the Elias forum: Digests of Essential Elias.

Home

Introduction

Digests

Transcripts

Exercises

Gems

Library

Search

Donate

aspects of essence; primary (directing)/secondary (observing)

Elias “gems”

BEN: “Elias, could you say something more about how more than one essence can contribute to one focus? ...How can that possibly work? Is this a rare occurrence? Does this happen with everybody? Is it just to blow my mind?” (Laughter)

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

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

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

“The other essences or essence that may be involved in this type of manifestation, generally speaking, do not express objectively; do not create objective interaction or objective expressions outwardly within the awareness of the individual. Therefore, the individual, in a manner of speaking, basically may be associated with one essence. The other essences or essence in each individual manifestation of this type are creating a cooperation for specific experiences. They are choosing to be allowing those experiences without actual expression and interaction physically.” [session 762, January 20, 2001]

ELIAS: “This is the game, my friends! To be listening to your impressions, paying attention to your objective imagery, your draws, and allowing yourself in the incorporation of your draws and your fascinations to tap into your own energy and explore your energy.

“Allow yourself to sense your own energy, allow yourselves to sense the energy of these other individuals, and recognize whether the energy matches. You shall know, for you shall incorporate doubt or hesitation or at times your draw shall diminish if you are associating that you are an actual individual in another focus that you are actually not.

“You shall also know and recognize the validity of the individuals that you are, for you shall sense the THEME of your essence. In your terms, you shall FEEL the energy of your essence in these other focuses.

DAVID: “Ah! So, Hermann Hesse – have I a focus as Hermann Hesse?”

ELIAS: “As observing essence.”

DAVID: “Observing? Oh, a lot of observing today!”

ELIAS: “I shall express once again, this is a very common action that essences engage. This offers you another avenue of exploration and experience, in which you need not actually create another focus of attention and physical manifestation but may participate in the experiences that you choose to be experiencing. You merely observe and assimilate the experience in similar manner to counterpart action, which thusly creates no necessity for projecting hundreds of thousands of manifestations of one essence.

“Also, as there is no expression of control or competition or comparison within essence outside of your physical dimension and the influence of your beliefs, the essences allow themselves to share the experiences and express no need to be the directing focus of attention. It matters not that another essence may actually be projecting the attention and creating physical manifestation, for there is no competition or comparison.” [session 854, June 17, 2001]

ELIAS: “The definition of observing essences is no less than the action of a directing essence. The experience is no less; the value is no less. You generate associations and distinctions of directing and observing, for you generate beliefs associated with control. Therefore if you are not the controlling essence, your role is lessened, and this is quite incorrect for one essence is not controlling and another essence is not expressing a lack of control. They are sharing an experience, a choice of a manifestation, and as an observing essence you are merely choosing to be merging with another essence, which is an action that essences generate continuously.

“There is no separation within consciousness; therefore, this is not an unusual expression to be merging with other essences. This mergence does not merely occur within nonphysical expressions of consciousness. It also occurs in physical expressions of manifestations, and in this, at times you may even generate a new focus, so to speak, of your essence in allowing for an intensity of the experience of the observing role within a particular focus.

“Therefore I express to you each, do not be discounting of the action of observing essence as any less than that of the directing essence. The point of this physical manifestation is merely exploration of yourself.” [session 1056, April 13, 2002]

BOBBI: “When you give the number of a person’s focuses, does that include observing focuses?”

ELIAS: “No.”

BOBBI: “And I would imagine that’s a very changeable number...”

ELIAS: “Yes.”

BOBBI: “...because of sort of dropping in and sampling, almost.”

ELIAS: “Yes. For at times an essence may choose to be an observing essence throughout the entirety of a focus, and at times they may choose merely partially observing essence, and this is quite fluctuating.” [session 1168, October 27, 2002]

ANJULI: “Elias, we were also wondering because I think you said to Bobbi that her son had a focus as Ludwig II, and Margot and Howard, we were discussing how that can be. We had various choices. It could be a fragmentation action, and Howard, what did you say?”

HOWARD: “A temporary vacation of the directing essence could change the energy of the focus consciousness itself.”

ELIAS: “In a manner of speaking, that is actually somewhat accurate. (Group applause) Not ‘vacation,’ for it is the choice of the focus of which essence it shall align with in any time framework as the directing essence.

“The focus may choose. If there are observing essences, the focus may choose to change essences for it is the choice of the focus, which is also significant. For many individuals within this forum that participate with this information continue to devalue somewhat focuses as not being essence, or that essence is the greater expression, or essence is the whole and the focus is the part. They also devalue the choices and the significance of the focuses of attention and the power of each attention, and view the focus of attention as being somewhat subject to the whole of essence, which is quite incorrect.

“This is the reason that I express to all of you repeatedly the significance and the importance of you as individuals, and that you are actually directing yourselves and you are engaging all of the choices that occur within your experiences, even to the choice of which essence you shall align with or be.

