Elias Transcripts – Session 1059, Sunday, April 21, 2002

MARGOT: Yes, definitely so. That’s part of what I’m going to address to today. This may come as a little surprise to you, but I finally want to talk about my intent. There’ve been so many things that I have wanted to talk to you about, having to do with my exploration of death. There’s just so much of it that’s come up recently that I decided it was about time that we have a discussion about it.

First thing I’d like to ask about, I have sensed that my intent of the exploration of death has been my intent throughout all of my focuses in this dimension. Would this be correct? (Slight pause)

ELIAS: A theme, yes, in many different capacities.

MARGOT: I guess maybe one of the things that led me to that has been the fact that in the Egyptian focus that I have with my dad, I assisted him in the preparation of the dead. I guess that’s one of the prime influences. But it feels like I’ve been doing this forever.

ELIAS: I am understanding.

MARGOT: Are you saying then that it is the major theme?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: Now, because I’m going to address to some things here today, I really want to thank you for the explanation that you gave to Howard in February when he talked to you about his sorrow about Vic’s death. In the explanation that you gave to him, there was much, much, much for me. I think I haven’t probably even realized it all yet, but I just hadn’t ever tripped on the fact that I could have the same relationship with Vicki even though she’s dead. I know where I came up with that, and I’ll get to that probably as we get along. But at any rate, it really was an inspiration for me, so that’s going to come up today.

The thing I wanted to really address first though was these episodes that I’ve been getting now for 20 years or so, or maybe more. I’ve described it to you as what I call “thumping” episodes, in which my heart and my pulses all pound and my blood will race and I’ll get kind of faint. You told me that this was transitional and that it occurs when my subjective and objective are out of balance. At least that’s what I have gleaned from all the times that we’ve talked about this.

But interestingly enough, I haven’t had any of these episodes for at least a year until four weeks ago, and then I had a whopper of one! I wouldn’t call it frightening, but it certainly did bring up a bunch of stuff for me. This thing went on for eight hours, and the pounding or the thumping or the pulsing or whatever it is, these episodes came about 30 seconds apart for eight hours. Several times I nearly lost consciousness, and the pain in my head was awesome. You lent me a lot of energy that day, and I’ll thank you for that again right now. (Elias nods)

I’ve always assumed that when I get these episodes, it’s my objective that has gone out of balance with my subjective. Would that be right, what I’m trying to ask here?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

MARGOT: Can you tell me what occurred on that particular day that brought on this huge attack of this?

ELIAS: I may express to you that this was generated not necessarily by an event within that one day, but rather in what you may term to be a building of energy in association with different expressions that you had been ignoring in your communications to yourself for a time period.

MARGOT: Can I read in that that perhaps over this year – plus that I hadn’t had any of these episodes – that I didn’t block any energy? Is that what it is, is it blocked energy?

ELIAS: It is not necessarily blocked energy; it is contained energy that you hold to in an action of ignoring communications that you are offering to yourself.

In this, I may confirm to you that you have allowed yourself within your previous year to be paying attention and not ignoring communications that you offered to yourself. Even in time frameworks in which the communications were perceived to be uncomfortable, you allowed yourself an openness and allowed yourself to be paying attention to your own communications to yourself and to be examining your expressions in association with your communications.

Now; within a time framework from the event of Lawrence’s disengagement, you have been offering yourself communications and you have been attempting to ignore them.

MARGOT: That makes sense to me.

ELIAS: Therefore, you create a build in contained energy, for you are not allowing an expression of that energy for you are ignoring the communications and not allowing yourself an openness with yourself. This also generates a thickness within your energy, for it is almost in opposition to your natural flow of your value fulfillment in the expression of your intent.

MARGOT: I see, and I do understand, Elias. I have felt that. I wouldn’t have given those words to it, but I have felt that. I have felt that it did start to build when Vicki disengaged, but I translated it incorrectly, I can see now, into thinking that or telling myself that it was just part of the grief and that it just had to be lived through. So I can see how I kind of patted myself on the back and went along.

