (Laughing)

ELIAS: (Chuckling) Very well. Let me express to you that the reason I move in the direction of inquiring of you what your interpretation is, is to be encouraging you to be acknowledging of yourself and to be noticing of your impressions and of more of the actions that you engage while you are engaging these visualizations.

Many actions or impressions that you may be holding within these visualizations hold very subtle qualities, therefore are not so obviously viewed by you and may be overlooked. But in this fascination that you hold with creating visual imagery, you may be offering yourself more information and more validation of yourself, and also more acceptance of yourself, if you are allowing yourself to quiet yourself and be noticing those subtleties that are presenting themselves to you; not merely only the physical imagery or visualization itself, but the feelings and the movement that surround the imagery of the visualization.

Now; in this let me express to you that this once again serves as a focal point. You, as other individuals also, hold an ability in the area of visualization. Some individuals are connecting with information within different manners: some within feelings, some within thoughts, some within different engagements of physical senses, and some within visualizations. You move in the direction of visualizations, but regardless of what manner any individual is choosing to be connecting with information and offering themselves focal points in these areas, the subtleties are present in different manners, attaching themselves to these focal points that each of you may be connecting with and offering yourselves information. Therefore, the cube, the visualization, the imagery is the focal point for your attention. This is a visual, a picture that offers you the directedness of your attention in one area. It allows you to focus your vision to not be distracting you in other areas.

In this, once your visual is directed and your attention has been placed upon the visual, you may move away from the attention upon the visual and direct your attention into the surrounding areas of the subtleties that you are offering to yourself for your own information. This, once again, is closely related to the exercise in clarity which has been offered. (3)

Now; be remembering also that you and I have engaged conversation, so to speak, in the area of this exercise in clarity several times. Within probabilities, the reason that there has been a focus with yourself, and also with my engagement with you, in the area of this exercise in clarity is that it may be very helpful to you in the directions that you now move. For if you have offered yourself the opportunity to be engaging your ability to manipulate your outer senses and move in the direction of focusing upon one outer sense and disengaging all others, or conversely, disengaging one and engaging all others, this allows you practice to be engaging this very action of which we speak this day – in your viewing a focal point and disengaging your attention, which is visual, upon that particular focal point and allowing yourself to clearly hone in, so to speak, upon the surrounding subtleties, which are the offerings of information within impressions and information of other areas of consciousness that you may be accessing.

You ask yourselves many times how you may be creating of a method to be engaging other areas of consciousness and other experiences than merely your singular, objective attention within your officially accepted reality. These may be classified as your methods ... although they are not methods! But in this you offer yourself the opportunity to create your own method, so to speak, of engaging information which shall provide you with your road maps for your movement into areas of experiences that your desire directs you into. It offers you the information for the blueprints of accessing other areas of consciousness and other information.

In this you may continue to be practicing with this particular cube, but do not be focused so attentively upon the visual and its movement, and allow yourself to be accessing the information which surrounds the visual.

GAIL: I do remember what that felt like, so I think I can go there.” [session 296, July 13, 1998]

RODNEY: “... There is a popular notion among certain circles, what they term to be a map of consciousness, so to speak. (Elias grins) One is called The Enneagram, as popularized recently by an author called Helen Palmer. It is supposedly derived from an ancient Sufi tradition. This is the first one, and the second one is a mapping of behavior based on the concepts of Carl Jung, and it’s currently designated under the terms, The Meyers-Briggs System. I was wondering if you would comment as to whether or not there’s any relationship between the division, so to speak, set up in these systems and the families of consciousness, which you’ve described, and the alignments that are possible within those families. Are there any connections here whatsoever?

ELIAS: Let me express to you that individuals do access within physical focus information that is in alignment with these families of consciousness and their intents, although they also attach their own interpretations and influences of their belief systems to these areas. Therefore, they do not necessarily identify them completely with the families of consciousness, but I may express to you that they have tapped into some of the information that is in conjunction with these families of consciousness and their intents and their creations within this particular dimension.

Now; let me also express to you that there are deviations in this, for it is colored by the individual’s own belief systems and interpretations, for at times certain individuals are searching, so to speak, for the ‘blueprints’ of creating of their reality. Let me express to you that this is or may be quite a controversial subject matter, for in one respect it may be said that there are blueprints, so to speak, of each physical reality, but within another respect this is quite limiting and is suggestive that there is a certain method that must be adhered to within the creation of any given physical reality, which is not entirely correct, for physical realities may be altering themselves at any given moment and changing their realities into very different types of realities, and although you may make agreements for the creation of certain realities, the blueprints, so to speak, may be altered, for they are not absolute.

THIS be the area that there is an entering of distortion factors and that you may be recognizing of the alignments with certain belief systems in conjunction to information which is being tapped into. Therefore, what I express to you is that there are certain elements of the information which is presented that IS in conjunction with certain elements that have been created, in like manner to accessing world views or energy deposits within consciousness in non-physical areas of consciousness, but these aspects of information that are accessed are also filtered through perceptions, interpretations, and belief systems, and therefore hold elements of distortion.

RODNEY: Thank you.

ELIAS: You are welcome. Let me express to you that movement into the area of the dream mission, which your individual of Doctor Jung has accessed much in this area also, is much more efficient and less distorted than movement into areas of accessing information and then creating interpretations for that information. In investigating of the dream mission, you may be offering yourself less of a distortion factor in accessing this type of information.

Be remembering, though, that in any accessing of information in the direction of looking for blueprints, THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. And therefore, this may be remembered when creating your interpretations for information that you access.

RODNEY: Very good. Thank you!

ELIAS: You are welcome.

RODNEY: I will remember the ‘no absolutes’ in particular!” (Elias grins and nods) [session 309, August, 22, 1998]

DAVID: “... I’ve noticed that creating differences or changes in the physical body often seems to be much simpler or easier than creating something like a relationship. It often happens more quickly and with more efficiency, and I was wondering why there’s a difference.

ELIAS: First of all, let me express to you that your physical form is your individual expression. Therefore, you individually may be manipulating of it in any manner that you so choose, and this needs no involvement of any other individual or any other essence. Therefore, you may quite easily be expressing any type of alteration within your physical form that you are so choosing, although there are many individuals within physical focus that find this manipulation quite difficult, for their belief systems move them into expressions of a lack of ability to be manipulating in this area. In actuality, as you are choosing to be manipulating of any element of your physical form, this may be expressed quite easily. In the area of relationships concerning other individuals, this would be a cooperative expression. It is not singular to yourself.

The most affecting element of relationships, in every and all directions and areas, is the expression of expectation. As each individual moves in the direction of placing any expectation upon another individual, you are affecting of the relationship and you are blocking energy, and in this you are creating of judgment, which is also a lack of acceptance and is quite affecting in the area of relationships. This is affecting in the area of relationships with yourself also, for as you create an expectation of yourself and a judgment upon yourself, you also move yourself more into the expression of duplicity. But within the area of relationship of another individual, this may be quite affecting in what you term to be negative terms, for it is creating of much conflict. It also perpetuates the belief system of duplicity, within yourself and within other individuals.

DAVID: I see. In that case, when it comes to mass realities and global challenges – for instance, things that involve a great many people – how can we understand it in those terms? Instead of reading the newspapers and what the politicians and the media say, are there any ways for us to understand these things in terms of mass beliefs?

ELIAS: Look to your individual belief systems, and you may compare these with the mass belief systems, for mass belief systems are created by individuals collectively. You may not create groups without individuals. Therefore, the mass expressions are collective reflections of the individuals’ expressions. In this, they are not quite so very difficult to be understanding. You may also view within the mass expressions that there may be movements in these societal expressions that surfacely appear to move in one direction of great judgments in certain areas, but underlyingly, they may also be affecting quite strongly in alignment with this shift in consciousness, bringing to individuals’ attention the inefficiency of many of these belief systems and lending energy to the individuals in moving through these belief systems and moving more in the direction of acceptance of these belief systems.

You experience within this present now many expressions within your societies upon your planet, mass expressions of very strongly held belief systems which are being addressed to and are affecting of the individuals and how they are beginning to view these belief systems, not necessarily in alignment with these officially held belief systems. In this, as you continue to examine the individual belief systems, you offer yourselves more information in understanding how you have created mass belief systems.

You may also look to your religious and scientific belief systems and view how very strongly they have been accepted en masse throughout your globe and are very aligned with. Even individuals that express that they are moving away from the religious belief systems hold many underlying religious belief systems, and move themselves into an alignment with your scientific belief systems very much as strong as they have held religious belief systems previously. In actuality, your scientific belief systems are merely a different type of expression, different language of the same types of belief systems as your religious belief systems.

In this, let me be reminding you also that belief systems in themselves are not right or wrong. Therefore, I do not encourage you to move in the direction of placing more judgments upon the very belief systems that you hold, for you occupy your attention within physical focus, and this physical dimension is created with the basis of belief systems. Therefore, it is a basic element of your reality, and without your belief systems, this particular dimension and reality shall not be physically expressed. This is not the point. The point is to be examining of these belief systems and to be accepting of these belief systems, that you may render their power, so to speak, neutralized and you may not be so very affected by them, and in this, you may open your window for greater creativity.

All of this information shall circle ‘round to the base point in every area, in looking to self, addressing to your own acceptance and trust of self, which within your language and within this objective expression may APPEAR to be sounding very elementary. But this, in its basic element, is your most difficult challenge, for you have created your officially accepted reality for millennium in the direction of not looking to self and in the expression of projecting outward to all other elements and looking to other individuals and other sources, so to speak, for your directedness. In this, I express to you within this concept an entirely different direction of your attention, in looking to self for your acceptance and trust and recognizing that YOU are creating of your reality, not looking to any other outside element to be expressing to you how to be creating of your reality, for you already possess the blueprints for creating your reality, and all is within your disposal. You need merely be focusing upon self to be accessing all of this information.” [session 330, October 11, 1998]

JAN: “How does the fact that my mother and I are fragmented from the same essence affect me? What do I need to be aware of in my interactions with her, or perhaps not even with her, but how might she affect me when I’m not with her?

ELIAS: The affectingness is a choice. You hold the choice to allow affectingness or to not allow affectingness, but how it may be beneficial to you is within your recognition that you hold the same information of essence. In a figurative manner of speaking, you may hold the thought process with yourself that you have sprung from the same blueprints. You have chosen different experiences and different choices of expression within manifestations, but within essence, you have emerged from the same blueprints, so to speak.

Therefore, regardless of your expression within your choices in physical focus within this one focus, you hold much in common within tone, and therefore you also, if allowing yourself to be accepting of self, you may view the similarities within the expressions of these focuses. Think to yourself: you may choose different expressions, but underlyingly, your choices of focus are quite similar in the issues that are held and in the challenges that you offer yourselves.

In this, you offer yourselves the opportunity to draw close to each other or to repel strongly. This is your indication to yourselves of acceptance, and you may use this, in a manner of speaking, as a gauge in certain areas. For as you allow yourself the acceptance in its genuine expression with this individual, you also may be allowing yourself the knowing that you are accomplishing more in the acceptance of self. But as you are moving in the direction of repelling and the lack of acceptance, in like manner you may use this as a gauge that you are not moving in the direction of acceptance of self either. This also, in like manner to the crystal ball, is quite an efficient method that you have offered to yourself, in allowing yourself to be gauging your own movement.

JAN: Hmm. That makes a lot of sense. I will use that as a gauge.” [session 350, January 03, 1999]

RODNEY: “I would like to mention one other thing about our last session (4) which was extremely provocative. I have this notion that if we have a very strong idea or visualization, that it somehow creates or we are in the act of creating our reality. I’m thinking about the dog in my dream, which holds such a cherished idea for me. I’m wondering, do dreams elements continue on? Do they have an identity of their own? What happens to them after the dream? I guess I’m asking a crazy question here, and that is, what happened to the dog in my dream?

ELIAS: This is not a crazy question, as you term this to be. Let me express to you, dream imagery is a projection of YOU.

... It is quite similar to the imagery that you create within waking state. In this, you may be creating of events within waking state, and they are an element of your creation.

Dream imagery is created in like manner to events in your waking state; not necessarily in the creation of solid forms or objects or creatures, but that all of the imagery within your dream state is an event. Therefore, the dog or another individual or any element within your dream is an aspect of you. The activity that is being created in that is the event, which creates an action, a direction that correlates with your objective waking reality.

In this, there is no dog to be continuing – or for any reality to be continuing with it or for it to be creating choices in any type of reality – for it is not a dog necessarily. It is a projection of energy – in like manner to our hologram – of yourself. It is an element, an aspect of yourself that you project outwardly into a form temporarily.

This is a very efficient manipulation of energy. It is a projection of energy from yourself outward that you manipulate in like manner to manipulating a piece of clay. You form it into whatever image you choose to be forming it into, whatever symbology shall speak to you most efficiently, and you examine the action, the event, as you create its playing within your dream imagery.

Once you discontinue the dream, the energy remains within you, that you reconfigure and once again project outwardly into your waking objective state or awareness, and are thusly creating of your objective reality.

In a manner of speaking, your dream imagery is your blueprints for the construct of your waking reality.

RODNEY: Okay. I think what prompted me to ask the question is some dialogue in the Seth material where Jane Roberts discovered a hairy creature in one of her out-of-body experiences, which Seth explained had been created by her because of a depression that she had been involved in, in the preceding days. (5) I get from what you’re saying that dream imagery is of a totally different order than what we actively create during our waking moments. Robert Butts engaged himself in painting some of the imagery that came to him in his dreams, and Seth encouraged him to do that, and I’m wondering, I do not engage in that kind of artistic creation, or I haven’t, and it occurred to me that it might be of some value to me. Would you comment on that?

ELIAS: Very well.

Now; let us initially address to the entirety of your statement, for first of all, your dream imagery holds a different quality than your waking creations in certain aspects, but they are not of an entirely different order, for they are both projections of your energy that you are creating and they are both expressions of you.

One is a subjective expression which is a communication to yourself and translated objectively into imagery. The other is a subjective movement which is translated into objective solidity, so to speak, in waking state. Therefore, they are quite in harmony with each other and they are not entirely of a different quality.

Let me be clear in this, for they are much closer in quality than your realize.

This be the reason that individuals hold much difficulty in offering themselves dream interpretation, for they view dream imagery to be far removed from waking objective imagery that they create, and this is not necessarily the situation.

As to the projection of this creature, this is a different type of action than dream imagery, for this is an actual projection of energy into an entity.

RODNEY: Which creature? Are you talking about Jane’s creature?

ELIAS: Correct.

RODNEY: Okay.

ELIAS: All of you hold the ability to be creating of this same type of imagery. All of you hold the ability to be projecting a concentration of energy from yourselves and create an actual entity that holds physical form and solidity before you.

Now; I shall express to you that many times this type of projection, this type of creation, is created from the motivation of fear or anxiety that is allowed to be accumulating great quantities, in a manner of speaking, of energy in concentration, and as an individual concentrates great quantities of energy within anxiety or fearfulness in one direction, they may be in actuality projecting outward from their energy field a manifestation of energy that shall produce itself into an actual entity – a creature, an object – and this entity....

RODNEY: Which I understand, in her case, or I was led to believe, went on to have a life of its own.

ELIAS: This may occur at times also.

In this, you shall be creating the same type of action as a probable self, and that entity shall not continue in this actual physical dimension in your awareness, but shall slide into a probable reality which shall parallel this reality, and it may continue in that reality, creating its own choices, being its own entity.

RODNEY: You know, this is a fascinating area to me. From what you’re telling me, it seems that there would be the opportunity for us to be creating beings, or let me call them creations, out of love energy instead of fearfulness, and that we might do this with an objective purpose in mind.

ELIAS: And you may!

RODNEY: But I don’t know if I’ve ever heard anyone discuss this!

ELIAS: The reason that individuals are not necessarily discussing of this type of creation is the same as they are not necessarily readily willing to be discussing the other type of creation. These are all based upon your belief systems. Your general translation of the type of creature or entity which is created in the manner that you have presented, which we have been discussing, would be viewed as a demon or some entity that holds threatening qualities, and there are very strong religious belief systems that attach to this type of creation.

RODNEY: I’m aware of that.

ELIAS: There are also very strong religious belief systems that attach to the other type of expression, for you may be creating of the same type of projection in the expression of lovingness and be projecting energy in that manner, and you may also be creating of an actual entity if you are concentrating the volume of energy which is projected. But in these types of projections, at times you express to yourselves that you have encountered the spontaneous appearance of an angel. (With a sly grin)

RODNEY: Okay. I haven’t done that yet!

ELIAS: Either of these creations are very infrequent. Individuals, generally speaking, do not create either of these extremes of projections of concentrated energy, but it does occur.

RODNEY: Well, it would appear to me that if we weren’t so uptight about the religious connotations here, we might be a little bit freer in our belief systems to be creative in this way.

ELIAS: If you are so choosing, although it matters not.” [session 436, July 31, 1999]

JEREMY: “Paul, Jim, and myself, as of lately, have been drawing each other together in the context and in the sharing of interests with each other in our involvement in the shift as we’re aware of it objectively, and how we want to be actively participating in it and carrying ourselves and this information – although not related strictly to this material, but with the perennial philosophy that Paul has been endeavoring within (6) – but carrying that more publicly and just increasing more activity in that area. And I was wondering, what necessarily are we engaging? ‘Cause it seems to be very spontaneous, which I’m all up for, as you are aware, and it just seems to be like congealing, in Jim’s terms, and so I was wondering what we’re endeavoring upon within initiating within ourselves this dream mission.

ELIAS: Let me express to you that you are not creating an endeavor that is necessarily defined outside of yourselves.

In this, what you are allowing yourselves to participate in is an interaction with each other in movement cooperatively, and you may allow yourselves to direct yourselves and your energy within your own creativity together, and in that direction, you may be creating of your OWN expression that you may engage and participate within in conjunction with this shift in consciousness.

What I am expressing is an encouragement for you each to be interactive with each other in allowance of yourselves collectively to be expressing your individual contributions, so to speak, of creativity. This offers you each the opportunity to participate with other individuals, to be viewing different movements that you yourselves create and that you create in conjunction with each other collectively, and offers you an avenue to be enacting many different directions simultaneously.

It offers you the opportunity to view your own individual behaviors, your behavior in conjunction with other individuals, your allowance for acceptance of yourselves individually and your allowance for acceptance of other individuals and their creative abilities and expressions, and offers you an opportunity to create a direction in a collective sense with few individuals, that you may view the interplay between the individuals that are participating.

This allows you also to view the exchange of beliefs, the opportunity to address to different beliefs, and to move more into acceptance of these beliefs within self and within the expressions of other individuals, and in this, you offer yourselves each much information as to the workings, so to speak, and the movement that you engage as you participate in actions and interaction with other individuals. This offers you a tremendous expression of different avenues to be viewing simultaneously in a type of slowed motion, that you may view each action and each interaction and how the movement of interplay works.

Many of you are moving within your awarenesses into a curiosity of HOW you are creating your reality....

JEREMY: It’s Caroll [Paul] and his blueprint endeavor, correct?

ELIAS: Quite. And in this, you explore and you experiment with different concepts and ideas of how you are creating your reality, which spurs not merely curiosity but a tremendous element of motivation, and in these types of movements, you are automatically lending energy to this shift in consciousness merely with your participation with each other.

As I have expressed with Caroll [Paul] also, you may align with any philosophy that you present to yourselves, and you may draw yourselves into agreement with any type of philosophy that is presented within your physical dimension. But be remembering that the key is the acceptance of self and the noticing of behaviors, triggers, [and] automatic responses in all of these situations that you create, for philosophy may present intrigue and motivation and curiosity, but it also opens a window, as you choose to align with a certain philosophy, for judgments.

Therefore, merely allow yourself to be noticing – and you may offer this information to Caroll [Paul] and to Yarr [Jim] also – the affectingness of your individual beliefs, and also the affectingness that occurs within the expressions of the lack of acceptance with respect to yourselves and also other individuals.

JEREMY: ... which brings me around to two dream instances that I’ve had involving Vicki and Mary specifically, and then the rest of the people I’ve met within the forum, and even some I haven’t met. In one situation, Mary came down and she was gonna travel with me and Vicki and two other people to I believe it was Alaska, and I’m not sure what that meant, as far as the subjective activity behind it.

And also, recently I had a dream where everybody got together and tipped a table twenty-two feet in the air, but some people had their eyes closed and missed it, and when it came back down, they opened their eyes then, so they didn’t get to see it. I was curious about if that is my language to myself telling me about my engagement within this dream mission and within the shift in consciousness and within the interaction with these other individuals that you’ve just recently expressed to me within my second question.

ELIAS: Let me express to you, first of all, the dream imagery that you present yourself in conjunction with Michael [Mary] and Lawrence [Vicki] is imagery that is information that you provide to yourself in movement. This is an identification of a type of movement.