“Therefore, in a manner of speaking, there is little difference between an observing essence and a directing essence, for that is not an absolute either, and it may change.” [session 1574, June 05, 2004]

Elias “gems”

EDWARD: “One of the first things I want to talk about is that there has been some talk about ... that one of your focuses is Oscar Wilde. (1)

ELIAS: Correct.

EDWARD: And I’ve always had some strange feeling of my own that I was connected to or was Oscar Wilde. Is it possible, with the way focuses line up and perceptions line up, that more than one essence could be the same person in a different focus? Am I making sense?

ELIAS: In the same focus?

EDWARD: Uh-huh.

ELIAS: Yes, this is a possibility.

In actuality, this is created many times within your physical dimension, in which more than one essence may be coupling themselves together to be creating one focus in one manifestation.

One essence chooses the primary aspect of attention, and therefore, in your terms, that one essence may be associated with the individual manifestation singularly, for its participation in the objective experience may be more in volume, so to speak, although the other essence which participates in that manifestation also may be occupying other aspects of the manifestation, therefore offering itself the experience of that particular manifestation.

In this, there are more than one individual that may be experiencing what you term to be recall or bleed-through of an individual focus.

You think in very singular terms, as I have expressed previously, and in that thought process and the manner in which you associate within this physical dimension, you do not allow for the recognition that essences are not separated. They are not what you view as individual entities. Therefore, it is not an unusual expression that more than one essence may be involved, so to speak, within any particular manifestation in ANY physical dimension or expression.

EDWARD: So even in this focus right now, I can be sharing. That would almost like explain some people’s ideas of schizophrenia and stuff like that, because you would get bleed-through. Is that what you’re saying, that you can have other essences experiencing and touching on the focus?

ELIAS: No. This is quite a specific choice of manifestation, in that type of expression that you term to be schizophrenia, as I have offered information previously. This is the choice of the individual focus to be experiencing the manifestation in a particular manner and allowing the expression of more than one aspect of the self simultaneously, rather than creating a singularity of attention – as do you – with merely one aspect within each particular moment.

As to your question of whether you participate in that manifestation, yes, your impression is correct.

EDWARD: So I participated in the Oscar Wilde manifestation?

ELIAS: Yes.” [session 737, December 09, 2000]

BEN: “... I want to talk about Oscar Wilde today.

ELIAS: Very well.

BEN: Since we last talked, I have been taking a class on Oscar for the past twelve weeks, and I thought it would be interesting, because there doesn’t seem to be that much in the transcripts, to just devote a whole session to talking about him and his life and his work.

ELIAS: If you are so choosing.

BEN: ... for example, in class, I had to read De Profundis. (2) I found myself reading it in two ways, and I think it must have been based on perhaps some interaction with a focus of mine and a focus of yours.

But also, the fact that I was reading it from a ‘there are no victims’ standpoint, because I kept reading this, thinking that he was pathetic! (Elias grins) I don’t know if that was based on some relationship that we had, or was just based on the fact that I was reading his life from this other viewpoint.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

Now; this also may offer you more information in relation to you and your essence, and also in relation to what you engage in this particular physical focus.

Now; at our previous last meeting, I offered information to Colleen [Edward] in relation to this focus of attention of Oscar, this character.

BEN: Yes.

ELIAS: Therefore, you hold information that more than one essence may be participating in the manifestation of one focus of attention, one physical manifestation, correct?

BEN: Yes. That’s very interesting.

ELIAS: Now; in this, I am aware of your search and research in relation to your associations with different focuses of attention, other focuses of your essence.

I have expressed an identification, in part, of the focus of attention that is identified as the individual to which that letter was written. I may express to you, the individual – or the essence – that I have identified previously as being that particular individual in that focus is not the primary aspect. [It] is an aspect of that particular focus of attention and manifestation, but is not the primary aspect of that attention.

Now; I may also express to you presently, this essence of Albert [Ben] is the primary focus of attention in that focus. Are you understanding?

BEN: Well, is it like the joke I was saying to Michael [Mary], saying that if you and Edward can be Oscar, then she and I can be Bosie? (3)

ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! Quite!

In this, the essences share, so to speak, the manifestation. Michael [Mary] is not the primary aspect of that focus of attention.

BEN: But I am.

ELIAS: Correct.” [session 742, December 17, 2000]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELIAS: (Grinning) It IS creating a reality.

BOB: By compliance.

ELIAS: It is creating a reality of observation.

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

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

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

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

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

ELIAS: No. This may be....

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

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

PAUL H: ... I have a follow-up to that. In this hypothetical case of an essence ‘along for the ride....’

ELIAS: Ha ha!