During that day that I’m telling you about that was so intense, it just seemed so apparent to me that I was dying – I KNEW I was dying. I don’t feel like that anymore, of course. I don’t know just what I’m asking about that, but I have wondered if the sense of dying soon was just another part of my exploration of death.

ELIAS: Partially, and also an expression of allowing yourself a recognition in relation to death being a choice. For in this, you were not deluding yourself or misunderstanding or miscommunicating, in a manner of speaking, or misinterpreting your communication with yourself. You were presenting to yourself the choice.

Now; you did not choose to engage that choice, but you offered yourself an awareness that the choice was available and that you may have easily generated that choice and created that action.

MARGOT: I see. Right along those same lines, in talking to you before I alluded to the fact that I hold every intention of being able to objectively take myself through disengagement and into nonphysical transition when I decide it’s time to go.

ELIAS: Correct.

MARGOT: So you would be saying to me right now, you would be reaffirming to me that it is my choice, and because it’s my choice I can do that.

ELIAS: Correct, and you offered yourself an experience in which the reality of that choice became much more objectively assimilated and understood.

MARGOT: I understand. Thank you.

Now, I’ve also told you before, but I haven’t ever asked you anything about it, when my dad died and I had such a nice talk with him on the fifth night after his death – and I do understand it was an energy deposit of his that I dealt with – he told me during that time how he had gradually withdrawn his life force. “Life force” is how I translated to myself what he said. He also told me that when the time came that I decided to disengage that he’d show me how to do that; he’d show me how to withdraw my life force.

Now, the thing that I would like to know today is can you give me an explanation of life force? It’s okay with me if I go on calling it that, but I think that there’s some other term. Would that be so?

ELIAS: This is what you identify as the energy that is expressed in a physical manifestation. In the physical manifestation, you, in association with your beliefs, differentiate and express a distinction between certain elements that you view to be living and certain elements that you view to not be living.

MARGOT: Elias, I’ve got to break in here for just a moment. I’ll be right back.

ELIAS: Very well. (16-second pause)

MARGOT: Somehow you had begun to fade out and I was trying to find a way to fix it.

Let’s go back to life force. It’s the energy that we associate with physical manifestation.

ELIAS: Of living entities. For you generate a distinction between living entities and other physical manifestations of matter.

MARGOT: This leads into what you talked to Howard about, about how we can project and have communication with those that have disengaged like Vicki, because obviously this is what I did with my dad...

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: ...and that was 12 years ago. I’ve never understood how I managed that.

What had happened was on the day that he died, he began talking to me in my head. I felt for five days until his funeral I had been asking, just asking for something to confirm to me that I’d actually heard him in my head. So I thought when he did appear after such a long time that it was his meeting with me and not my meeting with him. So I had it reversed, but I’m understanding now, I think, about how that works, and I’m going to come back to that.

I had a dream of Vicki a couple of weeks ago. This was the first time that I had dreamed of her since she disengaged. I did find out then that several of us have suddenly begun to dream of Vicki again. She was just kind of not there for a while.

In the dream that I had, I went to see Ron and Cathy, and Vic kept coming into the room in which we were in but I was the only one who could see her. She was also very much not like she was in life. There was no indication that she wanted to be interactive. She was very somber; she never smiled. Sometimes she kept her eyes closed, and even one time when she walked into the room, I saw that she cut her hair short.

Cathy tells me that in the two dreams that she’s had of Vic, Vic appeared exactly the same way. Now, I’m understanding though, just now, that the way she looked was my perception of her. That would be true, right?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: This confused me, though, just a little bit because ever since Vicki died I have not thought of her as being sad or somber or any of those other words that I used. I’ve always dreamed of her as being in transition and in a really good space. So, I’m not understanding why the concept that I have felt I held of Vic did not come through in the dream, but it came through as her appearing to be very somber, almost sad. I understand that more now. Is there anything more that I’m not getting there that you could add?

ELIAS: Yes. Be remembering, Giselle, that although you generate the physical image or even physical manifestation of the other individual through your perception, you incorporate an interaction in energy.

Now; even in association with individuals that have disengaged, you may continue to be interactive with their energy expression, which is what you are interactive with within your physical expression also. Therefore, in actuality, there is very slight difference in the actual interaction of energy that you generate between yourselves in physical or nonphysical expressions, for it is an energy expression that you are interactive with.