You image this in a physical location of an area such as Alaska, as within your objective recognition, this appears to be a far-removed place, so to speak, isolated and quite removed, but you engage a journey with these individuals to this particular location.

What you are presenting to yourself in this imagery is the recognition that within your desire, you hold an identification that these individuals have already created tremendous movement, which may be symbolized, so to speak, in your objective terms, as movement to a distant location from whence they came.

In this, in your recognition of these individuals and the movement in which they have allowed themselves tremendous accomplishment, you align yourself with this action and this movement and hold a tremendous desire to be creating of a similar action, and are already allowing yourself tremendous strides in this direction, which I am acknowledging to you in that movement.

In this, you continue to motivate yourself in this type of direction, drawing yourself in energy subjectively, which is in alignment with what you have been expressing in your allowance with yourself to be holding more of an objective awareness of subjective movement. In this, you align yourself with the energy of these individuals in your recognition of their movement, which provides you subjectively with an example, so to speak.

Now; this also moves in conjunction with what you are expressing to yourself in imagery, in drawing yourself to other individuals which move in the direction of blueprints. This is imagery that you are offering to yourself objectively to be supportive, so to speak, or validating of the imagery that you offer to yourself subjectively.

You hold a recognition already subjectively, in drawing yourself to movements of energy, that other individuals have created tremendous strides in movement in conjunction with this shift in consciousness, in conjunction with an acceptance of self and an acceptance of other individuals, and with a movement into initial stages, in a manner of speaking, of acceptance of belief systems, and as you hold the recognition of this, you also provide yourself with the blueprint, so to speak, or the example, which motivates you and increases your desire for movement in like manner.

As you continue in this type of movement, you allow yourself more of an ease within your dream state, you present yourself with more of an ease in moving into the creation of the translation of subjective awareness into objective terms, and you also provide yourself with a type of symmetry, in a manner of speaking, between the objective imagery and the subjective imagery, and these expressions of imagery are increasing in your presentment and in your awareness of them.

You are becoming more and more objectively aware of the many, many different avenues of objective imagery that you are presenting to yourself simultaneously.

JEREMY: ... I guess my last thing has to do with dream masters, within the context of my, Paul, and Jim’s direction. (Pause)

ELIAS: And you are wishing of which type of clarification?

JEREMY: Of just ... okay, it’s a wording thing. Of incorporating that kind of experience within ... oh, never mind.

ELIAS: It is an exploration, and in this, you may be individually or collectively engaging this exploration.

JEREMY: Okay, so does that have to do with the inner pyramid, the pyramids within pyramids within the space in between, the space in the middle of the pyramid?

ELIAS: This is imagery. This is the imagery that you are providing to yourselves in conjunction with how you may be manipulating within dream state.

JEREMY: So this would be part of the blueprint thing?

ELIAS: Not entirely. This is an expression of the recognition that you hold much greater mobility within the dream state than you recognize yet, and that you may in actuality be merging not merely your individual dream imageries, but you may also be merging, superimposing, and intertwining quite intentionally your dream imageries in conjunction with each other.

JEREMY: Ah! That’s interesting! (Laughing, and Elias chuckles)

ELIAS: And a challenge!” [session 498, November 02, 1999]

PAUL H: “Moving on to some other questions today, when we last left our hero, we were talking about the dream mission, so to speak, and we had talked a little bit about what you had called ‘the efficient language of translation of subjective into objective imagery.’ (7)

We discussed an equation, so to speak – relay the force pattern as a source of tension – and I just wanted to review my understanding of our interaction with that, and ask some further questions about that.

Listening to the tape of that session, it’s my understanding that the ‘force pattern’ aspect of that equation deals with the subjective source energy. Is that correct? (Pause)

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.

PAUL H: Okay, thank you. The ‘source of tension’ aspect of that equation, I understand as a translation process. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

PAUL H: Thank you. And the ‘relaying,’ then, is the knowing and perception in objective terms of the translation process?

ELIAS: The relaying is the action.

PAUL H: Okay, thank you. It is the action of knowing, in objective terms?

ELIAS: It is the action of the accomplishment of the translation into objective knowing.

PAUL H: Great. Thank you.

So, moving on, in one of the early session books by Seth and Jane Roberts, in session 23, Seth introduces some terms that I think are kind of similar to this equation, and I wanted to bounce that off of you and get your feedback on that.

Seth used the words ‘source energy,’ and he talked about actions of receiving this source energy as received by our inner senses, and is transformed by mental genes into camouflage patterns, and in a sense, that maps onto this equation very nicely. (8)

So I guess one question I have is, what is the role of the inner senses in this language of translation? (Pause)

ELIAS: Your inner senses may be enhancing to your outer senses, and offer you more input in the direction of your objective perception. They offer you more of an objective assimilation of information, in a similar manner to your outer senses.

Your inner senses need be creating no translation in the direction of subjective recognition and awareness.

But at times, you may be engaging a translation of information that you incorporate through inner senses to allow you an understanding in objective terms, for you may be assimilating experiences that you do not hold within your creation of experiences.

Therefore, in a manner of speaking objectively, they are foreign to you, and in this type of expression, there is a translation which is required, that you may be understanding in objective terms what you are assimilating and what you are incorporating in experiences, for just as with your outer senses, they assimilate information through direct experience.

Your inner senses also incorporate information through direct experience in a different function, but it is a direct experience which is being accomplished and offering you information. But in objective terms, the information which is being incorporated through inner senses is unfamiliar to you. Therefore, it may be at times requiring of a translation process.

What you have offered in this other equation basically is a very similar equation to what we have been discussing within our previous session.

PAUL H: Great. So I have some further questions then, because it offers a new angle, so to speak, to look at this equation, at least in objective terms.

I’m struck by this statement of ‘transformed by mental genes,’ which is an early term that Seth used, and the closest thing I can come to understanding mental genes ... Seth does go on to later talk about consciousness units, which you have termed links of consciousness, and he’s also discussed a concept called EE units or electromagnetic energy units, and I’m wondering ... the first question is, are these concepts of links of consciousness and electromagnetic energy units, or whatever you would term it, the same as mental genes?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, although I shall also express to you no, for within the context of what is being expressed and explained, no. This is not the information that is being offered.

Therefore, be not confused in the thought process that this teacher is expressing the same concept in different terminology, for it has not been offered in that manner.

As to links of consciousness or what you term to be consciousness units, this constitutes EVERY expression of consciousness.

Therefore, in a manner of speaking, I may express to you in response, affirmative; that yes, you may incorporate links of consciousness into this explanation. But as I say to you, within the context of the information offered, this is not what is being referred to.

In this, it may be expressed in other terms in the statements of energy and energy signatures.

Each of you, in your uniqueness and within your individuality, as I have expressed previously, are so very highly individual and unique that you each possess your own energy signature, in a manner of speaking, just as we have discussed within previous sessions in comparison to your physical fingerprints.

Your individual expression of tone and vibrational quality and personality are so very highly unique and individualized to you yourself that it may be compared to physical fingerprints not being duplicated within the physical expression of any other individual throughout your history within your physical dimension.

There are no two identically the same, and in this, you each hold a particular energy signature which is unique to yourself.

Now; in this energy signature, you also incorporate certain qualities that appear to be in alignment, in a manner of speaking, with other individuals, although you express, as I have stated, within yourselves uniquely.

In this, you may be incorporating the similarities of orientations also, which place you in a type of general expression of a group, so to speak. But within the group, you continue to be highly individualized within your expressions.

Now; as you look to your physical identification of gene pools, gene pools are not unique to one individual, although they ARE unique to each individual.

Your genetic makeup, so to speak, is individualized to yourself, but also simultaneously, it incorporates hereditary factors and the similarities to other individuals within your physical dimension, which creates a commonality in one respect between yourself and other individuals, but retains your individuality and your uniqueness within the group.

In a similar manner, through the incorporation of orientation, you hold similarities to each other in each of the designations of the different orientations, but you also each hold your individual energy signature.

Therefore, these may be likened, in a manner of speaking, to the manifestation of your physical genetics, and this may be translated in terminology that may be more easily assimilated by individuals objectively as a concept that is expressed as ‘mental genes.’

It is a different manner of expressing the same concept as commonalties and uniqueness in your energy signature and your orientation, within physical terms.

These are influencing factors in your translations. How you translate different elements of subjective movement or imagery into objective movement and imagery – how you create the bridge in objective terms between the two that you may view objectively – is quite influenced by your energy signature individually and also by your orientation, for this is a construct of your perception.

PAUL H: That’s incredible! I have like a hundred questions, and I’m just trying to formulate the most efficient next one!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha!

PAUL H: (Laughing) Very interesting! Just give me a second here; we’ve covered a lot of ground.

I guess I just want to make the observation that I didn’t realize ... connecting all this orientation information that you’ve offered this year within this concept of an efficient language of translation. It’s obvious now that you’ve put it in those terms to me; the role of energy signatures too. Maybe that’s where I’ll go.

I have a sense, as a physical being in linear time, of my body, of my mind and body as – in terms of tone, in terms of energy and vibration – thick, slowed down in terms of light energy and faster than light energy, and so I have an objective sense of this energy signature, so to speak, as it manifests objectively.

However, subjectively, in the context of this term of mental genes, commonalties and uniquenesses in the context of how we translate, there is a subjective manifestation of the energy signature also, and that is on the subjective side of this equation that we’re talking about, and maybe that’s good enough to know at this point!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! You are correct!

As I have expressed to you previously, your objective and subjective awarenesses move in harmony with each other and are not independent of each other, in a manner of speaking. Therefore, what is being created subjectively is also being created objectively.

What you are attempting to be moving into is the translation, is the objective awareness of BOTH creations of awareness. You wish to be objectively aware of subjective movement.

And in this, we concentrate our subject matter upon the objective movement and objective noticings and recognitions and translations, for you need no translation of the subjective – the subjective needs no translation of the objective – and you have no motivation to be translating any objective imagery into subjective awareness.

But as you HAVE created veils and separations objectively throughout your history in manifestation within this dimension, you DO hold a curiosity and a motivation to be creating a translation of that which you view presently – or perceive to be illusive – as the subjective imagery and movement, that element of yourself that continues to be suspect, and you wish or desire to be creating a translation, that you may hold an objective awareness of the movement of the subjective imagery and awareness; not that the subjective movement or imagery or awareness is being created in any different manner than the objective in terms of direction, for it is not.

The direction is the same of both the objective and the subjective, but the imagery presents itself differently, and therefore there is a fascination in the area of investigating that which is unfamiliar to you objectively. Therefore, we DO concentrate our discussions in the direction of the objective terms of translation.

PAUL H: Great. That’s very clear.

So for now, in my present understanding, I think if I proceed in terms of this equation and its three aspects in a general sense of subjective source energy, translation, and objective imagery – the accomplishment of objective imagery – that will be helpful, to continue in that framework, for me. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct. You may identify force pattern or source energy as quite the same.

PAUL H: Great.

ELIAS: They are merely different terms for the same concept.

PAUL H: So, just one further question in this general area.

Seth does mention this concept of electromagnetic energy units, which he says, in his terms, are made up of consciousness units. I’m clear that in your terms, links of consciousness make up these other units of energy that are involved in translating into objective physical imagery from a slightly faster, higher vibrational speed than is physical. You’ve never really commented on this concept, and I’m wondering if you would just comment on that notion of electromagnetic energy units in this translation process. (9)

ELIAS: This is an objective translation that may be more easily assimilated by individuals.

In another manner of speaking, it is a complication of the concept of consciousness, for it is the offering of what you objectively may term to be an extra piece or an extra element.

It has been offered purposefully, for as you are aware, within physical focus you incline objectively quite easily in the direction of complication and of creating processes, within your thought patterns and within all of your objective imagery that you create.

You move in the direction of not allowing yourselves to be accepting of the simplification of concepts or of movement or of consciousness, and in your exploration of consciousness, within physical terms, you choose to be creating complications for many of the aspects of consciousness within your physical dimension.

(Firmly) This is not bad. I am not expressing this in any terms of negativity. It is merely an action that you create, and that you have created quite purposefully.

It offers you the ability to be examining every area of physical manifestation. It offers you a tremendous labyrinth of exploration within physical dimensions, and allows you to be examining every aspect of what you may be creating within this physical dimension.

Therefore, it is not without purpose that you have created this direction of complication, but you have also incorporated this complicating element into your language quite efficiently.

Therefore, as you receive information, it is easier for you to be assimilating information offered if it is complicated. It is more difficult for you to be assimilating information if it is offered to you too simply.

Therefore, it has been quite purposefully complicated and offered to you in information, that you may easily assimilate the concept of movement of energy, and as I have stated, an extra piece has been inserted for your benefit, that you may be understanding the information efficiently.

In this, I express to you, links of consciousness create ALL manifestations.

You may complicate this, and you may express different categorizations for these links of consciousness. You may group links of consciousness in different manners, and in this, you may label and identify and classify them, and this may be efficient for your objective understanding, and this is acceptable if this offers you an ease within your objective understanding in movement.

But I may express to you, in actuality, links of consciousness group together in different configurations and create all actions and all movements and all manifestations of consciousness, and it need not be complicated further.

But as I have stated, I am quite understanding that this is the development of your language and how you move within your thought processes, and as I express to you the statement that links of consciousness create all of your reality in different configurations within physical dimensions and within nonphysical areas of consciousness, this is a simplification, and appears to you to be missing a piece. Therefore, you may insert your piece! (Chuckling)

PAUL H: Thank you. That was really clear. I’m scaring myself these days that I’m actually following you, and I mean that with all due respect! (They both laugh)

So just to summarize my understanding of your answer, it’s clear to me, in what you’ve offered thus far in terms of consciousness units, that there’s a large, perhaps infinite spectrum of configurations, groupings, and so forth, and within our objective terms, there’s a certain observable way of breaking those down into pieces, and that certainly aligns with our scientific belief systems and so forth.

So, that’s interesting. My personal interest in this area is not classifying all of these configurations and publishing books about them at all, but to simply see what your answer and your feedback is in that area, and for me, it’s very clear. Thank you.

ELIAS: You are very welcome.

PAUL H: Another question then, in this area of the equation and the three aspects, the general orienting aspects here, types of force patterns or source energy that you’ve discussed to date ... I just want to summarize my understanding and see if there’s any that are missing, or other aspects that I’m not clear on.

So, my understanding is that in terms of source energy, certainly our essence and all of our aspect selves, which includes focuses of essence and all the probables, alternates, splinters, counterparts, et cetera, is one. You’ve talked about Source Events found in what you term Regional Area 2. That certainly seems to be another area of source energy that impacts what you term our Regional Area 1. And then what some call psychic blueprints or world views, you term energy deposits, aspects of focuses in transition found in Regional Area 3. So, would you comment on the accuracy of that assessment? Are there other types of source energy that I’m not aware of?

ELIAS: (Deliberately) Let me express to you that the force pattern – or the source energy – may be classified quite simply as ALL of the energy and movement, imagery and creation, collective and individual, which may be designated within Regional Area 2, or any Regional Area of consciousness that may be translatable into objective awareness within Regional Area 1.

PAUL H: So that would include this energy exchange with Regional Area 4.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: Interesting.

ELIAS: For in this phenomenon also, [there] is a translation which is occurring, and in this, it may also in part serve as an example, for there is a force pattern which is projected in what you may term to be a filtration through subjective energy, in a mergence with subjective energy, and is translated in energy through, and relayed into objective expression.

PAUL H: That’s clear from where I’m at, at the moment. This is fascinating stuff, Elias!” (Elias chuckles) [session 506, November 24, 1999]

PAUL H: “I have just a quick question in this area, Elias, about what you’re discussing in terms of redefinition of terminology. Do you consider that a wave in consciousness?

ELIAS: Not in the terms that we have been discussing in conjunction with waves of consciousness that address to specific belief systems.

This is the reason that I have not incorporated that particular word as to be confusing individuals in their association with waves of consciousness, for I have offered much information in conjunction with waves of consciousness which move in association with your belief systems and the addressment to aspects of belief systems, or merely the expression of belief systems in objective terms.

Therefore, it is not an expression of that type of wave, so to speak.

It is a movement of consciousness collectively which is occurring, and this is a movement not necessarily associated with any one particular belief system, but with respect to ALL of your belief systems, and a direct movement of the shift itself.

In this, it may be recognized as an individual and collective demonstration in objective action and recognition of the presentment in its beginning forms, so to speak, of the actualization of this shift in consciousness.

This is not to say that the movement of the shift in consciousness previously has not been actualizing within your physical dimension, for it has, but it has been manifesting or inserting into your physical reality in abstract types of expressions and actualizations.

Now you begin movement into the construction, so to speak, in objective manner, of the insertion of this shift in consciousness into your actual physical reality, not merely individually, but collectively also.

There is a movement objectively occurring which is a redefining of terms, which is also translated as a redefining of your reality in itself. For as you redefine your terms, you redefine your meaning, and as you redefine your meaning, your definition, you also redefine how you actualize your reality, and therefore your reality is altered and redefined.

In this, you are allowing yourself to view the actual construction or beginnings of construction of this shift in consciousness in physical terms, in like manner, figuratively speaking, to the construction of a building. You may be creating of the blueprints, the ideas, the mathematical equations and geometric forms in your equations prior to the actual physical construction of the building, but as you begin the actual construction of the building in physical matter, you begin to view the structure.

In this, you have been creating and inserting into your physical reality your equations and your blueprints, in physical terms, of this shift in consciousness, and moving yourself into the readiness for the actual construction, in physical terms, of the structure, so to speak, of this shift in consciousness.

You may view this redefining of terms as likened to the actual placement of the foundational bricks to be constructing your building or your structure, so to speak.

PAUL H: Wow.

JO: That’s cool.

PAUL H: That’s interesting. So this mass actualization of movement, would it also be part of a translation of the Source Event of the shift?

ELIAS: Yes. This is an action of a translation which is inserting into your physical reality elements of this Source Event, which is translated as this shift in consciousness.

I have expressed to you throughout this particular time framework of this particular year that there is an expression of confusion and conflict and trauma which is accelerating, and this may also be viewed as the birth pangs of the actual physical production or insertion of this shift into your physical reality, for you have been grappling with your identification of definitions, and this creates tremendous confusion.

It creates a responsiveness within yourselves, individually and collectively, of conflict, for you automatically seek the familiar and retreat into the familiar, and the redefining of terms is unfamiliar, and this is offering much confusion, which also creates much trauma within your objective reality.

Now; I shall express to you presently, do not be looking to your movement into your new year, so to speak, in your physically defined terms, as a movement into the elimination of these types of expressions, for it shall not be, for you are not moving in that direction yet.

PAUL H: That’s clear. Thank you.” [session 530, December 29, 1999]

HOWARD: “I’m having an ongoing problem with my publisher (10), and when I wrote this back in January, it was quite difficult because I was trying to determine where the books were being sold so that I might at least notify or call the retailers and see if they had any kind of program for book signings or if they would be interested, and I got a rather shocking reply that they had purged their records and they couldn’t help me. And I was thinking, well, what’s going on between DeVorss and myself? I wrote, ‘What can I do to help them, help me, and all the other authors?’ Then I said, ‘I’d like to buy them. Are they for sale? What’s going on there?’ I guess I can look forward and take total responsibility for this, and I can say, well, apparently this is something you wanted to create, but it strikes me that they are equally stuck in something, and I just ... if there’s anything you can clarify, I would appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

YOU alone create your reality through your perception.

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

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

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

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

HOWARD: I....

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

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

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

ELIAS: You may substitute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOWARD: (Laughing) Yes!

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

HOWARD: Yes. Well....

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

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

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

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

Therefore, this is very influencing of how you create the designs of your perception in relation to other individuals, but you also allow for the other individual’s expression without your interpretation or your translation at certain moments, and within those moments, you express surprise, for you receive a projection of energy that you do not expect, for it is not of the design of your translation of the other individual’s expression through your perception.” [session 629, June 04, 2000]

PAUL T: “Moving on to some other things that have to do with blueprints, a few months ago I had a very interesting experience. As I was walking into work, it was like a portal opened up, and I could visualize myself and my wife in what I believe was Regional Area 2 agreeing to disagree. (Laughs) We were having an argument, and I could see how it was being coordinated in what I believe is Regional Area 2. Could you confirm that experience?

ELIAS: Yes, I shall confirm.

PAUL T: Okay.

ELIAS: Be aware that this action that you view occurs simultaneous to its creation...

PAUL T: Oh, yes!

ELIAS: ...not prior to its creation within Regional Area 1.