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

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

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

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

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

PAUL H: Good enough!” (Elias chuckles) [session 762, January 20, 2001]

PAUL T: “I have a new grandson, and his name is Luke. …My mother disengaged physical focus some 15 years ago, and when I made contact with her relatively recently, six months ago or so, I had the strong impression that she was in transition. Recently, within the last week, I feel that she has exited transition. Are those impressions correct?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

PAUL T: Because I feel that she was having some fun. (Paul and Elias chuckle) Because my grandson was born on her birthday, and I had the impression that [he] is a fragmentation of my mother’s essence. (Pause)

ELIAS: Not fragmentation, but there is an aspect of consciousness which is coupled in this particular focus.

PAUL T: Okay, could you amplify?

ELIAS: At times, essences choose to be projecting an aspect of themselves into a particular focus of attention. This is not what you may term to be a mergence of essences and is not a coupling of essences, and it is not in actuality two essences occupying one focus of attention in physical manifestation; but that certain focuses of an essence may choose to be projecting an aspect of themself into the manifestation of another focus of another essence.

In this, there is an allowance of that focus of attention, which is non-physically focused, to be experiencing and participating within a physical manifestation without holding its attention in that manifestation. It, in a manner of speaking, receives the experience but is not focusing its attention in that physical manifestation. It is merely an aspect of the other focus of attention of the other essence.

This is what you are allowing yourself an impression of in connection with these two essences, that there is an aspect of that essence in this new manifestation, but it is not a fragmentation.

PAUL T: Is this similar to what you spoke to in the public session on Saturday (4), where an essence takes an aspect of itself and, shall we say, looks through the eyes of another focus?

ELIAS: This is a different action. That which we were speaking of previously is a situation in which two or more essences may be actually participating in one focus of attention, one manifestation, in this physical dimension.

In that situation, the essences choose positions. One essence is identified as the directing or primary essence. It is the essence that actually creates the manifestation, the focus of attention. The other essence or essences coupled in that manifestation are what you may term to be recessive. They are observers, and are participating for time frameworks – or throughout the entirety of the focus – merely to be offering themselves the experience of observation in the manifestation that the primary essence chooses to be creating.

In this type of manifestation of what you are speaking of, any focus of any essence may project an aspect of itself into any manifestation within your physical dimension. It may project an aspect of itself into a creature, into an object, into a manifestation of your physical environment. It may project into a manifestation of another individual. This is an aspect of the focus of attention. You hold countless aspects of yourself as a focus of attention.

In this, there is no requirement of attention to be held in that aspect. The focus acquires – in a manner of speaking, for there is no acquisition – but in a manner of speaking, the focus allows itself the assimilation of the experience of the other focus without holding its attention in that focus. The attention of the focus that you identify as the mother moves in its choice of direction. It is not focusing its attention upon physical manifestation, but has projected an aspect of itself into the physical manifestation of this new individual.

Therefore, what you notice at times objectively may be what you associate as a familiar presence. At times, you may be objectively noticing similarities in creations, mannerisms, physical expressions. At times, you may notice similarity in appearance. It is dependent upon the expression of the aspect. It may be a preference of some aspect of your reality. These may be expressed in what you term to be a vague manner, for the most part. But if you are allowing yourself to pay attention, you may be noticing of these types of expressions much more clearly.

The individual, as the small one, does not hold an objective awareness of this presentation; but you, in the recognition of familiarity of energy and expression, may be noticing.

PAUL T: Well, it will just give one more opportunity to BE noticing.

ELIAS: Ah! (Laughing)

PAUL T: Ah yes, that most difficult task! But it does get easier with time and practice. So, thank you for that as well!

ELIAS: You are welcome.” [session 767, January 26, 2001]

BEN: “Let’s go back to this whole observing essence and primary essence idea. So I know there’s two essences involved in the focus of Bosie. Are there more? (Pause)

ELIAS: One temporary, which does not observe throughout the entirety of the focus.

BEN: And that essence name would be...? (Elias grins and stares at Ben with raised eyebrows.) ...for me to figure out. (Laughter)

Are there other essences participating within the focus of Ben besides Albert [Ben]?

ELIAS: In this present time framework, no.

BEN: And with Christian [Frank] and Frank? (Pause)

ELIAS: In this present time framework, no. Although I may express to you within what you term to be in linear time early ages of this present manifestation, yes; one.

BEN: And I’ll ask the same question for Michael, THIS Michael. (Pause)

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Yes, what?

ELIAS: Participation of two observing essences.

BEN: So Mikah [Mike] is primary, and there are two observing?

ELIAS: Correct.

MIKE: Who? (Much laughter, as Elias gives Mike the same look that Ben got.) Come on, you guys brought this up! At least you could have told me!

BEN: You have an hour to discuss that!

ELIAS: And shall you not attempt at investigation, Mikah [Mike]?

MIKE: Well, can you give me half? Can you give me one, so at least I have some idea?

ELIAS: And you may investigate. (Smiling)

MIKE: Are these people, are these essences that I know?

ELIAS: No.