Now; allow yourself to be recognizing, as I have offered explanation previously, that for the most part as you interact with the energy expression or projection of another individual, you configure that energy and project the physical manifestation through your perception quite similar to what is being projected to you. For the most part, individuals configure that energy expression that they receive from another individual very similarly to the manner in which it is projected, and as I have stated previously, you shall objectively recognize in the moments that you are NOT configuring the energy expression in similar manner to what the other individual has projected, for your perception shall generate a different expression and you shall offer yourself objective information to confirm that your perception has generated a very different manifestation.

Now; be remembering also information that I have offered previously concerning perceptions and physical manifestations that are generated through perception. The reason that individuals shall create very similar manifestations through their perceptions to each other – one individual views a motor vehicle upon the street and another individual views the same motor vehicle – you shall both generate a very similar perception, for the energy which is being expressed is the same and you receive it very similarly. If you are not reconfiguring it, which as I have stated for the most part you do not, you shall generate almost the same physical manifestation of your individual perceptions. They shall not be identical, for each of you are unique and each of your perceptions are unique; therefore there shall be a slight difference, but one that is so slight that you shall not notice.

Now; in this, as you receive or allow yourself to receive an energy expression from Lawrence in allowing yourself a subjective interaction within your dream state, you generate an objective configuration of that energy expression and you project through your perception physical imagery, and Shynla may be generating a very similar projection of manifestation through her perception in interaction with the same energy projection. Are you understanding?

MARGOT: Yes, I am. The only thing I don’t understand, Elias, is what Vicki’s perception would be that we would interpret in our translations and in our configurations as being very sad or somber.

ELIAS: Now; in explanation of this I shall express to you that it is two-fold, for you are interacting with an energy projection. You are also generating a translation in association with beliefs that influence the projection of your perception.

Now; in this, Lawrence’s attention is not concentratedly focused upon a projection of energy in association with this physical dimension. There is an aspect of attention, but there is not a tremendous concentration of attention which is projecting an energy in association with this physical dimension. Therefore, recognizing the lack of attention, you receive this energy expression and translate that in terms that you associate with in relation to your beliefs.

This translates in an uncomfortableness, for a lack of familiar expression of energy translating through into your physical dimension is received in an uncomfortable manner; therefore, you seek to translate what is the expression of that uncomfortableness. And in the solemnness – which is actually what you are translating as an expression of a lack of emotion – therefore you translate this into an identification of solemnness. In further translation in association with your beliefs, you attach an emotional expression to the solemnness, and you generate a perception or an identification that the individual is sad.

MARGOT: I understand. Now, you have also said that individuals in transition aren’t really available to us, or at least that’s the way that I have thought that you said that. Is this so? Was this a factor?

ELIAS: You are correct in your association with the information that I have offered. Now allow me to clarify more in association with what I have expressed to you.

In actuality, the energy of the individual is available, but the reason that I expressed previously to you that the energy of the other individual is not available to you is that you within the physical dimension generate this belief in separation quite strongly, and in recognition of the strength of that belief, you do not allow the availability of interaction of energies for you continue to generate this veil of separation.

Now; there is also another factor which interplays in this type of scenario. The energy of the individual that is disengaged may be accessed, but also recognize you filter energy that you receive through beliefs and translations in association with what is known within your physical dimension. Therefore, you configure the energy to fit the design of your physical dimension, and the design of your physical dimension translates energy into sexuality and emotion. If you interact with an energy expression that does not incorporate sexuality or emotion, you shall reconfigure that energy and translate it in association with the design of your physical dimension. Many times you do not allow for that translation or even to connect with the energy expression of the individual, for it is so very unfamiliar to you and it poses a challenge objectively to you in how to reconfigure that energy that it shall fit within the expression of your physical reality.

Now; as an example, recall the interaction that I expressed through another aspect of my attention, in relation to a group forum, which did not express a translation of emotional expression. In this, what was the response of the individuals participating in that forum? Uncomfortableness, confusion, and a lack of attention.