PAUL T: Oh yeah, that was actually the next thing I was going to be talking about. In a dream of a couple days ago, I was participating in a meeting, and the person who was going to be speaking at that meeting asked me to lead it. I had the same sort of experience within that dream, that I recognized the agreement was being made in Regional Area 2 at that moment to participate in a creation which both of us created from our own individual standpoints for our own individual reasons, but yet we agreed that that would occur. Later on within context of the dream I recognized that he was altering the format of the meeting from what I was used to in that meeting, and it caused a fair amount of consternation on his part.

So what I’m leading up to is blueprints and how I attach myself to somebody else’s boat, to use your analogy, in the creation of my own reality. No specific question ... well, yes, there is, I take that back. I’m asking for some confirmation that my understanding of how the agreements made in Regional Area 2 come into existence here in Regional Area 1.

ELIAS: I may express to you, in relation to the freedom that you hold in choice and the lack of absolutes, you may be engaging agreement with other essences within Regional Area 2 as you are creating choices within Regional Area 1, but there is, in a manner of speaking, expressed the agreement in potentiality but not in absolute, therefore allowing the openness in freedom to be expressing the agreement in a myriad of manners and in each individual’s expression of creativity.

In this, as agreements are not absolute either and as you do continue to incorporate choice, the agreement may be altered in each moment also. But even within the choice to hold to an agreement, that may be expressed within your physical manifestations and objective imagery in countless choices and expressions, which offers you a very wide berth in how you may be expressing the agreement. Are you understanding?

PAUL T: Yes, I think so. Yes, I am creating my own reality, and in that, if I make an agreement to cooperate or – I won’t use the term co-create – but participate together in an agreement, I can change and alter that at any time, and I can choose many different ways of expressing how I meet that agreement.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL T: That implies by extension here that I am not necessarily in communication through Regional Area 2 when I choose a particular path. The imagery that I have in the dream and also in waking life is that there is a particular moment when the agreement is made, and then I sort of detach from that and ... I always operate autonomously, but it is not in conjunction with the other essence.

ELIAS: Yes and no. Each movement that you create, each choice that you create, each action that you incorporate in creation within your physical expression is being created by you and through the mechanism of your perception. But this also is being created through an assimilation of many, many, many, many avenues of communication that you are offering to yourself within each moment. One of those avenues IS an interaction within Regional Area 2.

In this, I may express to you that as there is in actuality no separation of essences and consciousness, you are, in a manner of speaking, incorporating a cooperation with other essences, not in the manner that you associate objectively but in what may be termed as an intertwining of essences and a lack of separation.

You are not in actuality singularly creating any expression within your physical focus. This be the reason that I have expressed previously, as you create any movement you are also affecting of every other essence participating in this reality, and they are also affecting of you.

What you create in relation to another individual, you create in relation to yourself. What you create in relation to yourself, you are also creating in relation to all other individuals. This is the aspect of no separation.

But I am recognizing this is a difficult concept within your objective understanding, for you have created a blueprint for this particular physical dimension that expresses separation in all of its manifestations.

PAUL T: Yes, it’s that veil between this focus of essence that I recognize as Paul and All That Is.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL T: Yes, I believe I’m understanding.

ELIAS: I may express to you also that in actuality, within consciousness, every moment that is experienced within your creations in Regional Area 1 is also influenced within your interactions of Regional Area 3.

PAUL T: Oh, I haven’t looked at Regional Area 3 too much yet.” (Elias chuckles) [session 795, March 11, 2001]

DARYL: “... I want to talk to you some about the concept of blueprints and interaction with other people, ‘cause that’s come up a lot in discussion. I understand that I interact essentially with my version of someone else.

ELIAS: Correct.

DARYL: Okay. The place where I get confused in relationships is that I understand there has to be agreement, but I also understand that my choices are my choices. So, I guess what I’m trying to understand is if I do want a relationship with this person or another person, do I have the absolute choice to have that? And if I choose that, since there seems to be so many aspects of us around, then that will elicit something having to do with them but also my blueprint, and allow me to have that choice?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.

Now; recently I have offered explanations to individuals. I have offered an explanation to Lawrence [Vicki] concerning this type of interaction, interaction between individuals. You are correct that the direct interaction with the image of another individual, or the physical aspect of interaction with another individual, is created through the projection of your perception; but you also are receiving energy. The other individual projects energy, and you receive that energy which is projected, and you allow yourself to create a projection through your perception as to what the other individual is creating.

Now; let me express to you, many, many times what you project through your perception is very similar to what the other individual is actually creating and choosing. But I may express to you also that at times another individual projects energy outward, and you may receive that energy, and you may reconfigure it and project an entirely different perception concerning the choice or actions of the other individual.

Now; I may express to you, if your attention is held upon self and you are not engaging issues of fear which distract your attention, for the most part you shall allow yourself to be creating a projection of the other individual based upon their projection of energy, which is the element which provides you with a blueprint of the other individual, and what they are expressing, and what their choices are, and their movement, and any action that they may be incorporating. And in this, as you incorporate that energy and form your blueprint, as I have stated, for the most part you shall create your image of the individual through your perception in very similar manner to what they are actually expressing.

Now; I may also say to you that many times individuals may be creating what you identify as misunderstandings or a lack of understanding, or they may be creating misinterpretations of another individual’s creations or actions. For as the energy is received, it is moved through your own filters of your own associations and fears and beliefs, and in this you create an action, as I have stated recently, which may be similar to your physical creations of pinballs.

A ball of energy approaches you from another individual, and as you receive that energy, it may strike an aspect of you or an association within you that you hold, and it may begin striking many different areas within yourself, different issues and associations that you hold, also colliding with your own beliefs and your own discounting of self; and all of these actions in this analogy of this pinball, so to speak, that occur within you reconfigure the original energy projection. And as this is offered to your perception, your perception creates a translation which is more similarly aligned with your own beliefs and issues than it may be with what the other individual is actually projecting.

I may also express to you, for the most part, all of you create a similar action of projecting energy automatically in each movement in each expression that you create, and it is not in actuality directed to any one individual. It is merely a projection outward of your energy in relation to whatever you may be creating in the moment.

Now; this is received more specifically or objectively by individuals that you may be engaging actual physical objective interaction with. This may be in many different manners. It may be within physical proximity, or you do not necessarily need be incorporating physical proximity in your time framework, for you offer yourselves many other avenues of actual objective interaction with each other without incorporating actual physical proximity. This does not lessen the interaction in its objective expression, as you are aware, merely that you are not in actual physical proximity with the individual.

But as I have stated, these types of energy projections are received more intensely and objectively more directly if you are in actual objective interaction with another individual. Are you understanding?

DARYL: Yes.

ELIAS: Now; as to creating what you want in relation to this subject matter and how you create your reality in relation to other individuals, I may express to you, your perception is that which shall create the actual manifestation of what you want. The actual interaction in physical terms with another individual matters not, for what you are interacting with in relation to another individual is not the actual physical manifestation, anyway. What you are directly interactive with is the energy projection from another individual. But the actual interaction in what you term to be physical terms, physical manifestation, is an interaction that you create between yourself and your projection through your perception of the other individual.

Now; the significance of recognition of this manner of creation and physical manifestations is that YOU are directing of all of it. You are not creating another individual’s reality. You are not manipulating another individual’s energy. You are not dictating to another individual how they shall be creating their reality or what they shall be creating within their reality, and neither are they expressing any of those to you.

You are allowing yourself interaction with the other individual’s energy, and you are allowing yourself to be creating an actual manifestation of what you want through your perception. This be the reason that I express to you all so often it matters not what other individuals choose, what other individuals create; it matters not what manifests in situations, in circumstances, or what you view outside of yourself. What holds significance is what you ALLOW yourself to be creating through your perception, for all that is within your individual reality is created by your individual perception. Therefore, [in] allowing yourself permission to be creating what you want, you allow yourself the freedom to create the actual physical manifestation of what you want.

DARYL: So if I understand it, if I continue to want this sort of relationship, I hold the ability, and if I give myself permission then I can have it, period.

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: I don’t have to get anything from anyone else or get the other person to go along.

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: I can just ... I can have it.

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: Okay, that’s what I thought you were saying, but it is so far out of what we conceive reality to be! (Laughing)

ELIAS: You are correct, and this is...

DARYL: So I can just really go on the assumption that yeah, I’ve chosen this, and as long as I keep choosing it, then I can have it?

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: Oh, that is so empowering!

ELIAS: And that you already have it.

DARYL: Well, I meant this particular...

ELIAS: I am understanding of what you are expressing.

DARYL: And I can also see where I’ve been taking that energy and doing different things with it.

ELIAS: Correct, and what you have been creating – not entirely, but for the most part – is waiting. You are waiting for the expression of the other individual and the permission of the other individual. What you are creating is waiting for the other individual to create the choice that YOU want.

DARYL: Yes! (Laughing)

ELIAS: This is the reverse of what I am expressing to you. Offer to yourself permission to be creating what you want. No other individual may offer you permission to create what you want. And you may create an expectation that the other individual needs be creating a choice before you may allow yourself to follow and create a choice, and I shall express to you, in that expectation, you also create a set, in a manner of speaking, for disappointment. What you hold power and ability in is to be creating your reality in every aspect of it, in every expression that you want.

I am quite understanding the challenge that is expressed in this information for it is very unfamiliar to you, but it also is quite genuine and actual, and in this the challenge is the acknowledgment and trust of your own abilities and that you actually do hold the ability to be creating all that you want.” [session 798, March 15, 2001]

KATHLEEN: “I have a question. I’ve been seeing someone for the past seven months. For weeks it’s great, and then all of a sudden we hit conflict, and we get stuck. Is it true that when you have an attraction to someone, the stronger the attraction the more they are going to show you you?

ELIAS: ... Now; as to your association in wondering of the accurateness of ‘the more you are attracted to another individual, the more they shall mirror or reflect yourself to you,’ I may express to you, no, not necessarily.

Now; you may pay attention more, but the reflection is not necessarily greater. Every individual that you encounter within your focus, in every moment, is a reflection to you.

You draw to yourself other individuals quite purposefully. There are no accidents, and there are no coincidences. Each individual that enters your sphere of your reality you have drawn to you, to be a reflection of some aspect of yourself.

Now; this is not to say that you objectively pay attention to all of these reflections, and this is one of the reasons, in a manner of speaking, that you are unfamiliar with yourselves and that you have NOT created a genuine relationship with yourselves, for you are NOT paying attention to all that you offer to yourselves in information through reflection. Not only individuals reflect to you, but your creatures reflect to you, and all of your reality that you perceive reflects aspects of yourself.

You pay attention more clearly to other individuals than to other aspects of your physical reality, and you pay more attention to individuals that you create intimacy with. They are not reflecting more, but you are paying more attention to what they are expressing and therefore offer yourself the opportunity to view the reflection more clearly.

KATHLEEN: So, when you say I’m viewing the reflection, it’s ... okay, I didn’t look at the reflection in someone else five years ago because I wasn’t ready to see? And I’m ready to see now what this person’s trying to show me?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes. Many times you shall not be paying attention to the reflection of another individual for you are not willing to be viewing yourself. This is the creation of holding your attention outside of self, and in holding your attention outside of self, you also block your creation of a relationship with yourself.

Now; let me also express to you that this statement of ‘creating a relationship with self’ is many times confusing to many individuals, for you hold specific definitions of your terminology. The terminology of ‘relationship’ implies, in your terms, a participation of more than one element, more than one individual, more than one entity. You create relationships with other individuals; you create relationships with creatures; you create relationships with vegetation; you may even create a relationship with that which you term to be nature or your planet, or other planets. But there is an implication that is expressed that a relationship is created between more than one entity, and you view yourselves to be one entity. Therefore, the very statement of ‘creating a relationship with yourself’ creates confusion, for how may you be creating a relationship with yourself if you are one individual? What shall you participate with? What shall you interact with?

But I may express to you, the manner in which you create your physical reality in this physical dimension IS all you. You do not directly interact with any other individual as an expression of another essence. You do not directly interact with any other manifestation outside of yourself although you hold your attention outside of yourself quite frequently, quite consistently; for your beliefs express that you are interacting with creations that are outside of yourself and that are not an element of you.

I may express to you, in this present now, each of you is an individual present within this space arrangement. Each of you is a manifestation, a focus of attention, of each of your essences, and each of you are creating your projection and your perception of every other individual in this presence.

What you directly interact with is the reception of each individual’s energy which is projected to you, and you receive the energy and you create a translation. The translation is offered through your individual perceptions, and from the blueprints of the energy that you have received from every other individual in this presence, you create a projection of each of these individuals. But THIS is what you interact with, your perception of each of the individuals.

Therefore, as you engage a relationship with another individual... (Elias shifts his gaze to another participant) Be paying attention! (Chuckles) As you engage a relationship with another individual, you shall create what you expect. You create what is influenced by your beliefs, for you are creating your perception of that individual.

You create what you expect, and through your own influence of your own beliefs and your own assessment of self, your own viewing of yourself, this is what is projected outwardly.

The other individual expresses energy, just as do you. It is not projected to you individually, singularly concerning you. It is projected as a demonstration of energy as choice of each individual. You all create this function. You also all create interpretations and translations of all of this movement of energy. And what influences your translation and your interpretation, and therefore is projected through your perception into an actual reality, is what YOU have created.

Now; you express to myself, you create a relationship with another individual and within your perception you may be experiencing a time framework in which you enjoy pleasure and you do not engage conflict, and then you engage a time framework in which you engage conflict. The question is not concerning the other individual; the question is not concerning the relationship. The question to be addressing to is self, and what are you creating in these moments, and what are you experiencing in these moments? What are your own communications to yourself in these moments? What do you express to yourself in the communication of emotions?

For I shall state once again, for the benefit of individuals that have not been privy to recent sessions and interactions, emotion is NEVER a reaction. Emotion is ALWAYS a communication. Therefore, as you are experiencing emotions, you are communicating to yourself, and that communication contains an identification of precisely what you are creating and your associations in the moment. It merely appears to you that emotion is a reaction, for your attention, in familiarity, is held outside of yourself, and therefore you are paying attention to the objective experience or action first. This is not to say that the emotion is not present; you are merely not paying attention to its presence. You pay attention subsequently, for your attention generally in this dimension – as it has been designed for millenniums – is to be directing your attention outside of yourself and subsequently turning to self in any situation.

You are altering, literally, all of your reality in this time framework. You are experiencing and participating in a shift in consciousness which is altering ALL of your reality, literally. And in this, you are redefining many aspects of your reality, and in redefining you are widening your awareness and you are allowing yourself a clearer understanding of precisely what you create and how you create in this physical reality, and in that movement you are beginning to allow yourself the realization that ALL that you create is what YOU create – not what other individuals create.

Your objective imagery is abstract. It is changing continuously. What holds significance is your perception, for this is the mechanism that creates your actual physical reality; and what influences that perception, that mechanism, does not change as often as your objective imagery.

I may express to you all, every individual within this presence this evening has engaged experiences or time frameworks in which they have offered to themselves many or several different types of expressions, of experiences, and subsequently have offered themselves information in what you in your mundane terms express as ‘connecting your dots,’ and you express to yourself, ‘Ah ha! I have created several experiences that are all attempting to offer to me the same message!’ Have you not? (General agreement) This is quite common within this physical dimension.

For your objective imagery ... that which you view within your environment, within your world, within any expressions that you term to be outside of yourself, all of these creations are your objective imagery, and objective imagery is abstract; it is continuously altering. It is continuously changing, for you are extremely creative beings, and without this continuous creative expression, you are bored! (Laughter) Therefore, you create many different objective expressions to offer yourselves the same message.” [session 800, March 18, 2001]

DARYL: “What I understood you to say last time (11) was that within our individual realities, we each create movement and energy and that we project that energy outward, but it is not projected outward to a specific individual.

ELIAS: Correct.

DARYL: And that in a relationship, I interact with their energy and I put their energy through my perception, which may or may not alter what comes out because of my own issues and beliefs, etcetera. Then I create a physical manifestation of the person based on their blueprint, and I interact with that physical manifestation, which in actuality is created by my perception and not by the other person.

ELIAS: Correct.

DARYL: Now, my understanding through all this, where you have said that everything that I create is me and that we create from blueprints of other people, was that for instance if I was sitting in a room with a person that they would be there physically in their reality and I would be there in my reality. I would see their blueprint and create a version of them, but they would actually be there and they would be doing the same. We would actually have an interchange that went between the two of us physically, and basically the other person was there, even though my perception of them was what I was relating to.

My understanding from what you said last time is that just because I am sitting in a room with someone interacting with their physical manifestation, it does not mean that they are there in their reality with me.

ELIAS: At times.

DARYL: At times – they can be or not be.

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: So, I’ve been undergoing some trauma in this regard, because it’s changed my conception of who I am interacting with. It seems to me that in large part I am interacting with myself and their energy, but ... it seems to me that I am not interacting with what I thought I was interacting with, necessarily.

ELIAS: In some aspects you are correct.

DARYL: I’ve also had another breathing spell, and I had a couple of dreams in one night that seemed to be related to this, at least part of it. In the first part, the dream imagery or the dream state information that I was getting seemed to be about other aspects of me or other parts of me that are doing things as part of this focus that I am not objectively aware of.

The other part seemed different. It seemed to be about all the many things that are held in the now, all the very many different interactions that are going on in the vastness of that. Both of them were kind of about the vastness of my focus and the vastness of now.

ELIAS: And your impression?

DARYL: I guess my impression is, if I am understanding what you told me last time, that physical reality doesn’t work the same way that I was actually thinking it does especially in terms of interaction, and that if I really am creating everything the way I think I am, then it does give me unlimited freedom of choices, and it makes me think of physical reality as a playground of self.

It’s just different than I thought it was, and part of it is very liberating and exciting, but the rest of it ... I know I am undergoing trauma, because I am asking myself if I am talking to someone and giving them information, does anyone necessarily receive that? If I am being intimate with someone and kissing them, who am I kissing? If I give money to someone in my reality, do they necessarily get it in theirs? And even to the extreme, if I kill someone in my reality does that translate into that other person’s reality, necessarily?

ELIAS: Very well.

DARYL: It’s all kind of the same question about who is that other person that I am interacting with besides myself, because I understand that there is a component of myself in that.

ELIAS: Correct. In response to your questioning as to what you are interacting with, or whom you are interacting with, I may express to you first of all, you are viewing your reality in physical terms and in relation to what you know objectively as what is familiar to you in relation to your beliefs.

Now; this also moves into the facet of separation and your familiarity with separation. As you create your questioning in your associations with this information, you continue to insert the aspect of separation in your objective understanding.

DARYL: I’ve been trying to work with that, because I am aware I’m doing that. If you put in no separation, I think it takes it out of the trauma range. I think I’m in the trauma because of being stuck in the physical reality concept and separation.

ELIAS: Correct. For you are not physically manifest within your physical dimension upon your physical planet singularly as one essence. There are MANY essences that also are physically manifest in your dimension upon your planet. Although your physical interaction with any other individual IS an interaction which is created as a projection of your own perception, you also ARE interactive with other individuals’ energy.

Now; as you allow yourself to move into a clearer understanding of the lack of separation of essences, let me express to you, in relation to your example of interacting with an individual within a particular room and need they be physically present, for the most part they are. But do they need be? No. For in the expression genuinely of the lack of separation, you are all intertwined.

Therefore, all of the essences participating in this physical dimension are already intertwined. They are already participating within energy, and you may turn your attention to the interplay that you engage in essence and in energy with ANY individual, and you may construct a physical projection of that individual based upon the blueprint of the energy; and the individual needs not be actually physically present but shall be physically present in your projection of them through your perception.

Now; let me also express to you that this type of action, in a manner of speaking, is requiring of a genuine recognition within the individual of the lack of separation. It also is, in a manner of speaking once again, requiring holding your attention within self and allowing yourself a genuine expression of your abilities, knowing that any other individual is in actuality present with you already.

Therefore for the most part, to this point within your physical reality throughout your history, what is familiar and known to you objectively is not created in this manner. For the most part, you do create your projection of a physical manifestation of an individual in relation to your interaction with them in energy in corporeal terms. Are you understanding?

DARYL: I believe so.

ELIAS: This is not to say that you may not be creating an actual physical manifestation of any individual and be interactive with that physical manifestation which is created through your perception in any moment in any time framework, regardless of their actual physical presence with you. But...

DARYL: And whether or not they are doing it within their reality.

ELIAS: Correct, objectively.

DARYL: So, as I understand it, the way I used to think of things, that there were two people there, has been accurate; but now we’re beginning to learn of our abilities to do the interaction in a different way.

ELIAS: Correct, and offering yourself more freedom in how you create your reality and what you create within your reality, offering yourself the choice to create precisely what you want, knowing that you hold the ability to be creating that in actual physical manifestation.

DARYL: Now, say I had a relationship with someone ten years ago in what I’ll call the normal, old-fashioned way (Elias laughs), and now I get to the point where I can create this new way through my perception without necessarily the other person physically being there. Is the quality and depth and, for lack of a better word, reality of the interaction the same?