MIKE: (Laughing) So what’s the point of me investigating? (Group laughter)

ELIAS: This is your choice! (Grinning) It matters not! I may express to you, as I have previously, these essences are not affecting of you. They are not affecting of your identification, your choices, your manifestation. This is a manifestation of Mikah [Mike]. You ARE the essence of Mikah [Mike].

In this particular focus of Michael, there are two other essences within consciousness that OBSERVE your choices of experiences and your movement. They are not participating in your choices. They are not affecting of your identity or the movement of your essence. They are merely participating in the capacity of observation to be allowing themselves the experience that YOU choose, and in that experience they may be choosing a myriad of actions to be engaging in relation to these experiences, in a manner of speaking.

I may express to you, at times an observing essence may be choosing to create another focus in similar expression if it is creating a preference in relation to the experiences that YOU explore, although this is not a rule. It is an action that is created within essences, but it is also the choice of each individual essence.

Therefore, I may express to you that another individual within a future focus or a past focus, offering itself information – if choosing – concerning another focus that it participates within may be offering itself information that YOU are a focus of its essence, and it may not necessarily be the primary essence which is directing. Therefore, shall you create fame within this focus, another individual may choose to be you, so to speak! Ha ha ha ha ha!” [session 788, February 25, 2001]

MIKE: “How many focuses do Albert [Ben], myself and ... what is Axel’s essence name again?

AXEL: Ricarro.

MIKE: How many do the three of us share together? (Pause)

ELIAS: Eighteen.

MIKE: Wait a minute, Elias, you told me and Ben that he and I only share 14 together. How can I be interactive with Ben 18 times if we only share 14 focuses together?

ELIAS: For you are inquiring in relation to a third individual, and therefore this incorporates an interaction of observing essences also.

MIKE: What? (Laughter)

ELIAS: You are inquiring in relation to yourself, Albert [Ben]and Ricarro [Axel] in relation to focuses that you all three participate within.

MIKE: You are correct.

ELIAS: In this, the focuses that you participate within in relation to Ricarro [Axel], several are observing essence and therefore this also may be included.

BEN: Wait a minute. Let me see if I get this straight. So in other words, if there are 14 between Mikah [Mike] and myself, those additional four would be between Mikah [Mike] and Ricarro [Axel], with me being an observing essence of those focuses?

ELIAS: Not necessarily. In this, I am identifying 18 focuses in which all three of you participate together in the capacity of manifest focuses interacting with each other, but some of those focuses are being experienced as an observing essence with the specific choice to not be PARTIALLY incorporating observing essence capacity with a particular focus.

What I am expressing is, at times essences choose to be continuing their participation as an observing essence from the onset of manifestation to the point of disengagement. This type of observing essence activity may be related to your participation in a particular focus with another individual, although you are not directing of the focus; but you are choosing to be participating in observance throughout the ENTIRETY of the focus and not merely a segment of it, so to speak.

MIKE: Okay, then can I ask, Elias, how many actual manifestations as directing focuses do the three of us share together? (Pause)

ELIAS: As directing focuses, five.

MIKE: And would the number 14 still be the same for Ben and me as directing focuses?

ELIAS: Yes. Be aware that there is a distinction expressed in this type of action of ‘observing focus.’ For I may express to you, generally speaking essences create this action of an observing essence within a particular focus in segments, so to speak, not generally in the expression of the entirety of a focus.

MIKE: Okay, all right. Thank you very much, Elias, for your responsiveness to our questions.” [session 861, July 05, 2001]

SHARON: “My next question is have I fragmented?

ELIAS: No.

SHARON: Yes?

ELIAS: No.

SHARON: Do I have a new essence name?

ELIAS: NO. I expressed to you no, you did not fragment.

SHARON: Am I in the process of fragmenting?

ELIAS: You are continuously in the process of fragmenting. But as to your question, is your particular focus fragmenting and creating a new essence, no. What you ARE generating is an action of exchanging primary aspects.

SHARON: I don’t know that I completely understand that.

ELIAS: Each individual incorporates, as I have expressed, countless yous of you. One aspect of you is designated as the primary aspect. That is the aspect of you that you are objectively most familiar with, that which you identify as your identity, as being you.

Now; primary aspects are not absolute positions, and they change. In actuality, they change quite frequently. But generally speaking, most individuals, as they alter their primary aspect, generate the designated primary aspect as one that is similar to other aspects. Therefore, you easily exchange positions of primary aspects with no noticeable interruption of your identity or your abilities or the familiar expressions that you generate.

Now; at times individuals – which it is not uncommon – choose to be expressing an alteration of the primary aspect and may choose another aspect of themselves to be expressed in the primary position which expresses different qualities than are generally familiar to the individual.

Now; this may occur in many varying degrees. Individuals may alter the primary aspect and continue to associate with themselves, with noticeable differences in the qualities that they express or perhaps skills or talents that they express, but they continue to feel like themselves. They merely are noticing that they are expressing different talents or creativity that they have not expressed previously and may be somewhat surprised that they incorporate these abilities.

