the belief system of inner senses; conceptualization
ELIAS: “Language within any physical focus is quite limiting, this being why I encourage you all to conceptualize; and know that within widening comes an awareness of knowing, to which words within your language become unnecessary, for the reality is known.” [session 99, June 09, 1996]
ELIAS: “In conceptualization you may attempt to disassociate yourself with your form and your ‘thingness,’ and allow yourself the motion and movement of action within energy. In this, you may choose a concept. You may choose an idea. You may choose a thought, and you may focus upon this and shed your imagery or your camouflage and be the action of the thought or idea or concept.” [session 162, April 06, 1997]
ELIAS: “Not all of conceptualization shall automatically make sense to you. I have offered you the exercise to be practicing engaging this inner sense. You are not engaging interpretation of this inner sense. You are merely exercising the sense itself, just as you may engage outer senses without interpretation. You need not understand always what you are experiencing, to be experiencing. If you are experiencing your sense of touch, you may disengage your sense of sight, therefore not allowing yourself knowledge of what you touch, and you may still engage your sense of touch. You may not have an interpretation or an understanding of this sense data, but you are exercising the sense.” [session 166, April 20, 1997]
ELIAS: “You view an object, and you express to the other individual in response that this object is a cloud or this object is a flower, but as you are viewing within the experience, the term flower or cloud does not seem quite adequate to be describing what you are actually viewing, for they do not entirely fit what you view within physical focus. In this, what you ARE viewing is more of the lack of separation of yourself and these elements. They are not what they appear, just as you are not what you appear, as we have stated previously within the context of this session. They are elements that are projections from you. Therefore, they are essentially what you may term part of you.
“They are not separate entities. This be the reason that they seem clear, but slightly unfocused. They seem within your visualization to hold a crispness and a vividness, but they also simultaneously seem unfocused. They do not hold the solidity that actual objects hold, but they also hold more brilliance. This be the quality of vividness that you offer yourself in these types of visualization. In this, this is allowing yourself to view other elements of yourself, knowing that these elements are parts of yourself or aspects of yourself that you may also choose to be exploring.
“Now; this shall lead us once again into the area of viewing the aspects of you. We have discussed all of the you’s of you, which are aspects of you, but there are more aspects of you than merely the you’s of you, for as I have stated previously, all that you view within this physical dimension is a projection of you. There is no separation. It merely appears in your perception, within each moment of linear time, that you are separated and that you hold distinction as entities, separate and apart from any other type of entity.
“The vastness of what you are, in many respects within physical focus, is incomprehensible to you. This is also the reason that within the early throes of these sessions I have been encouraging of individuals to be engaging their conceptual sense, for this shall lend more of an ease in understanding to you of many of the concepts that I present to you, remembering that all that you designate as concepts are in actuality reality. They are merely not a reality to you within your perception.” [session 333, October 19, 1998]
ELIAS: “Conceptualization is quite a different action from your empathic sense. Your empathic sense, as you are aware, is a mergence with any other element of consciousness, and creates an allowance for you to be objectively assimilating the experience of that aspect of consciousness, regardless of how it may be manifest.
“Now; within conceptualization, this is an allowance of mergence with action; an enabling of yourself, in a manner of speaking – as you identify yourself within this physical dimension – to be merging with the action of a creation.
(Intently) “Concepts are a creation, and in this, as you allow yourself to be merging with the action of the creation – or the concept – you experience the action itself, and this offers you a different type of information. This offers you the ability to be creating different elements objectively within your physical focus without instruction, so to speak.” [session 506, November 24, 1999]
ELIAS: “Conceptualization is an inner sense that is exceptionally difficult to translate into thought; therefore, it can be more effective, for the thought mechanism is ill-equipped to translate the movement of what you do in conceptualization, for you are merging with an action, not a thing. Therefore, you are merging with the movement of energy. You are merging with the movement of concept, not a thing.
“In this also, it may be suggested that you allow yourself to engage intentional relaxations in which, rather than focusing upon malfunction, focusing upon appreciation, generating genuine acknowledgment and appreciation of your physical body consciousness and acknowledgment of your power and effortlessness in generating the dis-ease. Rather than viewing that as a failure, recognizing it as an expression of your power in an effortless manner – which required no thought to create – and was created quite effectively and efficiently, and in that, as being an accomplishment not a failure.” [session 2049, July 22, 2006]
DREW: “We tend to think of action as a movement of mass or matter through space, but when you talk about identifying with action, I understand that’s not what you mean. Can you give us an idea of what it is you do mean so we know what we’re looking for, so we can identify when we’re doing this correctly?