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: So basically, it opens up more freedom and more choices.

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: I’ve also noticed that it takes me outside of a lot of beliefs, in a sense. I have certain ideas about if I was in a romantic relationship and someone loved me, how they would feel about me within belief systems, and how I would be in competition, so to speak, with other people for their affection.

ELIAS: Correct. This is not the point.

DARYL: When you do it this other way and you say, ‘I want that, and I will create it,’ then it really doesn’t have to do with the belief systems about it.

ELIAS: Correct. Let me also express to you, at times you all do allow yourselves to be creating this type of action, and you evidence that to yourselves in the return, so to speak, to the familiar creation of interaction in actual physical proximity, or in actual physical expressions between yourselves.

At times individuals may be creating an experience within their reality, and they may express – comment – to another individual concerning the interaction that they have engaged together, and the second individual shall express no association with that interaction at all.

You may express to another individual, in your commonly expressed terms, an identification and acknowledgment of your interaction with them within a previous time framework. In example, you may express to another individual, ‘I offer to you an appreciation of our interaction at attending an event together,’ and you may be expressing your common terms of thankfulness to the other individual. And within the moment, the other individual may express to you, ‘I am not understanding of what you are expressing to me. I have not attended this event with you. I have not participated in this with you. You must be mistaking myself for another individual.’ But you are not mistaken, for you have created the action, but the other individual was not within physical proximity.

You allow yourselves in these types of experiences – quite infrequently, but they do occur – to be accessing the energy of another individual, as you are all intertwined and interconnected so to speak in essence, and the other individual is present with you regardless of their physical interaction. You allow yourself to access that aspect of the energy of another essence and interact with that in the same manner that you shall in actual physical interaction which is familiar to you. For even within the physical interaction, you are not engaging the actual physical manifestation of the other individual. You are engaging YOUR physical projection from your perception of the individual.

DARYL: I guess I’m still kind of confused about what actually passes between the two individuals in either case, the case of how I’ve always thought it was or in this new case. If I am interacting with another person in any manner, am I actually interacting with THEM?

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: I am not creating their reality, but I am interacting with them?

ELIAS: Yes, (firmly) but not in physical matter.

DARYL: Because the physical matter is an illusion.

ELIAS: The physical matter is created by you; that is created through the mechanism of your perception. (Pause) But you are interactive with the energy of the other individual.

DARYL: I guess what is important to me is to know that I am actually having a real interaction and that I am not just putting the energy through my perception and basically just interacting with myself, but that there is another element ... do you understand what I am saying?

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: And I am?

ELIAS: Yes. The interaction is created in energy. The physical manifestations are your own creations.

Once again, I shall reiterate to you and to all, this be the reason that I continue to express to you all, your objective imagery holds much less significance than other expressions of your reality. The perception is much more significant than the actual physical projection of matter.

DARYL: It’s just hard to really truly assimilate that since we’re so lost in the physicalness.

ELIAS: I am understanding, but this also is an aspect of this shift in consciousness and your allowance of yourselves to move into much more of an expression of freedom of movement and creation within your physical reality.

(With great emphasis) I speak quite literally as I express to you all that the entirety of your physical dimension is altering. You are altering it in this shift in consciousness, for you are expanding your design of your physical reality.

DARYL: So as the shift progresses, people are going to come to understand this more, about how they can create differently.

ELIAS: Yes.

DARYL: I guess I have some kind of confusion, too, about interacting with someone’s energy versus interacting with their reality and creating their reality. (Sighs)

ELIAS: You do not create any other individual’s reality.

DARYL: I know, but it seems like if I have a relationship with someone and I say or do something, I know they have the choice to let that in or not, but it’s still ... I don’t know.

ELIAS: And this, once again, is the physical limitations that are familiar to you, that you have not quite allowed yourselves yet an objective understanding of the interaction that you create in energy, in essence, and that you ARE essence. You are not a piece of essence. You are not a portion of essence.

In the same manner that all of your focuses of your essence are present now with you, all of the other essences that participate in this physical dimension are also present with you. It is in actuality a matter of attention and which direction you choose to be focusing your attention.” [session 835, May 10, 2001]

“PAUL H: Just one follow-up from what you guys just talked about; I’m just playing with personality and the bigness of it. What you’ve discussed as intent, what you’ve discussed as an essence family alignment, I want to focus now on attention, intent, essence family alignment, thought/political/religious/emotional focus, and orientation. Now, I know there’s no absolutes but I’m looking for boundaries here. I’m trying to see the boundaries of a focus and all these probables, infinite probables. Do those four elements, those four traits, do they maintain a consistency in all that infinite variation, as a rule?

ELIAS: Of one focus?

PAUL H: Yes, of one focus.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: So those are boundaries, then, from the essence perspective of the focus of attention that then...

ELIAS: Aspects of that focus of attention, yes.

PAUL H: So that the infinite unfolding of consciousness within the ... these are sort of – ‘constraints’ is not the right word – but filters that are chosen for that design and because it leads to certain areas of outcomes and experiences...

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: ...to be explored. Cool. Okay, thank you. (12)

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.” [session 991, January 21, 2002]

PAUL H: “... And so part of this time framework, as it manifests, as it emerges from – let’s just call it the singularity of the blink out before the blink in process – as it emerges, there’s an order of play of emergence.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: And so these belief systems that we have in evolution, even though there’s some that are very distorted, and pathologically so, with a very negative effect in cultural terms, (Elias nods) there’s still a grain, a gem, of truth to this flow in time and the emergence of life in this dimension; it has to be that way.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: It doesn’t just poof in, in other words.

ELIAS: Correct. In this, view your arts, which are in a manner of speaking a creative mirror of the design of your physical dimension. Now; in composition of musical expressions, what do you express first?

PAUL H: There’s a whole different, many ways of doing that, but for me personally I would get an idea, a seed.

ELIAS: And your idea incorporates what initially?

PAUL H: A communication?

ELIAS: A melody.

PAUL H: Okay. All right.

ELIAS: You begin with a melody, which is your subject. And you build around that subject, that central point, with your harmonies and your disharmonies and you create the background, so to speak, subsequent to the initial melody. Now; within your art of painting, what do you create first?

PAUL H: I’m not a painter, but the background, the base layer, some base layer that you start to build upon.

ELIAS: Correct. You insert your central subject matter. Now; these two actions may be seemingly different, but in actuality their sequence may be somewhat different, but they are actually very similar. The subject in both compositions is the initial point, but what is expressed in the execution in one is the subject first, and in one is the background first.

Now; in association with the design of your physical reality, both are in play simultaneously in association with the Dream Walkers. The Dream Walkers are the subject, and exist, but are not physically manifest. The background is being created in association with the design of the reality. Both are in play, so to speak, simultaneously, but what you view in what you associate as your evolution, or your sequence of events is the development of the background first, and the insertion of the main subject subsequent, which is your species.

PAUL H: Right. Good analogy.

ELIAS: But your species was in play while the background was being developed, in your terms, but not necessarily entirely physically solidly manifest as you view yourselves now.

PAUL H: So in terms of this matrix, we would say that this inner ego was existing previously, and there, (Elias nods) fully waiting and working along with everything consciously….

ELIAS: Not waiting. Actively participating in designing the background, and designing the physical manifestations of your world, and experimenting with different types of physical manifestations. And in that experimentation, exploring the possibilities of physical manifestations and manipulating energy in a manner in association with time to be creating different types of physical expressions in what you term to be living and non-living. And in that experimentation, allowing for a tremendous freedom in creativity, and in keeping with your associations which have, in your terms, carried through your history, generating a fascination with large manifestations, but also recognizing that large manifestations are not always as efficient.

PAUL H: Are you referring to the dinosaurs?

ELIAS: In part.

PAUL H: In part. Yeah, huge, huge creatures, a lot of food, a lot of processing, the whole ecosystem.

ELIAS: Which generated quite an excitement in association with the Dream Walkers in manipulation of energy of consciousness to generate enormous physical manifestations within your physical dimension.

PAUL H: So the Dream Walker layer, which I’ll just say is inner ego, or ‘below’ [i.e., wider], perhaps even, is intimately primary in creating all of this.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: So essence, what you call essence, this personality tone within consciousness, all of consciousness, is instrumental, absolutely primary and causal in that sense of its primacy.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: It causes, and that’s just an amazing thing to remember.

ELIAS: It creates.

PAUL H: Wow. (Elias chuckles) Thank you for that, by the way, that’s helpful. A couple of related questions, then, just to bring me back from billion year stretches. (Elias laughs) So we’ve had this emergent, living, lovely thing – planet Earth – going through all of its wondrous, horrific, violent, lovely, glorious, creative change.

And before the outer ego – I mean, an outer ego emerged in terms of mountains or oceans as they solidified in time and they are physical and they’re working as physical matter, and building. (Elias nods throughout) So those outer egos emerge first – so Seth is accurate in his order of play, so to speak – and then flora and fauna, perhaps – and I can check back to the actual words, I don’t remember it at the moment – emerges, solidifies, and that builds.

And that allows other emergent qualities, of which eventually, in linear terms, mammals emerge from life forms. So, and this is again, it’s a paradox in linear terms, because it’s not like the first homo sapiens of our species just blinked in, it’s part of the singularity that emerges through all these – all of the stages are in me right now.

ELIAS: Correct! (13)

PAUL H: All of those – the reptilian, the mammal, the plants – all of those things in this singularity are somehow in me in this body.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: Nested somehow, inherently allowing me to be me in this moment, without which I couldn’t exist.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: So there’s a sacred bond with this emergent quality to be aware of, and to….

ELIAS: For it is all you.

PAUL H: For it is all us. (14) (Laughs)

I might believe that one of these days! (Elias laughs) But I’m getting there, I’m getting there, and I thank you.

ELIAS: Allow yourself imaginatively to visualize the scenario in association with yourself and in association with what you think of as this grand picture of the Dream Walkers. And in this, the action is the same. It is a desire of exploration and in that exploration to create.

Now; in association with the Dream Walkers, it is an experimentation of different types of forms, and an experimentation of emergence into more and more efficient forms that allow for the type of exploration that is expressed in desire in association with this physical dimension, and in this process, so to speak, also creating the blueprint of the reality.

PAUL H: And Source Events are right there along with that?

ELIAS: Yes. And in this, creating your map of your design of this reality. (15)

Now; in your physical reality in this present now, you generate similar actions. You seek out physical locations upon your planet in which you shall dwell that are compatible, so to speak, with your energy signature – certain landscapes, certain types of climates, certain types of plants, certain creatures that you surround yourself with – and in this, you associate these different environments with different areas of your planet. In actuality, you move yourself to physical locations and in those physical locations you generate the type of environment that is resonating with your energy signature. But you designate in collectiveness different areas of your physical planet to be associated with different types of creations.

You do not incorporate in this physical location in which you dwell presently, you do not create kangaroos. You create deer. You create specific types of birds and bears and coyotes and rabbits and specific plants. In a different location of your planet you create marsupials, quite unusual creatures. In other areas of your planet you create tremendously lush plants, your rain forests, your jungles, and you also create treacherous creatures. All of which are expressions of your explorations and your choices in creating the environment that you desire and which allows you your most efficient manner of exploring what you choose to explore in any particular focus.

PAUL H: Mmhm. That made perfect sense. Thank you for that. Just a couple of questions about this emergence, it’s just a historical interest of mine. So, early humans, in terms of the Dream Walker manifestation, there were forms in which this [noospheric] outer ego had not yet emerged, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: So, as an emergent quality of the entire environment, this was a necessary stage. I would not be here now without that sequence happening, correct? Of an early human without an ego – not to say – okay, it’s possible, anything is possible. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Not necessarily. This is the choice that has been engaged in experimentation.

PAUL H: And again, that brings me back to this inner ego level as causal, (Elias nods throughout) as making these choices, and driving this thing somehow, in a way.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: Which is very important to remember. So early humans, then, there was great experimentation in form and so on and so forth, and at some point this outer ego emerges, so sexual reproduction was already happening before this outer ego…

ELIAS: Correct…

PAUL H: …occurred, it had to.

ELIAS: …for the design of your physical reality was already being processed.

PAUL H: So, wow. So there is a grain of truth to the evolutionary belief systems of this sort of plant form into a fish into a land-based creature, you know, into then mammals, dinosaurs, and then humanoids. They did evolve from – there’s linear and then there’s non-linear too – so that’s what is the toughest thing to reconcile.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

PAUL H: (Laughing) I know YOU understand! I don’t! (Elias laughs) And I’m trying to, and I appreciate your patience!

ELIAS: This is an experimentation with the design of your physical dimension. What is the design of your physical dimension?

PAUL H: You’re asking me? (Elias nods) Oh, I know that. Give me another leading question. I’m not, you mean….

ELIAS: What are the base elements of your physical reality?

PAUL H: Oh. You’re talking about sexuality and emotion?

ELIAS: Correct! Which are what?

PAUL H: A lot of fun and a lot of challenge.

ELIAS: What are they?

PAUL H: I’m being humorous. Um, characteristics of consciousness.

ELIAS: They are the expressions of physical manifestation and communication. These are the base elements of your physical dimension, your physical reality, these two base expressions.

PAUL H: I see.

ELIAS: Physical manifestation and communication.

PAUL H: Right, right, right. I get it.

ELIAS: Now; in this, there is great experimentation with both of these base elements, and in this process there is a development in the design of this physical reality, the blueprint of this physical reality, as duality, which is not to be confused with duplicity. (16) This physical reality incorporates in its blueprint a duality.

Therefore, all that you create within this physical reality incorporates two aspects, two expressions, which is what you develop in your beliefs in relation to opposites…

PAUL H: Mmhm. Duality.

ELIAS: …which in actuality they are not genuinely opposites, but this is a contributing factor, so to speak, to that belief.

In this, as you generate this physical reality, it appears – for you do incorporate linear time as an aspect of your physical reality – that there is a development in an evolutionary fashion. And I am not expressing that this is incorrect, for this is a manifestation of your perceptions, which is quite real.

PAUL H: Mmhm. Of the outer ego, shall we say.

ELIAS: Correct. Correct. Therefore, the objective physical manifestations is a sequence of developments, but it is also not necessarily that one manifestation develops into another manifestation.

PAUL H: Right.

ELIAS: For it is a continual experimentation of the subjective manipulating links of consciousness in association with time to create different manifestations in physical matter.

PAUL H: And did you just describe what might have been called natural selection? And I know that’s a very distorted belief system. (17)

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.

PAUL H: The way you just said it, that sentence before I asked my question – and I’ll check the tape – that integrates this inner ego/subconscious/outer ego chain of causality…

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: …into what we would call natural selection in terms of emergence through time.

ELIAS: Quite!

PAUL H: That is so cool!

ELIAS: For it is a continual experimentation of manipulating energy, which is consciousness, in different manners, and thusly, in your terms, selecting the preferred and the efficient. (18)

PAUL H: Right, right. What a dance, what a magnificent dance.

ELIAS: Which the preferred IS the efficient.

PAUL H: Mmhm. I just get a very beautiful feeling about this process – the tension and resolution and tension, when those resolution cycles, it’s just beautiful, and the tension – and it’s this dance that we dance and it’s a beautiful thing.

So just back to this evolutionary change-in-time idea. Human societies, then, as these outer egos emerged and manipulation in this environment settled down and personality could emerge (Elias nods throughout) – you do distinguish that focuses of essence have emotions, but animals do not have emotions, plants do not have emotions, rocks do not have emotions, they have something.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: They have a feeling tone, and they have an outer ego.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: But that emergent quality has to get to this….

ELIAS: What is emotion?

PAUL H: Feeling, sensation.

ELIAS: No. (Pause) Emotion is communication.

PAUL H: Ah! (Laughs) I knew that!

ELIAS: That is your in between that you are discussing.

PAUL H: Right, right, the mediating [region or subconscious]….

ELIAS: Emotion is the link; it is a communication avenue between the subjective awareness and the objective awareness.

PAUL H: And that’s why….

ELIAS: And it generates a signal, a feeling.

Now; in this, plants and creatures do not incorporate emotion, for it is unnecessary. They do not incorporate the translating mechanism that you incorporate of thought. Therefore, it is unnecessary to be incorporating this type of communication. They do not incorporate impressions or emotion…

PAUL H: They do have impulses?

ELIAS: …or imagination. These are three avenues of communication that you incorporate, but they do not, for it is unnecessary. In association with a creature, they do not incorporate belief systems, and therefore they do not incorporate the belief of separation, and therefore they do not manifest the separation of objective and subjective awarenesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for emotion, for emotion is not a reaction, it is not a response, it is not a feeling – it generates a signal of a feeling to alert your attention.

Now; in this, I am not expressing and have not expressed previously that creatures do not express and you interpret their expressions as emotions. But they are not necessarily emotions. There is merely no separation between the objective and subjective awarenesses of a creature or a plant, and therefore it freely expresses what you incorporate as, shall we say, an extra step.

PAUL H: ... Now just a couple more questions in this area, I know time is happening and I’ll squeeze in what I can. (Elias chuckles) The whales and dolphins – they map to this outer ego/subconscious/inner ego developmental structure, unique to their species – not human, don’t humanize them…

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: …but they will loosely follow this, this is in the blueprints…

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: …in the design.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: It’s inherent in this dimension.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: So as those populations develop and evolve, their social structures – there might be some similarities to human development, because we have millions of years, well, let’s say tens of thousands of years in terms of civilized populations that we can look at in our little framework that we are aware of.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: So these populations of whales and dolphins will follow this general blueprint, and whatever creative choices get made, of course, get made.

ELIAS: Not necessarily in physical expressions.

PAUL H: Right, okay.

ELIAS: For they have chosen to be a different species.

PAUL H: Species, right.

ELIAS: And they have chosen to be incorporating a different type of environment, which also offers you information in association with this shift, which it is no accident. This has been chosen within this time framework for this offers you an opportunity to view different expressions of essence within one physical dimension, which I have been expressing to all from the onset of this forum, you all occupy the same space arrangement. All physical dimensions occupy the same space arrangement.

In this, there are many essences that do not necessarily choose to be manifest within your physical dimension but are within other dimensions. And in that expression, this choice to be generating a different species within your physical reality which chooses quite different types of realities but incorporates the blueprint of this dimension offers you the opportunity to view different manifestations which are also essence, allowing you to more easily recognize and accept that you also incorporate other focuses of attention in other dimensions which are not similar to yourself and generate quite different realities, but they are also you.

PAUL H: That’s a big one. One more general question in this area about the shift. If we can loosely say that this acorn-sapling-tree evolution structure in focuses of essence – human beings, whales, dolphins – goes through what we could just generally call a (Elias nods) preconventional stage, a conventional stage, and a postconventional stage. It’s very general….

ELIAS: I am understanding.

PAUL H: Okay, it works for you. And it seems as populations tend to get to the postconventional stages, there’s more potential for a harmony and choices of least conflict or whatever. That make sense? That’s consonant…?

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: So, is part of this shift – and this is coming from this inner ego, Dream Walker, causal source dimension – part of this shift, the nature of this shift, is to somehow get – because the population’s growing – to – accelerate isn’t the right word – but to get people from this conventional to postconventional stage at a younger age? Or to do the opposite and prolong it and to somehow…. What I’m sensing in this shift – and you just brought it up with the fact that there’s no accident with the whales and dolphins in this emergent quality – there’s something emergent in this shift, that’s what I’m trying to get at.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: And does this little three-part thing – preconventional, conventional, postconventional…? How does this shift affect the population moving through that developmental stage? Does it accelerate it to get them… yeah, to the postconventional?

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: So postconventional development will happen sooner in large percentages of the population? (19)

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: So we could say in this now, in this moment point, if we take a snapshot of all the focuses and where they’re at in that spectrum and just make a map of that, shall we say – which I won’t even pretend to try – it would tend to be very conventional with smaller percentages of the population at postconventional.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: But with this shift something is changing.

ELIAS: It is accelerating.

PAUL H: To accelerate the developmental stages to postconventional, and post-post-, (Elias nods throughout) and there’s others up the stream that await us.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: In all their magnificence.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: Excellent.” (Laughs) [session 1246, January 16, 2003]

PAUL H: “Moving on to continue with our series of dream mission discussions. (20) I guess I should mention I’ve been talking to Norm and Reta every couple of weeks since January and we’ve been having interesting conversations really from Norm’s physicist point of view and I guess what we could roughly say from my psychological point of view, and I just wanted to mention that he’s been very helpful from that perspective in helping me continue to develop and refine my ideas and my interpretations of your ideas. (20)

And I wanted to start today with something that we’ve all talked about before, which is the links of consciousness idea, and I wanted to put a word out there, a term, called holon. And a holon is just a theoretical construct which is very interesting to me, and again this is in the same spirit of offering this out there and seeing what your feedback would be on it, but the idea behind a holon as a theoretical unit like a link of consciousness is that, at least in the physical world manifestation, it is a whole made of parts; so in a sense it’s a whole.

