expression of essence
ELIAS: “Within non-physical focus, the expression of essence is far beyond your physical imagination.” [session 83, April 03, 1996]
ELIAS: “Each time you express, ‘This individual should not ... I should not ... You should do ...’ Each time you express these statements, you offer yourselves examples of how you align and accept belief systems, mass belief systems. You may express, ‘I hold no religious affiliations. I have no religious belief systems. Murder is wrong.’ You hold a religious belief system! You may express, ‘I do not hold to belief systems of good or bad, of right or wrong.’ You may also express, ‘Individuals should not do this!’ You hold a belief system, aligning with the mass belief system which is accepted, of right and wrong and good and bad. You also express these belief systems within yourselves continuously. ‘I could have accomplished better. I messed up’, in the present vernacular! (Laughter) These are alignments with individual and mass belief systems of good and bad. You do not mess up! You express and experience.” [session 105, July 17, 1996]
ELIAS: “When you die, in your terms, you are not absorbed into enlightenment. You do not become part of the whole, losing your identity and individuality. You are a new expression of essence, never to be repeated again. You also are interconnected within consciousness to all elements of essence. Therefore, you may experience what you view to be past lives or future lives and you may identify with these as yourself, although they are not yourself. If you choose, as I have stated previously, you may bring forth another focus and physically view before you a past life within the same time/space. Within your understanding, you may not be this individual and yourself also, for you are not; although you hold the same consciousness.” [session 133, November 17, 1996]
ELIAS: “Now we move into the area of responsibility. As you are affecting of your own inner landscapes (1), you hold the responsibility to yourselves and to all consciousness to be affecting beneficially. As you move into areas of affectingness with other individuals or other focuses, even of yourself, you hold more responsibility, for you are now affecting of another focus. Therefore, you hold the responsibility of the expression of essence. This is very important! It is important that you realize that you DO hold a responsibility within consciousness. I do not express to you that all of your existence is merely an experience with no responsibility! You experience for the experience; but you also hold tremendous responsibility to be expressing from essence. (Firmly) Expression of essence is not to be concerning yourself with all other individuals and their creation of reality, and creating judgment within you as to other individuals’ creations of their reality. Your responsibility is to be accepting within yourself, and of all other individuals! I may not express this strongly enough. It is very important!
“This, be remembering: each action that you create, you also are affecting within consciousness. Each action that you take, you affect all of consciousness. Therefore, you may quite understand the responsibility that you hold within these actions.” [session 228, October 18, 1997]
ELIAS: “... I am not expressing to you that you hold responsibility for the choices of other individuals, for you do not. You DO hold responsibility for the choices that YOU create, knowing their affectingness in conjunction with other individuals. This is not to be expressing to you that you should be moving into assuming personal responsibility for other individuals, but merely to allow yourself the awareness of what you are creating, and in this, also hold the awareness that certain choices that you may be creating may be affecting of other individuals, and if you are choosing to move into certain areas, the efficient expression of essence is also to hold the awareness of no expectation with respect to other individuals.
“In quite blunt terminology, I express to you, the directions that you choose for yourself are your choices and shall be beneficial to you, but within the expression of essence, the expectation of pulling or dragging with you other individuals that become confused and are not necessarily in agreement with your choices IS your responsibility.” [
ELIAS: “First of all, in addressing to the expression of essence, yes, you are correct. In one manner of speaking, all that you create, all that you engage is an expression of essence, for you ARE essence.
“What I am expressing in this particular type of terminology is a distinction of a creation of an action which moves outside of your belief systems within its motivation.” [session 450, August 19, 1999]
ELIAS: “Intrusiveness is an action in which you project energy to another individual intentionally, knowing that it is most likely to be received and configured in a hurtful manner. This is an irresponsible act; this is not an expression of essence. This is not a natural expression of essence.
“I am understanding that within this time framework there is tremendous challenge in association with this wave addressing to truths, and many individuals are experiencing considerable difficulty and confusion. But your difficulty and your conflict may be considerably lessened if you are genuinely paying attention to your own energies and to how you are projecting, and being responsible in your projections to other individuals.
“For I may express to you, the reason that intrusiveness is not a natural expression of essence is that within consciousness it is known that any action that you incorporate with other individuals, with other essences, if it is intended to be intrusive or hurtful, what it accomplishes is being much more hurtful to yourself. It may not appear in that manner initially, but I may assure you that you cannot incorporate an action of hurtfulness without being more hurtful to yourself. And in that hurtfulness to yourself, you do deny yourself awareness and you do deny yourself choice, and you weep. (Pause)
“Denial of choice is not a natural expression of essence; intrusiveness is not a natural expression of essence.” [session 1532, March 20, 2004]
ELIAS: “You do not understand the truth, for you do not understand the conflict that you generate within yourselves, for you identify conflict with feeling. Conflict does not always engage feeling. Conflict is incorporated through physical focus as an expression of separation, and lack of communication and connection with the expression of essence, which comes from belief systems. Therefore, if you are recognizing of these belief systems, and you are allowing yourself the acceptance of these belief systems, the conflict is eliminated.
Acceptance of belief systems is not recognizing a belief system. It is not expressing to one’s self, ‘I see this belief system. I am expressing I acknowledge this belief system. Therefore, I accept that I hold this belief system.’ This is not acceptance of a belief system! Acceptance of a belief system is the understanding that it is no more than a belief system that facilitates some action within accepted guidelines within physical focus, and that it holds no right or wrong. It is only a physical expression. In essence – underline – it is a symbol.
RON: ... Well, [my question] has to do with small things! It has to do with a term that came up a couple weeks ago, of fables. (Elias chuckles) Which we did look up in several places, and they all seem to have to do with talking animals, which the story of The Little Red Hen very well does, and they all seem to have to do with a moral of some kind, which the story of The Little Red Hen does seem to have, and I’m just curious of what your definition of a fable might be?ELIAS: Let us view this small story of this little red hen, to which you have grown so very fond, and
to which you incorporate a very large temper tantrum with Elias!
RON: It’s just trauma! (Laughter)
ELIAS: Ah, acceptable! Then allow me to offer an explanation, and for yourself to view this story. This small chicken ... (Laughter)
GAIL: We get to discuss nursery rhymes! This is great!
ELIAS: ... is engaging other animals, within this story, to be helpful to her, and being accepting of their individual expressions in not wishing to be helpful. This story continues, very repeatingly, of each action that this animal engages and continues to engage the other animals for helpfulness. The ending of this story is what?
RON: All the other animals wanted to help her eat the bread, but they didn’t want to help her make it.
ELIAS: And the expression of the chicken is?
RON: Sorry, you didn’t help make the bread, so you can’t eat it.
ELIAS: Correct. Within this story, this teaches you what?
RON: Cause and effect.
ELIAS: Within our sessions, I express to you what?
RON: There is no cause and effect.
ELIAS: Therefore, this story is contrary to what I express to you, and also contrary to expression of essence; for essence will not express to these others, ‘Based upon your action, or lack of incorporation of helpfulness with me, I shall withhold from you.’
ELIAS: Thank you! (Laughter)
RON: Thank you!
ELIAS: We shall lay to rest the chicken story! My reasoning in accepting this for our game, although making a point to not be accepting of its category of fables, is to be illustrating to you that there are many stories that incorporate a moral which encourages existing belief systems which are contrary to essence, which deny you widening.
VICKI: ... That raises another question. You have made the statement, quite a few times, that hurtfulness to another essence is never acceptable.
ELIAS: This is correct.
VICKI: Isn’t that encouraging of a basic belief system of right and wrong also?
ELIAS: Within your definition, yes.
VICKI: Well, then I’m not understanding something!
ELIAS: (Smiling) Within an expression of essence, within a wider consciousness, hurtfulness is not acceptable, for it is unnecessary. I have expressed to you that hurtfulness is acceptable to you within physical focus, for you may view this to be beneficial for many given reasons. This does not make this acceptable within essence.
VICKI: Well then, what’s the difference between acceptable and unacceptable, right and wrong, good and bad, correct and incorrect?
ELIAS: Ah! (Laughter) I use these terms for your benefit, for these are terms and words that you understand and connect with. There are no terms to be expressing of some elements within consciousness. You do not understand, as this stands presently, there is no right and wrong. Therefore, you relate to correct, incorrect, right, wrong; expressions within this language. It is not possible for me to express to you essence expressions out of time, out of space, and out of your belief systems. Therefore, I do express to you within your belief systems.
I use terms, such as correct or incorrect, to emphasize less of a strength within your own belief systems, and less of an identification of certain elements. Within your understanding of terms, if I express to you incorrect, you may be accepting that you may not necessarily be wrong, that you may have connected ‘less probable.’ If I express to you wrong, you think in absolutes. I attempt to speak to you not in absolutes. I do not express the term incorrect to be expressing to you that you are wrong. The reality incorporates many more probabilities than you may comprehend. Therefore, there cannot be a wrong. There are more probable actions, for you choose more probable actions, or answers.
VICKI: So cause and effect is a belief system. Is this correct?
ELIAS: To your way of thinking, yes.
VICKI: But this other statement is not, that it is unacceptable to be hurtful to another essence?
ELIAS: I express this to you, for it is more easily understood than to express to you that there is no issue. If I express to you that it is acceptable to be hurtful to another essence, to another individual within physical focus, you will incorporate these words literally. Therefore, I do not express these words to you. I also express contradictions, or seeming contradictions, to you continuously for this same reason; for you do incorporate what I express to you, and you assimilate this literally.
Within literal terms, to you, Lawrence [Vicki], there is no issue. But then you may say to us, ‘Well, then I may murder my neighbor, and this is acceptable.’ In truth, within essence, yes. In truth, I may express this to some individuals, and their awareness may incorporate an understanding of truth; but within your belief systems, and your ‘locked’ of right and wrong, although you may view yourselves to be letting go of these concepts and understanding, you will assimilate these words literally. You will fall back upon them. Therefore I express, no, it is never acceptable to be hurtful to another essence; but it is acceptable to be hurtful to another essence, for it is beneficial; for there is a difference between physical focus and experiences physically, and essence; for you have chosen this.” [session 99, June 09, 1996]
VICKI: “I have another question, if nobody else does, regarding the material on Sunday. (2) You were talking about how we should be cautious with regards to expressions to other individuals. My question is, if somebody expresses to me, don’t I have a choice of whether or not to incorporate that expression, and to not incorporate confusion?
ELIAS: You always hold choices.
VICKI: Okay. I guess I’m not really understanding of the way that you expressed that information on Sunday evening. Maybe I need to read it again, but you made some statements about how some expressions won’t be helpful to other individuals. So I started wondering, how do you know what will and will not be helpful? And wouldn’t it be more efficient to just express everything, and let the other individual choose what is and is not helpful to them?
ELIAS: No. (Pause) You are moving into an area of consciousness, in awareness, where you have allowed yourself the ability to connect subjectively; therefore allowing yourself to more efficiently express through an alignment to essence. In this, all of your expressions are not within an alignment to essence. Many of your expressions are aligned with belief systems, which may be harmful or hurtful to another individual.
Within expressing from the angle of essence through your subjective self, expressed outwardly in cooperation with the objective self, you express through belief systems. This, I do not mean that you express through a belief system as expressing, ‘You are wrong’; this being not the expression I speak of; this being expressing through an expression of a belief system. Expressing through a belief system allows for the acceptance of the belief system, and an expression motivated through essence. ‘I understand your point of view. Presently, I do not agree, although I may, but I accept genuinely your belief.’ Are you understanding the difference? If you are within a position of holding to belief systems, you will be expressing within these belief systems. Therefore, you also shall be not listening objectively to your subjective expression. Therefore, you may be expressing, and you may be hurtful. Expressions of essence are not hurtful, for hurtfulness is not acceptable.
VICKI: I think it’s the hurtfulness part that I don’t quite understand, because it seems like it’s a two-way interaction.
ELIAS: This is quite correct; but as I have expressed to you all previously, it is not your concern of the other individual’s expression. It is your responsibility to be mindful of your expression; therefore affecting, within consciousness, all other expressions.
VICKI: Okay. So if an individual approaches me with a hurtful expression, within an expression of essence from the subjective self ... I don’t really know how to phrase the question. I understand about the expression offered up. The expression received is kind of where I’m confused.
ELIAS: If you are incorporating alignment with essence, you shall not receive hurtfulness; for you shall not separate and align with belief systems that create the emotional response which you view to be hurtfulness. You also are responsible for not influencing the action of this expression to be engaged within another individual. Within an understanding of belief systems, and acceptance genuinely of these belief systems as you move through them, not discarding but accepting of them, you will not be incorporating hurtfulness personally, for you shall hold an understanding of the expression, and also of the belief systems that accompany these expressions; this being why, within non-physical focus, there is no hurtfulness.
VICKI: I guess you just have to trust yourself that within alignment with essence somehow progressing, you will be able to identify which expressions are an alignment, and which would cause hurtfulness.
ELIAS: (Grinning) I believe I have been exposed to this concept previously! I shall search my information banks! (Laughter)
VICKI: It’s a difficult concept for me!
ELIAS: It is, in actuality, a difficult concept to actualize into reality for every individual within physical focus, for you hold belief systems. You accept these belief systems; and although you express objectively that you do not align with these belief systems, you also objectively do hold these belief systems, which becomes evident when you are faced with situations and circumstances that engage these belief systems.
Each time you express, ‘This individual should not ... I should not ... You should do ...’ Each time you express these statements, you offer yourselves examples of how you align and accept belief systems, mass belief systems. You may express, ‘I hold no religious affiliations. I have no religious belief systems. Murder is wrong.’ You hold a religious belief system! You may express, ‘I do not hold to belief systems of good or bad, of right or wrong.’ You may also express, ‘Individuals should not do this!’ You hold a belief system, aligning with the mass belief system which is accepted, of right and wrong and good and bad. You also express these belief systems within yourselves continuously. ‘I could have accomplished better. I messed up’, in the present vernacular! (Laughter) These are alignments with individual and mass belief systems of good and bad. You do not mess up! You express and experience.