ELIAS: An idea is not mass or matter moving through space, although it is propelled with motion. It is energy. It is not material. A concept is not material. You may choose any concept to practice with. As this inner sense was initially introduced, books of philosophy were offered as helpfulness to be offering ideas for conceptualization, for within the subject of philosophy you do not hold material objects. What is put forth are ideas. In this, you merge your consciousness with the action of the idea or the concept.
Now; I shall express to you that within this motion and mergence into the energy of thought or idea or concept you may experience visualization, for within the action it shall expand. You shall not hold an awareness of physical form. This shall be your indication that you are accomplishing this action of conceptualization, for you shall merge into the action, which you then may form into visualizations. It may open into entire scenes, just as with your new game. (1) This may be a helpful hint as to the action of conceptualization. At other times, you may merge into the action of the concept and you may not create visualizations. You may create only sensation, which shall be difficult for you to identify, for this sensation shall not be connected with a body, although it shall be, in your terms, physically felt.
BOB#1: Would a sensation of different actions or thoughts be a different sensation, identifiable over time? For instance, if you could merge with love and that created some sort of sensation, would that sensation be consistent from time to time if you were able to accomplish merging with that, and a different sensation be created if you were merging with hate or prosperity or whatever idea you were thinking of or trying to merge with?
BOB#1: So the sensations would be consistent over time?
ELIAS: If the conceptualization is accomplished with a truth, yes, it shall be consistent throughout your time framework, and each time that you accomplish the mergence, the sensation or the action shall be the same, although it may vary within intensity as you allow more or less of the experience. If you are merging with a concept that is not a truth, this may be changeable.
BOB#1: And if it was a truth, would the sensation from one person to the next be consistent?
ELIAS: Not necessarily, for each of you holds your own interpretation. Within the actual action that is occurring, yes, it is the same. Your interpretation of the action shall be different; just as I may approach each of you within this forum, and I may hold a hammer and I may smash your toe. I may create the identical same action with each of you. Each of you shall basically experience pain, but each of you shall experience this action within your own individual interpretation. Therefore, it shall be different within each of you.
BOB#1: However, there would be a certain commonality of experience.
BOB#1: So if different people in the group attempted to merge with the same concept, it’s conceivable that there could be some sort of sharing of experience to validate whether or not, or to what extent, they were able to accomplish this.
ELIAS: Correct; if, as I have stated, you are choosing to be conceptualizing a truth, for these are unchanging.
DREW: ... So in this exercise, getting back to my original question, which was knowing whether we’re doing it, whether we’re accomplishing, one of the constants is a disassociation, if you will, with physical form?
DREW: Okay. The other will be an experience which includes either imagery or feelings and sensations?
DREW: Is there a method, (laughter) I’m using that word, for us that will facilitate this exercise?
ELIAS: You may accomplish more successfully if you have offered yourselves the experience of your new game, and also if you have offered yourselves the experience of meditation and visualization. These offer you experiences with altered states of consciousness, in your terms.
DREW: I’m unclear as to whether the visualization is a tool by which we will accomplish, or a result of our accomplishment.
ELIAS: This would be a result, dependent upon which action you choose within conceptualization. If you are moving into attempting conceptualization and you are visualizing, you shall defeat yourself, for you are placing yourself in the position of facing objects. In conceptualization, you are not merging with things. You are shedding your camouflage in your ‘thingness’ and you are merging with energy other than things.
DREW: But we are merging with a specific action of energy, not just the vast pool of energy.
DREW: So if all things are action ... Am I correct so far? All things are action? (Elias nods) And let’s say the concept I choose to attempt to merge with is this table, the energy, the action of this table, and I use meditation as my method, and approach the exercise with an effort or an attempt to be effortless at shedding my camouflage. How do I direct my energy to merge specifically with the action of this table if I’m not directing myself towards the table?