But it also has parts that we can look at. There’s no separation between these parts, which is when we look at it as a whole, and then, in turn, every holon can be transcended and included into what we, just again in physical terms, could call a super-holon, and from the holon’s perspective these parts could be considered sub-holons, that each part in itself has a whole/part nature. So it reflects this nested relationship that combines the idea that there is no separation within consciousness on one hand, and yet in a world of time, that there is an appearance of separation and parts that we can look at. So I was just wondering what you think about that idea.

ELIAS: As a presentment in association with what?

PAUL H: Really with anything, any ‘what.’ The idea – and I know you’re trying to get me to refine this a bit – the idea that every holon has a perspective. There’s a wholeness perspective and there’s a parts perspective also, and it simply then depends – it shows the relativity of different perspectives that are nested together within all of consciousness.

ELIAS: What you are describing conceptually is quite similar to the expression of essence, which incorporates those qualities that you are identifying in this concept of this holon. (22)

PAUL H: That makes sense.

ELIAS: For it is an expression that is a whole that appears to incorporate parts, but without separation there are no actual parts – there is the whole and different directions, different perceptions, of the whole, but not separate entities except in the expressions of physical manifestations in relation to time.

PAUL H: Mmhm. So in one sense I would use the phrase ‘holonic personality’ to attempt to describe my version of the expression of essence from a physical standpoint, from a linear time, from an outer ego perspective, and yet holonic personality is then ‘one-made-of-many.’ And there’s imagery in the world’s religions (Elias nods several times) that reflect this and I guess I’ll just provide an example and ask you to comment on that.

There’s a Buddhist icon, and it’s a long name and I may be mispronouncing it, but it’s something like Avalokiteshvara, and the picture of it’s quite beautiful. It’s a human figure, and yet the face is three-sided and there are two, three, four, several three-sided heads on top of it and there are what looks like dozens of arms coming out. And when I saw that picture in the context of, we’ll call it the expression of essence, one-made-of-many, I thought, ‘My goodness, that is a literal – it’s not literal – it’s a figurative interpretation of the expression of essence.’ Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes. (23)

PAUL H: Yeah, so over the millennia, the various yogis or practitioners, whatever terms we want to use of people who have perceived directly and interacted with their own essence or other essences in an altered state, shall we say, this is the type of how it gets interpreted in linear terms (Elias nods), in the physically manifest terms, correct?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes, you are correct. Therefore, also, the symbolization of the lotus flower.

PAUL H: Right, right. Now there’s another principle that I want to try and tie into this idea, the expression of essence being a holon, a holonic personality tone, and it’s the idea of what you call choice and what other philosophers might call free will, the ability to make choice, that when we look at one-made-of-many and there’s apparent whole and there’s apparent parts, there’s some sort of holonic boundary, what I believe you just referred to as a veil and piercing a veil. And so these veils are the way that essence manages to create the appearance of wholes and parts. (Elias nods several times.)

And so the idea, though, is that free will – see this is something that I’ve been wrestling with for a couple of years in that, and I asked you a version of this question before, and I believe it was around February of 1998, and I’ll check that and add that in a footnote to this session, but I talked about at that time what I just called ‘the veto power of essence’ and I cited an example from the first Oversoul Seven book where the character Joseph was levitated several miles down the hill and your response to me was that that was figurative and of let’s just say the relationship of one-made-of-many (Elias nods) and how that might interact. (24)

But what I’m sensing is that essence as a whole has this type of free will. And in that exploration of consciousness and that creativity that is present within essence there is a type of free will or holonic free will present at that, let’s just call it a ‘layer,’ – I’ll put that in quotes, because it’s not a separate thing – and yet for me as a focus of essence, I, for all intents and purposes, have what appears to be free will to make choices and do what I want within my own boundaries.

And let’s say on another level the cells in my liver, we can identify them as a cell, so it has a boundary, and they have a free will in which to be liver cells, and they are happy little liver cells doing what they do (Elias nods), regardless of what I choose, regardless of how the essence layer chooses – it’s not regardless, that’s not the right word – but it’s nested within, there’s multiple free will.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: And that’s part of the design of the oubliette and the remembrance. (25)

ELIAS: (Nods) Correct. But in this what may be challenging – to generate a clear understanding of – is the element of the lack of separation. For in the association of separating you generate your expressions in association with your beliefs concerning a type of hierarchy in which in your perception as you view any manifestation in a smaller and smaller and smaller capacity, it becomes less and less and less in relation to the hierarchy of choices and its individual free will per se, which is actually incorrect. This also generates the idea and the association of less of an empowerment to the individual, for it generates the idea that you, or whatever it is that is you as your consciousness, is separate from all of these other elements, be they physical manifestations of cells, or be they non-physical expressions of essence. Are you understanding thus far?

PAUL H: Yes, absolutely.

ELIAS: This is quite strongly associated with your beliefs within this physical reality. And in this, in relation to your archetypes, so to speak, that you are creating, the element of the interconnectedness and the lack of separation is significant, for this expresses that there is not necessarily an independence of all of these different expressions or manifestations without cooperation. (26)

Therefore, the liver cell does incorporate what you term to be free will, but in cooperation with the whole, for it is not separated from the whole. But the whole is not necessarily dictating to the part, just as the whole of essence, which also incorporates choice and direction, is not dictating to what you perceive to be the parts of the focuses, for they also incorporate choice.

PAUL H: Right. So, if I can try and summarize what you said in terms of challenging, I think, is a caution in that we’re dealing with a type of hierarchy – really, nested hierarchy, holonic hierarchies, and they are valid, it’s a valid concept. However, it’s very easy to misinterpret or take an interpretation of hierarchy into a place where we diminish certain parts (Elias nods), shall we say, in relation to the whole.

ELIAS: Correct! And what I am expressing to you is that the idea of the hierarchy is a belief.

PAUL H: Right.

ELIAS: This is the element that generates distortion and misunderstanding, for in actuality, there is no hierarchy and no part is less significant than the whole.

PAUL H: Right.

ELIAS: For without the parts, there is no whole.

PAUL H: Right.

ELIAS: Which is, in actuality, the reverse of what you generally associate within your beliefs – that the whole generates the parts, that the whole is first, so to speak, and the parts are generated from that initial whole. But this, in actuality, is incorrect, for the parts are elements of the whole that have always been present.

PAUL H: Right.

ELIAS: It is merely a manner of manipulating energy in different configurations to generate manifestations.

PAUL H: Mmhm. What you just said I’ve been wrestling with, of how to explain this in simple ways. And I mean there is a general way I approach this, which is of duality and the manifest/the unmanifest (Elias nods several times), time/no-time, space/no-space, and looking at dualities like that – parts/wholes – because there’s essentially a paradox in our perception, in our belief systems that we’re so used to taking for granted – that this acorn-sapling-tree aspect to our perception here, that that’s absolute somehow. (27) And I know that this is not an absolute, and so there’s a basic paradox of how to try and wrestle with that, and I guess that’s all I’m really trying to do with these different concepts.

ELIAS: I am understanding. Even in this example that you have offered of the seed, the sapling, and the tree you may view the different perspectives in the association with those three elements. In one direction, you may perceive that the grandeur of the final product, so to speak, is generated by the small beginning; or that the large generates the smaller. Both of which in association with consciousness are a distortion and an absolute association and somewhat incorrect, but generally speaking, this is the manner in which you associate in relation to your beliefs. Either some vast entity creates all of the smaller entities, or the small entity creates and continues to grow to become the large entity.

PAUL H: Right, and that’s essentially from the space-time point of view is where the belief systems develop about that. From the no-space/no-time or the simultaneity perspective that’s obviously incorrect (Elias nods throughout), that all of those exist as a simultaneity, and yet, as they manifest in a time framework, the acorn is the emergent part, then the sapling, and then the tree, and it has to appear that way. However, that’s one perspective, that’s one holonic perspective, which is mine, being in time, in a body in time.

However, from a different perspective outside of time, more of shall we just say an essence perspective, that’s not the way it is at all. And that duality seems to be what we wrestle with in trying to find ways to conceptualize and, not only that, but then to help understand it further and explore it ourselves from this linear space-time point of view.

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: Which leads a couple of places. Let me just throw another idea out there. And if we’re talking about expression of essence or holonic personality tone and hierarchy/non-hierarchy, nests within nests, there is some type of holonic communication meshwork therefore between them (Elias nods throughout), this network of wholes and parts. And if we just take the example of essence, focus of attention, and a liver cell, in that particular focus of attention, what you were talking about earlier that the critical understanding of the cooperation of that nest is absolute. Without the cooperation that nest doesn’t manifest ever. And so, each super, regular, and sub-part/whole of it still communicates. In order to cooperate, a liver cell, the focus of attention and the essence are talking to each other, are translating, projecting energy, and translating energy, and it’s not just two-way, is it? It’s multidimensional [i.e. holonic].

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL H: Right. Right, and then trying to discover from my perspective, from the forgetting, the oubliette perspective, trying to remember that communication meshwork is kind of cool (laughs and Elias smiles), is something of an art-science that I think will emerge in the next few centuries. (28)

ELIAS: Yes. (Nods)

PAUL H: ... The ten belief systems – they’re general, you know, we could divide them up other ways too, I suppose, but it covers a spectrum – those ten are inherent in the blueprints.

ELIAS: Yes.

PAUL H: So that as an essence, when it manifests, say, 1200 focuses – woof! – those ten are in all 1200 focuses.

ELIAS: (Nods) Yes.

PAUL H: Yeah, okay, that’s consistent with your model as you’ve explained it so far. Well, I guess that does it for me today, old friend!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well. (Paul laughs) I shall be anticipating our next discussion. Ha ha ha!

PAUL H: And so shall I.” [session 1357, May 29, 2003]

PAT: “Elias, I have a question – this is Pat B – with a truth, when one is born, when you are a fresh baby and you’re born, are you born with your truths right there? For instance, obviously if you’re hungry or you’re wet or you’re crying, you already have your feeling of what’s good: good to be fed, bad to be starving. If when you’re born, you choose your parents and they agree to that, do you already have your truth out there before you ever actually emerge into this world, or is the truth coming to you from cultural mass beliefs, all those other areas?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, you develop your truths.

PAT: So when you’re born, fresh, you don’t have a truth?

ELIAS: Yes, you do. You do immediately begin to incorporate truths, absolutes, as you have expressed.

PAT: There’s no way out of it! (Laughter)

ELIAS: It is not a question of a way out, my friend. It is a question of recognizing what is and what you have chosen. You are in this reality for you chose to be in this reality. You chose this as an exploration. You chose to be experiencing in a physical manifestation in conjunction with the blueprint of this particular physical reality. There are many, many, many physical realities, and you participate in many of them. This is merely one, and in this one you choose to be participating in conjunction with its blueprint.

PAT: So are you saying that when you’re born you have a little bit of truths, but as you grow you take on more truths?

ELIAS: You develop different truths, and truths change. (29) They are influenced by your preferences, and your preferences are preferred beliefs. In this, as you associate stronger and stronger with particular beliefs and begin to express them in absolutes, they become your truths.

But in response to your statement of ‘there is no way out,’ in a manner of speaking there is. For although you continue to express your truths and you continue to express your beliefs for you continue to be manifest within this reality, you also incorporate the ability and the energy of this shift in consciousness to assist you in a manner of speaking, for collective energy does generate more of an ease in change. You incorporate the ability to widen your awareness to a capacity in which you understand your own truths and you understand that they are not absolutes.

JON: ... So let’s say I believe that my thoughts create my reality and [my partner] Erin doesn’t believe that, she believes she creates her reality by directing her attention and that type of thing. Would you say that either of us is more correct than the other? (Pause)

ELIAS: In your identification, yes; in your action, no. In your accuracy of how you assess how you are creating, your assessment is less accurate; in what you do – for thought does not create your reality – therefore in what you do, automatically, regardless of what you think, you are generating the same action as the other individual. How you view what you are doing, how you understand objectively what you are doing, is less accurate.

PAUL H: Does that also apply to the flat earth versus the spherical earth assessment, so those individuals who think they live on a flat planet do and those individuals who think they live on a spherical planet do? (30) But you said a yes/no to Jon’s question, so would that apply...

ELIAS: Not necessarily. There is a distinction, for this is an assessment of how you are creating your reality, an objective understanding of how you are creating your reality and a questioning of how you are creating your reality. This is not an assessment of how the reality is being created; it is merely being generated and not questioned. Therefore, as I have expressed with you (looking at Jon), yes and no, for you are generating your reality in similar manner, but your assessment of it, your understanding of it, is less accurate.

The actions are the same in your scenario (looking at Paul H). The individuals that are creating the flatness of your planet are generating that reality of the flatness of it. The individuals that are generating the spherical aspect of your planet are creating that.

(Turning back to Jon) You are both creating your reality similarly, but your understanding of how you are creating it may be more or less accurate in how it is actually being created.

(To Paul H) Their realities are being created similarly, and their ideas or their understanding of how they are creating it is also similar.

STEVE: Elias, may I follow up on this question? You’re using the words ‘less accurate’ now. When we started this conversation, I said that Seth says we can successfully create what we want by our thoughts, by just expressing over and over again we want this or that. You have said to us many times that that won’t work, that’s not how it’s done.

Your whole theme here now is there are no absolute truths. Therefore would you say that Seth’s methods may indeed work with a certain individual and that your method may not, and vice versa?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: So when you say that he’s less accurate in how it actually works, that’s your opinion, that’s your preference, and that is not necessarily going to be some other essence’s opinion or preference.

ELIAS: It is not an opinion and it is not a preference, for I do not incorporate your beliefs and those are associated with beliefs. It is an assessment.

In this, in recognizing that an individual may successfully incorporate an action of suggestibility with themselves – which you all incorporate an element of yourselves of suggestibility – and in the incorporation of that suggestibility, you may engage an action of engaging your own suggestibility, concentrating your attention upon thought. What you may actually be doing is moving your attention to different beliefs, which allows you to generate what you assess as thinking and thusly creating from thought. This shall be your reality. Your understanding objectively of what you are actually doing may be less accurate, but that is not to say that it will not occur.

STEVE: Are you therefore saying that it is an absolute truth that thoughts do not create reality?

ELIAS: It is not an absolute truth, no. But...

STEVE: So in fact they might?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, but not in the manner that you are associating with.

Thought is not a thing. Thought is a mechanism. It is an objective mechanism that is incorporated within your physical reality to translate to you in an objective manner communications and choices or actions that you are incorporating in association with your beliefs.

STEVE: In what sense is that not an absolute truth? You seem to be describing it as an absolute truth. ‘That’s the way it works; that’s what the deal is.’

ELIAS: It is a mechanism. But depending on how you manipulate that mechanism and what beliefs you incorporate to work in conjunction with that mechanism, you may be generating evidence that your thoughts precede what you create. What I am expressing to you is...

STEVE: As an absolute truth?

ELIAS: No.

STEVE: Why not?

ELIAS: There are no absolutes.

STEVE: Then there’s a possibility that you’re wrong; is that what you mean by there’s not an absolute truth to that?

ELIAS: It is not a question of right or wrong. This is the point of this discussion. There are no absolute rights or wrongs; it is what YOU create and what you perceive.

STEVE: So I could create a reality for me that my thoughts, not just as a misinterpretation but as in fact, that my thoughts are creating my reality?

ELIAS: You may.

DON: I think I sort of see his point. I wonder also how can you speak of the accuracy of an assessment as being greater or less than?

ELIAS: I am understanding.

What I am expressing to you is in conjunction with what you have chosen. I am not the designer of your reality; you are. In this, I am also not participating physically in manifestation within your reality; you are. You ARE incorporating your beliefs. You ARE incorporating the design. Regardless of whether you MAY change that reality and that you MAY incorporate a different reality and transform the mechanism of thought into a creating mechanism – which you may – it is not an absolute.

You can; will you? That is less likely. Do you presently? No.

STEVE: Nobody? Not even people that are telepathic like Uri Geller or somebody?

ELIAS: No.

STEVE: He bends those spoons!

ELIAS: That is not an action that is incorporated through thought.

Regardless of whether you CAN incorporate an action – you CAN presently in this moment stand and walk and move physically through that wall; it is possible. Will you? In most likelihood, no, for your beliefs are strong and they influence what you create. Can you create through thought if you are reconfiguring the design of thought and its function? Yes.

Therefore, I may not express to you that this is an absolute and that I am expressing to you an absolute truth that you cannot generate reality through thought. But will you, in this time framework in this present manifestation in this now? No. Are you? No.

STEVE: Then how does Uri Gellar bend the spoon? He’s thinking about the spoon being bent. That’s how he would claim he’s doing it.

ELIAS: That is his assessment.

STEVE: Then how does he in fact do it?

ELIAS: In energy, in a concentration in mergence with the object and allowing the energy of himself and the energy of the object to move together and to bend.

STEVE: But the thoughts do instigate it, right?

ELIAS: The thought is a translation simultaneous to the action of what is occurring. That is your confusion.

STEVE: But if he didn’t think about it, the energy wouldn’t be released like that.

ELIAS: Not necessarily.

STEVE: It only happens when he thinks about it; it doesn’t happen when he’s driving down the street!

ELIAS: That is his translation. He is generating the thought within the time framework simultaneously to the action.

Now; if you sit and you think, presently in this moment with a spoon before you, shall you bend it?

STEVE: Me?

ELIAS: Yes.

STEVE: Negative.

ELIAS: What is the difference? If thought is what is generating the bending of the spoon...

STEVE: Well, he might have a different set of wiring in his brain that allows that to be effective.

ELIAS: But if you are all equal in power and in value and in measure, any ability that any one of you incorporates, you all incorporate.

STEVE: But for the fact that we’re wired differently and maybe have a block on our telepathic ability therefore, or we have belief systems that do the same thing. He seems to have gotten rid of his, if he ever had them in the first place.

ELIAS: Ah, I may assure you that he has not ‘gotten rid of’ his beliefs. Were that to be the scenario, he would not be incorporating manifestation within this physical reality for he would not be choosing to participate, for that is the design of this reality.

What I may express to you in emphasis is that your manifestation within this reality is a choice. You chose to be manifest in this reality, and I am understanding that for many individuals this is a difficult concept to be accepting, that you chose to be manifest and you chose to participate in this particular reality to explore the elements of this particular reality in conjunction with the beliefs that are its blueprint. But you also are not confined to this reality; you are also not singularly choosing merely to be manifest within this reality. You are choosing also simultaneously many realities. ...

STEVE: Elias, I’ve been trying to adopt a mind-set of chronic acceptance of everything that comes down the pike: other individuals, conditions in my life, what I think are my beliefs. But you say we all create perfectly and for our best value fulfillment, and then I think to myself, does Elias mean I create perfectly including the influence of my belief systems or not including them? Because you don’t speak that well of our belief systems, and if we’re creating perfectly with them, that seems to contradict how you feel about our belief systems.

You’re going to say, ‘I don’t feel negatively about it; I don’t pass judgment on them, but they are less efficient than other methods of creation.’ So if it’s perfect, how can it be less efficient? Or are you not speaking of creating perfectly including our belief systems being part of the influence?

ELIAS: Including, with your beliefs being an aspect of influencing.

What do you define as a more efficient method of creating within your reality, considering that your belief systems are an aspect of the blueprint of this particular physical reality?

STEVE: They’re your words, when you speak of ‘try to accept your belief systems, but at the same time if you wish to alter them because they are not serving you as efficiently as you’d like...’ You speak of that, that if they’re not serving you efficiently then you can change them. Would you agree as you sit here that our belief systems are holding us back from the shift? I’d like to get into the shift...

ELIAS: (Patiently) No, your belief systems...

STEVE: ...and my belief systems are holding me back; therefore I don’t think that well of my belief systems. I get a negative feeling about them when I think they’re holding me back from the thrill of the shift. So how can that be said to be perfectly created?

ELIAS: They are not, in your terms, holding you back from participating within this shift, and you are not eliminating them. They are not negative, but some influences of some beliefs may be limiting or may be hindering; but those are also choices.

They are moving perfectly in conjunction with what you are creating in the moment in conjunction with your intent in the moment; but in conjunction with your awareness and widening your awareness, they may be somewhat hindering in some of their influences – not the belief itself, but the influences that occur in relation to the belief.

There are many influences associated with every belief. There are many beliefs associated with every belief system, and in this some influences are what you may term to be good, for they are expressed in conjunction with your preferences, and some you may consider to not be good, for they are not in conjunction with your preferences.