Quite probably, within our next session, we shall offer information related to the time connection. In this, you may also understand more implications of these expressions, these belief systems; expressions such as ‘I messed up’. These are expressions within a time element and are directly related, for all of your expressions are intricately related to time; be it an incorporation of physical focus, or tying your shoe. (Pause)
Therefore, I shall express to you, no; in conjunction with essence, listening to your subjective self, trusting your subjective expression, and uniting within cooperation the objective self, it is not always efficient to be expressing all things that you perceive. Be remembering, all things that you perceive are your individual reality.” [session 105, July 17, 1996]
ELIAS: “Probabilities hold difficulty within the understanding of physical focus, for this is an area which allows for much distortion and misunderstanding. I hold no doubt that within each statement made concerning this subject, you shall each interpret differently, and distort this information equally! (Laughter)
We shall begin with symbolism. All things, within all dimensions, within all areas of consciousness, are symbols, yet they are not; for within one dimension and one focus, you may view an element, a visualization, an event, an action, to be a symbol of another thing. Within another dimension, this symbol holds its own reality. Within your own dimension and perception, symbols hold their own integrity. Therefore, they hold their own reality, simultaneous to also holding a representation of another element. Your physical form is a symbol. It also is not a symbol. It symbolizes an expression of essence. It also holds its own reality and integrity. It holds its own vitality within reality. Therefore, it also is not a symbol.
... You need not feel fearful of your own expression, for within your own expression of essence, you shall not be hurtful to yourself.” [session 109, August 04, 1996]
VICKI: “Her question was, when you have a statement to make to another person that you know or that you feel may be conflicting for the other person, is that then incorrect? (To Cathy) Did I get that right? (Cathy nods)
ELIAS: To be expressing?
VICKI: To be expressing.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. We have engaged this specific issue previously within our sessions. If you are expressing within what you view to be your ‘best ability,’ very limiting terms, of essence, and are wishing no harmfulness to the other individual, you do yourself and the other individual no favor by withholding. As we have expressed previously, all is received within energy and consciousness regardless. Therefore, you hide nothing within your lack of expression. This is not to say that you shall engage another individual without examining your motivation, for if you hold any element of hurtfulness, then this must be examined first; but if your expression is to be truthful and also to be expressing from essence as the straight sapling (3), then within your responsibility within your expression, you may engage the other individual. Resulting action of the other individual subsequently is their responsibility, for they choose also, within probabilities, the response.” [session 113, August 18, 1996]
VICKI: “We’ve been discussing tolerance and intolerance, I have been, with our new friends. Martha is wondering what your views are on the subject of tolerating intolerance. She was quite honest about how she feels regarding outright cruelty and murder, expressing that she becomes very angry and can feel the hate in herself. She comments that she just can’t completely repress these feelings, but also can’t act them out. And Bruce’s comment is, just in a nutshell, how can we be tolerant of cruelty to humans?
ELIAS: Quite interesting that your focus this evening surrounds one subject matter, that being acceptance; acceptance of self, acceptance of belief systems. As you accept belief systems, not throw them out, but in an acceptance of belief systems, the natural by-product is tolerance, for you eliminate your attention on your base belief system of right and wrong. Therefore, you need not express judgments. If you are not viewing right and wrong, you have no reasoning for creating judgments. (Grinning widely, and you can hear the human sounds of not quite laughter, but of ‘confused chuckling’.)
This also we have expressed within our discussion of probabilities. In your selectivity of attention, you view only certain probabilities within only certain limited time periods. In this, you do not offer yourselves all of your available information. Therefore, you see no benefit within certain actions. At other times, in your terms, you may not actually ever, in your perception, see the probabilities of benefiting, although you also do not view the entirety of the painting. You are unaware of the agreements and the probabilities and the actions and actualizations that other individuals choose. These are all choices. Within an acceptance of the idea that you create your reality, and also, as has been expressed to Kasha [Bill], all other individuals and consciousness creates their own reality, you may allow yourself to move into an area of accepting less right and wrong; therefore allowing yourself the ability to not be placing judgment. If you find that this is seemingly impossible for you to be experiencing, then you may be focusing upon your small sapling story, and not concerning yourself with other’s creation of their reality.
This is not to say that inaction, or non-expression, is an expression of essence, although this is dependent upon your desire within your individual, particular focus; for within your particular focus, you may choose inaction, to be perpetuating and aligning with established and accepted belief systems within your experience. If this be not your desire, or if you are moving through belief systems and rearranging your perception and allowing a widening of perception, then you may be engaging belief systems. As I have expressed, if you are not expressing, you are lending your consciousness, in agreement, to the accepted belief system. Therefore, within your physical everyday examples, if you are witnessing what you view to be a cruelty or hurtfulness to another consciousness, you may choose to be incorporating action, although be evaluating of the motivation of this action; for if you are expressing based upon connecting belief systems, you are perpetuating the existing action.
Do not think to yourselves that individuals that engage within what you view to be violent acts do not think in terms of right and wrong, for they do. They hold the same belief systems. They actualize action differently, but their belief systems are the same. Your intolerance and expression is the same, within an expressed action, as their action of what you view to be violence.
CATHY: Question. If you view this cruelty to another consciousness and you do not react, only you think it’s horrible and rotten in your belief systems, are you saying it’s okay if you do nothing, same as if you react?
ELIAS: If you are witnessing what you view to be a cruelty, a violence, and you do not respond purposefully, you are lending your consciousness to the perpetuation of the existing, accepted belief system.
CATHY: So the same as if you do react.
ELIAS: Incorrect. If you are responding within an expression of essence, you are not lending your consciousness to the existing belief system. If you are responding in like manner, you are essentially creating the same action as you would be creating if you were not responding actively at all. You place value judgments upon other individuals for their action. You place value judgments upon all that you view to be living things within their actions. Even within nature, or what you perceive to be nature, as separate from yourselves, you place value judgments upon natural actions. You accept, partially, certain actions, but you also ‘peoplize’ them and place them into the category of violent acts, which you place a belief system of right and wrong upon. But you also do this selectively, do you not?
ELIAS: Very! You shall view a lioness attacking the young of an antelope and view a violent act, which you shall partially accept as the violence of nature, but you shall partially not accept as being unacceptable behavior for it is violent, and within your ‘peoplizing’ of elements, this creates an adverse feeling within you. You do not view a giraffe to be maiming a tree! You place no judgment upon this.
VICKI: Okay. Physical example: If you see a mother causing extreme hurtfulness to her child, what would an expression of essence be?
ELIAS: An expression of essence would be to intercede without judgment, and within an expression of helpfulness.
VICKI: So within the concept of choices and agreements, you have drawn that situation to yourself.
VICKI: In giving yourself an opportunity to express from essence.
VICKI: If you can figure it out!
ELIAS: Yes. You also must be realizing that your expression may not be accepted within the reality that these other individuals are creating. In this, you have expressed. You have not lent yourself, within consciousness, to the action of hurtfulness. You have been expressing; and within the action of acceptance of each person’s creation of their own reality, you, within your expression of your own small sapling, will withdraw, in acceptance of their creation without value judgment.
VICKI: I think the value judgment is the really hard part.
ELIAS: (Smiling) For you hold very deep, base belief systems of right and wrong. (Intently) For you view that you would hold no control within your physical expression if you did not incorporate the ideas and the belief systems of right and wrong to gauge your actions; for you hold the duplicity of self, and you do not trust. These are the belief systems that you presently are moving through. Therefore, you present yourselves with these examples.
CATHY: ... Why is it that psychics can’t give readings to some people?
ELIAS: This, in actually, is an interesting question. In what you view to be a ‘psychic reader,’ as you interpret this, we have explained that these individuals access information directly related to you, within your particular choice of your individual pool of probabilities and actualizations. You view this to be somewhat telepathic in action. I have expressed to you that they access a connection with you within energy, in information that you allow to be presented. At times, individuals may choose to hold to their individual energy field, which is that energy that you recognize as surrounding or encompassing your physical expression. In this, you deliver a message within consciousness. The message is a non-acceptance of movement into your field of probabilities. The message is projected as a feeling of intrusion. Within the acceptance of this message by the individual that you perceive to be the psychic, they respond and are non-intrusive. Therefore, their outward or objective response shall be ‘I seem to not hold the ability to be reading you.’
They do not understand, objectively, the exchange that has occurred. Therefore, they translate into what they do accept and understand, within their own limitations. They do not attempt to evaluate the exchange. Therefore, they express only an inability to offer information. In actuality, an agreement has been accomplished.
At times, an individual feels, within themselves, a need to be holding to their individual privacy, as they view this and interpret this. Be understanding that each of you within physical focus accepts certain ideas of self. You hold the idea that you may incorporate privacy, in your definition. You hold the idea that you possess individual control, also in your definition. In this, you all collectively agree upon these belief systems. Therefore, within an expression of essence, you manifest, outwardly, acknowledgments of these belief systems. In actuality, as has been stated, there are no secrets. You are all open to each other.
You are all connected, but you do not view this within your perception, within physical focus. You do manipulate energy to express your wishes in alignment with your feelings. These are connected with by other individuals, just as you may feel certain emotions and not physically, verbally be expressing to another individual of these feelings. Regardless of your communication verbally, the other individual will receive the energy that you emit through the expression of your feelings. They may not objectively interpret these feelings and this energy projection, but they will subjectively connect with this expression, and know. Therefore, the action is the same with this type of situation. You choose, within your feelings, to be not violated, in what you perceive to be a violation of your privacy, in a lack of understanding that there is no element unknown to all other essences. Within an action of respectfulness of this expression, there is an automatic response subjectively. Therefore, the psychic withdraws.
CATHY: So even though the person objectively thinks they’re going there to be read, their subconscious is saying, ‘Not this time, not right at this moment.’
ELIAS: In your terms, yes.” [session 117, September 01, 1996]
VICKI: Okay, one other question for Michael [Mary]. Within his objective conversations with Kasha [Bill] recently, it’s been confusing to try to figure out what an expression of essence would be. Do you have anything to offer in that area? When a person is really irritated, what is an expression of essence?
ELIAS: I shall clarify for you each; this being also an addition to information offered to Lawrence, as in regard to blocking small impulses. (Humorously) You believe that now you have been instructed of ways of essence. (Laughter) Therefore you believe, within your new ‘religion,’ that this is your new creed! We have changed our creed from ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’ to ‘Express from essence at all costs, and deny all impulses and all expressions of what we term to be ... negative!’ It is that evil word! (Very dramatically, and we crack up)
I shall express to you, Lawrence [Vicki]; within physical focus, the term of ‘turn the other cheek’ is not meant literally in many situations. Each situation is its own creation within its own moment; and if I, Elias, come to you, Lawrence [Vicki], and stomp upon your foot, I shall be quite amused if you are expressing to me, ‘This is fine!’
You are endowed by yourself with emotion, not to be denied; just as you are endowed by yourself with your intellect, not to be denied. These are elements of your being to be responded to. This is not to say that you should be punching each individual that is arousing emotional responses within you! You must be incorporating both. As we have stated many times previously, expression of only intuition or emotion is incorrect. Expression of only intellect and denial of emotion is equally incorrect. They are unbalanced. You must incorporate your entire being. Your rationality is not ‘bad!’ Your emotional responses are not ‘bad!’ They must be evaluated and working together. The emotional response is natural. It is a response to action. Your intellect is created to add evaluation; to temper the emotion. This is not to express that you may over-intellectualize and allow no expression of emotion!
You are each accomplishing well. These are difficult areas, for you still hold very strong belief systems of positive and negative. You still hold very strong belief systems of right and wrong. Therefore, it is unclear to you what your expressions ‘should’ be, for you ‘should’ express ‘rightly,’ and you ‘should not’ express ‘wrongly!’ Anger is wrong! Aggression is wrong! Anger is an emotion. It is neutral. It is not right; it is not wrong. It is what it is.
The situation dictates. This is where your intellect works within cooperation of your emotion, understanding also that you work through belief systems. In recognition of these belief systems, you may stop yourselves temporarily and ask yourself of your belief system. If you are allowing yourself the awareness that you are blocking emotional responses in response to belief systems, you shall offer yourself more information to be expressing within an expression of essence, understanding that all of these expressions that you classify as negative are not negative.
VICKI: They seem negative to other people sometimes!
ELIAS: For you all hold this mass belief system!” [session 139, December 12, 1996]
ELIAS: “I have begun to express to you elements of body consciousness. I have expressed to you from early on in our session times that your physical expression, your body, is not a vessel! It is a tangible, physical matter expression of essence. It is you. It holds its own consciousness, for each cell holds its own independent consciousness. Each atom holds its own individual consciousness. Within cooperation, it creates a collective consciousness which becomes your body consciousness. You, as a focus of essence, hold consciousness beyond the physical manifestation of body consciousness, but are intimately involved with this consciousness. You direct the consciousness and function of your physical expression; your body.” [session 147, January 12, 1997]
ELIAS: “I shall offer you an example of your crystals. They are directing elements. They are a physical manifestation holding consciousness that may be directing of energy. In this same manner, you create a physical manifestation. You place within this physical manifestation coded computer chips which hold the information that you have gathered and incorporated and accepted for your physical lineage, which you have chosen, and also hold the encoded information of all of your other focuses, therefore physically incorporating all of the elements of essence; this being why I express to you, this is not a vessel! (Slapping Vic’s leg five times, once with each word) This is an expression of essence and holds, even physically, all encoded elements of all of essence; but just as your computer must be directed and you must feed to this information for its functioning, so also must this physical manifestation be fed direction through subjective consciousness for its function.” [session 173, May 11, 1997]
ELIAS: “As you hold these belief systems of right and wrong and good and evil, which are elements of your religious era, you view actions and experiences within this framework. Each action contributes in a fashion to the whole. You may not understand completely the benefit that occurs, but let us view within a different angle of perception.
You view much violence and negative behavior within your planet presently. I have stated previously that this is not an escalation from your past history. It is manifest differently. Therefore, it is attaining your attention differently. In this, the manifestation of the violence that you view is a rebellion against established, accepted, societal systems. Within your viewpoints you view this as wrong, but they also are making their statement in alignment with the movement of consciousness away from your established belief systems and your established accepted reality, within this what you may term to be past era.
You may symbolize this in many ways, as do religious individuals and psychological individuals, and within one layer of consciousness it may hold validity in its symbolism; in that within the emergence of any new creation there is a birth, and within the throes of the birth there is also what you term to be painfulness or pushing. It is not necessarily always painful to be emerging, but it is necessary for a push. In this, you choose collectively to be pushing in many directions. Young individuals choose to be pushing in non-compliance with established belief systems. Other individuals move into other areas and push also. All of these individuals drawn to this forum are pushing within consciousness. This all lends to the movement of the shift.
This is not to say that hurtfulness is acceptable, but ... and you may express to Michael [Mary] that if he is noticing, he was offered his words today ... although hurtfulness is not acceptable it may be beneficial within your physical reality, and beneficial is not necessarily positive in your estimation. You may benefit from many elements that you create, that you view to be destructive and negative and violent and hurtful. Within essence and expression of essence this is not acceptable, but you are within your dimension of physical focus which you have created in this manner. Therefore, you also allow for these experiences.