MARGOT: I see, and all of a sudden I’m thinking about when some people, some individuals, feel that in reading transcripts of the sessions that they can’t understand what you are saying. They say the way you speak is ponderous, it’s this, it’s that, it’s something else. What we’ve become accustomed to as we read or listen to you is the fact that the translation that we’re making ... that we’re having to learn how to translate without the filter of this dimension.

ELIAS: Correct.

MARGOT: Is that right?

ELIAS: Partially, yes. For in this, individuals that have allowed themselves an objective interaction with myself allow themselves to translate the inflections and the tones into their connection or reading of the transcriptions.

Now; some individuals that have not engaged an objective interaction with myself within the forum of these sessions may allow themselves an openness in which they also shall interject that translation of inflection of tone and expression of what they view as emotion into the written expression. But some individuals do not allow themselves this openness without a physical engagement of myself and without an actual audible experience of the tones that I project and the inflection of voice, and therefore they experience more difficulty or more of a challenge in the flatness of reading the transcription. For without allowing themselves the openness to the energy which is being expressed – which is being expressed even within the written transcriptions – but without allowing an openness to that energy expression, it appears flat and emotionless.

MARGOT: I understand. Thank you very much for explaining that.

Last Thursday night, I did a projection based on everything I’d learned prior to Thursday night, and I felt that I did do it. What I decided to do, since I haven’t prior to now been accustomed to projecting into a place that has no time framework or a place that I don’t recognize, I decided that I would project by thinking of a favorite picture I have of Vic and sort of projecting that image. That seemed to work very well; at least that’s the way I feel about it right now. I did feel that I reached her and we did talk for just a little while. Was that a good way to project into a projected place that I’m not acquainted with?

ELIAS: (Laughs) “Is this a good method?” Shall you respond to your own question in expressing to myself, did you accomplish? Yes. Ha ha! Therefore, was it...

MARGOT: I guess I shouldn’t have asked that question, Elias.

ELIAS: Was it efficient? Obviously! (Both laugh)

MARGOT: Now, when I first had the dream of Vic two weeks ago, I wondered if this was an attempt that I finally succeeded at in parting the veils of death. You and I have talked about my attempts before to do this and how I always get so excited I wake myself up. My first impression was that in the dream I placed Vic in a neutral place, such as being with Ron and Cathy, and therefore I did part the veils of death. I’m not sure how I feel now today about that first impression of mine. Can you answer to that?

ELIAS: I may express to you in this questioning, in like manner to your previous question, you have offered yourself a method in which you have allowed yourself to accomplish in a manner of comfort and in a manner in which you allow yourself enough of an expression of calm to actually engage an interaction.

Therefore, yes, I shall validate that you are allowing yourself to move into an expression of piercing this veil and allowing yourself to view that you do incorporate the ability to be interactive, and that in actuality there is no veil other than what you project in association with your beliefs in the expression of “I cannot.”

MARGOT: I understand. Thank you very much.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

MARGOT: Now, Elias, time is gonna run out here, so we’re gonna call this part of the session “Part One” and then the next time I talk to you we’ll do “Part Two.”

ELIAS: Very well!

MARGOT: Because I want to talk to you just a little bit about things we talked about in my last session with you, in which you told me that the focus who died recently in Afghanistan wasn’t a native of that country. I’d like to ask, was he Pakistani? (Pause)

ELIAS: No, Saudi.

MARGOT: I didn’t understand you.

HOWARD: Saudi Arabia.

MARGOT: Oh, Saudi. I tried to get his name, and all I could get every time I tried it was David. It occurred to me that it’s probably a translation, that what I got would be David in English but something else in another language. Would that be true?

ELIAS: Yes, and you may continue your investigation, for this shall be easily translated.

HOWARD: Da’uud?

MARGOT: What did you say, Howard?

HOWARD: Da’uud?

ELIAS: No.

MARGOT: No? All right, I’ll work on that. So far, if I just use my translation of the name, I can communicate with him.

ELIAS: Yes, you may. It matters not.

MARGOT: In regard to my focus with you in Grasse, France, was I Italian?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: I even brought through names for our three kids. That amazed me, but let’s try them. The oldest was Nico, who was a boy.