Now; if your direction in the movement of this shift and in widening your awareness is to be objectively directing yourself in what you want, in creating what you want, it is significant to recognize what the influences of your beliefs are, for some influences may be expressed in influencing your perception and your choices to be generated in opposition to what you want. But what is significant first of all is to be aware and to be clear as to what you want.” [session 1496, January 17, 2004]

MARIE: “... going back to confrontation. The purpose in life, being in this dimension, in my beliefs is that it’s a learning situation. Sometimes in a learning situation there has to be some kind of conflict and difficulty in learning. If everyone was to then take that and allow things to happen, sometimes things you might not be aware of happen, things that might lead to a different path. How do you make the decision which path to go to for the purpose of learning and developing and the reason why we are here in this dimension?

ELIAS: First of all, the reason that you have chosen to be manifest in this physical reality in this physical dimension is to experience in conjunction with the blueprint of this physical reality.

Now; as to the expression of learning, I am understanding your association and what you are expressing. For the purpose of clarity, I shall incorporate different terminology, for the terminology of ‘learning’ implies that you are less than or that you know less than and that you are acquiring knowledge, and you are not. You are becoming AWARE of information, which generates knowledge, but it is information that you already possess. You are merely opening an awareness to what you already know.

You are also generating an expansion that is generating the experience of unfamiliar and what you do not know – which is the nature of consciousness, the continuous action of exploring and expanding and generating new and unknown and unfamiliar experience which is what expands consciousness, which is what you are. Therefore, you are also expanding. But I am understanding the context in which you are expressing this term of ‘learning.’

In association with negative experiences, it is not actually necessary to generate negative experiences to offer yourself information to expand. But in this physical reality it IS somewhat of a fascination. (Group laughter) It DOES move your attention quite efficiently. This is the reason that it has become a fascination, for this is an efficient method to move your attention in different directions and to spur you to question. You can generate that same action and not incorporate conflict or discomfort or what you term to be negative experiences, but they are not as much of a fascination to you.

Let me also express to you, these types of experiences are an element of the blueprint of this reality. They are not a natural expression of essence or of consciousness. They are an expression of physical realities, of objective awarenesses, which generate different types of explorations – which is also one of the reasons that you incorporate a fascination with complicating and with generating what you associate as negative experiences.

What you DO incorporate as a natural action, which translates many times into a choice of a negative experience, is that you create a matching of intensity of whatever you are addressing to or whatever you are exploring. Whatever you are presenting to yourself that you are expanding your awareness with, whatever the intensity of that is, you shall generate a matching of that intensity in experience to emphasize to yourself its value and its significance, whether it be comfortable or uncomfortable. There is tremendous value in discomfort as well as comfort.

Yes?

PAUL: Along the lines of preference and opposition, let’s say you’re in your house and some stranger comes up and starts chopping down your house. You could say, ‘This is my preference that this doesn’t occur,’ and you could try to focus on not passing judgment on the other individual who’s chopping down your house. You find something you like about the other individual (group laughter), but in the meantime he’s chopping down your house more and more. How do you best address the situation?

ELIAS: Allow yourself to recognize, first of all, that you have drawn that into your reality. You are not a victim. Therefore, you are creating that action.

Now; what is motivating you to create that action? For it is not a preference of yours to generate another individual to be chopping your house down.

Now; the challenge is to generate an interaction with the other individual and share – not demand, not command, not oppose, not expect – but to share information and experience with the other individual and allow yourself an openness to receive their sharing also in the scenario. Once you have allowed to receive and you have also allowed to share your expression, allow yourself a calm in which you can be open to your communication of imagination and discover your cooperation. You shall discover your cooperation.

For in allowing yourself to share and allowing yourself an openness to receive from the other individual, you shall more clearly assess what you have created, what you have drawn to yourself and what you have inserted into your reality to challenge you. In that assessment of what you have presented to yourself – (looking at KC) such as the shopping stores, also – which initially appears as an intrusion, in actuality you have drawn that into your reality; therefore, you have created it. You have initiated it.

The puzzle is to discover what you have created, what you have challenged yourself with. The manner in which you may more easily discover that is to allow yourself to share, not oppose...

PAUL: And not compromise.

ELIAS: ...not compromise, but also not generate expectations, not to expect outcome – not to concentrate upon outcome, which is also an automatic response, but to generate a genuine sharing in the moment and a genuine allowance of receiving in the moment also. That offers you information which may also be applicable to the interactions and conflict with another individual.

PAUL: Is there anything you’re not aware of, besides the prediction of the future?

ELIAS: Quite! (Group laughter) There is always expansion. Consciousness is continuously expanding and exploring. Therefore, there is no end to what may be discovered. Therefore, how can you know everything?

Yes?

MICHAEL: When we observe people having conflict, regardless of how violent it is or what our concept of it is, one thing we know is that whoever it is as a group are all in agreement with what they’re doing. Regardless of how they got drawn into it, like some would feel obligated, it’s all something that they are involved in.

ELIAS: It may not be agreement, but it is a choice.

MICHAEL: You said it’s a choice?

ELIAS: Yes.

MICHAEL: But isn’t a choice an agreement? Not between them but between...

ELIAS: Not necessarily. The individuals may not necessarily generate an agreement, but they are choosing in conjunction with each other.

MICHAEL: So therefore it’s their choice, regardless.

ELIAS: Yes.

CATHY: If somebody’s chopping down your house and you decide that they must be suicidal, then the reason they came to chop down your particular house was you happen to be the one that would have a gun and would blow them away.

ELIAS: That is a possibility.

CATHY: Then that’s a choice on both of your parts to be in that scenario. He’s choosing to get himself killed, and you’re choosing to help him along.

ELIAS: Yes. YOU DO NOT ENCOUNTER ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITHIN YOUR PLANET, WITHIN YOUR REALITY, THAT YOU HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY DRAWN TO YOURSELF. It is not random; it is not accidental. In any moment, you have specifically drawn that one individual into your reality for they shall be the perfect individual that shall reflect to you in that moment.

SUSAN: So when I hit a squirrel with my car a few weeks ago, that squirrel chose it and I chose it too?

ELIAS: Yes.

SUSAN: That’s what I was afraid of! (Elias laughs)

ALICIA: In a situation where you’re interacting with a boss in your job and he’s very discounting, you’ve chosen that person. But you’re also saying that they have chosen to discount you or to...?

ELIAS: You have chosen that individual to reflect what you are expressing in energy.

ALICIA: And what have they chosen?

ELIAS: It matters not.

GEORGE: In each one of those situations is an opportunity to understand what it is that you’re manifesting to yourself...

ELIAS: Correct.

GEORGE: ...in every situation. In particular, conflictual situations are wonderful opportunities to understand ourselves.

ELIAS: Correct, although they may not feel that way.

GEORGE: No, of course not! No, they may not LIKE it...

ELIAS: Correct.

GEORGE: ...but nevertheless it is an opportunity to understand ourselves better...

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

GEORGE: ...and that’s I think what you’re saying.

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

Yes?

MARIE: When you speak of blueprints, could you elaborate on this blueprint so that I can understand it a little bit more?

ELIAS: Each reality incorporates a blueprint. This reality incorporates a blueprint.

MARIE: Is there a mass blueprint for all of us?

ELIAS: This is the blueprint of the reality itself. If you choose to be manifest within this particular reality, you have chosen to be participating in association with the blueprint of this reality.

There are different elements of the blueprint of this reality. This is a physical reality; it is also a reality that incorporates duality, which is different from duplicity. In this, you generate a duality of your reality, which creates what you perceive to be opposites and complements. In actuality, there are no opposites; there are all complements. You generate doubles of all of your reality, male and female, and so on.

You also incorporate a double basis within this particular reality, that is of emotion and sexuality. Emotion and sexuality are not sexual activity or feelings. Emotion is that of communication in any and all forms. Sexuality is the manifestation of all physical matter within your reality in whatever form, in whatever expression. The physicality of your reality is that which is expressed as sexuality, for it is classified in what you term to be a sexual expression, incorporating two genders – another element of the duality.

Those two genders are associated with all of your reality, regardless of what it is. There is an association with energy, with electricity, with the magnetic fields, with different expressions within your physical body, with energy of intellectual or intuitional. All of your reality is associated with this element of sexuality as part of its duality, the other element being that of emotion, which is communication.

Both of these elements are objective expressions. You must incorporate an objective awareness in a physical reality, for the objective awareness is what creates perception, and perception is what creates actual physical reality. This is the blueprint of THIS reality which you all participate in.

MARIE: So we choose this blueprint. We go to whatever table and choose...

ELIAS: No, you choose this reality, which incorporates this blueprint. You may or may not choose to be manifest within this particular reality.

There are countless physical realities. One essence may be choosing to participate in other physical realities and not choose to be participating in this reality; there is no requirement. It is a choice, a choice to be exploring in a particular manner.

MARIE: Why would you pick this blueprint? Why go through the struggle of this blueprint?

ELIAS: For the experience. That is the point of all of consciousness – the experience. That is what expands all of consciousness. That is what generates reality, is experience.

ANNE: But reality is not real, is it?

ELIAS: Oh, it is QUITE real!

ANNE: It is, but it is extremely... I can’t describe it. It’s somewhat transparent. It’s something very, very flexible. Maybe perception is very flexible...

ELIAS: Yes.

ANNE: ...which changes all of reality.

ELIAS: Yes.

ANNE: So it is just perception?

ELIAS: Yes, that is quite flexible. But reality is quite real, and whatever you create within your perception is quite real. It may not be true, but it is real.

ANNE: But it is you.

ELIAS: Yes.

ANNE: So even me interacting with you or this row of people or whatever, that’s somehow me?

ELIAS: Yes. There are actual other expressions of energy in this room with you participating, but what you visually see in this room is a projection that you have created. Every other individual within this room you have created a projection of in translation of the energy that they are projecting. Therefore, there are many, many, many, many, many, many individuals occupying this room in this present moment!” (Chuckles) [session 1799, July 16, 2005]


End Notes:

(1) Paul’s note: the essence of Rose plays a significant role in Elias’ cosmology and theology, though he has never used those words descriptively. Simply put, the information offered to date on the essence of Rose deals with a variety religious and spiritual belief systems, including Elias’ variation of the messiah mythos (nine children), the action of essence fragmentation, and foundational causal energies involved in the creation of our multiverse.

Digests: find out more about the nine children of the essence of Rose.

Digests: find out more about fragmentation.

Digests: find out more about the essence of Rose.

(2) Vic’s note: On July 1, 1998, Tom (James) shot himself in the head. He died the next morning. Needless to say, this was quite a shock to those of us who knew Tom, both inside and outside of these sessions.

This session was requested by Gail, who was present when the event occurred. The other people “sitting in” on this session were there to offer energy and support.

Tom attended his first session on August 02, 1995, and continued to attend sessions on and off until his “death.”

(3) Paul’s note: the clarity exercise is a tool that sharpens the physical senses by enhancing our ability to concentrate, observe, and focus in the present moment. While fine-tuning the five physical senses, its purpose is also to maintain the clarity of focus in altered states and projections of consciousness.

ELIAS: “The point of the exercise in clarity is to be allowing you the opportunity to be manipulating outer senses, which may also offer you more of an understanding of how to be manipulating inner senses more efficiently and to be using your inner senses in conjunction with each other as you use your outer senses in conjunction with each other, but you do not allow yourselves to be efficiently manipulating your OUTER senses, which you are quite familiar with!

Therefore, I have offered that particular exercise that you may become more familiar with manipulating these senses that you hold familiarity with, and in this you may offer yourself the opportunity to more efficiently manipulate your inner senses, which shall be offering you more information within consciousness, and also, it shall be helpful to you in manipulating energy within the action of this shift.” [session 336, October 27, 1998]

Exercises: find out more about the clarity exercise.

(4) Paul’s note: see session 416, June 27, 1999.

(5) Paul’s note: Rodney refers to an anecdote originally published in The Seth Material (1970) by Jane Roberts. It offers an interesting comparison to what Rodney and Elias discuss in the above excerpt.

The following is from Chapter 14, Dreams – A Pseudo Demon – Therapeutic Dreaming (p. 194-200).

One night I had a frightening dream that seemed very real. I found myself in our bedroom, out of my body, and suddenly I realized that someone or something was directly above me. The next minute I was pushed down to the foot of the bed, off into the air, and then down to the dark corner of the bedroom floor. Above me was what I can only describe as a big black thing like a bloated, blurred human form, but larger and very solid.

It sounds ridiculous, but I knew that this thing was “out to get me.” I knew that I was out of my body, and I was overwhelmed with astonishment, as well as very frightened. Although I’d read of people being attacked by demons or the like while they were “projecting,” I just didn’t believe in demons. So what was it? I didn’t have time to wonder, because it bit me several times on the hand. It was amazingly oppressive, and kept up its efforts to drag me farther away from my body into the bedroom closet.

In dismay, I heard Rob snoring. In any case, I wasn’t in my physical body, and he probably wouldn’t know anything was wrong anyhow. And where was Seth? Where were all those “guides” who were supposed to come running to your aid when you got in predicaments like this? All these thoughts went scurrying through my mind as I tried to fight this thing off.

I was very conscious of the creature’s weight, which was really amazing, and its intent – which was to maul me up as much as possible, if not to kill me outright.

“Don’t panic,” I told myself, trying desperately to retain some semblance of calm. But the thing pressed down and was about to bite me again. This time I thought, “To hell with not panicking,” and I started to yell my head off. I knew it wasn’t my physical head, but I hoped that my shout would either frighten the creature away or attract some kind of help.

The thing pulled back for an instant, much like a huge startled animal, and I slipped from beneath it and shot fast as a rocket for my body, with it after me. In other words, I beat a fast cowardly retreat. I hit my body so quickly that my physical head was spinning, but no matter. My body never felt so welcome.

... The next night we had our regular Wednesday night Seth session. Before I tell you what Seth had to say about this incident, a little backtracking is in order. I’d been depressed for several days before the incident, brooding (though I should know better) on the negative attitudes that sometimes seem to surround us. Worse, I recognized many of them in myself: resentments, fears, and anger.

Now Seth said: “Our friend [meaning me] attempted to choose a different battlefield last night. He decided to think of all negative feelings as enemies, and to give them form in another plane of reality where he could do battle with them. This was not an astral plane, but a lower one.

“The energy behind his ‘black thing’ was the energy of hidden fears, but such a thing could be formed by anyone, since there are fears in any man. Ruburt [Jane] tried to isolate them, give them form, and fight them all at once. The thing was actually a rather clumsy lower-dimensional animal, a provoked dumb dog of other dimensions who then attacked him, symbolically enough, by biting. Any ‘thing’ so created entirely of fears would be frightened and particularly angry at its creator. It could do nothing but attack to protect whatever reality it had, for it knew Ruburt [Jane] created it only to slay it, if possible.

“It did have reality, therefore. Ruburt [Jane] leapt back to safety and normal consciousness. The thing then dissipated [as far as Ruburt [Jane] was concerned]. For when Ruburt [Jane] ‘ran home’ he automatically withdrew the energy his attention from it.... Ruburt [Jane] tried to separate from himself all those elements he considers negative, and fight them at once, almost as if in so doing he could remove evil from the universe.

“He tried to destroy the ‘animal of evil,’ and it bit him back. Now, evil does not exist in those terms, and even illness or fear are not necessarily enemies, as much as aids to understanding and means to a greater end....”

Seth went on to say: “The evil that Ruburt [Jane] imagined he was projecting outward does not exist, but because he believed it did, he formed the materialization from his fears. It was the shape of his recent depression. In larger terms, there is no evil, only your own lack of perception, but I know this is difficult for you to accept.

“But this fact is Ruburt’s [Jane’s] safeguard in his out-of-body travels – as long as he remembers it. The words ‘May peace be with you’ will get him through any difficulty in other layers of reality – for as he formed that image, others also form images and he could encounter them. To wish them peace will give them some comfort, for they do have a kind of reality. To fear them is to put yourself into their realm of reality, and then you are forced to fight on their terms. There is no need for this.”

In a sort of backhanded compliment, Seth asked Rob to tell me that my abilities were improving – it was a well-made thought-form. Now, I don’t propose for a moment that any of my readers attempt such a foolhardy venture. But I do suggest that perhaps some of them have already done so without knowing it, waking only with the memory of a particularly bad nightmare.

... While all of this is of practical interest, Rob and I are even more intrigued by Seth’s explanation of dream reality. Since I’ve had many out-of-body experiences from the dream state, I was rather concerned about the reality of the environments in which I found myself. Seth began his discussions on the nature of dream reality very soon after the sessions began, and they still continue. Until I learned from Seth to “monitor” my own dreams, and awaken my critical faculties, I was simply astounded by some of his statements.

Consider this early passage from session 92, which I now accept as basic: “Each dream begins with psychic energy which the individual transforms not into physical matter, but into a reality every bit as functional and real. He forms the idea into a dream object or event with amazing discrimination, so that the dream object itself gains existence and exists in numerous dimensions....

“Although the dreamer creates his dreams for his own purposes, selecting only those symbols which have meaning to him, he projects them outward in a value fulfillment and psychic expansion. The expansion occurs as the dream is acted out. A contraction occurs as the dreamer is finished with the dream events, but energy cannot be taken back.”

Seth calls dream-created personalities (such as my “black thing”), dual-hybrid constructions. In my case, the “expansion” he’s speaking of occurred as I formed it with my own psychic energy. The “contraction” took place as I withdrew the main energy of my attention from it; but I could not take back the energy that I had given it that resulted in its existence. The creature continued to exist, but not in my dimension; it was set free on its own.

(6) Paul’s note: Jeremy refers to the research I was doing at that time that included the perennial wisdom traditions. The following is from the Introduction and Overview to this website:

“Until organized science and religion expand their limited models of the human psyche, the Elias phenomenon may be best understood in light of what is called the perennial philosophy (or wisdom). A German philosopher and mathematician, Godfrey Leibniz (1646-1716), popularized the term ‘Philosophia Perennis’ and writer Aldous Huxley made it well known in his book The Perennial Philosophy, first published in 1944.

“Perennial wisdom is reflected in the established mystical traditions of the East and West in works such as the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad-Gita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the poetry of Rumi, The Kabbalah, parts of The Old and New Testaments, and the Gnostic Gospels. Perennial wisdom is not based upon dogma or orthodoxy, but reflects the common denominator of universal truths that lie behind all religious dogma and ceremony. This is what is meant, for example, by the Taoist saying, ‘the Tao which is written or spoken is not the true Tao.’ In other words, the Tao represents the ineffable Source of all things: God. And despite our best attempts, our Source can never be fully expressed or captured by the limiting molds of human belief systems, languages, or dogma.”

(7) Paul’s note: in my previous session, 493, October 26, 1999, Elias and I discussed this efficient “language for translation” in the context of the dream mission, out-of-body states, and engaging the remembrance of essence.

The following exchange between Norm, a retired physicist, and Elias from an earlier session led me to ask about a “language for translation,” as this relates to HOW we create our reality, through the action of translating “source energy” into physical constructions:

NORM: One of the questions is in regard to the relationship of the brain, and not using parts of the brain, and our thinking mechanism. And then, what happens when we have out-of-body experiences in the waking state, and then we have out-of-body experiences in the dreaming state? It seemed to me that, and I think I did have an out-of-body experience when I was fifteen or sixteen years old, that I was able to think as well in that out-of-body experience. I looked down on my body and there it was. I’m trying to figure out what the relationship is between my physical brain and my real ability to think. It felt like I had some kind of a spiritual essence or a spiritual form that came out of my body and moved with me in my bedroom, in Sioux City, Iowa in 1945 or 1946. So is it true that my thinking has really nothing to do with my brain?

ELIAS: (Chuckling) This engagement is quite amusing! Once again, we shall take your questions in order, of questions within one question!

RETA: That’s how he talks all the way! (Elias is still chuckling)

ELIAS: You engage the action of what you term to be out-of-body experiences within waking state, within sleeping state, consciously, unconsciously, in your terms, within altered states, in your terms. You may experience out-of-body action, so to speak, within what you term to be a daydream. Within missing time, as you experience, you are experiencing an out-of-body. You experience this action much of your time. You are not aware objectively of this action, for you do not translate into your objective language the action that you are engaged in.

As to your thinking while you are engaged in this action of out-of-body; the action of physical thought is quite valuable if you may train yourself to be consciously, objectively consciously, aware within the action of out-of-body experience. Thought processes are a creation of physical focus. You think in terms of language, which is symbolic. Thoughts, within physical focus, are symbolic energy. They are symbols. They are a language. Therefore, it would be helpful to you if you allowed yourselves to train your objective consciousness, your thought processes, to mingle with your subjective activity and create an efficient language for translation of subjective activity into objective knowing. You do not remember your experiences out-of-body, for you have not created this language to be translating subjective activity. Therefore, you have no frame of reference within your objective, waking state. You then are left with ‘blank space.’

NORM: Not even feelings or intuition.