Within the action of your shift, as I have stated previously, these actions and events shall become unnecessary, for the belief systems shall not motivate this type of action. You witness these types of occurrences in response to established belief systems presently. If these belief systems were accepted, they would hold no power. Therefore, there would be no motivation for these actions.” [session 178, May 31, 1997]
RON: “Mary and Vicki and I watched an interesting show today about an operation that’s been performed that separates the left side of the brain from the right side of the brain. In that, the scientists believe that they’re creating two separate individual personalities within one body. What do you think about that?
ELIAS: (Grinning) They are not creating two separate entities or personalities within one body! But this may be interesting to you in recognition of the functioning of your form, in that you have created, as I have stated, within this physical existence a double existence of awareness–objective and subjective. You allow the communication, although not to your objective awareness, to be acted upon continuously. Within the creation of your physical form, which to this present now you do not objectively understand its workings, you have created a magnificent expression of essence and the intricacies of its actions. I have expressed to you that you are an exceedingly complex reality and expression of essence. In this, the consciousness which is identified by you as you is not, in your terms, physically connected to you, although it is within constant interaction with you. Your physical form has been created to be perfectly functioning and mirroring aspects of consciousness; mirroring physically, in expression, essence.” [session 193, July 13, 1997]
ELIAS: “You choose, within your societies and within your reality, to be setting certain individuals apart as leaders, as directors, as teachers, as priests, as knowing more than you and therefore holding more of an ability to direct your reality. As you move into the action of your shift, the point is for you to be creating of your reality in the direction that YOU choose, and engaging more of your creativity, and NOT looking to other individuals to be expressing HOW you should be creating your reality; for within essence, you shall create your reality within expressions of essence if the belief systems are accepted and their power neutralized, for you shall no longer feel a need to be creating of elements to be altering another individual. This is your officially accepted reality presently. This is what you automatically magnate to; altering another individual’s reality, changing another individual’s thought process, not accepting that whatever be their expression is reality and is no different from your own reality.
This element of duplicity within belief systems becomes exaggerated. If the belief systems are accepted and more of an expression and knowing of essence is allowed to be incorporated into your physical focus, it is unnecessary to be expressing of those elements that you deem to be negative, for you shall not be concentrating so intensely upon all other individuals and all elements outside of self. You shall be concerning yourself with self. Therefore, you need not be hurtful to another individual, for you shall be accepting of other individuals and their creation of their reality; and if you are accepting, you shall not be holding judgment, and if you are not holding judgment, you are not creating and adding to the creation of waves in consciousness to be opposing you.
Therefore, you look to an individual that you may view as a serial killer within your physical focus. You have viewed this action for centuries as very wrong. Therefore, in the judgment you lend energy to its creation, for as you hold the non-acceptance and the judgment of the action and hold judgment upon any other individual’s creation, you lend energy to the creation of the very elements that you detest.
Therefore, within the movement of your shift, you are altering the entirety of your reality. You are moving into a new era of allowance of more of your expression of your own creativity and an expression of essence, and also in an acceptance of belief systems, neutralizing their power. This shall also be eliminating of much of the activity that you view within your world and have viewed within your world for many, many, many, many centuries. This shall be altered, for you choose to alter the entirety of your officially accepted reality and be creating a new reality.
DAVID: So really then, all the bad things, as we call them, all the murders and all that, if we don’t lend energy to them, then really, they’ll never happen. They won’t exist ever again.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. An individual focus may choose, for the experience, within agreement, to experience this act; but you, within knowing and acceptance of belief systems and an understanding that this has been chosen as an agreement with full knowledge of the individuals engaging this action, you shall be accepting of this and not lending your attention to this and therefore not holding a judgment and lessening the creation of these actions, but you may not be within your physical focus entirely eliminating these actions. This be your choice. Within the action of the shift, if you are choosing to be entirely eliminating of these types of experiences, you may; although you shall experience these same types of experiences within another dimension, for they are experiences.
WENDY: Am I understanding that you’re suggesting that we simply accept what we detest? Or if we are not part of an agreement, then we are witness to perhaps someone else’s agreement? Is that the way this happens? Are we to accept what we’re seeing, rather than....
ELIAS: You merely....
WENDY: I’m having trouble with the idea of accepting that as something without consequence.
ELIAS: Ah! This may be popping strong bubbles, or not allowing the bubbles to be popped! For within this, I express to you absolutely, there is no consequence within essence. There is no karma.
WENDY: I’m more concerned with consequence within one’s physical reality; not so much with the essence itself, but with this grain of sand.
ELIAS: Correct. Within your physical reality, you create consequences, for this is your belief system.
WENDY: I do. You’re right. For someone who ...
ELIAS: You ALL do.
WENDY: ... does not perceive their action as inappropriate, for someone who creates an act, perhaps ending a life or causing someone’s pain, causing another grain of sand pain or anguish or harm in some way, and the entity causing this problem does not view it as inappropriate or wrong in any means, does that mean that there is no consequence?
ELIAS: Within your officially accepted reality, there shall be consequence regardless of how the individual views the action, for within mass belief systems, this is unacceptable.
WENDY: So the consequence this individual may experience, would that be of this individual’s own creation, based on their belief system rather than mine?
ELIAS: Partially, and partially also as an expression of the mass consciousness. Let me express to you ‘base line,’ so to speak.
Essences are not hurtful and are not intrusive, and it is unacceptable for hurtfulness within essence. Now; within focuses of essences within certain physical realities, you may create hurtful actions which shall be in some direction beneficial, which is not necessarily the same concept. You do things that are beneficial, but you may not view these as acceptable or what you term to be ‘good’ or ‘right.’ Within physical focus and within your belief systems, you may be quite hurtful. In essence, this is not acceptable; and as this shift progresses, this shall be a base line of information. You have created hurtfulness with each other for much of your time period. It is unnecessary to be continuing in this manner, but I do express to you that the consequence expressed shall be a combination of the mass belief systems and also what the individual shall draw to itself in response to belief systems also.
I may express to you though – not in the manner of karma or in the manner of cause and effect – as you begin to widen your awareness and you choose to be moving outside of your officially accepted reality, you shall draw what you view to be consequences to yourself. You shall create more difficulty for yourself within your movement of your focus. As you also widen and choose intentionally to be expressing contrary to essence in hurtfulness knowingly, you shall also draw to you more thickness in your energy, which shall be creating what you view to be consequences. They are not necessarily consequences in the respect of cause and effect, but they will be experiences that you draw to yourself in response to the energy that you have projected.
(Firmly) This is not karma! It is a natural expression of essence.” [session 209, August 19, 1997]
DREW: “Is the action of a TFE, if it’s repeatedly done, interfering with another focus? (4)
ELIAS: If you are continuing to be entering this area and accessing the SAME focus repeatedly, intentionally, yes. You are altering, and this is intrusive.
DREW: Would we be able to access the other focus if there wasn’t an agreement with the other focus to be accessed?
ELIAS: It is not quite as simple as merely an agreement. It is another aspect of your essence. You are in agreement with your essence!
DREW: And so how could we be intrusive, if that’s the case?
ELIAS: (Intently) For you hold, within THIS focus, more information. If you were not holding this information that you hold, you would not be accessing intentionally another focus repeatedly, for you would automatically be non-intrusive; but you hold objective awareness presently, for you have gained information and you have learned how to be accessing another focus intentionally, and therefore you may be misusing of this information, so to speak. You hold a responsibility to an expression of essence. You have chosen and requested this information for your ease in moving into the action of this shift. In compliance with the request, you are given the information, but you also hold a responsibility within the information to be expressing from essence; which without the information, you would automatically do.” [session 242, November 23, 1997]
NORM: “I had talked to you a few weeks ago in regard to how I think of myself. I don’t know if I ... when I do things ... now, the interaction with thought and belief systems is almost inseparable. It IS inseparable. My concept of myself was that I was a ball about the size of my fist here in the middle of my brain, which was an inefficient way of doing it, and as an introspective idea of who I really was, that’s how I put myself years ago. I think I did that when I was probably sixteen years of age, and I’m trying to broaden that into a more encompassing reality idea. How do you feel about the idea that I think that I am of essence, and the real me is really controlling and creating this thing that I feel and touch? Is that a right way of doing it? The real me is all of me, but something is creating this, and it’s me that’s creating it, so I’m not ‘this.’
ELIAS: Vessel, vessel, vessel! (Laughter)
NORM: So ... which is the outside vessel, yes. The outside vessel is essence of course, right?
ELIAS: It is an expression of essence.” [session 251, December 18, 1997]
ELIAS: “I shall also express to you that as the mother, there are even MORE belief systems that are attached in the direction of these particular relationships of mother and children. Mothers in that role accept more responsibility and create more belief systems – and your societies create more belief systems that are attached to this particular role – than they shall with the designation of the role of father.
Your experience of the emotion of love is perpetuated by the belief systems, but [is] also a purposeful creation. You create the emotion of love with children for that experience, but it also is quite in alignment with the held mass belief systems. It would be quite wrong of you to not be loving of your children, would it not? This would not be acceptable at all, for the mass belief systems suggest, ‘This is our officially accepted reality and these are the rules! You as the parent shall be responsible and you shall also be loving of these children, and we would not be wishing for you to be moving in the area of abnormality and not be experiencing this!’ (Grinning)
I am not discounting of your own expression, for I am recognizing that you are experiencing willingly the alignment with this belief system and that this is not creating of conflict for you. Therefore, it matters not. You are loving to your children and this is acceptable. It also allows you, in ANY area that you are expressing of this emotion of love, the opportunity to be expressing from essence, for this area of the emotion of love within physical focus is the closest interpreted expression that you may create within physical focus to the expression of essence.” [session 293, July 01, 1998]
JOE: “Elias, I’ve been going through these transcripts and things, and I have a question for you that I haven’t been able to find the answer for. I would like you to comment on charity in this session. Now, since there are no victims and no accidents and no random acts, are acts of kindness helpful, or can they in some ways be an intrusion, say, into someone else’s reality?
ELIAS: Both. Let me express to you that it is quite dependent upon your motivation, your intention, and your expectations.
Now; in this, we may speak of what I have termed as an expression of essence. In this, an expression of essence holds no expectation.
Within physical focus, in relation to your belief systems – which as you are aware, are held very strongly – this type of expression may be difficult many times to execute, for you within your objective awareness do not always allow yourselves to view the influence of your belief systems.
Therefore, you may be expressing from an expression of essence, which would be deemed, in your terms, as a charitable expression, but the key in these situations is that you offer an expression of energy in whichever manner you choose WITHOUT expectations.
You may be choosing to be helpful to another individual, and if your desire moves in this direction – if you are allowing yourself to be empathically connecting with another individual or creature or any aspect of consciousness within your dimension – you shall allow yourself the information as to what the other individual or aspect of consciousness is requesting. Are you following thus far?
JOE: Yes, somewhat I am.
ELIAS: You hold inner senses. One of your inner senses is what we have designated as your empathic sense. This empathic sense allows you, in quietness of yourself, to merge with any other element of consciousness.
Now; let us limit our discussion to other individuals. Therefore, within that context, engaging your empathic sense allows you the ability to merge your consciousness with the consciousness of another individual, and in this mergence, you allow yourself the experience – not merely information within thoughts, but you allow yourself the actual experience – of the other individual.
Now; in incorporating the experience of another individual, you also offer yourself information in relation to their perception.
Be remembering that your perception is what creates your reality. Therefore, the direction of your perception IS your reality. This allows....
JOE: Elias, let me ask you, is it alright if I use a specific event, and we go over the different aspects of the specific event so that I can try and understand this a little bit better?
JOE: Okay. The other day, we had a call come into the office, and there was this lady. She lived in a trailer park and she had no hot water, had not had hot water for several days, and I felt, just from the phone conversation, that the girl did not have any money. So, we went out and put in a new hot water heater for her. I had asked her about payment arrangements, and the girl came out and she had ... the total bill was like about six hundred dollars. I’m not sure anymore, but it doesn’t really matter. She had like fifty dollars that she wanted to put down, and maybe pay ten or twenty dollars a month.
Now, it may have been obvious ... and maybe I’m missing the point. Maybe I was using my empathic sense, or not. Maybe you can tell me here. But I felt that she was really sincere, that she really had no money and she was making a sincere effort to pay, and I also kind of felt her anguish at being in the situation that she was in. So, we didn’t charge her anything. We just told her, ‘It’s free. We’re not gonna charge you anything for this.’ We do that on occasion, and I’m not saying this to try to make myself look charitable or anything, but it’s just the way we work sometimes.
Now, my question to you along these lines that you’ve been speaking is, was it my empathic sense telling me ... and I also felt her – how do I put it? – her relief, and also the fact that she really was thankful for what we had done.
Now, my own belief system, the belief system that I hold to, is that if you give something in a charitable way, it’s without expectation; that when you give something, there’s absolutely nothing to be received in return. There’s no debt or anything like that involved.
So, in that very specific incident, is this the empathic sense, and the other aspects of what you’re telling me happens in a charitable situation, as far as her reality and my reality merging?
Now; let me also pose to you: Shall you have responded in the same manner if you had engaged your empathic sense in this direction and you had been connecting and sensing or experiencing these same feelings, but include also the connection with another sensing, so to speak, that perhaps the individual did have the ability to be offering you more of a financial expression, but was withholding of that. This throws into the pot, so to speak, a slight twist.
You are continuing to be assessing through your empathic sense that the individual holds what you perceive as a physical need. You continue to assess through your inner senses that the individual is expressing genuinely to you. But there is a slight conflicting element, for you also simultaneously are connecting with some element that appears to you to not be genuine in your beliefs, and what shall you be offering in that scenario?
JOE: That’s a good question. I think in my own individual case, I would simply evaluate all of the information that I received, either empathically or objectively. Or more objectively, I would make my decision and go with it. I really don’t know what else I could do. If I was being deceived objectively in that sense, well, then so be it. At least my intent at the time, based on all the information that I had acquired either subjectively or objectively, was valid, and I’d base my decision on that. I don’t really know what else I could do.
ELIAS: Very good. The reason that I express this to you in comparison, so to speak, is that many times, this may occur within individuals.
The example that you offer to me in this particular scenario appears to be quite obvious to yourself and to many other individuals, and other individuals may be responsive to you in expressing in a positive and reinforcing direction as to your choice of action, and shall recognize also, within the context of their belief systems, that what you have offered shall be affecting in what you deem to be a positive manner. But this is not necessarily the point, and this is what I am addressing to in answering your question.