ELIAS: You may choose initially to not be attempting to be conceptualizing an object. You may conceptualize the action of the table, although this is more complicated, for within your thought process you must remove yourself from the identification of the matter of the table. Then you must remove yourself from the visualization of the thought or the word of the table, and you must move to an area of the action of the thought before it has been created. Therefore, this creates quite a process for you to be moving through to connect with the idea. It may be less obstructive to you to be attempting conceptualization in the area of an idea which holds no physical form.
DREW: Such as love? (Elias nods) So if we choose love, and again to use this hypothetical meditation, and we are able to shed our camouflage of physical self and disassociate, again without focusing on the word or creating visual images that represent to us what love is, how do we direct ourselves to that particular concept to experience it directly, as opposed to just energy in general?
ELIAS: You allow yourself to defocus. Allow yourself to set aside your preconceived notions of this concept. Disassociate yourself with your belief systems of this concept, and allow yourself the freedom to move into the action of the concept.
DREW: Well, what I’m confused about is how we end up at that concept as opposed to ... If we disassociate and we, to the best of our ability, shut our belief systems and just become action, how do we find ourselves at the action of love as opposed to just action in general?
ELIAS: You do not afford yourself the acknowledgment of preciseness that you hold within your creativity and your being. If you are entering this exercise with a specific idea, as you allow yourself to drift, your subjective consciousness shall direct you to your objective.
DREW: So it’s intent, essentially?
ELIAS: Within the direction of your action, yes, you may express this. You are extremely precise beings. Look to yourselves at what you consider, within your belief systems, to be your intelligence. You hold immense ability. You also hold tremendous ability to focus and be directing.
You are, as I have stated many times, always in control. You are never floundering out of control. You may feel that you have lost your control at times, but your consciousness is always directing you, and your objective consciousness works in harmony to subjective movement. Therefore, as you choose objectively to be moving in a specific direction, you communicate this to subjective consciousness instantaneously. It shall be directing of your movement. You need only be trustful of self, realizing that your self shall hold you as a buoy within the waters of consciousness. You shall not sink. You shall float effortlessly, and be directed. You may not initially understand the experience that you may accomplish within conceptualization, but these exercises are important for your understanding of self.
NORM: ... Could two focuses communicate via conceptualization?
NORM: Is that difficult to do, and how would you do it?
ELIAS: Is this difficult to accomplish within your present now as you? Yes. Is this difficult for me? No.
NORM: Well, I mean a focus.
ELIAS: (Grinning) I am understanding of this. You may intersect within conceptualization with another focus of essence. This action at this present now would be very difficult for you to be accomplishing, for it holds difficulty for you to be accomplishing conceptualization with a thought presently. Therefore, to be intersecting with the action of another focus and merging with that action would be much more difficult.
NORM: I would say it would be a new way of expressing love.
ELIAS: This is an action to be conceptualized within itself.
DREW: ... If we are attempting to merge with anything other than a truth, such as an idea, aren’t we in effect merging with something that is of our own creation?
ELIAS: Correct. (Pause) The point is to be merging with the action. It matters not which action you choose. You may choose a belief system. You may choose any action, any concept, for what is gained is the understanding within the experience.
DREW: Is there not, though, a difference in the learning and in the experience if we’re merging with something of our own creation or our own belief systems, as opposed to a truth? Would the experience of merging with something that is of our own creation be more enlightening about ourselves than it would be to merge with a truth?
ELIAS: I shall inquire of you, Matthew [Drew], who has created a truth?
DREW: Aren’t truths just ... Well, my understanding is that there’s a difference between a truth and an idea. Truths are multidimensional and just are, whereas ideas are more singularly dimensional and are created specifically by a focus, and therefore they are different. And so would it not follow that the experience of merging with one versus the other would have different value in the learning experience? Not that one’s better, but that they’re different.
ELIAS: The experience, as has been stated with Simon [Bob#1], shall be different. Within many individuals, the experience of conceptualizing a non-truth shall be quite varied. Within the experiencing of a truth there shall still be a variance, but there shall also be a commonality within the experience.
As to the value of one experience of truth versus experience of non-truth, within this present now, no. They are equally valuable to you, for it is the experience of conceptualization that you are discovering. Eventually, as you familiarize yourselves with these inner senses, what you choose to conceptualize shall be creating differences, but within this exercise you are familiarizing yourselves with this sense and its action and its accomplishment. Therefore, it matters not what you are choosing to be conceptualizing, for what is of matter is the experience of the inner sense and the recognition of this.