ELIAS: You are attempting to translate non-physical, subjective consciousness action into objective consciousness; this being the same as what you expressed earlier within the action of Regional Area 3, and wishing to know the mechanics of this area of consciousness. You are attempting to label experiences which do not fit within this area of consciousness. Therefore, they must be translated. All that you view is a translation. All that you think is a translation. Within other areas of consciousness, thought is not what you “think!”

RETA: So we have to learn, or find steps to take, to get more of that subjective material into our life.

ELIAS: Notice Michael’s [Mary’s] dream mission! This shall be your key. [session 135, November 24, 1996]

(8) Paul’s note: here’s the excerpt from The Early Sessions, Book 1 of the Seth Material (1997) by Jane Roberts and Robert Butts that I was referring to:

SETH: “The only reason the whole self is not much more conscious and accessible is your own stubborn refusal to admit it. I cannot emphasize this more strongly. The camouflage pattern world is formed by the mind, and I am using this now in its true term as a part of the inner world. Energy is received by the mind through the inner senses and transformed by use of mental enzymes into camouflage patterns. [my italics]

“There is no reason why mankind cannot be made aware of this transformation, if once he admits into existence the whole self which makes this possible.” [session 23, February 05, 1964, pg. 168]

The sentence above in italics maps nicely onto the equation we discussed previously – relay the force pattern as a source of tension.

I should also mention that I switched the words “enzymes” and “genes” from the above Seth excerpt in my question to Elias, as Seth discusses both “mental enzymes” and “mental genes” in the Early Sessions books. However, my “switch” didn’t seem to faze Elias at all, as he used the opportunity to deliver more information on genetics, orientations, and energy signatures, all in the context of this equation’s “language for translation.” I suspect that the action of Seth’s mental “genes” and “enzymes” both map nicely onto this equation.

For those interested, here’s the equation excerpt from session 148 that I was referring to:

ELIAS: “We continue.

CAROLE: Elias. Relay the force pattern as a source of tension.

ELIAS: No! You relay the force pattern as a source of tension! (And we all crack up. Elias is grinning widely)

CAROLE: Does that sentence have something to do with the electric light show I saw blinking on and off when I got that sentence? Is that the energy that we have to be able to access to create?

ELIAS: Accessing energy! Very good beginning!

CAROLE: And then we need to engage action with the energy?

ELIAS: This is a sentence presented to you objectively, in description of subjective activity. Your question is, “How do I create my reality?” Your answer is this.

CAROLE: Create the force pattern as a source of tension.

ELIAS: You must be engaging your periphery and allowing yourself a wider explanation and definition of these words, for these words indicate the action which you engage within Regional Area 2 in creating your reality, and also within your dream mission behind the imagery. It is the same.

CAROLE: How would I consciously move my consciousness to the place in the dream imagery where that information becomes clearer to me?

ELIAS: You do not move your consciousness to a place. You allow yourself to understand your imagery which you have created for your symbolism; recognizing that you create symbols to explain action to yourself, and also recognizing, as I have stated previously, that each symbol, every symbol, is a symbol, and also holds its own integrity and therefore is a reality. [session 148, January 14, 1997]

(9) Paul’s note: according to Seth, electromagnetic energy units (EEs) are faster-than-light units, found just “beneath” all physical matter. EEs are manipulated by what he terms “the inner ego,” which is analogous to Elias’ concept of “subjective awareness.”

EEs change constantly, pulsing, expanding and contracting. They have variable polarities and an innate propensity to form into vast arrays of “larger” groupings and intensities, ultimately transforming into physical spectrums of energy and matter. They are the basis for “normal” perception (five senses) and extrasensory perception (inner senses).

According to Seth, it is “the inner ego, that organizes, initiates, projects and controls the EE units of which we have been speaking, transforming energy into objects, into matter.” [session 509, November 24, 1969]

In later sessions, Seth refines the function of EEs within the context of another concept – “consciousness units” (CUs). He says that all EEs are made up of these “more” fundamental CUs. Elias uses the term “links of consciousness” (LCs) to represent the same concept.

Seth introduced this concept of “electromagnetic energy units” in The Seth Material (1970) by Jane Roberts, Appendix sessions, 504 September 29, 1969 – 509, November 24, 1969. There is more information on this concept found in additional Seth books.

(10) Paul’s note: Howard refers to his book We the Angels published in 1998. For more info see session 629, June 04, 2000

(11) Paul H.’s note: see session 798, March 15, 2001.

(12) Paul H.’s note: I was wrestling with the idea of constraints, boundaries, or filters in the context of the relationship between subjective and objective awareness and the mechanics of conscious creation. Elias sometimes refers to the basic design of our dimension as “blueprints” found in Regional Area 2.

Interestingly, this session occurred before I connected Ken Wilber’s concept of holons with many of Elias’ concepts. Put simply, a holon is a “whole made of parts” that exists within various nested forms that can go “wider (super)” or “narrower” (sub). For example, a liver cell is a narrower or subholon (made of atoms and molecule holons) of my body holon, which in turn is a superholon in relation to the liver cell. So holons have their own “species” of boundaries or veils within consciousness.

Holons also relate to what Elias calls aspects of essence. That is, aspects are holonic, and consist of “wholes made of parts” in ways we’re only beginning to understand. The idea is that any “part” is never really isolated or separated from a “whole.” Thus, multidimensional personality tone is really holonic.

For more info on holons, endnote 22.

(13) Paul’s note: this “order of play” is offered in Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 (1986/1997), where Seth/Jane Roberts introduces a creation myth – what I call a “conscious creation myth” – that explains cosmogenesis in symbolic terms of what happened “before the beginning,” in the beginning, and thereafter, in terms of human involution/evolution on Earth.

Seth weaves many concepts into his creation storyline:

  • All-That-Is/consciousness units (CUs/causal field)
  • sleepwalkers/electromagnetic energy units (EEs/subtle field)
  • Frameworks 4, 3, 2 (subtle field)
  • the dream state (subtle field) functions as a “language of translation” for the waking state (physical field)
  • Framework 1 (physical field)
  • the paradoxical “before the beginning”
  • families of consciousness (innate intention)
  • the multidimensional psyche (outer ego, subconscious, inner ego)
  • the inner senses (deep intuitions/translogical hyperception)
  • reincarnation in the context of simultaneous time frameworks
  • probabilities

In the following excerpt, Seth shows that there was a “dreamtime” that was primary to the emergence and evolution of objective forms and functions to date – from matter (physiosphere), to bodies (biosphere), to self-reflexive minds (noosphere). In terms of objective awareness there was/is/will be a simultaneous nonphysical region of activity that always “precedes” physical forms. Therefore, less complex physical forms will by necessity precede the emergence of focuses of essence. In other words, Seth and Elias’ creation mythos support an important hypothesis in modern evolutionary theory: there was a hominid ancestor that was not yet a focus of essence but whose DNA we did inherit.

In nonlinear terms, then, this all happens in a vast spacious present. That is, the “dreamtime” is still happening all around and “inside” of us in terms of subjective awareness and no-time. However, in terms of objective awareness and linear time, there is a perceivable order of emergence. For example, Seth said that in our primordial past,

“While men had their dream bodies alone they enjoyed a remarkable freedom, of course, for those bodies did not have to be fed or clothed. They did not have to operate under the law of gravity. Men could wander as they wished about the landscape. They did not yet identify themselves to any great degree as being themselves separate from either the environment or other creatures. They knew themselves to be themselves, but their identities were not as closely allied with their forms as is now the case.

“The dream world was bound to waken, however, for that was the course it had set itself upon. This awakening, again, happened spontaneously, and yet with its own order. In the terms of this discussion the other creatures of the earth actually awakened before man did, and relatively speaking, their dream bodies formed themselves into physical ones before man’s did. The animals became physically effective, therefore, while to some degree man still lingered in that dream reality.

“The plants [i.e., biosphere] awakened before the animals [i.e., noosphere] – and there are reasons for these varying degrees of ‘wakefulness’ that have nothing to do basically with the differentiations of specieshood as defined by science from the outside but have to do with the inner affiliations of consciousness, and with species or families of consciousness [note: this is a reference to what Elias calls Dream Walkers in this session and what Seth calls sleepwalkers]. Those affiliations fell into being as all of the consciousnesses that were embarked upon physical reality divided up the almost unimaginable creative achievements that would be responsible for the physically effective world.” [session 899, February 06, 1980, DEV, Vol 1.]

Thus, Seth hints at an order of emergence in our ancient past (aspects of which exist simultaneously Now in subjective terms) that went roughly from matter (physiosphere) to bodies (biosphere) to self-reflexive minds (noosphere) that is consonant with the “order of play” I discuss with Elias in this session. What’s amazing is that these intersubjective perspectives are still missing from most contemporary evolutionary theory. The integral approach is thus designed to allow us to begin to fill in these blanks without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is, we don’t have to completely discard Darwin or anyone else, just expand and refine their limits since every model, theory, or storyline deals with partial snapshots of All-That-Is by default.

For example, it should be clearer that our contemporary sciences of archeology and anthropology still don’t recognize the fact that all potential species of flora and fauna inhabit the Earth in all moment points. However, while the physical, objective aspects are being measured and studied, the subjective aspects are still completely omitted because there isn’t a viable theory of consciousness within their paradigms that would open the doors of perception to explore them. Yet.

Finally, there’s an important distinction to make in the overall “order of play.” Namely, the physiosphere, biosphere, and noosphere each contain nested variations of the basic three-part mental structure explored earlier in the session:

  • Outer ego (physical construction region)
  • Mediating/Translation region (“subconscious” region)
  • Inner ego (nonphysical source region)

Put another way, all quantum fields (physiosphere) as they existed before a focus of essence emerged had a rudimentary outer ego, subconscious (translating region), and inner ego. As cellular life (biosphere) emerged, a new level of complexity manifested that transcended yet included the previous one. So all biospheric manifestations included elements of the physiosphere (atoms and molecules) yet formed a novel structure: cellular life forms. And on and on this process goes. Eventually, cellular life forms became so complex that a focus of essence (noosphere) emerged.

To summarize the “order of play” or emergence in Framework 1 terms:

  1. Quantum Fields = physiospheric outer ego, subconscious, inner ego
  2. Biological life forms (includes quantum fields) = biospheric outer ego, subconscious, inner ego
  3. Self-reflexive minds (includes quantum fields and biological life forms) = noospheric outer ego, subconscious, inner ego

Obviously, the type of nested outer ego structure will be quite different between a salt atom, a paramecium, and a human being, since each nest builds upon preceding structures and becomes increasingly sophisticated. Still, I find it quite beautiful that the basic functions and structures exist within each general region of emergence.

For more info on the holonic relationships between quantum fields (physiosphere), cellular life (biosphere), and self-reflexive minds (noosphere) see session 1357, May 29, 2003, endnote 4.

For more info on Seth’s mythos see Seth on “The Origins of the Universe and of the Species” – An Integral Conscious Creation Myth.

For Elias’ variation of Seth’s creation mythos see:

Digests: “before the beginning”.

Digests: Dream Walkers.

Digests: Source Events.

(14) Paul’s note: I had the following excerpt by Ken Wilber in mind when Elias verified these queries:

“When MacLean [who formulated the theory of the triune mammalian brain: reptilian, paleo-mammalian, and neo-mammalian regions] said that when humans lie on the couch for psychoanalysis, they lie down with a crocodile and a horse, that wasn’t the half of it: we lie down with the planets and the stars, the lakes and the rivers, the plankton and the oaks, the lizards and the birds, the rabbits and the apes–and, to repeat, not simply because they are our neighbors in our own universe, but because they are components in our own being, they are literally our bones and bold and marrow and guts and feelings and fears.” Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (1995,2000) P. 109.

(15) Paul’s note: according to Elias, Source Events provide the “source energy” for Regional Area 1 constructions. They exist in Regional Area 2 (which is the same as Seth’s Framework 2).

Digests: find out more about Source Events.

Digests: find out more about Regional Area 2.

Also, note the similarity of Elias’ Source Events to Seth’s “master events” from Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 2 (1986,1997), p. 372. Interestingly, Source Events are similar to Ken Wilber’s “involutionary givens” in Excerpt A: An Integral Age at the Leading Edge.

Elias imparts in the preceding paragraph that the Dream Walker “region” of consciousness is causal in the sense that these holonic aspects create the actual “blueprints for reality” that exist within Regional Area 2. This is another general area of similarity with the Seth material. In The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1 (1977,1996), Seth/Jane Roberts introduces the concept of dream-art science as a potential methodology in which to explore the “blueprints for reality” from an expanded version of our waking, Framework 1 consciousness capable of exploring the “unknown” reality of Framework 2.

I believe that this endeavor is not only worthwhile, but a key to discovering, or more accurately “remembering,” how conscious creation actually works in space-time (objective awareness) and no-space-no-time (subjective awareness). This is also the goal of Elias’ “dream mission.”

Put another way, our current understanding of the relationship between Framework 1 and 2 is found in the field of physics (quantum mechanics). For example, David Bohm’s explicate and implicate orders. But upon closer examination we soon realize that this still deals with only the thin outer crust of energy-matter (physiosphere), and doesn’t adequately explain how bodies (biosphere) or minds (noosphere) work in Framework 1 terms alone! That would require the additional sciences of biology, developmental psychology, cultural anthropology, for example. To date, all of these disciplines exist in parallel at best, and more often in complete isolation from each other.

Seth’s dream-art science and Wilber’s integral approach outline, in a general way, the basic requirements to adequately study All-That-Is in a more holonic embrace:

> Quantum Fields (physiosphere/physics)
> Body (biosphere/biology)
> Mind (noosphere/psychology)
> Soul (psychosphere/theology)
> Spirit (theosphere/mysticism)

This conceptual foundation helps us to outline an integral approach that more adequately investigates the mechanics of conscious creation.

For more info see The Dream-Art Science Sessions (700-704), Abridged.

(16) Paul’s note: Elias makes a clear distinction between duality or pairs of opposites and duplicity, which is one of the ten foundational belief systems.

RODNEY: “Would you distinguish again the distinction between duality and duplicity?”

ELIAS: “I am aware that your new religion of your metaphysics moves in the direction of designating duality as the same as duplicity, but in actuality, I am quite careful in my choice of words that I offer to you in explanation of these belief systems and concepts.

“Duality is suggestive of two, or a double of elements. Duplicity, although it incorporates what you term to be opposites, it is not necessarily merely two. It is an incorporation of very different conflicting elements within you simultaneously, in opposition to each other. Duality does not always suggest conflict or opposing elements. You may hold duality in certain areas that may complement each other. Within duplicity, these elements of the belief system that you hold do not complement each other. They are opposing of each other and creating of conflict.”

RODNEY: “In other words, the north pole and the south pole are complementary ...”

ELIAS: “Correct.”

RODNEY: “... dualities.”

ELIAS: “Correct.”

RODNEY: “They are not in conflict.”

ELIAS: “They are not within conflict. Duplicity IS within conflict. It is a creation of conflict.”

“… And where you hold duplicity, you also hold conflict.” [session 328, October 03, 1998]

(17) Paul’s note: according to Charles Darwin’s original theory, circa 1859, natural selection is the theory and storyline used to rationalize biological mutations over vast spans of time from a purely materialistic perspective. That is, the theory never included a viable theory of consciousness, or interior aspects of subjective reality. Also, it has never been proven as fact, and has been heavily modified in the subsequent one hundred and fifty years by scientists in a variety of fields. Since Darwin’s theory did not include a working theory of consciousness, the entire subjective and intersubjective realms of reality were not included in his or many derivative theories. We can now see this as a glaring omission that leaves out half of the story of “evolution” – the subjective and intersubjective half that deals with consciousness.

However, as of this writing, the idea has been greatly expanded to include not only just biological processes, but social (interobjective), cultural (intersubjective), and mental (subjective) processes that work in complementary fashion. Ken Wilber, Allan Combs, Michael Murphy, and George Leonard are notable integral theorists working in this area.

Still, when Elias said, “continual experimentation of the subjective manipulating links of consciousness in association with time to create different manifestations in physical matter,” I had the immediate impression that he had just offered his own clarification that expanded these contemporary definitions from the perspective of the causal intersubjective region. That is, from the Regional Area 4 perspective that Elias claims is his natural focus of attention. (And, as he often says, aspects of all essences exist there as well.)

Put it all together and a multidimensional (holonic) picture begins to emerge in which we begin to see that virtually all contemporary evolutionary theories are still blinded by Regional Area 1 perceptive artifacts, namely, the dominance of the outer ego which sees itself as the center of all-of-consciousness to such extremes that it has reduced all subjective aspects of essence into objective things, processes, or “its.” Again, that’s only half of the story!

Therefore, we also want to integrate the view from the inside, so to speak. And Elias’ (and Seth’s) information further animates those missing perspectives. The integral approach holds the view that consciousness is causal, and specifically (Elias’) objective awareness, avenues of communication, subjective awareness or (Seth’s) outer ego, subconscious, and inner ego all work in concert to simultaneously co-create the four Regional Areas (or Frameworks) in holonic fashion. Therefore, any accurate story or theory of evolution in this Now must take into careful consideration both linear (space-time) and nonlinear (no-space-no-time), objective and subjective aspects of the psyche (essence) and All-That-Is.

Finally, it should become clear that Elias is not completely refuting our linear belief systems of “evolution” in this session, but making sure that we see them for what they are, namely, belief systems (memes) or artifacts of Regional Area 1 constructions.

(18) Paul’s note: Elias’ statement – “selecting the preferred and the efficient.” – is consonant with our contemporary sciences of complexity that have greatly expanded our understanding of “evolutionary” processes since the time of Darwin. Again, this is not to say that Darwin was 100% in error, he wasn’t. He was just dealing with a much smaller snapshot of All-That-Is that, with 20/20 hindsight, we now see as true but very, very partial.

However, the belief system of evolution has been refined in amazing and more accurate ways since the time of Darwin, like all authentic science. I’m not suggesting that current sciences of complexity will ever provide anything that approaches a complete picture without a working theory of consciousness, and again, an integral approach provides one.

For more information and a good example of how far we’ve come since Darwin, check out Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (1995, 2000). It integrates a viable theory of consciousness into a scientific, artistic, and moral context along with aspects of body, mind, and spirit. Wilber includes recent breakthroughs in evolutionary as well as perennial wisdom traditions (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christian, etc.). In terms of recent sciences, there are many wonderful refinements that greatly expand Darwin’s original theory. For example:

“The new sciences … are collectively known as the sciences of complexity–including General Systems Theory (Bertalanffy, Weiss), cybernetics (Wiener), nonequilibrium thermodynamics (Prigogine), cellular automata theory (von Neumann), catastrophe theory (Thom), autopoietic system theory (Maturana and Varela), dynamic systems theory (Shaw, Abraham), and chaos theories, among others.” (SES, p. 22)

All this to say that when Elias implies that the action of evolution “is a continual experimentation of manipulating energy, which is consciousness, in different manners, and thusly, in your terms, selecting the preferred and the efficient,” he offers further clues from his subjective perspective as to how this action of “efficient selection” occurs throughout various holonic structures within essence and its focuses in relation to Regional Area 1 constructs. And these may well form core “evolutionary” processes that we’ve barely begun to understand.

Scale that up to over six billion focuses in this Now, and we can begin to imagine how “exceedingly complex” the holonic action of conscious creation is in Regional Area 1 alone! The contemporary sciences listed above add their own puzzle pieces to our increased objective understanding of how things work and thus complement both Seth and Elias’ more story-like versions of “before the beginning,” in the beginning, and thereafter.

The significant point, again, is that Elias provides a subjective or more fully informed interior perspective on the process of “evolution” that acknowledges the importance of linear time and its constructions, but also reminds us that there is a vast inner realm of choice and action that we are only beginning to become objectively aware of that is intimately involved in conscious creation and co-creation. This is a natural outcome of the action of what Elias calls the “shift in consciousness” and part and parcel of my intent in formulating “integral conscious creation” that includes Wilber’s subjective, intersubjective, and objective aspects of the psyche (essence).

For more info see What is Integral Conscious Creation?.

(19) Paul’s note: developmental psychologists (e.g., Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Graves, Gilligan, Cook-Greuter, Beck, Kegan, etc.) have mapped various stages of human growth or evolution for over fifty years. In terms of overall development, there is rough consensus that humans develop from what can be generally called preconventional to conventional to postconventional stages in first, second, and third world cultures and are thus universal to homo sapiens on this planet.

These stages include various intelligences or abilities that have been further broken down into subsets, for example, morals, cognition, emotions, sexual, self-needs, self-identity, logical-mathematic, linguistic, musical, etc. Each provides a snapshot of overall personal development that is “necessary but not sufficient.” That is, no single intelligence is the main one, even though many researchers still make the mistake of believing their research shows the most important one, as Piaget did with cognition. It is the view of Wilber’s Integral Psychology, and I agree, that there are many ways of looking at personal development, but each provides a “necessary but not sufficient” snapshot of the total focus personality.