You have expressed the questioning to me as to the subject matter of charity and as to whether it be valid or not, whether it be helpful or whether it be intrusive. I have expressed to you that if you are offering an expression of essence, that this may be deemed as what you term to be a charitable act. But I may also express to you that you are always affecting within consciousness. It is merely your perception of HOW you shall be affecting.
In this, your belief systems drive you in the direction of attempting to be affecting in what you term to be a positive manner, and the reason that you move in this direction is that it offers you a gauge, so to speak, of your own value, for if you may view yourself and express to yourself that you have offered to another individual a charitable act, you may also look to self and measure your value.
In this, many times individuals move in the direction of objective expressions that they deem to be good simply for the reason that they ARE deemed to be good, and this is not necessarily an expression of essence, and this is to be considered in interaction with other individuals, for in your questioning, you have also inquired as to what may be intrusive.
In this, you may be offering what YOU perceive to be helpful with another individual and you may offer an expression that you deem to be charitable, for it offers you the measurement of your value and it creates a pleasurable feeling within you, but it may not necessarily be as helpful to another individual as YOU perceive it to be.
This is not to say that it shall not be affecting, for all that you create is affecting, but it may not be expressed in the reception of the other individual as helpful in the manner that you wish it to be received.
Therefore, this be the reason that I express to you, as you are engaging these types of interactions with other individuals, you may be looking to self and examining your interaction with the other individual and examining your motivation within your action and your behavior, and this shall express to you the genuine direction that you are moving into.
This expression objectively that you have engaged with this particular individual in this scenario IS an expression of what you term to be charitable, and is received by the individual in the manner that you are expressing it. But I express to you also, this at times may be a tricky business, so to speak, (grinning) for you may hold a genuine want to be helpful to another individual, but it may not necessarily be received by the individual in the manner that you want it to be received, and THIS is the expectation.
JOE: I’m a little confused here as to your terminology, as to ‘an expression of essence.’ Wouldn’t everything, in some way or another, be an expression of essence?
And on the second part ... yeah, part of my question has to do with and goes to a misdirection, say, in charitable acts, where my intent and the other person’s intent may not be the same, and our outlook about the actions or our viewpoint on the actions may be a little bit different. This is what part of my questioning is, to be able to try to avoid that type of thing.
ELIAS: Quite. I am understanding what you are expressing, and we may engage your same scenario as an example.
First of all, in addressing to the expression of essence, yes, you are correct. In one manner of speaking, all that you create, all that you engage is an expression of essence, for you ARE essence.
What I am expressing in this particular type of terminology is a distinction of a creation of an action which moves outside of your belief systems within its motivation.
Now; I am quite understanding that this may be a difficult concept, for all that you create within this dimension is filtered through your belief systems. But I shall also express to you, as I have expressed previously, that there are directions that you offer to yourself – information, directions, and expressions, so to speak – communications that you offer to yourself through impressions, through impulses, and through your inner senses that initiate the communication outside of the context of your belief systems.
Now; you do filter your translation through your belief systems, but the initial motivation and desire may be offered to you by yourself outside of the influence of belief systems.
This is what I am expressing as a distinguishing element of an expression of essence, for outside of this particular physical dimension, your belief systems hold no relevance. They are merely relevant to this particular physical dimension.” [session 450, August 19, 1999]
HOWARD: “I want to talk about a follow-up to the myth – which we’ve spoken of briefly, or at least I believe it was brief – regarding the fallen angels, and the reason I’d like to follow this up is that the way I see the current understanding of the fallen angels is more from a religious point of view, and not necessarily the correct meaning of the metaphor. So, I have this little statement here which I would like to put out to you, and it goes like this.
What is the idea behind the fallen angels and the war in heaven that is spoken about in our legends and myths and written about in our sacred texts? My book – We The Angels – is based upon this war, which you have said was bleed-through and distortion from another dimension. I can accept your assessment because I can see the validity of the bleed-through. Still, the fact remains that this theme is so widespread that it has become a myth in many cultures, and is included in some form or another in several religions. Therefore, I feel it must have validity for this dimension also.
I realize the term ‘fallen angels’ is a metaphor, and could be describing many things. One could be that the Dream Walkers move into physical expression. Another could be that the creator wishes to experience physical reality, where the thought of the thinker becomes a reality.
The third, which is the most prevalent and lineal-minded, cuts off all debate. It states that the big guy had two sons, and he says to them, ‘Here is what I’ve created. I want to retire and go fishing. So, here’s the deal. I’ll turn everything over to the one who has the best plan for what to do with my creation.’
So the first son says, ‘I’ll fine-tune this reality and make it into something I can be proud of.’ The second son says, ‘I’ll take this reality and make it everything you dreamed of, and I’ll dedicate its success to you.’
So the big guy didn’t take long to choose the second son’s plan, which upset the eldest son, thus birthing the war in heaven, the concept of good and evil, and the so-called ‘Law of One’ – that is, service to self versus service to others – while establishing in a backhanded manner the idea of ‘as above, so below.’
Now, I find the third to be completely bogus because it is man-made and created only with one purpose in mind – to perpetuate the status quo. The other two, however, are valid, because there are no strings attached and no predictable results expected. Do I have it right, and if so, when did the idea of the fallen angels introduce itself to our knowing, and when did it get distorted?
ELIAS: I shall express to you that in a manner of speaking figuratively, all three of your examples are applicable, the third being slightly more abstract in its symbology than the expression of the first two.
But as you view other-dimensional focuses and that you are all interconnected and there is in actuality no separation, you may allow yourselves to view that it is not unusual, so to speak, or even uncommon that you may be inserting certain ideas or creating certain philosophies within this physical dimension in relation to experiences that may be occurring within other dimensions.
Also, these ideas or philosophies are translations into your reality in the design of your reality. Therefore, what may be occurring within other realities may not necessarily be associated in tremendous similarity to what you identify within your legends, so to speak, or your mythology in this dimension. But as I have stated, you create a translation which fits the imagery and the design of this particular dimension.
As to identifications of creators and the physical manifestations within your physical dimension, you ARE essentially, in actuality, the creator. Therefore, you are merely projecting into an expression of a physical reality, based on its particular design, YOUR creation. Therefore, what you express within your ideas is also, once again, a translation of the knowing that you hold, and fit into the design of this particular physical dimension. (5)
These concepts, so to speak, are not conflicting, for as essence and as consciousness, you incorporate other focuses within other dimensions, and you also are the creator and the creation within this particular physical expression.
As to the third expression or identification of myth, you may identify or recognize that all three participants – the father and both of the sons – are one being, so to speak.
HOWARD: Yeah, I can see that.
ELIAS: And therefore, the expression of all three is incorporated into one action and also is not necessarily conflicting, for the expression is offered as a creation and subsequently offered to the other two aspects of the self, which one expresses that it shall continue the creation in the choice of its design. The other expresses that it shall continue the creation in acknowledgment to the creator. Both expressions may be viewed as an acknowledgment and validation of self, and the acceptance of self and its abilities.
Therefore, in all three of these examples, you have created a type of imagery that is not inconsistent with the expression of essence. It is merely a translation, and therefore also incorporates an element of availability for distortion; not necessarily that the explanations in themselves are distorted, but that they may be interpreted in an expression of distortion.
As to your identification of the fallen angels in correlation to the Dream Walkers becoming physically manifest, there is no inconsistency in this particular idea either.
As to your questioning of when the element or factor of distortion has been incorporated into this physical dimension, I express to you that at the point in which essences chose to become entirely physically manifest and designed this particular physical dimension in accordance with that choice, there was also created the action of separation for the purity of the physical experience in relation to the design of this particular physical dimension. At that point would be the time, so to speak, in which the window was incorporated to be offering the expression of distortion, so to speak, as you began incorporating belief systems.
HOWARD: I understand; I got it. You have reaffirmed my original thought, I guess, ‘cause I did have thought creating in such a way that it was saying to itself – or to wherever thought originated – ‘Think of another way to be,’ and by so doing, they separated themselves. So, thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome.” [session 629, June 04, 2000]
ELIAS: “As an expression of essence, essences are not intrusive. Therefore in relation to objective expressions and intentional objective creations and recognizing the vastness of abilities and power that you incorporate as a focus and as being essence, in association with your physical dimension and the beliefs that are incorporated and the automatic expressions that are created in association with your beliefs there is significance in paying attention to self and incorporating responsibility of self concerning what you generate.
Now; let me express to you, what we are speaking of presently is in this present now quite hypothetical. For within your actual physical reality, you have not generated the intimacy in relationship with self yet and the genuine understanding of the vastness of your abilities and the powerfulness of your abilities yet to be objectively expressing this type of action yet. This is not to say that it is impossible or that you do not incorporate the ability to be creating this type of expression objectively and intentionally. But within this present time framework we are speaking hypothetically, for you are not actually generating this type of movement yet in awareness.
Therefore, I wish not to be offering expressions to you in a manner of cautioning or warning, so to speak, for it is unnecessary. But in like manner to cautionings that I have offered to individuals previously in certain expressions that they have allowed themselves an objective awareness of their ability within, I may express to you that in widening your awareness you are moving closer to the realization of some of these types of abilities.
Therefore, there is significance in offering information to you with regard to responsibility and expressions of essence, for you are creating and exploring within a physical dimension that does express belief systems and the automatic expressions of those belief systems continues to be quite familiar. Are you following thus far?
PAUL: Yes, I believe that I am. And you did touch very well on the concern that I had that if imagination indeed does create a focus, then I don’t, in view of my belief system, feel I have that ability at this time to be creating responsibly, shall we say.
ELIAS: I am understanding. For I may express to you, my friend, that the familiar and the automatic expression in direction is to associate that YOU are the creator, and therefore are more than or manipulating of or directing of.
Now; this in actuality is not the situation, in a manner of speaking, although in another manner of speaking it is. You may be creating of another focus, but you are not manipulating it and you are not directing it; but as it is another expression of you as essence, every focus of attention is affecting and influencing of every other focus of attention.
Therefore as I have expressed previously, essences are not intrusive, BUT you may be intrusive to yourself. You shall automatically not be intrusive to another essence, but you may generate this type of action in relation to self as essence, which ultimately is affecting of you.
ELIAS: It is not in actuality that, in a manner of speaking, you shall be directing of another focus or that you shall be altering of another focus – although in actuality you may be to an extent, for it is you – but in creating these types of actions and not recognizing objectively and understanding your responsibility to self, you also create affectingness of you.
In a manner of speaking, it may be similar to viewing your physical body and turning your attention to one particular area of your physical body, in example, turning your attention to your physical organ of your heart and creating an expression of energy to attempt to be manipulating it as separate from yourself and therefore choosing to be affecting of this particular organ and stopping its movement. In creating that action, you are also affecting of you.
PAUL: Very good analogy! I am much acknowledging of you.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) For your physical expression is not separated from you, and therefore in not incorporating a genuine responsibility of self and your choices and recognizing that all of these expressions are you and are not separable from you, but that you may perceive that they are separable from you, you may be affecting of a particular expression but you shall also be affecting of what you perceive to be the whole of you.
PAUL: Yes. I do see it now.
ELIAS: For you may not affect one aspect without affecting the whole.
PAUL: As I am coming to understand.
ELIAS: This is the reason that I have expressed many times to many individuals, concern yourself not with personal responsibility in relation to other individuals or to any other expression of consciousness, but concern yourselves with expressing responsibility to self, for this is great enough to be expressing.
PAUL: Yes, like we’re not busy enough taking care of ourselves, we’ve got to try and do it with everybody else, too!” (Elias laughs) [session 956, November 11, 2001]
PAUL H: Can I ask one more question in this area? The snapshot is a very helpful conceptualization of the information you’ve offered to date in linear terms. You’ve offered to Paul [T.] and others a number of focuses in this dimension. You offer a concrete number like 971, and then maybe it’s 972 in another snapshot. In the same sense of a single focus and the probable selves that we’ve discussed as bifurcating or branching off, splintering off based on an intensity of a major decision or something, would you at this point offer a concrete number of probable selves if I were to say, ‘How many probable selves do I have in this now?’ What would your answer to that be?
ELIAS: Numberless, for what you do not recognize concerning these types of actions is that this is all you. Each time you generate one probable self, you generate countless probable selves, for all probabilities are actualized. Therefore in each moment that you create a choice, you also generate every other choice in probability. Therefore, it is a continuous action with no end, and each probable self generates countless probable selves.
PAUL H: So then just a follow-up question. A focus of Paul, a probable Paul disengages, so there are numberless deaths for each focus?
PAUL H: From your perception, your perspective is...
ELIAS: Correct. It is merely a matter of attentions, and each attention creates its own unique expression.
PAUL H: So each focus – and you’ve said this before but I’m just coming at it from a different way – I mean it’s, as our friend Vic (pointing to where she usually sat on her sofa) would say, ‘BIG.’ (6)
PAUL H: Vast. Because we say, ‘We’re just a single focus, blah-blah, and we’re so little.’ But it’s vast, the energy involved in a single focus of attention.
ELIAS: Now incorporate that concept into the concept of you and the powerfulness of you. If you are generating all of this action continuously in one focus of attention, the power that you incorporate is unlimited. (Intently) Without limit.
PAUL H: And there’s responsibility that comes with that power.
ELIAS: To self.
PAUL H: To self, in the context of expression of essence, as you’ve expressed.
PAUL H: Is that an innate quality, this responsibility to self, as you open, become aware, the thinker of the thoughts, the dreamer of the dreams? It’s hard to articulate. I have a conceptual sense of an innate action occurs of awareness widening and a sense of responsibility to self and how self deals with ... in the context of this whole vast array of energy, of consciousness.
ELIAS: Correct, yes. For in this, you become objectively more aware of the lack of separation in this vastness in the expression of consciousness, and therefore you recognize that there is no action of intrusion. For in NOT expressing of essence, in your terms, that which you express is expressed to yourself.
In your physical terms, in narrow expression, if you are generating an action in physical manifestation that is hurtful to another individual, or that which you deem to be intrusive to another individual, you are not creating hurtfulness or intrusiveness to another individual. You are [creating hurtfulness] to yourself, for that which you project outwardly is merely a reflection of yourself. It all is your perception, therefore it is your reality, therefore it is you.
PAUL H: Thank you.” [session 991, January 21, 2002]
PAUL: “... Moving on to continue with our series of dream mission discussions. (7) 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. (8)
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: 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. (9)
PAUL: 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: 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. (10)
PAUL: 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: 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. (11)
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.
PAUL: And that’s part of the design of the oubliette and the remembrance. (12) Is that correct?
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: 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. (13)
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: 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.
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.
ELIAS: For without the parts, there is no whole.