Now; at times individuals may alter the primary aspect in more of an extreme.

Now; in those scenarios, the individual interrupts memory, and therefore they may experience a time framework in which they do not remember objectively certain years or a certain limited time framework. In those scenarios, the individual has chosen to be altering the primary aspect in more of an extreme, and that primary aspect does not incorporate the objective memory of the previous primary aspect. Therefore, there appears to be an interruption in memory.

Now; that is not an uncommon expression either. Many individuals generate that type of exchange of primary aspects in what you view as younger years, within your identification of childhood. As they move into older years or adulthood, they may incorporate lapses of objective memory of certain time frameworks within their identification of childhood.

Now; in some scenarios, individuals generate that type of exchange of primary aspects as an adult and may incorporate a limited time framework in which they appear to be missing time.

Now; you have not generated that type of exchange in this time framework of primary aspects, but you are experimenting with exchanging different primary aspects that express different qualities and somewhat of alterations of some personality expressions also. This is the reason that you are experiencing a feeling that some element of yourself is different and therefore questioning whether you have fragmented. There is some element that is different, but it is associated with your focus, which is much more diverse than you view it to be.” [session 1377, June 23, 2003]

ELIZABETH: “Elias, I have a question. I’ve been having a lot of imagery with the number 43 lately. I’m just wondering, what does it mean?

ELIAS: And what do you present this imagery to yourself surrounding?

ELIZABETH: I don’t know, it pops up just at odd times. I’ll be watching a TV show and usually on a clock I’ll see it, and it doesn’t seem to have a pattern.

ELIAS: And do you incorporate any impression?

ELIZABETH: A couple people have said I might be creating more focuses.

ELIAS: It is a number associated with newly generated observing essence roles, which incorporate the same experience as a directing essence role in any focus. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, you may consider this to be an additional numbering of focuses, for they are generally the same.

ELIZABETH: Thank you.

ELIAS: You are welcome.” [session 1447, September 27, 2003]

NICOLE: “I have a question; I don’t know how this is going to come out. Is the me of me ... okay, how do I want to say this? (Pause, and Nicole sighs) Do you know what I’m saying? (Laughter) Is this me, the me of me, is this the priority me, the primary me, or is this just another aspect of me that thinks that this me is the me that is the real me? (Laughter) You know what I’m saying? And also, of course, I’d love to know my essence name and where I came from, et cetera, all that.

ELIAS: (Laughing) Is this you you? Yes. (Much laughter) And even if this you wasn’t you, it would be you! (Chuckles, and more laughter)

Is this the primary you? Yes, for the primary you is what you generate it to be. Let me express to you, you all at times associate and think in very black and white terms and in hierarchies even of yourselves, that there must be one primary you and every other probable you is lesser. But in actuality, every you is a probable you. One is not greater than another, and any probable self that is generated is equal to the self that generated it and in turn it generates the other. Therefore, they are all you.

What you recognize now as you is the primary aspect of you, and this is what you incorporate as your identity, and that is you. That may change, and you may change positions of primary you’s or primary aspects, for there are countless aspects of you that are all present, that all contribute to this one manifestation and this one identification of you. But they do exchange positions.

Many times you exchange positions with other aspects of yourself and they appear to incorporate very little deviation of yourself. You may recognize that you merely discover a new talent that you were unaware of objectively previously, or you may begin to express yourself quite differently, but you continue to feel as you.

At times you may exchange the primary aspect of you in a more dramatic manner, and in which situations you may actually interrupt memory if the primary aspect alteration is dramatic enough. In these situations, individuals interrupt their memory of time frameworks. Many incorporate an interruption of memory of several years, in which they express that they cannot recall the experiences or the events that occurred within those particular years. Many individuals incorporate this action within small ages. As small ones they generate one primary aspect, and as they incorporate somewhat more age they change the primary aspect and in these situations they do not recall what occurred in smaller ages.

But this interruption of memory matters not, for there is what you would term to be an actual storage of memory that you incorporate; you merely do not access it objectively. But memory is tricky also, for you are continuously changing the past and every moment of the future. Each time you recall the past, you have altered it.’ [session 1468, November 08, 2003]

DON: This is just a small question. You mentioned to me once that I have six focuses that we’d call famous. Already in the sessions I’ve had with you, we’ve identified seven. How would you account for that? Have I inserted some new ones into time or...?

ELIAS: As I have expressed previously in association with different focuses, the numberings are not absolutes for they fluctuate, and dependent upon the agreements of different essences, an essence may be incorporated as an individual. It is not that one essence assumes the focus of another essence, but in the mergence of essences, dependent upon the duration of the mergence and the particular direction of the mergence, it is possible that two essences may be directing of one focus for they may be in what you may term to be a state of mergence, to which there would be a fluctuation of the tone of the focus throughout the focus, which is not unusual, for this occurs with all focuses, with all essences to some degree regardless. But there are situations, so to speak, in which more than one essence may be merged, and therefore may be associated with certain focuses, regardless that they are different essences.