Returning to the stages, then, let’s take a brief look at cognition as it develops through preconventional, conventional, and postconventional stages. Preconventional cognition believes that the moon is literally made out of cheese, or that if I cover my own eyes, then you can’t see me. In other words, it’s impossible for me to take the role of other or walk a mile in someone’s shoes.

Conventional cognition can take the role of other. It also uses early forms of reason and intellect but often reaches conclusions like the Renaissance Archbishop who stated that since the human body has seven orifices, that is why God created seven planets to revolve around the Earth. That is, the human body and outer ego are still the central filters. Perception is still driven by egocentric (self) or ethnocentric (family, tribe, country, etc.) filters.

Postconventional cognition realizes that space-time, and energy-matter aren’t solid or permanent constructs. It also becomes aware that there is an underlying nonphysical domain from which physical manifestation emerges and returns to. That is, I as an individual belong to something far greater than my outer egoic sense of self. Perception thus begins to become worldcentric and universal.

Also, since Elias claims that all species of whale, dolphin, (and porpoise) are now “focuses of essence,” then these basic developmental stages would apply to them as well, acknowledging that their physiological, cultural, social, and geopolitical aqua-differences may include some interesting variations that we aren’t yet aware of. Put another way, since expressions of essence on this planet now include homo sapiens and cetaceans, they will use similar patterns of development laid down by previous generations that rely on the same “blueprints for reality.” But there is no dream-art science research being done yet in this area, because that would include some kind of dream archeology and dream anthropology, for example, that further explores the blueprints in Framework 2 in conjunction with the Framework 1 constructions.

All this to say that it makes sense when Elias suggests that a key outcome the “shift in consciousness” is to move or transform large quantities of the human (and by implication whale, dolphin, and porpoise) populations into postconventional stages of development and beyond. In this context, then, we can develop new scientific research methods to track emergent probable futures and see just how this will be accomplished (given the fact that something like 80% of the focuses in this Now are at preconventional or conventional and the fact that every focus begins at stage 1 – preconventional – and develops from there).

(20) Paul’s note: see sessions:

> 493, October 26, 1999
> 506, November 24, 1999
> 530, December 29, 1999
> 1246, January 16, 2003

Digests: find out more about the dream mission.

(21) Paul’s note: Joanne and I first met Norm and Reta Farb at the Sethnet Int’l. conference in New Haven, CT in November 1996. Coincidentally, they also met Vicki Pendley and Ron Churchman, saw a videotape of Mary/Elias in the conference break room, and shortly thereafter began to attend Elias group sessions in Castaic, CA.

Norm is a physicist and Reta has a background in various religious and spiritual teachings. They recently relocated to Independence, OR from Southern California.

(22) Paul’s note: social philosopher Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) coined the term holon as the fundament unit of whole/parts that form a holarchy. For example, a human holon is a whole made up of cells, molecules, quantum fields, and CUs. A cell, in turn, is a whole made up of molecules, quantum fields, and CUs. By holonically situating any thing, process, or event within a holarchy, we can move beyond the modern reductio ad absurdum of fundamental parts. It opens the conceptual door beyond myths based on purely materialist or idealist conceptions of physical reality, because it includes both. Ken Wilber further developed these concepts in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) where he applied holons and holarchy to the “Great Chain of Being.” His twenty tenets of holons show generally how holarchy works.

So, holarchy consists of nested hierarchies (depths of unequivalence) and heterarchies (spans of equivalence). Proper use of hierarchy includes some kind of ranking guided by the principle of “not vice versa.” So ranking simply means that each properly identified wider hierarchical region becomes a superholon in relation to the previous subholon because they “transcend and include” their predecessors. For example, the following ranking or scale of depth occur naturally:

> Physiosphere = quantum fields (Framework 1)

> Biosphere = quantum fields + self-replicating cellular life (Framework 1)

> Noosphere = quantum fields + self-replicating cellular life + self-reflexive awareness/triune mammalian brain (Framework 1)

> Psychosphere = quantum fields + self-replicating cellular life + self-reflexive awareness/triune mammalian brain + subtle/astral bodies in waking state (Framework 1)

Linking means that within each hierarchical region we find holons of equal value that are crucial for overall systemic stability (i.e., no subholons or superholons). For example, the following links or spans of equivalence occur naturally:

> Physiosphere = hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, magnesium, gold, silver atoms, etc. (Framework 1)

> Biosphere = virus cells, plant cells, bird cells, animal cells, etc. (Framework 1)

> Noosphere = triune mammalian brain [humans, whales, dolphins, porpoises, etc.]. (Framework 1)

> Psychosphere = subtle/astral bodies in waking state [humans, whales, dolphins, porpoises, etc.]. (Framework 1)

However, we make these distinctions only to point out the exceedingly complex nature of overall relationships within All-That-Is in relation to our linear time framework (Framework 1). Since all hierarchies and heterarchies are nested together they are ultimately inseparable aspects of All-That-Is, which we could also call The Great Holarchy of Being (Wilber).

According to Peggy Wright, a pioneering voice in feminist transpersonal studies,

“… holarchy is simply an ‘asymmetrical order of increasing wholeness.’ Each order of wholeness is a holon–‘that which, being a whole in one context, is simultaneously a part in another.’ Within a holarchy, ‘the elements of that level operate by heterarchy. That is, no one element seems to be especially more important or more dominant, and each contributes more or less equally to the health of the whole level’.” Donald Rothberg and Sean Kelly, editors, Ken Wilber in Dialogue: Conversations with Leading Transpersonal Thinkers, Quest Books, Wheaton, IL, 1998, p. 213.

In terms of linear time, then, each holonic region within All-That-Is forms a critical heterarchy necessary for each succeeding hierarchical region to emerge in Framework 1 terms. According to current research, all quantum fields in Framework 1 manifest through some sort of implosion called The Big Bang. Atoms (quantum fields) formed almost immediately along with linear space-time. Once these basic elements were manifest, the foundation was laid for basic cellular biological life to emerge, followed by more complex forms of biological life, and so on. That is, there’s an order to the unfolding of consciousness from the perspective of Framework 1 (it is different from the subjective perspectives within nonlinear Frameworks 2, 3, 4...).

Simply put, our multiverse and planet Earth were not created in seven days, but took billions of years to form the proper systemic balance in the physiosphere for biological life to emerge. However, it’s important to note that each hierarchical region consists of rudimentary (narrow) forms of consciousness that dream and use inner senses. But in order for self-reflexive human life to emerge, the physiosphere (quantum fields) had to be just right for the basic biosphere (cellular life forms) to emerge, which then had to be just right for the noosphere (triune mammalian brain/minds) to emerge, which, and we’re speculating now, has to be just right for the psychosphere (subtle/astral) to emerge.

Could the emergence of the subtle/astral realms be a part of what Elias calls the shift in consciousness? I believe so, but it’s still too soon to tell in any systemic way.

Moving on, the following example shows holonic heterarchical linking within each region and holonic hierarchical ranking within wider “levels.” Again, we can slice up the “pie” of All-That-Is in many ways, so the following is only meant to show the exceedingly complex relationships involved in the creation of Framework 1 while being mindful of the nested, nonlinear Frameworks 2, 3, 4... that co-exist simultaneously.

In Framework 1 terms, then, each emergent region transcends and includes” its predecessor. For example, without electrons, there can be no atoms, without which there can be no molecules, without which there can be no biological life, and on and on:

> ...CUs (consciousness units) are “Whole/Parts” (All-That-Is “before the beginning” as Primal Cause/Causal Field)

> Electromagnetic energy units (or EEs/Subtle Field) are wholes made of parts (CUs/Causal Field)

> M-strings (Physical Field/Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-superposed quantum fields)

> Electrons, neutrons, protons, etc. (Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-superposed quantum fields called m-strings)

> Atoms (Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.)

> Molecules (Physiosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-atoms)

> Liver cells, other cells, etc. (Biosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-molecules)

> Livers (Biosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-liver cells, other cells, etc.)

> Bodies (Biosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-organs, nervous systems, lymphatic systems, etc.)

> Self-Reflexive Minds (Noosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-bodies with triune brains)

> Souls-In-Flesh (Psychosphere) are wholes made of parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-self-reflexive minds)

> Spirit (Theosphere) is a Whole made of Parts (CUs-in-EEs-in-souls-in-flesh)…

Coincidentally, Seth’s consciousness unit (CU) was coined around the same time as Koestler’s holons. CUs are Seth’s version of a fundamental “unit” or holon – a “Part” that contains all knowledge of the “whole.” Also, Seth introduced “before the beginning” – an intentional paradox/koan – in Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 (1986) to describe cosmogenesis and involution/evolution in the context of these fundamental CUs.

Interestingly, Elias uses links of consciousness (LCs) in the same way Seth used CUs. And both map to the definition of holon used here. However, it’s semantically easier to use Koestler’s holon instead of Seth’s CU or Elias’ LC, for example, holonic personality works better than consciousness unit personality.

(23) Paul’s note: I referred to the following image – integral artist Alex Grey’s depiction of Avalokiteshvara, a Buddhist icon. It depicts the psyche (essence) as one-made-of-many, or what I call holonic personality. Elias confirms here that it’s “a figurative interpretation” of what he calls “the expression of essence.”

Avalokiteshvara: one-made-of-many

From Alex Grey, Sacred Mirrors: The Visionary Art of Alex Grey, Inner Traditions Int’l., Rochester, NY, 1990.

Digests: find out more about the expression of essence.

(24) Paul’s note: I referred to the following from session 264, February 01, 1998:

PAUL H: “Now once in a while, isn’t there sort of an ... intrusion is not the right action, but what I call a ‘veto power of essence?’ Just as an example, in the Oversoul Seven book – the first book, or maybe it’s the second book [it was] – one of the characters, Josef, goes running off as his wife is having a baby, and he gets drunk and passes out and he would have died, and Seven transports him three miles down a mountain so that he can be found by his in-laws. That’s just an example of an intent, perhaps, to kill himself. But yet, in our terms, something quite magical intervened or helped or bled through to help in that situation.” (Pause)

ELIAS: “This is a figurative example, that essences may be helpful if the agreement is held by the other essence. You within the focus ARE the whole of essence. Therefore, the action may be entered into with another essence, but there is no thing outside of you that may come to your rescue, for it IS you. It is not separate from you. It is not bigger than you or outside of you. Therefore, what shall come to your rescue but you?”

PAUL H: “So therefore, in what Jim was saying with [a previous] example of the suicide attempt, you pick up a gun, and perhaps as you go to pick the weapon up there is a bullet in the chamber, but by the time you’ve raised it to your head and pulled the trigger, that other part of yourself has dissipated the bullet for whatever reason – value fulfillment, it’s not time to disengage....”

ELIAS: “And has chosen a different choice. It is merely an action of choices within every moment, and you hold the ability to alter your choices or change your choices within every moment.”

PAUL H: “But I guess ... I understand. I guess a Christian story comes to mind of footsteps, where when people are in their deepest troubles ... two sets of footsteps in the sand, and at the darkest moment there was just one, and that being god or the inner self or whatever. So maybe I’m just coming full circle with this other imagery that just supports what you’re saying, that’s all.”

ELIAS: “It is YOU. Yes, you are correct.”

The above is an example of what I call “holonic free will” in which various nested aspects of essence work cooperatively, each within their own domain of choice and action. In Elias’ terms it would include aspects of objective and subjective awareness. This idea helps explain that the outer ego, or objective awareness, by itself doesn’t create all of its reality but works cooperatively in nested, holonic fashion with various subjective aspects of essence.

Digests: find out more about aspects of essence; an overview.

(25) Paul’s note: together, the oubliette and the remembrance cover the full spectrum of human consciousness as it changes-in-time. Elias occasionally refers to a focus of essence as an oubliette. In French, oublier means “to forget.” In English, an oubliette is “a dungeon with an opening only at the top.” Sounds cozy, but according to Elias,

“I will express to you that you are stuck within the plastic oubliette of your physical perceptions. I use the term plastic, as this is a description of something synthetic, something that you create, an element that you mold into what you wish it to be. An oubliette is a place. It is a place of forgetting and remembering. It is an isolated place. It is an old term, but it holds to your present reality.” [session 65, January 07, 1996 ]

“All individuals hold all of this information. What you offer in helpfulness is a movement in triggering a remembrance, for this is what you are all accessing, your own remembrances of essence, for you already hold all of this information, and this be all that I offer to you also, is encouragement to be accessing your own remembrance; not to be imparting your remembrance for you, but to be encouraging you to access your own remembrance – for it is your tone – and to be encouraging you to be trusting and accepting of self, for within your remembrance and the forgetfulness within your own oubliettes, you have also forgotten the trustfulness of self, and look to others for your guidance and your direction. But you hold your own direction, and you hold the ability to be steering your own ship!” [session 355, January 27, 1999 ]

Digests: find out more about the oubliette.

The “remembrance” is not a memory in objective awareness. It thus has nothing to do with dualistic imagery in Regional Area 1 terms, but is a state of awareness, attention, or BE-ing. More from Elias,

“Throughout your history within this dimension, you have attached more and more to your reality of your belief systems and you have moved farther and farther away from the remembrance of essence, and in creating this separation, you also are creating of a mistrust, for you are not remembering self and the gloriousness of your abilities within self, and you reinforce all of this – what you term to be negativity – in a lack of acceptance of self, for what shall you trust if you are not understanding and viewing unknown? But it is not unknown. It is merely forgotten, and in this lack of remembrance, as you create more and more of this separation, you create this rift, so to speak, between yourself and yourself, and in this, you create your expression of what I have expressed previously in your oubliette. You isolate yourselves into believing that you are singular and that you are alone, and that you are unworthy and that you do not create well enough, and that all outside of you is better or that you may aspire to be better, and I express to you that all you need be aspiring to, in physical terms, is the remembrance of yourself.” [session 411, June 07, 1999 ]

“The remembrance is not a memory! It is a state of being. It is a knowing. Therefore, as you engage the remembrance, you are engaging a manner of being, a perception, a knowing, not a memory of an event.

(Intently) As you engage the remembrance in conjunction with dream imagery, you are not necessarily recalling the event of the dream imagery and translating that into an interpretation within thoughts, but you are creating an actual state of being in conjunction with the dream imagery.

(Intently) You are creating a perception which is not necessarily translated into thoughts, but is merely enacted in being, and there is held a knowing within you, regardless that you may not identify in actual words or language, for you have created your own language to yourself, which is the bridge, so to speak, from the oubliette into the actualization in objective awareness of remembrance.

And this is the point – not to be creating a philosophy, not to be drawing comparisons, but to be creating your individual language that is creating the translation into objective awareness. This is your movement from the oubliette into the remembrance.” [session 493, October 26, 1999 ]

Digests: find out more about the remembrance of essence.

(26) Paul’s note: archetypes were created by psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961) to represent “sub”conscious aspects of the human psyche (essence) – universal symbols or blueprints within subjective awareness that are constantly translated through our dreams and myths in all cultures. For example, Jung described the:

> Mother / Goddess / Anima / Amazon / Medium
> Father / God / Animus / Hero / Sage
> Shadow / Evil Other
> Child
> Divine Couple

Though they translate themselves into objective awareness as constructions colored by local cultural belief systems, the underlying symbols and roles are universal. So we find them expressed in various ways within mythic aspects of the world’s religions, sciences, philosophies, etc.

They exist in Elias’ information, too. For example, Dream Walkers, essence families, the nine children of Rose, “before the beginning,” etc. are all translations into Regional Area 1 terms of these inner symbols and blueprints.

(27) Paul’s note: the acorn-sapling-tree analogy is a simple way to show developmental changes-in-time in terms of Framework 1 manifestations. Folks sometimes confuse the notion of simultaneous time with this to mean that there is no such thing as an acorn, sapling, or a tree. Put another way, just because the acorns, saplings, and trees exist as simultaneous potentials within the blueprints in Frameworks 2, 3, 4... doesn’t mean a full-grown oak tree will manifest overnight in Framework 1 terms. So, as a function of Framework 1, there are real, clearly observable stages of development that occur in physical bodies and mental abilities.

(28) Paul’s note: this is an area of overlap with the Seth material. In The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1, Seth/Jane Roberts introduced the concept of dream-art science as a potential methodology in which to explore the “blueprints for reality” from our waking, Framework 1 consciousness.

For more info see The Dream-Art Science Sessions (700-704), Abridged.

Elias’ version is called the dream mission. For more info see Digests: the dream mission.

(29) Paul’s note: developmental psychologists like Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Kegan, Graves, Beck, and Wilber have studied the ways humans change over time. They have discerned three very general stages that are universal to first-, second-, and third-world populations: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. The majority, for a variety of reasons, never make it to postconventional stages, which means that the majority of focuses in this Now are in the pre- and conventional areas. The implication is that our belief systems, or what scientists call schemas, memes, values, and worldviews also roughly follow these stages.

Since Elias’ focus is upon the changing nature of truth (i.e. belief systems, not Absolute Universals), we can also better understand the way truths or beliefs develop from infancy to childhood to adolescence to adulthood to seniors. They, too, in very general terms, follow preconventional, conventional, and postconventional patterns. That is, they evolve from egocentric (me only) toward ethnocentric (family, tribal groups) toward sociocentric (my country or nation or religion) toward worldcentric (global concerns). Thus, our truths or belief systems also follow this pattern of development.

(30) Paul’s note: I refered to earlier comments by Elias.

ELIAS: “Individuals recently have incorporated discussion with myself concerning the reality of the roundness of your earth or the flatness of your earth and whether your earth actually incorporated this flatness within the time framework in which it was believed to be flat. And I may express to you, in the reality of the mass expression, your world was flat for that is what was generated.

“What is real is what you perceive. If you perceive yourself to be sitting within a chair, that is where you are and that is what you are doing and that is real. I may express to you that you are sitting within the air, but your reality is that you are sitting within a chair and it is quite real and it is quite solid and it is supporting you.

“And I may express once again, there are tricky areas in this wave in truth, for it is not even necessary for you to believe some expression to incorporate a belief and to express it. You may believe one expression, but what is it that you believe? What you believe is a translation of what you think, and what is it that you think?

“Your thinking is an interpretation. Therefore, you may think, which may be at times an expression of what you say you believe, but that may be quite different from what you actually incorporate as a belief that is actually expressed, and this generates tremendous confusion also. For what you view is that you believe one expression – what you think – and you do another. This is the reason that this wave is so very powerful.

“It is also significant that we speak of distortions, for regardless of what I express to you, every individual within this room incorporates their own unique perception; therefore, every individual within this room is incorporating their own action of distortion of what I am expressing. Regardless that you incorporate your tape recording, regardless that you incorporate the action of your transcriptions and that you are meticulous in recording each word in what you assess to be perfectness, it matters not. For every individual shall hear differently, for every individual incorporates their own unique perception. Therefore, through that filter you shall each incorporate the information somewhat differently. Now which of you is right? (Paul H raises his hand.) Ah, are you?” (Laughter)

PAUL H: (Laughing) “I was just being a shill!” (Laughter) [session 1496, January 17, 2004]

Digests – see also: | absolutes | accepting self | altered states/projections of consciousness | alternate selves | aspects of essence; an overview | attention (doing and choosing) | avenues of communication | belief systems; an overview | bleed-though | blinking in and out | children | choices/agreements | counterpart action; individual | creature consciousness | desires/wants | dimension | dimensional veils | distortion | dream mission | Dream Walkers; an overview | duplicity | elements of essence (thought, emotional, political, religious) | energy deposits | energy exchanges; Elias, Paul/Patel | energy signatures | equations | essence; an overview | essence families; an overview | essence families; belonging to/aligning with | expression of essence | “evolution” (Darwinism) | fear | focal points | focus of essence; an overview | forum | fragmentation | imagery | imagination | impulses | information | inner senses; an overview | intents | links of consciousness | love | manifestation | mergence | noticing self | objective/subjective awareness | officially accepted reality | oversoul | Oversoul Seven | perception | probabilities | probable selves | pyramid focuses | Regional Areas of consciousness; an overview | Regional Area 1 | Regional Area 2 | Regional Area 3 | Regional Area 4 | relationships | religion (spirituality) | remembrance of essence | Rose; an overview | science | separation | A Seth, Elias Comparative Overview | Seth, Jane Roberts | sexuality; gender, orientation, and preference | shift in consciousness | Source Events | splinters | time frameworks | transition | trauma of the shift in consciousness | trusting self | truth | unofficial information | value fulfillment | waking state/dream state | waves of consciousness | widening awareness | you create your reality |

[ Go to the top ]


The Elias Transcripts are held in © copyright 1995 – 2015 by Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.

© copyright 1997 – 2015 by Paul M. Helfrich, All Rights Reserved. | Comments to: helfrich@eliasforum.org