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.
ELIAS: It is merely a manner of manipulating energy in different configurations to generate manifestations.
PAUL: 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. (14) 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: 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.
PAUL: 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.
PAUL: 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. (15)
ELIAS: Yes. (Nods)
PAUL: Well, I would love to hear you comment then, just on this idea of communication. Now you already have, of course, with your avenues of communication from essence to the focus of attention through impression, imagination, inner senses, dreams, physical sensation (Elias nods several times) and so forth, so that’s one avenue of holonic communication from subjective awareness of the essence to objective awareness. Are there other – what other dimensions or angles or parts of a communication network are there that we haven’t talked about yet? I guess I’m asking for some more clues. (Laughs)
ELIAS: In relation to other dimensions?
PAUL: Yeah, I know this is tough. No, not, well, I guess probably is where this leads, because I’m thinking of myself in a single dimension and I realize what you refer to is Regional Area 1 is penetrated with infinite sub-dimensions, correct?
ELIAS: Correct. (16)
PAUL: So, so, okay, this holonic communication, it’s infinite, in one sense, but I want to try to get more concrete examples. So what else should I throw into this then? Let me, can I try another idea?
PAUL: (Both laugh) Okay, I appreciate it. Let’s put in the idea of probable selves, because I think that helps to get us into a multi-dimensional framework here. And this is something that we might be able to ask some further questions about. From my perspective, as a focus of attention, I have a probable birth, but that is really the initiation of all of my probable selves, is that correct?
PAUL: In terms of linear time…
PAUL: …I’m calling it linear time. So, we’ll just take my life, and I was born May 5, 1955, so I’m a little baby there, and I’m doing my thing, and at some point I splinter off into my first probable self. And at another point life conditions create a tension-resolution (Elias nods throughout) to such a point where I splinter off into yet another probable self – and I’m referring mentally, Elias, to a chart that I showed Mary back in January (Elias nods), so I think you have that in her memory bank to refer to with these probable selves and these bifurcation points. Is that diagram a roughly accurate, at least beginning way to look at probable selves as they fragment through time? (17)
ELIAS: For it is an initial draft of identifying movements and choices and directions within one focus which generate probable selves in different points of the focus.
Now; recognize whenever you generate one of these points in which you, in your terms, splinter a probable self, you do not merely generate one probable self or one probable reality, for in that moment all of the probable probabilities are actualized.
PAUL: And that would then include all subsequent probable splintering?
ELIAS: Therefore, in a manner of speaking, it is infinite.
PAUL: Right. And yet in a manner of speaking there’s a way to make it somewhat discrete, correct?
ELIAS: Discrete in ….
PAUL: Yeah, finite, I guess. It’s back to that duality – finite vs. infinite.
ELIAS: The finite action is the choice that you generate that you insert into your reality. But from that choice springs, so to speak, infinite choices and infinite scenarios of probabilities.
PAUL: Right, that’s clear. This is good. This is helpful here. So I want to get back to the choice, the free will, the choice that is a bifurcation point. There’s something else in this.
At the bifurcation point itself, for example, the liver cell bifurcates also, my entire physical form bifurcates, or is it the entire, the entire dimension? (Pause)
ELIAS: (Takes a deep breath) Figuratively speaking, yes. In relation to you.
PAUL: To the perspective, the focus of attention.
ELIAS: (Nods) Correct. And the essence.
PAUL: Ah, right, right, right. I keep forgetting that layer! (Both laugh) Oh, but I’m getting more in touch with including that layer, because that is the primary thing, and it’s just so invisible that I keep forgetting about it! But that’s the nature of the forgetting, isn’t it? (Elias laughs loudly)
You appreciate this, don’t you? (Both laugh) My confusion? My remembering. I know you do. (Elias laughs) So, this question, then, you just articulated that thus far in my awareness that it’s a major decision vs. some minor decision, so if I get up to go to the bathroom, I don’t necessarily fragment into a probable self, correct?
PAUL: So there is some intensity within energy that’s discernible somehow, where this probable splintering occurs, correct?
PAUL: So that is something that Norm and the dream-art physicists will eventually begin to identify somehow, correct?
PAUL: Yes, okay.
ELIAS: You are already moving in that direction, for you are already recognizing that there are points in your movement that are identifiable in time which signify that action of generating probable selves and probable realities.
ELIAS: And that you may actually intersect those probable realities and probable selves and interact. You may move into those probable realities and move also back to your own.
PAUL: And how would I know in my objective awareness that this has occurred? There must be some perceptible apprehension in objective terms, not necessarily five senses, not necessarily a thought, but in terms of impression, impulse, feeling, even emotion, I guess, since that’s a baseline and a key avenue of essence communication. Is there then an emotional way that I could learn to discern these probability points, these bifurcation points?
ELIAS: You may easily identify these points objectively. The manner in which you identify these points is merely to be viewing your movement objectively and your directions, and each time you generate an alteration of your direction you may, in your terms, mark this as a point of creating probable selves and probable realities. In those time frameworks in which you generate decisions, choices that change your direction in some manner, you are generating probable realities also.
For example, an individual may be avoiding a collision within their vehicle, and it may be what you term to be a near miss. In that moment there has been a jerk action of the individual’s direction. The direction was to collide, and in that moment there has been an alteration of the direction which is noticeable, but it is also abrupt.
Now; not all probable realities are generated in abrupt alterations of your directions, but those are quite noticeable. Those that may be more subtle, so to speak, but are also quite obvious, may be pinpointed in any decisions and choices that you incorporate that change your direction. Incorporating different schools, the choice of coupling yourself with another individual, or dissolving a coupling, generating a new relationship with another individual, different expressions of friendships that may change your direction. Now; you may be incorporating a friendship and not be generating a probable self or reality; it is dependent upon whether your direction changes. But each time you alter your direction you also create probable realities, and in that moment all of the probabilities are actualized.
PAUL: Hmm. So desire, intent, and emotion are involved in those choices.
PAUL: That result in the bifurcation in the new sense of probabilities.
ELIAS: Not necessarily result. Desire, yes. Emotion is a communication, therefore it is an involvement, for it is an action of communication that you offer to yourself in relation to what you are doing, identifying what you are doing, and communicating to yourself about that action. Desire, yes, is a motivating factor. Your intent, yes, that also generates an involvement for all of your directions are associated with your intent.
PAUL: So the emotional communication then is a signal, that is, well, in linear terms, after the choice. (Pause. Elias takes a deep breath.) Not necessarily. (Laughs)
ELIAS: In actuality, it appears to be subsequent to the choice. In actuality, it is literally generated at the moment of choice, but in association with the movement of your attention it appears that the communication is expressed after.
PAUL: Right. So this would be one way to identify, then, one of these bifurcation points through the intensity of the emotional signal?
ELIAS: (Another deep breath. Paul laughs) Not necessarily. For at times you may generate a choice to be altering your direction and not necessarily offer yourself an intensity of emotional communication.
PAUL: That makes sense, right.
ELIAS: Especially if you are generating a strength in trust of yourself, you do not question your choices, and in that expression of trust, regardless of how affecting the alteration of your direction may be, you may not necessarily be generating an emotional communication concerning it.
PAUL: Mmhm. So the key then is identifying the doing and choosing.
ELIAS: Yes, and paying attention to the emotional communications if you are generating them.
PAUL: Right, so it all works together (Elias nods) in a spectrum.
ELIAS: Yes, which is quite important to be paying attention to all of these different functions and generating them in harmony. When any one of them is not in harmony with the others, you are attempting to communicate some information to yourself that concerns your beliefs and concerns how you are influencing your perception and, therefore, how you are influencing your reality.
PAUL: ... Oh, I just have a couple more questions here, and I really, again, I always appreciate our discussions and your helpfulness and the clues that you plant for me to ponder here as the years roll by. (Elias laughs)
Back to the probable selves idea and the fact that it’s a cluster and whatnot – in a sense, then, from the essence perspective, as it goes through a cycle of manifestation and explodes all its manifestations (Elias nods) and whatnot, as probable selves are created in a time framework, this means, then, that there are – and I know it’s obvious, but I just wanted to state it for the record – that there’s probable deaths, there’s holonic deaths, there’s not a single death.
There is no death, which as you’ve said is a translation of state, a translation of being, a new chapter beginning – but beyond that (Elias nods), just in terms of regular linear time in these probable dimensions that are nested within my Regional Area 1 in this dimension, there are countless probable deaths experienced.
ELIAS: Correct, for this also is a choice to alter your direction.
PAUL: Right, right. Wow.
ELIAS: And in that choice to alter your direction you, once again, generate numberless probable realities and probable selves.
PAUL: And from the perspective of essence, that’s all maintained in a simultaneous focus of attention?
PAUL: Yeah, that’s amazing. (Both laugh) It’s really amazing to be in my little bubble where I am floating through consciousness and knowing that there’s another veil and another veil, which are all present right here, right now (Elias chuckles), in a very simple way.” [session 1357, May 29, 2003]
ELIAS: “What we shall be discussing this day is intrusiveness and expressions of essence. First of all, what would you assess as an expression of essence? How would you define ‘expressions of essence’? (Pause)
KAUSTUBH: Isn’t this body an expression of essence?
ELIAS: Yes, that is one expression of essence. How do you express yourself in this physical form, in this physical reality, as essence?
CHRISTINE: Through emotions and sexuality?
ELIAS: That would be an excellent text answer! (Much laughter) And what is meant in that?
CHRISTINE: Well, what the textbook descriptions of what those things are would be speech and feelings, physical movement, how we connect with each other and interact – all of those expressions, as you have described what sexuality and emotion is, or how I understand it.
ELIAS: Correct. Therefore, how do you express yourself?
CHRISTINE: By thinking, by talking, by singing, by artwork.
ELIAS: And how is that a reflection of natural movement of essence? And what is NOT a natural expression of essence?
CHRISTINE: Maybe when you’re going against yourself and you feel within that it’s not what you desire or want to move to, and it makes you feel uncomfortable or unhappy. Would that be an incorrect expression of essence or not an expression of essence? If you’re moving in a direction that you feel wonderful about, that you are drawn to, such as music that makes me happy or I do a painting that I just fall into it when I’m painting it, that would be a natural expression of essence?
BARRY: Or buying new pots. (Laughter)
MALE: Isn’t everything a natural expression of essence?
RODNEY: You have stated that preventing yourself from making choice, or not allowing yourself to make a choice, is one of the few things that would lead an essence to weep. My sense is that daring or having the courage or simply allowing, whatever it takes, to make choice is an expression of essence. I also sense that an expression of joy, playfulness, these are expressions of essence, and anything that really restricts those – human activities, I’m talking physical dimension – when we restrict ourselves from making those, those are not expressions of essence.
VERONICA: Being concerned with being a people pleaser, being a community pleaser or a family pleaser rather than following our own natural inklings.
RODNEY: That was Veronica.
BARRY: Not using our own (inaudible).
BILL: This is Bill. I would think acceptance is an expression of essence and nonacceptance would not be.
ELIAS: These are all somewhat accurate responses, but not quite to the point.
RODNEY: Of course, you’ve stated that you’re going to discuss intrusion, so I would sense that allowing whatever it is to be whatever it is without attempting to make it different is an expression of essence.
ELIAS: At times.
RODNEY: All right. I say ‘all right’ only because essence has done little things in my environment that have kind of shifted me into doing something else.
NATASHA: Physical focus is an expression of essence, isn’t it?
Now; let me express to you all, what we are discussing this day is responsibility. That is an expression of essence, expressing responsibility for yourself. We shall be discussing in the context of physical focus, for this is your reality and this is what you participate within. It is pointless to be discussing what you term to be cosmic expressions, for this is not your focus. Your attention is focused within this physical reality – this is what you move in, this is what you generate, this is what you experience. You are not experiencing nonphysical focus in this particular manifestation. You have chosen to be in this manifestation within this reality, and therefore this shall be our focus of discussion, what is real within your reality.
Within essence, within consciousness, there is no intrusiveness. It is not that it is not possible, for there are no absolutes. Therefore, it is possible to be intrusive in nonphysical areas of consciousness; it is not an action that is expressed.
But in physical realities, it is expressed. It is not a natural expression of essence. It is not a natural expression of consciousness, but that is not to say that it may not occur.
The reason that we shall engage this subject this day is that I am aware of a tremendous polarization which has been occurring recently within your physical reality, and this polarization is generating many different types of energies and is generating a contribution to the trauma associated with this shift, and this is not the point.
Individuals are incorporating this information that I offer to you in manners in which they are offering themselves permission to be intrusive, which they are also condoning within themselves and justifying within themselves as acceptable and in alignment with this shift in consciousness, and I may express to you now that this is NOT correct. No essence that is participating within this shift in consciousness in nonphysical form is offering any energy contrary to this shift in consciousness. No essence that is nonphysical is contributing or participating in any expression that justifies more conflict or trauma.
The point of any essence participating in an energy exchange to be offering information is to be responding to all of you that have requested information expressly to lessen the trauma that is associated with this shift in consciousness. Therefore, I express to you now, as Elias, that I do not condone or justify any action that is intrusive within your movements.
I am aware that many individuals that are expressing this type of action are not actually physically present within this group now this day. But it matters not, for I am also aware that this particular transcription of this discussion that we engage this day shall be offered to the entirety of the individuals that participate within this forum, and those individuals that are expressing this intrusiveness shall know and shall be aware of who they are. But it is significant that all of you understand also what constitutes intrusiveness and that you be aware of your participation in this shift in consciousness.
Collectively you move in very similar directions. You seek information; you seek to be more aware of yourselves, to intentionally direct your movements in directions that you want and that you choose. You seek to be generating an awareness of yourselves and each other that enhances your exploration within this physical direction. You also wish to incorporate information that shall be helpful to you to allow you to create what you want and to accomplish what you want within your own individual focuses and in your participation in this shift in consciousness. That is an action of becoming more familiar with yourselves and with your energy expressions.
To this point you have incorporated, all of you, widening your awarenesses to an extent in which you understand beliefs. You understand what mechanisms you incorporate as communication mechanisms to yourselves. You understand belief systems. You are beginning to recognize your individual truths, although there continues to be some confusion concerning truths in accordance with this present wave that is occurring in consciousness addressing to truths, which are not what you term to be cosmic truths. They are YOUR truths that you have generated in creating an absolute in association with any belief. You are beginning to understand that this shift is not eliminating beliefs and that beliefs are not your enemy.
But there is much that you have not objectively incorporated in awareness yet concerning your energies and how you express them and how you project them and what you project and how that is received. This is the point of responsibility.