You also add different focuses within any time framework. Therefore, the numbering also fluctuates. At times, you may even decrease the numbering of focuses, whether they be famous or not.

DON: It seems like I recall in some session you said that when you typically give numbers of focuses in this dimension, that number will not include those focuses that have fragmented to become another essence. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Correct, yes.

DON: So through fragmentation, for example, that numbering as you would give it could easily decrease.

ELIAS: Correct, or it could increase.

DON: Now, you’ve said that it’s not uncommon for it to be correct that a focus could be said to have two directing essences. Would it be uncommon or does it exist, say, for one to have 1000? I pulled that number out arbitrarily.

ELIAS: It is possible.

DON: You know, I used to have that thought before I’d read any of your material, that it could be in some sense correct for a thousand people to say that they were the directing essence of some focus. That’s why I wondered.

ELIAS: Yes, and in this, remember, I also merely make a distinction of observing essences and directing essences for your benefit, for in actuality they are essentially the same.

DON: It seems to me that the way I’ve interpreted that, there’s a fundamental distinction and an important one, in that if I observe a focus I may have all of those experiences, but I’m not making the decisions. Is that a fundamental distinction between them?

ELIAS: Not entirely. For, these are challenging concepts for individuals within your physical reality to be generating an actual accurate comprehension of objectively.

Now; this is not to say that you may not understand, for you may through your conceptualization sense genuinely generate an understanding of these types of actions and concepts, so to speak. But as you begin to genuinely recognize that there is actually no separation and that there are no actual divisions even within essences – essences are consciousness – that is merely a designation, so to speak, of different tones of consciousness and different personality energies of consciousness.

I am aware that generally speaking, within your physical dimension as you process information with regard to what is known to you objectively, you generally categorize all of the information that you offer to yourselves in singular manners and in association with entities or things, and it is challenging to objectively understand that although you are familiar with things, with manifestations within consciousness, consciousness is not a thing and therefore it is not singular. There is an action which is continuously occurring, an energy which is in continuous movement, and within that energy there are different qualities or expressions, so to speak – which even ‘expressions’ is not an actual accurate term to be attaching to the energy of consciousness – and this action in its continual movement incorporates no separation. Therefore, I may express to you that although you are the essence of Allard (Don) and I am the essence of Elias, you are myself and I am you.

Therefore, as I express numberings to you of focuses or identifications of directing essences or observing essences, these are terms that are presented merely as an avenue that allows you somewhat of an understanding of the vastness of actions that occur within consciousness.

As to the distinction between an observing essence and a directing essence, it is not as black and white as you have presented. For just as you are directing yourself as a focus, you are also receiving energy from all of your other focuses. Therefore, there is an influence of all of your focuses that influences choices that you engage. You may choose directions and you incorporate your individual free will. Therefore, no other focus is forcing you to be generating any particular direction or choice, but there is an influence in energy, which you choose to incorporate or you choose not to incorporate. Very similarly, the action is expressed in association with directing and observing essences in relation to any particular focus. They are both influencing each other in energy.

Therefore, it is the individual attention’s choice which qualities they shall be expressing in any particular moment. This is the reason that I express to you that generally speaking, and what you would consider to be for all intents, there is not actually a distinction between an observing and a directing essence. The only distinction that we may actually express in association with any particular focus between the observing and the directing essence is that the individual chooses a stronger alignment with what may be termed as the directing essence, and therefore would be associated with the essence families of the directing essence and would generally be more associated with the essence tone of the directing essence. But it is the choice of the individual what they shall express in relation to the directing or the observing essences.

DON: I’m really glad you went into this, because one of the problems that I’ve had in accepting a lot of what you’ve had to say throughout these sessions is the definiteness, in my perception, that you’ve used when you say, for example, somebody has 981 focuses in this dimension, or ‘Is this a focus of this person? Incorrect.’ My intuition, since long before coming across you objectively, has been that these things just really are not that definite.

ELIAS: Correct. In this, as I have expressed previously, any numbering that I offer to any individual or any identification of yes or no in relation to any question concerning another focus of that essence is expressed in that moment. But it is relative to that moment and within another moment it may be different, for it is the choice of not merely the essence but also the focuses.

This is a point that many individuals do not yet understand clearly, the significance of each focus of attention and the power of each focus of attention, and the free will and choice that is not bound to what they think of as being directed by another entity that they assess as essence. Generally speaking, individuals continue to view this concept of essence as being some type of entity that is greater and more powerful and larger than themselves, and they view themselves to be less significant and not entirely directing of themselves or of their choices or of their directions, that there is some other higher power that is actually directing of them, and this is actually not true.