... BOB#1: You’ve stated tonight that certain concepts or ideas would be difficult to conceptualize, like simultaneous time. If certain ideas or concepts are harder to conceptualize than others, can you give us examples of some easy ones that maybe don’t involve as much complexity and might be easier to access?
ELIAS: The difficulty lies merely within the present now and your awareness of these inner senses and their workings. In actuality, no action is more difficult to access than any other action, but as you must be moving through established thought processes presently, there are some actions that may be initially more difficult for you to attempt.
Any type of idea that does not attach to a thing within your thinking may be an adequate starting point. It is not necessarily easier to be choosing an action such as you think of love, for you already hold preconceived ideas and attach feelings and belief systems to this. Therefore, you shall be needing to move around all of these obstacles to be merging with the action of love. You are not merging with a feeling; this being what I have been expressing to you this evening, in the same manner that we speak of impulses.
Do not confuse yourselves. You are not merging, within conceptualization, with a feeling or a thing. You are merging with an action. Therefore, it may be easier if you choose a concept that you do not identify with a thing or a feeling. As I have stated though, you may create, within the action of conceptualization, visualizations which shall expand the experience or you may create sensation and feeling which shall expand the experience, but as I have expressed to Matthew [Drew], these are resulting from this action. They do not occur prior to the action. (Pause)
You may think of an action, a movement, a wave; not a water wave.
BOB#1: A frequency.
ELIAS: Correct, for a water wave creates a picture for you of a thing; but you may attempt to be conceptualizing with a vibrational wave and experiencing the action of this, for you hold no ideas of what this visually is. You also do not feel it.
VICKI: So if you could conceptualize the action of the energy exchange, you could probably understand it a lot better.
ELIAS: Quite. You may attempt a tone, as you have been inquiring, but be remembering that you are merging with the action of the tone, not the actualization of sound; not a note, but the motion of the tone.
BOB#1: Which is a wave. (Elias nods)
NORM: Is the inner sense of conceptualization a universal inner sense in all realities?
ELIAS: I shall express to you that the possibility of its reality extends within all focuses, although it may not be actualized as reality within all focuses, for it is not necessary. Within this dimension and this creation of reality, you have created a very complicated, precise, varied existence. Your species is very intricate. Therefore, it is requiring of more sense data than other focuses.” [session 162, April 06, 1997]
ELIAS: “Conceptualization is different from your other inner senses. This particular sense shall be more difficult to be accomplishing and practicing, and also, in your terms, shall appear to be more abstract or surreal; for it shall follow the designs of your dream imagery, which also appears as quite removed in translation from the action which is occurring.
Understand that within conceptualization, you are tuning your inner sense to the action of your directed purpose. Whether this be a concept, an idea, a feeling, a thing, any type of energy, you are entering the action of this. Therefore, you shall be creating your own translation individually of your experience. Your imagery shall appear confusing and far-removed. This is accomplishing. Continue with this, allowing yourself this experience. It is unnecessary presently for your complete understanding of your imagery. The point would be that you are allowing the imagery and you are noticing the difference, and you are also noticing the similarity to dream imagery. This shall suggest to you that you are accomplishing effectively.
Not all of conceptualization shall automatically make sense to you. I have offered you the exercise to be practicing engaging this inner sense. You are not engaging interpretation of this inner sense. You are merely exercising the sense itself, just as you may engage outer senses without interpretation. You need not understand always what you are experiencing, to be experiencing. If you are experiencing your sense of touch, you may disengage your sense of sight, therefore not allowing yourself knowledge of what you touch, and you may still engage your sense of touch. You may not have an interpretation or an understanding of this sense data, but you are exercising the sense.” [session 166, April 20, 1997]
(1) Vic’s note: The new game is what is commonly termed a past-life regression, but what we call a TFE – 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).
Digests – see also: | altered states/projections of consciousness | aspects of essence' an overview | belief systems; an overview | camouflage | dimension | energy exchanges; Elias, Paul (Patel) | focus of essence; an overview | forum | imagery | impulses | inner senses; an overview | inner senses; differential time | inner senses; empathic | intents | love | mergence | noticing self | objective/subjective awareness | separation | simultaneous time | time frameworks | trusting self | truth | widening awareness |
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: email@example.com