ELIAS: Correct.

MARGOT: The next one is a girl, and her name is Geneve or Geneva.

ELIAS: Jeannine.

MARGOT: Jeannine?

ELIAS: Correct.

MARGOT: The last child, who is a girl, was Tanica.

ELIAS: Tanyica (tan YEE kah).

MARGOT: Anica?

ELIAS: No, Tanyica.

MARGOT: Good. Good for me! As for the timeframe, I kept coming up with 1908, and that didn’t make sense to me but that’s all that I could get, so I decided that perhaps it was 1808. Can you give me a timeframe?

ELIAS: One century earlier.

MARGOT: 1708?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: Cool! Now, we also talked in my last session regarding my focus in eighth century China, and you gave me my name, which I wrote down as X-I hyphen J-I-A-N-G. I don’t even know how to say that anymore.

ELIAS: Ah, Giselle!

MARGOT: Ah, Elias!

ELIAS: (Laughs loudly) And you may easily offer yourself this information also. And what is your concern of this focus?

MARGOT: I was trying to find out by asking this focus of mine what my relationship was to the child who was in my care who was Mei-Ling. That’s what I was after. I think I was her grandmother.

ELIAS: Ah, you are merely seeking validation in association with your relationship.

MARGOT: Right.

ELIAS: One removed.

MARGOT: Like great-grandmother?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: Thank you. Do I know this Mei-Ling now in this focus? Is this someone known to me?

ELIAS: No.

MARGOT: The next thing, of course, is to say that at the end of the last session I KNEW I was the dastardly King Edward II! (Elias laughs loudly) And I have to tell you, I’ve really enjoyed knowing that.

ELIAS: Dastardly!

MARGOT: Dastardly! (Elias laughs loudly) So thank you for the clues that led me in that direction. I really enjoyed it!

ELIAS: (Laughs, and continues humorously) And are you satisfied now that you have offered yourself information in this dastardly fashion and confirmed to yourself that you are quite evil?

MARGOT: Oh, yes! I’m very satisfied! (Elias laughs)

I’ve got a couple or three more here. Am I Belle Boyd, the Confederate spy?

ELIAS: No, but you do engage relationship of friendship to this individual.

MARGOT: That name really jumped out at me. I think I’ve been a spy in focuses of mine. Would that be correct?

ELIAS: Yes, and in that focus also in aiding that individual.

MARGOT: This is something that hit me quite some time back. Am I my own Uncle Charlie, my mother’s brother?

ELIAS: No.

MARGOT: Here’s another one. One night before Sharon/Camden came to see me for the first time, I saw a picture of she and I as twin boys in Italy. Would that be correct?

ELIAS: Yes.

MARGOT: Do I have a focus which is connected to the Charles Lindbergh family or to his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh?

ELIAS: An individual that incorporates relationship of friend also, yes.

MARGOT: That’s very good. I felt that really strongly, but I haven’t ever asked you about it.

That’s all that I have. I’ll leave the rest of what I have until the next time we speak. Thank you very much for these confirmations.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

MARGOT: I’ll just ask one more thing. When I projected to Vic the other night, it was my impression that we discussed the relationship of value fulfillment to life force. If that is a correct impression or even close to it, could you give me some words for the connection?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct. I shall validate this impression, and I shall also validate the accuracy of the association of value fulfillment and life force. For as I have stated, within your physical dimension you generate a distinction of living and non-living, and any expression of living matter you generate an association with a value fulfillment, that whatever the expression of life within your physical dimension, it generates some purpose. Therefore, this is the association of value fulfillment and life force.

MARGOT: Thank you very much.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

MARGOT: I’ll let you go back to whatever you were up to when we began to talk.

ELIAS: (Laughs) Very well! I express to you as always my continuing and unceasing affection, Giselle...

MARGOT: Thank you.

ELIAS: ...and my continued supportiveness. As you are aware, I am with you always.

MARGOT: Yes, I’m very aware of that, and I thank you for that.

ELIAS: And you are quite welcome, for it is offered freely. To you, in tremendous affection, my friend, au revoir.

MARGOT: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 3:28 PM.

Previous session | Go to the top | Next session