I may express that it is a powerful truth that you incorporate within your truths, but it is not true. The example with observing and directing essences bears out the power of the individual and the individual’s choices. I have also expressed many times, essences are not intrusive. Therefore, there is NO expression, NO action that shall be expressed unless it is accepted by any particular attention, and attentions are not always physically focused.” [session 1484, December 23, 2003]

KEITH: “I wondered if you could tell me how many focuses I have, my essence?

ELIAS: In this physical dimension?

KEITH: Well, anything I would have access to.

ELIAS: In this physical dimension, I may offer you a number. But in clarification as we are participating in this particular discussion, I shall express to you that the number fluctuates; it is not an absolute. But I may express to you in this time framework presently, within this physical dimension, past and future focuses included, you incorporate 627 focuses of physical manifestations. In this present time framework, you incorporate five.

KEITH: Now that just confused me. I kind of understand how they might fluctuate, but first you said six hundred and something. What did that refer to, if it’s not this present time framework? Oh, you mean past and future – I see what you’re saying. Like right now, in the year 2004, there’s four others – or five others?

ELIAS: Yes, four others.

KEITH: Okay, I got it. And talking about other focuses, like ‘do I have a focus as the Queen of Sheba’ and then you might say ‘correct,’ is it sometimes that at the moment that we ask we’ve actually generated it, or the moment we think it we’ve generated it? Or is it really a remembering of something that has been there for, I don’t know, a long time? I don’t know how to put that because I don’t understand time.

ELIAS: I am understanding what you are expressing. It is dependent upon the individual and what action they are incorporating in the moment. The individual may be tapping into another focus that is a focus of their essence and has continued to be a focus of their essence. The individual may be tapping into what we term to be an observing essence action, which is in actuality not different from a directing essence focus. Or the individual may be incorporating another focus, adding or subtracting in your terms, to their focuses.

Now; in that action, an essence may be moving into a position of observing essence of any focus in any time framework in any moment, which would increase the numbering of focuses and would be a valid impression that the individual incorporates that manifestation as a focus of themselves, for what occurs is a mergence of essences. Therefore, in that mergence, each essence chooses which physical manifestations they wish to be observing of and incorporating that experience to themselves as essence in that physical exploration of that particular manifestation.

The key in all of these actions is the focus itself, for the focus directs itself. It incorporates its own free will, its own choices. Neither essence, whether observing or directing, is controlling or directing of the choices or the direction of the focus.

KEITH: So the focus could jump to another essence if it wanted to?

ELIAS: Yes.” [session 1497, January 18, 2004]

ANNE: “You said for two days that my friend, Karl, is an incarnation of the Bavarian king, Ludwig the second. I had no time to ask, was I at this time near him?

ELIAS: Yes.

ANNE: And you can tell me?

ELIAS: A family member, and I shall express to you to investigate! (Chuckles)

GOTTLIEB: (Translates into German for her: ‘You shall find out for yourself.’)

ANNE: Oh! (Group laughter and Elias laughs loudly)

ANJULI: Elias, we were also wondering because I think you said to Bobbi that her son had a focus as Ludwig II, and Margot and Howard, we were discussing how that can be. We had various choices. It could be a fragmentation action, and Howard, what did you say?

HOWARD: A temporary vacation of the directing essence could change the energy of the focus consciousness itself.

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, that is actually somewhat accurate. (Group applause) Not ‘vacation,’ for it is the choice of the focus of which essence it shall align with in any time framework as the directing essence.

The focus may choose. If there are observing essences, the focus may choose to change essences for it is the choice of the focus, which is also significant. For many individuals within this forum that participate with this information continue to devalue somewhat focuses as not being essence, or that essence is the greater expression, or essence is the whole and the focus is the part. They also devalue the choices and the significance of the focuses of attention and the power of each attention, and view the focus of attention as being somewhat subject to the whole of essence, which is quite incorrect.

This is the reason that I express to all of you repeatedly the significance and the importance of you as individuals, and that you are actually directing yourselves and you are engaging all of the choices that occur within your experiences, even to the choice of which essence you shall align with or be.

Therefore, in a manner of speaking, there is little difference between an observing essence and a directing essence, for that is not an absolute either, and it may change.

HOWARD: So is this what happened to me recently? Did my essence tone change? I believe you said that early on in our association.

ELIAS: No, but that also is another action that may occur, which is also the choice of the focus to be expressing more of a certain tone of essence and certain qualities of essence, and that may change. The focus may choose to be expressing a different tone of the same essence and different qualities, which would alter your experiences and would also in some manners alter some of your behaviors and in some manner your identity. You would perceive yourself differently.

MARGOT: Then continuing on in that line, when such a choice is made during, let’s say, a life experience that is very changing, you change the life experiences that you’re having, you’re saying that that would be the same thing, when you make a major change in direction.

ELIAS: It is dependent upon the individual and what is actually occurring. For that may occur also in altering primary aspects of the focus itself, which would not necessarily be an alteration of the tone and the qualities of the essence. It would be an alteration of primary aspects of the individual.