None of you are responsible for other individuals. I have expressed from the onset of these interactions that you are not responsible for any other individual and their choices and what they create, and other individuals are not responsible for you, either.
You ARE responsible for what YOU create. You are responsible to yourself for what you create and you are responsible for what you project within consciousness, and that is expressed within your physical focus. I am not expressing to you an identification of what energy you express to the cosmos, so to speak, but what energy you express with each other and your interactions, and (distinctly, with emphasis) you may be aware of your energy. I have been interactive with many individuals for a time framework offering information concerning the energy that you express outwardly and configurations of energy, how you project energy, how it is received, how you receive it, how other individuals receive your energy, how you configure energy, how you reconfigure energy.
I have also expressed many times, generally speaking for the most part – and this is significant, underline – (intensely) you do not automatically reconfigure energy. It is not that you cannot, but generally speaking you do not. Therefore if energy is being projected to you, you shall generally configure it in almost the identical manner in which it is being projected.
If you are projecting energy to another individual in interaction, the other individual shall receive your energy and configure it in almost the identical manner in which you have projected it. There are time frameworks in which individuals do automatically reconfigure another individual’s energy. That would be associated with an action that the individual is engaging in relation to their own beliefs and issues that may be being expressed in their reality in that time framework, which may influence them to reconfigure energy in association with what they are engaging themselves. Therefore, what is expressed may not necessarily appear the same as what is being received. I shall explain.
Another significant element to be recognized in association with projecting and receiving energy is that your natural state that you express and experience within your physical manifestation is to be open to the projections of other individuals. ALL of you are naturally open to the expressions of other individuals. This is what generates the availability for an individual to be intrusive.
To block an intrusive expression, the individual receiving must not be open to that reception, and the manner in which it would not be open would be to incorporate an awareness, prior to the reception, of what type of energy is being projected and whether you choose to receive it or not. This is the point, for most of you are not aware yet of your own energies and of what types of energies may be triggering of your beliefs that would influence you to generate hurtfulness within yourselves.
I have expressed many times, another individual does not project energy and CAUSE, so to speak, hurtfulness within you. They may INTEND that action, but they do not create your reality. Therefore, if you experience hurtfulness you have created that, (strongly) but in conjunction with what you have received.
Were you to incorporate an awareness clearly enough of your own energy and your own triggers, you would incorporate the objective intentional ability to reconfigure that energy that is being projected to you that incorporates the potential to trigger your incorporation of hurtfulness, and therefore prior to your reception of it, it would be reconfigured and you would not experience the hurtfulness.
But at this point, in this now, you do not incorporate that wide of an awareness. You do not incorporate that clarity and that familiarity with your own energies and with your own preferences and with HOW you can reconfigure energy to not incorporate hurtfulness. Therefore it is significant to recognize what you CAN incorporate within your awareness now, and what you CAN be aware of now, and what you CAN incorporate in projections of energy yourselves as an expression of essence in incorporating responsibility for yourselves, and how you generate that is to be aware of what energy you are expressing.
You may be incorporating an interaction with another individual and your intention may not be to be expressing hurtfulness, [but] as you engage the interaction you may be aware that the other individual is receiving your energy and is generating an expression of hurtfulness. You are all aware enough to know what energy is being configured by the other individual that you are interacting with. As you project it, if they are receiving it differently from what you perceive your projection is, you shall know. You shall be aware and you shall feel a twinge. You may be confused, for you may be examining your motivation and you may be examining in that moment what you have expressed and your intention, and you may be recognizing that your intention and your motivation was not to be expressing hurtfulness; but you are also aware that this is the manner in which it has been received.
In that moment, you provide yourself with an opportunity to reconfigure your energy [and] project again to be in alignment with your intention. For regardless of whether your intention is not to be incorporating hurtfulness to another individual, that energy may move anyway, for you may be incorporating other energies in any expression.
In any interaction, there is not merely one energy that is being expressed. For you incorporate many energies, and you may be incorporating another energy which does not concern the individual that you are interacting with. It may be associated with another experience; it may be associated with a belief within yourself; it may be associated with some other action that you are engaging not in that present now but that you are associating with, regardless.
You all incorporate these types of actions quite frequently. Regardless of what interaction you are engaging, generally speaking your attention is not so streamlined and focused that there is no other expression occurring and that your attention is not wandering, so to speak, to other areas of your experiences or other time frameworks – which we discuss quite frequently, the difficulty in holding your attention within the now.
Therefore, regardless of your intention, you may be expressing an interaction with another individual in an amiable manner in your perception. But energy is received and it is recognized much more clearly than any other type of communication. As the other individual receives it, they may be configuring it in the manner in which it is projected; but you are unaware of that other energy that has been projected in the interaction. Therefore you are confused why the individual is now perceiving that you have been expressing a hurtfulness to them.
I offered an example to an individual yesterday of a visualization to emphasize this concept and this expression of energy. I expressed to the individual to imagine themselves to be a pool, and within this pool, which is you, there are many, many, many fish and all of these fish are swimming. Some of these fish are swimming together and other fish are swimming in other directions, but they are all moving and they are all your energies, not merely one – many, many, many energies.
Now; in one area of the pool there are energies swimming and they are agitated. They are incorporating experiences that are irritating and challenging. In another area of the pool, the fish are swimming in a calm manner.
Now; the pool meets another pool and is interacting with the other pool. The attention is directed and focused in the interaction with the other pool. But the other pool incorporates many fish that are swimming also.
Now; as the first pool begins the interaction with the second pool, it is expressing in what it perceives to be an amiable manner, and the calm fish are swimming close to the surface of the pool in interaction with the other pool. But the irritated fish are becoming curious also, and therefore those energies move to be interactive also. Those energies are not concerned with the interaction with the other pool, but they are present.
If you are not aware of all of your fish, you shall not be aware of which fish are being expressed to the other individual and which fish they are catching. Your intention may be to offer them the calm fish, but some of the agitated fish are being caught also.
The point is to be aware of what you are expressing. Not to discount yourself if some of your agitated fish are being caught by the other individual, but to recognize that in that moment you incorporate the opportunity to re-net your fish and to contain the agitated fish and express within your intention.
It is also significant to recognize that within your interactions with other individuals, as you are naturally all open to interactions and therefore to reception of other individual’s energies, intrusiveness is not justified. Intrusiveness is an action in which you project energy to another individual intentionally, knowing that it is most likely to be received and configured in a hurtful manner. This is an irresponsible act; this is not an expression of essence. This is not a natural expression of essence.
I am understanding that within this time framework there is tremendous challenge in association with this wave addressing to truths, and many individuals are experiencing considerable difficulty and confusion. But your difficulty and your conflict may be considerably lessened if you are genuinely paying attention to your own energies and to how you are projecting, and being responsible in your projections to other individuals.
For I may express to you, the reason that intrusiveness is not a natural expression of essence is that within consciousness it is known that any action that you incorporate with other individuals, with other essences, if it is intended to be intrusive or hurtful, what it accomplishes is being much more hurtful to yourself. It may not appear in that manner initially, but I may assure you that you cannot incorporate an action of hurtfulness without being more hurtful to yourself. And in that hurtfulness to yourself, you do deny yourself awareness and you do deny yourself choice, and you weep. (Pause)
Denial of choice is not a natural expression of essence; intrusiveness is not a natural expression of essence.
Understand that I am not incorporating this information concerning wars or violence, for those actions – even murder – are not necessarily intrusive, for individuals may be merely expressing their preferences, and they engage agreement. Wars are not incorporated without agreement; violence is not incorporated without agreement.
The type of intrusiveness that I am speaking to you of is the type of intrusiveness that devalues, the type that attempts to block choice, the type of irresponsibility that perpetuates trauma, that devalues the expressions regardless of whether you agree. I have expressed many times, you may be accepting and not be in agreement; you may be accepting and cooperating with each other and not agree with each other and not LIKE expressions of each other. But to intentionally express an energy to any other individual of devaluation of their self, to intentionally disregard the value of another individual is intrusive. And you do not necessarily devalue each other in violence, contrary to how it appears.
You devalue in expressing ‘it matters not,’ in a distorted context. I have been expressing this term of ‘it matters not’ from the onset of my interactions with all of you, but I also have expressed the definition that I am not expressing that nothing matters. But in the expression of ‘it matters not,’ it is the lack of a judgment, the recognition that there is no judgment in association with certain choices or any choices, but not that choices do not matter, merely that they are not judged. But obviously they do matter, for the choices that you engage set your directions, and if you are incorporating certain choices in certain directions you may be expressing intrusiveness.
And what have you to discuss in this matter?
RODNEY: Elias, there seems to be, in the last statement that you made, if I want to express something, and it’s not my intention that it’s being intrusive but I become aware that it’s going to be interpreted or received as intrusive, what if – I guess this is a ‘what if’ question – I want for myself or for another reason to make that expression, regardless of how it is received?
Now, let me put it in this context: I’m speaking to three people and one of them is going to interpret this expression as intrusive, but I know the other two will not. If I understand what you’re saying, then I should step back and project the energy again so that it’s not intrusive to all three. This sounds to me you’ve opened up...
ELIAS: A can of worms?
RODNEY: A real big can of worms! (Laughs) Is this an all or nothing...
ELIAS: I am expressing to you to be aware of your energy.
Now; in that awareness, if you are interacting with these three individuals and you are offering a projection of your energy, an expression, you may not necessarily know before you express your energy how it shall be received by all three of these individuals – but not that you cannot know if you are becoming much more familiar with energy itself. But in this, once you have expressed the energy and you recognize that one of the individuals has received and configured it in that manner...
RODNEY: That’s the case I’m interested in, where I see it.
RODNEY: What do I do? (Laughter)
ELIAS: You allow yourself to reconfigure your energy and project again.
RODNEY: What if I feel it’s important enough to make this point over here and that the cost of making it over here... You know, I’m talking in terms of war – the benefit I get from over here is worth the casualty I create over there. I could see this is a big, big can of worms. What I hear you saying is I’m responsible.
ELIAS: For you.
RODNEY: Regardless, I’m responsible for me.
ELIAS: You are responsible for you.
RODNEY: I’m responsible for me.
RODNEY: But I’m responsible for not attempting to reconfigure my energy so that all three ... this person is not experiencing hurtfulness?
ELIAS: If you know that you are expressing in a manner and the other individual is receiving your energy and is configuring it in a hurtful manner, and you know and you are aware...
RODNEY: Address it?
RODNEY: My responsibility is to address it and to correct my projection of energy?
ELIAS: To be responsible with YOUR energy, for YOUR energy. Is your intention to be hurtful to any of these three individuals? No, your intention is not to be hurtful, but you perceive and you know that one of the individuals has received that energy. It IS your responsibility to reconfigure, for the other individual has received what you have projected.
RODNEY: This is going to be an interesting exploration.
ELIAS: But you incorporate a wide enough awareness now to be recognizing your responsibility to yourself and to your energy.
Let me express to you quite strongly and quite definitely, it is not excusable any longer. Incorporating the information that you do now and incorporating the awarenesses that you do now, it is not excusable.
RODNEY: Ah, I knew this was coming! You’re ratcheting up the...
ELIAS: (Quite strongly and with increased volume) This essence shall not participate in intrusive actions. My intention or what you term to be my agenda from the onset of this forum has been to be helpful in lessening the trauma in this shift in consciousness, and I shall not participate in expressions of generating trauma. You all incorporate enough information and enough awareness now to be expressing this responsibility for your own energies.
RODNEY: What I was referring to is, I do become aware when an expression that I have created has not been received well, has been taken as a criticism or in some way a hurtful manner. I sense that in many, many, many cases, it’s like what do I do now? So I am aware of it. What I hear you saying is it’s a responsibility to not just let it go.
RODNEY: But to try to... Not ‘try to,’ I guess the term ‘correct it’ is one way of saying it. But another way of saying it would be to see to it that the intention to hurt was not intended, that there has been a misunderstanding if you will, that it was received not as it was intended or at least how I thought it was intended.
ELIAS: But this is your responsibility, to recognize what energies of yours...
RODNEY: What other fish got in there.
RODNEY: Okay, I see.
JOHN P: Can it be a case that this third individual has reconfigured this energy so that they feel it’s intrusive when in fact it wasn’t, or will they always be responding?
ELIAS: No, your question is valid, and my response to it is yes, that can occur but you shall know that also. You may discern the difference.
You do incorporate enough awareness to recognize the difference in which another individual may be reconfiguring your energy, as I expressed previously, in conjunction with some experience or issue that they may be presenting with themselves, and the difference shall be recognized within you. You shall know.
You shall incorporate a knowing and a twinge if one of your fish that was not intended slips into the stream; and if one of those fish not intended is not in the stream, you shall know for your responsiveness shall be different. You shall recognize time frameworks in interactions with individuals in which they are reconfiguring your energy, and in those moments it is your choice whether you may address to the individual or not.
RODNEY: So if I choose... What’s your name?
JOHN P: John.
RODNEY: John, following that example, I may see that that person is reconfiguring. They’re looking at something which is totally not connected to what I’m talking about. If I sense that there’s nothing I can say to change that or to effect a different communication, my choice may be to disconnect.
ELIAS: Correct, but you are recognizing your energy and you are recognizing that the other individual has reconfigured.
RODNEY: So that would be a responsible act also...
RODNEY: ...in addition to the responsibility of recognizing that I did have another fish in there...
RODNEY: ...and they are picking up on the other fish accurately.
ELIAS: Yes, and discerning the difference.
BILL: Elias, is that other fish oftentimes representative of a portion of nonacceptance of something?
ELIAS: Many times, yes.
BILL: So there could be some aspect of myself, when I’m projecting that, that I’m nonaccepting of that I’m not aware of...
BILL: ...so it can also be sort of a learning experience for me to bring back to myself, to learn what that fish is.
ELIAS: Quite definitely, yes. Quite definitely. It may be, as I have expressed, an opportunity for you to recognize what type of energy you are expressing and what you are projecting, and therefore also be more familiar with your own energy.
This, in a manner of speaking, is your next step in your movement within this shift, being more aware of energy. You have offered yourselves information and have allowed yourselves to be aware of beliefs and communications and how you create. Now it is significant that you be aware of energy, for THAT is what is expressed and it is affecting.
RODNEY: As an analogy, you have used the terminology... For instance, what I see Lynda projecting to me is a reflection of my energy to her.
RODNEY: So what you’re talking about is cleaning the mirror off a little bit.