MARGOT: Can I ask a personal type of a question? As an example, when I decided to leave my background behind – my church, my family – and I left, was that a change in the focus tone or the essence tone?

ELIAS: Focus.

MARGOT: Both – is that what you said, both?

ELIAS: Focus. Yes, and that would also be a mark-point of generating other probable realities, yes.

MARGOT: Thank you.” [session 1574, June 05, 2004]


End Notes:

(1) Paul’s note: Elias has mentioned a number of physical focuses of his. He also mentions that each of us usually choose at least one lifetime in which we are well known (fame or infamy). Elias tends to down play his well known focuses as so many people seem to concentrate on these and miss the point that their own “every day” focuses are just as important and purposeful.

Elias mentioned in 1995 one of his physical focuses was Oscar Wilde.

VICKI: “Another basic curiosity question. In the beginning of our sessions [in 1995], we had questions and some answers about this particular focus in which you were Oscar Wilde.” [session 142, December 27, 1996]

Wilde was born in Dublin, Ireland and lived from 1854-1900. He led a colorful and artisitic life that provided fodder for his plays, novels, and satires on Victorian society. He promoted the Romantic ideal of art for art’s sake.

In 1996, Elias mentioned that one of his focuses was Ludwig Van Beethoven who lived from 1770 – 1827 [unpublished session 72b, February 18, 1996]. He expressly stated that he did not want this session to be made available, so it became the first session unpublished by request. I note with irony, however, that this fact is now common knowledge among Elias readers. And even though the session is not available, the information has been “leaked,” so to speak, further reinforcing the original idea of not getting distracted by our draw to our own famous focus personalities and concentrating on ourselves in this focus.

In 1997 Elias revealed several additional focus personalities:

ELIAS: “Good afternoon. I shall approach you slightly differently this day, and introduce myself as Elias Bodreaux. Born, Michelle, France, 1774. Upon adolescence, move to Paris. Quite handsome! (Laughter) [Died] 1821, Paris. Killed with a bullet.

I shall also introduce myself to you as what may be translated in your sound as Knar, from the planet which translates in sound – although this is not its name, but translates into sound – in your language as Tüle. This would be located outside of your present known galaxy, but also within this present now; for simultaneously, I am these focuses, although I also hold no focuses in any physical dimension. And you are this also.

I offer you two examples of two physical focuses which I have manifest within. I also express to you that I am non-physically focused, holding no focuses in any physical dimension presently. These are both true, but they are seeming to be contradictory. You also hold many focuses in this dimension and in many other dimensions, and you also are non-physically focused within essence.” [session 211, August 30, 1997]

I’m also including Vic’s note from the above session as it offers some additional insight into how Elias originally got his name:

Vic’s note from session 211, August 30, 1997: this was an interesting introduction to a session, as Elias has rarely talked about his physical focuses. Also, another interesting note is that this focus of Elias Bodreaux would be the one which the name Elias comes from, as this was not the name that Elias initially used to introduce himself. Elias first introduced himself as Rastin, or “Raz.” Mary was uncomfortable with this name and insisted on calling him Elias, as she had “remembered” an individual named Elias during a past-life regression a few years prior. She was very comfortable with this particular memory, as she had remembered Elias as a very close friend. Recently, Elias told us that we had altered probabilities (whatever that means!) and that his “essence tone” is now Elias.

Digests: find out more about Elias.

(2) Paul’s note: “In 1895, at the peak of his career, Wilde became the central figure in one of the most sensational court trials of the century. The results scandalized the Victorian middle class; Wilde, who had been a close friend of the young Lord Alfred Douglas, was convicted of homosexual offenses. Sentenced in 1895 to two years of hard labor in prison, he emerged financially bankrupt and spiritually downcast. He spent the rest of his life in Paris, using the pseudonym Sebastian Melmoth. He was converted to Roman Catholicism before he died of meningitis in Paris on November 30, 1900.”

“... While in prison Wilde composed De Profundis (From the Depths; 1905), an apology for his life. Some critics consider it a serious revelation; others, a sentimental and insincere work.” [from Microsoft Encarta, http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761573798, February 12, 2002]

(3) Paul’s note: “Bosie” was a nickname for Lord Alfred Douglas.

(4) Paul’s note: refering to the excerpt from session 762, January 20, 2001 above.

Digests – see also: | aspects of essence; an overview | belief systems; an overview | bleed-through | choices/agreements | counterpart action; individual | creature consciousness | cycle of manifestation | dimension | dis-ease and healing | disengage (“death”) | energy deposits | energy exchanges; Elias, Paul (Patel) | essence; an overview | essence names | focus of essence; an overview | focus of essence; beginning – continuing – final | fragmentation | impressions | information | manifestation | mergence | noticing self | objective/subjective awareness | officially accepted reality | perception | relationships | religion (spirituality) | separation | sexuality and emotion | time frameworks | transition | vicitms/perpetrators |

[ 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