CAROL LEE: Elias, so if I didn’t recognize that, I would say, ‘Okay, you’re hurt; I don’t care. I’m going on my merry way – you do what you want. I don’t care.’ Then I would go on my way, and then my energy would just... Instead of looking at the totality and the total picture, which would include me and that person also and where they are now, where I see them in my energy now, where I am, it would include that whole picture, and the other way would be I just walk away (snaps fingers) ‘I’m on my way – I’m outta here! Whatever!’ So I leave something of myself behind in that interaction when I go away.
ELIAS: Figuratively speaking.
JOHN P: This is John. Is there also a responsibility of assessment in that? It’s often a lot easier to recognize that something’s going on than to recognize exactly what it is that’s going on. If you’re not sure exactly what it is that’s going on, you have a responsibility to take a pause and assess whether it’s what you’re projecting or what they’re picking up.
BARRY: This is Barry. You have to know that what they’re thinking is about them and then you can say, ‘I leave it to you and go on my way.’ You have to know that it’s their problem. If you don’t know that, you then have to reflect upon yourself, to check your energy, and maybe you’ll realize that your energy was what you wanted it to be so it must be something they’re doing. They’re taking one of your calm fish because you’re giving it to them, but they see it as an agitated fish or something like that.
ELIAS: That would be an action of their reconfiguration of your energy and not a projection of your energy in...
BARRY: Yes, but you can’t dismiss them unless you KNOW that.
RODNEY: I think it would be... I mean this whole interaction, I would think that it would be fair game that if I see someone has misunderstood or has responded to energies that I didn’t intend, it would be fair game if I saw that – and this would depend on the situation – to open it up and say, ‘Oh my god, what did you think I said?’ or actually direct objectively, examine what is occurring there.
ELIAS: That is one method.
RODNEY: I mean, if I’m in an interaction with someone and I desire for them to hear what I have to say and they’re responding that way and I would like them to get what I’m expressing, I would think it’s fair game to open that up and discuss it.
ELIAS: Yes, that would be, as I have stated, one method of generating a reconfiguration of the energy.
CHRISTINE: This is Christine. In follow-up to that, in regards to this, if we are being aware of ourselves and the pools of fish that we may be projecting, then that would also allow us a certain ability, or maybe not completely responsibility, but at least an awareness of what people may be projecting to us. And this would go along with what Rodney is saying, in terms of when you realize there’s something misconfigured, that they may be throwing their own fish into what they’re doing. We might be aware that they’re projecting energies that they’re not aware of, and maybe that would give us more acceptance into what’s going on in the interaction and less...
ELIAS: Correct, but you do incorporate a wide enough awareness to recognize these expressions and to recognize these differences of projected energy. In that type of situation, your responsibility is to be aware of your own energy and not match energy with the other individual, recognizing that the other individual is incorporating their expression, and as you have expressed, some of their agitated fish are swimming in the stream. In that recognition of the energy exchange between you, you allow their expression, you choose not to participate, and you choose not to match energy.
RODNEY: Like in the no-conflict exercise? (18)
CHRISTINE: That’s kind of what I meant.
RODNEY: Turn around and walk away?
ANDY: I notice the two things feel totally different. When you’re contributing one of your bad fish to them and when you’re not, it has a totally different feeling to it. I don’t know exactly what it is; it’s maybe something like guilt. You can feel that even though largely you don’t think you’re doing it; you still feel it.
ELIAS: That is the twinge!
ANDY: And when you get rid of it, you have like this clean feeling.
ANDY: Even if they’re acting totally the same, you feel totally different.
ANDY: So you have to sort of aim for that clear feeling when you know you’re not doing anything.
ANDY: They’re very distinct.
ELIAS: They may be, although many individuals may not necessarily be clearly aware of that yet. But you incorporate an awareness that CAN be aware of these distinctions, you are correct. This is what I expressed, that you shall know if you are projecting some unintended energy, for YOU shall experience a twinge within your energy. You shall offer yourself some type of communication that is your indicator that you have projected some unintended energy and the other individual has received it and it is not a situation of reconfiguration.
JOHN E: If you have someone’s energy that is clearly violating your boundaries, from what I’m hearing, one would disengage. The correct action is to disengage.
ELIAS: Disengage the interaction or disengage the reality?
JOHN E: Disengage the interaction.
ELIAS: That would be a choice.
JOHN E: But that’s what I’m hearing you say, that that is the method that should be pursued.
ELIAS: No, not that it should be; it is one action that you may incorporate. If you are aware of another individual being intrusive, you may choose to disengage the interaction. If you are not incorporating a clear enough awareness of how to be reconfiguring that energy yourself, that would be a suggestion, to be discontinuing the interaction for that would not be a matching of energy. Matching of energy merely perpetuates the scenario and perpetuates the conflict. Therefore, disengaging the interaction would be one expression or one method to interrupt and prevent the intrusiveness from occurring.
What we have been discussing is the prevention of it occurring within yourselves, and not necessarily blocking that type of action from another individual. The emphasis is upon being aware of your energy and that you do not express that intrusiveness with any other individual.
But conversely, if you are encountering an individual that is expressing intrusiveness and you are aware of this and you are aware that you are receiving that energy and you are configuring it in a manner of hurtfulness to yourself, an expression of essence would not be to retaliate and to match energy with that individual, but to buffer yourself (19) is no accident that this individual is present within your reality. And in your responsibility to self, you may examine what you are attempting to communicate to yourself in allowing that individual within your reality and thusly responsibly choose how you shall proceed with your energy in not perpetuating the interaction and not supporting an action in which the other individual is encouraged to continue.
BILL: This is Bill. Is it true, Elias, that the more accepting an individual becomes the less he will feel intrusiveness? Let’s say someone fully accepts everything, can he experience intrusiveness?
ELIAS: Likelihood not, for the individual would recognize how to automatically reconfigure that energy and not receive it in an intrusive manner.
BILL: So on the other hand, if someone is experiencing a great deal of intrusiveness, is that potentially a signal that they’re not accepting of many things?
BARB: Or they’re being intrusive themselves?
ELIAS: It may be, but that is not a rule. It is not necessarily what may be being expressed. As in any interaction, any reflection that you offer to yourselves, this is for you to evaluate what you are generating, what you are bringing into your reality and for what purpose. It may be to reflect your own lack of acceptance. It may be to reflect your own expression of intrusiveness to yourself, or it may be an expression that you offer to yourself to examine how you respond and whether you shall automatically match energy and whether you shall respond in an expression of essence.
BILL: Isn’t hurtfulness, the feeling of hurtfulness, a nonacceptance of self? If I feel I can be hurt, I’m not accepting of me?
ELIAS: Yes. But I may express to you in this awareness that you all incorporate now, you have not widened to the point that you do not experience hurtfulness yet. (Chuckles)
BILL: Thank you – I needed that! (Laughter)
LYNDA: Amen, brother!
ELIAS: Therefore, as I began, we are addressing to what you are actually experiencing and what your movements and your creations are in this physical reality and what your awareness is to this point, and not moving into the cosmic expressions of ‘if you were,’ for that is a moot point, for you are not. Therefore it matters not if you were, for what you ARE is what is significant, and what you DO is what is significant.
In this present now you all incorporate the capacity to generate hurtfulness and to automatically assess that it is being inflicted by another individual. Addressing to those creations, we are discussing what generates that intrusiveness, how you may be buffering to not be receiving, for it is your choice. It is not a requirement that you receive energy from other individuals merely that they project it. You choose.
And this is the point, you are not always aware objectively of your own energy and your own openness. Therefore you automatically allow the reception and you automatically configure it in the manner in which it was projected. If it was projected in an intrusive manner and intrusive intention, the likelihood is that you shall receive it in that manner.
KAUSTUBH: In talking about intervening and intervention, you also in the past said that if you want to help somebody you could lend them energy. Now, if that person or persons have created a situation which in your perception is negative and if they are feeding off each other, and if you try to insert your own positive energy as a healing energy into something that they have created for themselves for their own value fulfillment in whatever way, can positive energy also be intrusive or is it justified to try to consciously send somebody healing or positive energy when they don’t consciously know about it?
ELIAS: I am aware, and it is their choice of whether they receive it or not. That would not be an intrusive action, and it is the choice of the receiver to incorporate it or not. It may be received but it is their choice of how to configure it. They may configure it in a perpetuation of what you perceive to be the negative interaction or situation. But they have received it; it is merely their choice of how they incorporate it.
KAUSTUBH: So it’s obvious if the intention is clear it should not matter, or it should not be intervened.
BARRY: I have a question about not so much intrusiveness but devaluing. We do that so often with humor. There’s someone in this room that I did it with, when we talked about the snow – Lynda? We kind of devalue. Someone does the devaluing and then the other person does it, and when the other person gives the same energy back, they laugh. Is that like a healing or are we just... I can’t go any further, because...
ELIAS: I am understanding. At times, it may be. At times it may be a connection that occurs, and recognition between the individuals and generating an acknowledgment and a comfort.
BARRY: That’s the reason I asked, because it was a good feeling.
RODNEY: Elias, I have a question about reconfiguring or buffering energy. Let’s suppose I’m in an office and there’s a person I work with who’s having a bad day. Things have not gone well for that person, and they’re just taking potshots at everybody. They’re being as hurtful today as they can be to the world. I come in their sights, and they hit me with a salvo.
Now, in buffering or reconfiguring energy, if I recognize in my mind that what they’re expressing really doesn’t have anything to do with me...
RODNEY: ...would you call that buffering or would you call that reconfiguring? What am I doing in that scenario?
ELIAS: That would be buffering. That is generating an awareness of the other individual’s energy and of yourself and thusly automatically generating a buffering, knowing that it does not concern you.
FRANK: So you’re resisting the automatic response to match the energy, which is a key factor.
ELIAS: Correct. The other individual’s expression in that type of scenario is not necessarily intrusive, for it is not INTENDED intentionally to be devaluing. The individual is not necessarily incorporating an objective awareness, a knowing, of what they are expressing and intentionally generating a projection of energy to be devaluing.
RODNEY: They’re really just screaming.
ELIAS: Correct, and releasing energy and expressing frustration. And you all experience frustration.
RODNEY: In that scenario what would reconfiguration look like?
ELIAS: A reconfiguration of energy would be for you to actually express an energy in a different manner to the individual that would be influencing of the individual and interrupting their expression.
RODNEY: That would be reconfiguring?
BARRY: Like putting your arm around them and hugging them, saying, ‘I know you’re having a bad day and I’ll do what you want me to do,’ or something like that.
ELIAS: Or in your example, perhaps incorporating an unexpected expression of humor in association with what the other individual is expressing, that is unexpected by the other individual. It is not an expression that is feeding the other individual’s payoff, and therefore it interrupts the expression of energy that they are projecting.
That is an example of reconfiguring energy, for you are allowing the reception. You are not buffering; you are participating; you are choosing to engage. Therefore you have allowed the reception, but you are not receiving it in the manner in which the individual is projecting it. You are reconfiguring it and thusly expressing outwardly in a different manner.
RODNEY: I can think of a very intense discussion I was having with the man who runs my company, and we were at loggerheads. I shifted my energy intentionally and with awareness, and the next thing that came out of his mouth was the most comical statement in the world: ‘Well, who’s gonna buy my daughter’s shoes?’ Which was so ludicrous, because this guy’s very wealthy. That bit of humor, what I did and that bit of humor was a total reconfiguration.
RODNEY: And this is how you’re using the term.
ELIAS: Correct, and that generates a different outcome.
RODNEY: Yes, big time.
ELIAS: Yes, it is quite obvious.
DONNA: ... Elias, I have a question. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying if our intention is not to be hurtful and yet we see hurtfulness reflected to us, then we are intrusive; but if there is a person, like in Rodney’s office, who is just going around blasting everybody, then that’s not intrusive?
ELIAS: I am not expressing to you that if your intention is not to be hurtful that you are being intrusive if it [is] being received by another individual in a hurtful manner. What I am expressing to you is that you do incorporate a responsibility for yourself and your energy, to recognize what energy you are projecting and to reconfigure that.
The individual in the other scenario is also not being intrusive, and in that scenario it is your choice to be aware of your energy, that you are not matching energy with the individual. You may choose whether you shall reconfigure that energy or whether you shall buffer that energy to not participate with it.
DONNA: So the intention shows whether you are being intrusive or not.
ELIAS: Yes. But as I have stated, regardless of whether the intention is not to be hurtful, you may be projecting energy that contains an expression of that. In your recognition of that, it is your responsibility to be reconfiguring that energy to match your intention.
VERONICA: Excuse me, before you talked about a twinge. Is that twinge in response to the recipient’s hurtfulness, whether we’re aware of their being hurt or not? Is it a reflex of the energy that we projected?
ELIAS: It may be. That may be one indication.
VERONICA: But not necessarily.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. You may recognize that twinge of energy before the other individual responds. You may recognize once you have expressed the energy and the interaction, before the other individual is responding, that you are already incorporating a twinge and you anticipate that the other individual shall be receiving your projection in a hurtful manner.
VERONICA: So that could be a gauge to us, like a response from an inner self?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking; it is your communication to yourself.
But as I have stated, at times you may not necessarily be aware of before the other individual is responding. But in the response of the other individual, it is your responsibility to evaluate whether that response is their configuration of energy different to what you have projected, or whether you actually have projected an element of energy that is hurtful.
As I have expressed, it is not as difficult as you may perceive it to be. You do incorporate the awareness to discern and you shall know in each scenario what the differences of energies are. You do incorporate a strong enough awareness of yourselves now and of other energies to recognize your own participation, if you are genuinely paying attention to yourself and if you are genuinely paying attention to your energy.
BILL: ... Oftentimes when I am angry and possibly others are angry at another person – if I stub my toe I get angry at the chair and it’s a very different thing – I say things that are hurtful to the other person, and in that moment it seems to me I am being hurtful. It seems what you were telling Rod when he was angry – I don’t know what you were expressing when you were angry – but sometimes when I’m angry I lash out at people with the intent of hurting them. Is that what you mean by intentionally being hurtful?
ELIAS: That would be one scenario.
BILL: Even though I regret it afterwards, I was intrusive and I was intentionally hurtful.
ELIAS: And this is the reason that you regret it, for that is a natural expression of essence, not to be expressing in that manner, and you shall offer yourself a communication concerning your behavior and your projection.
What is more inexcusable is time frameworks in which an individual ignores the natural expression of essence, expresses a projection of intentional devaluing and hurtfulness to another individual, and justifies.
JOHN P: Elias, what about situations where we watch an exchange between two other people and we’re not directly participating but we see something like this happen? I’m not sure we have any explicit responsibilities, but it seems like there may be some implicit ones.
ELIAS: You do not incorporate responsibility for other individuals.
JOHN P: But I do care about the people in question...
ELIAS: I am understanding.
JOHN P: ...and I care about the exchange that occurs.
ELIAS: I am understanding. In this, what may be helpful to you is to recognize that the other individuals are incorporating their choices. They are creating their reality.
Many individuals at times generate intrusive expressions of energy. Generally speaking, they do incorporate a communication subsequently to themselves and they experience either guilt or regret and a recognition of what they have projected.
As I have expressed, even if you are participating, even if you encounter an individual who is being intrusive, it is your responsibility to be aware of your energy, why you have drawn that to your reality, for it is not accidental. No other individual shall express within your reality if you have not drawn that into your reality. Therefore, in your terms, there is a reason that you incorporate.
Therefore, you evaluate what the reason is that you have drawn that into your reality, recognize your energy to not be matching energy with that individual, and evaluate your choices: Do you continue to participate with this individual? If so, what is your motivation, what is your payoff? What information are you attempting to offer to yourself if you choose to continue to participate with this individual and allow that action to continue? If not, it is significant that you continue to pay attention to your energy and how you buffer that individual and what choices you incorporate to alter the situation – in a manner of speaking, once again in your terms, honoring yourself and your energy.
This is the point. You cannot prevent another individual from expressing in this manner, for you do not create their reality. You cannot prevent another individual from receiving that type of energy, for you do not create their reality. You may offer supportive energy to another individual in acceptance, but remember, some individuals do choose to participate with an intrusive energy, but you may not necessarily be aware of their direction and what their value fulfillment is in that participation.
As an example, you may encounter another individual and have drawn that individual into your reality and that individual may be expressing quite intrusively and hurtfully to you, and you perhaps may choose not to buffer. You may choose to continue to interact with this individual and allow yourself to receive that energy. Perhaps your motivation is to explore an experience of being a victim. Or perhaps your choice to continue to allow the interaction and to allow your reception of that individual’s energy in that intrusiveness may be to examine different qualities within yourself, or perhaps to generate some type of understanding of the expressions of the other individual, or perhaps merely curiosity. Or you may choose to continue to participate with the other individual as an actual mirror of yourself. You may choose to engage conflict. You may be in that particular scenario valuing that type of expression and that type of energy, and you may actually want to participate in an intrusive action.
Therefore what is significant in viewing other individuals and their choices is to recognize your preferences and your truths, for these are your guidelines concerning yourself and your behaviors and not to project those to other individuals. Their direction may be different; their value may be different. Although you may be witness to what you perceive to be uncomfortable or upsetting situations and interactions with other individuals, these are their choices.
I am understanding that this is difficult for many individuals, but this is also why you have chosen to be incorporating this particular wave in this time framework to be addressing to truths. Not to eliminate them, for they are beliefs. They have merely been generated into absolutes. But to recognize your individual truths and how they influence you and how they influence your behaviors and your perceptions and how they influence your judgments of other individuals.
KAUSTUBH: Adding on to this question, supposing that a person who has been hurtful is indirectly being hurtful to you through this other individual? So in that case, you’re suggesting to just look at yourself...
ELIAS: And recognize what you are triggering within yourself. For the other individual is not indirectly being hurtful to you, YOU are creating the hurtfulness within yourself. Therefore, you are responding to the choice of the other individual, which is not directly projecting to you.
Therefore it is significant that you evaluate what beliefs you are expressing and what you are triggering within yourself that moves in opposition to your preferences and therefore is generating this responsiveness.
KAUSTUBH: Sometimes it involves other individuals that are close to you, like your parents or whatever.
ELIAS: I am understanding. I may express to you all, it is especially more challenging if you are concerning yourself with individuals that you are intimate with or that you do incorporate a closeness in relationship with. It is much easier to disassociate with an individual that you perceive to be a stranger, for you do not personalize with strangers, but you do with individuals that are more closely associated with you. You recognize the interconnectedness and also somewhat of the lack of separation. But it is significant for you to also be aware of what you are generating.
Assuming personal responsibility for other individuals is not helpful. It is distracting to you [and] it is distracting in your attention, which perpetuates projecting your attention to the other individuals rather than paying attention to yourself and your own energy. You do not incorporate helpfulness to the other individual, either, in assuming personal responsibility for them.
It is enough that you generate responsibility for yourselves. That in itself is an enormous task. I would not concern yourselves with assuming personal responsibility for other individuals. That does not accomplish what you want. Conversely, paying attention to yourself and expressing your preferences and not concerning yourself with the expressions and choices of the other individuals allows you to more clearly be supportive and an example, which IS helpful.
NATASHA: May I offer another scenario, a short scenario? There are two individuals, two friends, say. They are not in agreement about something. One wants to offer a gift and the other is expected to receive the gift, and the other friend does not want to receive a gift. To receive the gift would be for the person to force himself to do something that he is not inclined to do at all, and he has a very strong rejection. On the other hand, if you express your rejection to your friend, you know it will not be received well and that person will get hurt. What are you supposed to do?
ELIAS: Pay attention to you. That is not an intrusive action.
NATASHA: I do not want to receive this gift, but I know by not receiving the gift it will hurt this person.
ELIAS: I am understanding. Your intention is not to be hurtful. That is the choice of the other individual, to express and experience that hurtfulness. Your responsibility is to you and to pay attention to your preferences, and if the preference is not to receive a particular gift, honor that, for that is your preference.
The point is not to move into an expression of allowing other individuals to dictate your choices. The point is to be paying attention to yourself and to be aware of your intentions and your motivations. Intrusiveness is expressed intentionally with a knowing of what is being expressed.
NATASHA: Thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome.
LORRAINE: Elias, this is Lorraine. I’m still having a problem with the intrusiveness. If I get into a discussion with someone about politics or anything, and I get upset and angry and I disagree with them and I call them a name – I call them an asshole or whatever – that’s hurtful to them, maybe. So that’s a hurtful thing, and you’re saying that if I ... and at that time I’m not gonna feel real guilty about it or anything. But when you said earlier that murder is not necessarily intrusive, so if I killed them it would better? I’m not sure... (Laughter)
ELIAS: It is not necessarily better or worse. They are merely different actions. In an action such as murder there is an agreement.
LORRAINE: There isn’t an agreement in an argument? Calling each other names is not an agreement?
ELIAS: It is dependent upon the situation. It is dependent upon whether both individuals are choosing to be in agreement to be generating the conflict. In certain scenarios both individuals are in agreement to generate conflict and they are participating together purposefully. All of acceptance is not necessarily expressed in joy and calm and euphoria.
LORRAINE: I think I was under the impression that in any situation where anything was going back and forth that it was always the person receiving that always made the choice whether to receive or to reject that energy.
LORRAINE: So if they are receiving it, they have chosen it.
ELIAS: Correct, but are you aware of that choice?
LORRAINE: I’m assuming that that’s true. I make the assumption that it’s true.
ELIAS: In practical terms, in actual experiences, not intellectually but in actual experiences in a situation in which another individual is intentionally expressing hurtfulness to you and you are receiving it, in that moment I express to you, I dare say you shall not be expressing to yourself ‘I chose to receive this.’
LORRAINE: And that’s what we would call taking it personally, if you take it personally? No?
ELIAS: Not necessarily; at times, yes, but not necessarily. What I would be expressing to you in inquiry would be if you are engaging conversation with another individual concerning any subject – your example was politics – and you are not in agreement with their opinion, what is your motivation for expressing argument and expressing name-calling and expressing in anger?
LORRAINE: I’m right and they’re wrong, that kind of thing? Nothing wrong in that! (Laughter)
ELIAS: Which would be the point in this wave in truths, to be recognizing difference and to be accepting of difference and to be examining your responses to difference and to be examining what motivates you to be expressing judgment and to be pushing against difference. What does it threaten within you?
LORRAINE: I was gonna say, I think fear is a big part of it.
ELIAS: And discounting and defending. If you are defending, you are discounting. If you perceive that you need to be defending of your self, of your position, of your expression, of your behavior, you are already discounting yourself. Whatever you are defending, you are doing so for your perception is that that expression that is being defended is not adequate enough and therefore it must be protected.
LORRAINE: Don’t people kill each other for those same reasons though? It can go that far?
ELIAS: At times.
LORRAINE: So murder is a discounting of self?
ELIAS: It is dependent upon the situation; it is dependent upon the scenario.
LORRAINE: But it can be.
ELIAS: It can be. In the action of the perpetrator, not necessarily in the action of the victim.
LORRAINE: They may or may not have a different reason.
ELIAS: Correct.” [session 1532, March 20, 2004]
(1) Paul’s note: a reference to the inner landscape exercise, whose goal is to create a visualization that presents imagery related to whatever challenge, problem, or illness you wish to explore.
(2) Paul’s note: Vic refers to an exchange she had with Elias several days earlier in which they discussed some information offered by Paul (Patel) through Ron.
Digests: find out more about Paul (Patel).
(3) Paul’s note: a reference to the “straight little sapling” allegory that Elias often refers to when he discusses our need to trust, accept, take full responsibility for only ourselves.
Digests: find out more about the sapling story.
(4) Vic’s note: a TFE is what is commonly termed a past-life regression, but we call it – a trans-focal encounter. We’ve been facilitating each other in TFE’s for a few years now. No, we have no training, and yes, it works anyway! Our basic “method” is for the facilitator to talk the subject through a general body-relaxation process. Then we encourage the subject to connect with whatever aspect of themselves they choose, and if they allow themselves to do this, we ask questions about their experience. The operative word is “allow.” Quite often the subject feels as if they are “making it up,” which they are not, according to the dead guy!
Digests: find out more about the new game (TFEs).
(5) Vic’s note: Elias used the word “fitted,” which I have changed to “fit.”
(6) Paul H.’s note: this session occurred about six weeks after Vicki Pendley’s untimely passing on December 06, 2001 from pneumonia. Vic in her own boisterous manner would occasionally use the term BIG to describe the vastness and importance of particular concepts.
Also, this session was one of the last to take place in Vicki and Ron’s home where the initial Elias sessions were held (from session 12, June 04, 1995 until session 265, February 05, 1998). Mary was in Castaic for her annual visit, and was sitting on the white sofa in the living room. Joanne, Paul T., and I were seated across from her. I was sitting on the rocking chair, where I often sat, and Vic’s usual seat on the sofa to my right was empty.
The house was also in the process of being sold and many of Vicki and Ron’s belongings had already been packed and moved to what they called “the red house.” So this house reflected the recent changes in our lives and there was more than a bit of nostalgia in the air. While it wasn’t recorded on the tape, I very much felt Vic’s presence and legacy as I spoke about her during this session.
Library: find out more about Vicki Pendley.
(7) Paul’s note: see sessions:
Digests: find out more about the dream mission.
(8) 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.
(9) 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:
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:
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,
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:
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.
(10) 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.”
From Alex Grey, Sacred Mirrors: The Visionary Art of Alex Grey, Inner Traditions Int’l., Rochester, NY, 1990.
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.
(12) 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,
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,
(13) 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:
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.
(14) 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
(15) 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.
(16) Paul’s note: Elias has greatly expanded the definition of Framework 1 to include multiple sub-dimensions. For example, I asked Elias about a projection experience I had in March 1998 in which I awoke around 12 PM. in the vibrational state and was able to just sit up and “leave” my body in the bed. I had assumed that I was in Framework 2, but….
The above exchange also reminded me of Seth’s Alpha states in Seth Speaks (1972,1994). He outlined a spectrum of altered neurological focus that hints at significant ontological and phylogenetic relationships within normally “hidden” aspects of the psyche (essence).
There are five main areas:
Though Seth used numbers, his “map” isn’t strictly linear, like climbing up and down a ladder, but a more multidimensional spectrum of holonic personality. In other words, we don’t necessarily move through one to get to the next. If we think of our conscious mind as a radio that receives and translates energy transmissions from our inner ego (subjective awareness) over a spectrum of “stations,” we can simply assess any station by tuning into the proper “frequency.” It’s instantaneously available since we don’t have to travel “around” space-time as Elias stated earlier. We simply go “through” it.
Also, the alpha states outlined here don’t map directly to those of contemporary dream researchers. They define alpha as the relaxed state that precedes sleep. So Seth’s use of alpha states shouldn’t be confused with this more conventional scientific belief system. Still, Seth’s A1-A5 offers a “map” in which to conceptualize and interpret paranormal experiences in terms of lucid dreams, projections, near-death experiences, trance and other altered states.
Dream research is in its infancy in the West having only recently acknowledged lucid dreaming, which for example, is well known in Vedanta Hinduism. Western researchers have measured four main types of neurological focuses in which the brain/mind operates:
Coincidentally, these states correlate directly to those found in Vedanta, which also mapped a corresponding spectrum of energy-bodies.
All of which suggests that when we compare Elias’ sub-dimensions in Regional Area 1, Seth’s five alpha focuses, dream research’s beta, alpha, theta, delta states, Vedanta’s three states and energy bodies, we are talking about a similar range of phenomena that ballpark us for further exploration of the holonic communication meshwork I began to explore in this session. They describe complementary snapshots of the same spectrum of holonic personality. Integrating these snapshots into a parsimonious theory, model, and storyline is the goal of integral conscious creation.
(17) Paul’s note: I created a 2’ x 3’ “map” that visualized a group of Elias’ concepts including primary and observing essences, and beginning-continuing-final focuses. It also included several concepts from Seth/Jane Roberts such as the nine forms of time from The Education of Oversoul Seven (1973,1995), counterparts, probable selves, and Frameworks of Consciousness. I brought this with me to the session, and briefly reviewed it with Mary so that Elias would have a physical frame of reference for our discussion.
For photos of the original map see session 1246, January 16, 2003, endnote 2.
The following chart dealt with probable selves.
For an updated version see Integral Conscious Creation Maps (Holonic Personality).
(18) Paul’s note: Elias offers an exercise to help reduce personal conflict.
(19) Paul’s note: Elias has offered an exercise in which to explore the way we interact with our own and other peoples’ energy.
Digests: find out more about energy fields.
Digests – see also: | absolutes | accepting self | acceptance 101 | acceptance 102 | attention (doing and choosing) | belief systems; an overview | choices/agreements | dimension | Dream Walkers | duplicity | essence; an overview | focus of essence; an overview | forum | “karma” | imagination | impressions | impulses | information | inner senses; an overview | inner senses; empathic | intents | mergence | noticing self | objective/subjective awareness | officially accepted reality | perception | probabilities | probable selves | religious era | sapling | separation | sexuality and emotion | shift in consciousness | time frameworks | trusting self | vessel | victims/perpetrators | waves in consciousness | widening awareness | you create your reality |
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: firstname.lastname@example.org