the Elias forum: Explore the transcript archive.










Wednesday, November 24, 1999

<  Session 506 (Private/Phone)  >

“Complicating Simplicity”

“Orientations/Mental Genes”

“Exploring the Inner Senses”

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Paul (Caroll).

Elias arrives at 2:40 PM. (Arrival time is 19 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

PAUL: Good morning, old friend! Our conversations continue! (Elias chuckles) I have some questions, as always, for you today.

I think I’d like to begin with some friends, and a request to get essence name, essence family traits, and orientation.

ELIAS: Very well.

PAUL: The first person is Lynda. (Pause)

ELIAS: Essence name, Lisa; L-I-S-A. Essence family, Sumari; alignment, Vold.

PAUL: Thank you. Could you offer her orientation, please?

ELIAS: Orientation in this focus, common.

PAUL: Thank you. The next one is Michael. (Pause)

ELIAS: Essence name, Butler; B-U-T-L-E-R. Essence family, Zuli; alignment, Sumari; orientation in this focus, common.

PAUL: Thank you. And the last one is Mary. (Pause)

ELIAS: Essence name, Lyn-Wi; L-Y-N-hyphen-W-I. (lin-wee) Essence family, Tumold; alignment, Milumet; orientation, common.

PAUL: Thank you very much.

Moving on to some other questions today, when we last left our hero, we were talking about the dream mission, so to speak, and we had talked a little bit about what you had called “the efficient language of translation of subjective into objective imagery.” (1)

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

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

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.

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

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

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

ELIAS: The relaying is the action.

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

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

PAUL: Great. Thank you.

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

Seth used the words “source energy,” and he talked about actions of receiving this source energy as received by our inner senses, and is transformed by mental genes into camouflage patterns, and in a sense, that maps onto this equation very nicely. (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAUL: Great. That’s very clear.

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

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

PAUL: Great.

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

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

Seth does mention this concept of electromagnetic energy units, which he says, in his terms, are made up of consciousness units. I’m clear that in your terms, links of consciousness make up these other units of energy that are involved in translating into objective physical imagery from a slightly faster, higher vibrational speed than is physical. You’ve never really commented on this concept, and I’m wondering if you would just comment on that notion of electromagnetic energy units in this translation process. (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELIAS: You are very welcome.

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

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

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

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

ELIAS: Correct.

PAUL: Interesting.

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

PAUL: That’s clear from where I’m at, at the moment. This is fascinating stuff, Elias! I just have to say that. Sometimes I can’t believe I’m having this conversation with myself! (Elias chuckles) (4)

Okay, moving along, another question about this area of translation and the use of inner senses – my own inner senses – in the context of my own what I term to be out-of-body experiences, or projections of consciousness, and you and I have discussed some of these experiences I’ve had, and I’m just beginning to be able to formulate some further questions for my own understanding, based on my own experience.

So, I think I’d like to ask about the three primary or fundamental inner senses that you’ve talked about – conceptualization, differential time, and the empathic sense – and try to look at some of my experiences and get a handle, a sense of using them. I guess in essence, I’m talking about what would be analogous to my physical senses of vision and hearing, which I have plenty of examples that I can recognize. But in this state ... and you’ve told me that these experiences occur in Regional Area 1, and that it’s a much wider area than we’re presently aware of in terms of time frameworks and other dimensions that are very closely related, but in a much wider way and in an exciting way to become aware of, that they’re there for further exploration.

So, one question specifically about the sense of conceptualization. I had a dream decades ago, twenty years ago perhaps, in which I believe I merged with Igor Stravinsky, the composer, the twentieth century composer’s world view. And the reason I say that is because when I woke up and was still half asleep/half awake, I had the sense that I could orchestrate in terms of Stravinsky, that I could compose music like him, and that it was WAY beyond my – at that time – present ability to understand those concepts. So I’m wondering, in that experience, did I actually merge and bring back, translating, so to speak, using my conceptual sense?

ELIAS: Yes, this is an example of engaging conceptualization.

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.

In a manner of speaking, hypothetically I may express to you that as you offered yourself that moment of conceptualization – as you created the translation into objective awareness – were you to allow yourself in that moment an expression of freedom, you would have allowed yourself the objective manifestation of the creation without the necessity of objective understanding or learning.

PAUL: So in objective terms, what would that mean? Would that mean I would be able to sit at the piano and perhaps play....

ELIAS: Create.

PAUL: Create. Improvise in the style of Stravinsky?

ELIAS: In the design.

PAUL: In the design. Interesting! In that conceptualization, was that a mergence – you talked about action, creation, concept – with what you’ve talked about as a world view or energy deposit?

ELIAS: You may engage this action in that type of energy configuration, but you may also create this mergence in conceptualization, not necessarily in conjunction with an actual individual or world view, so to speak.

PAUL: So what would I be connecting with? I’m trying to identify.

ELIAS: In objective terminology, you would be connecting with a concept, an idea.

PAUL: And that concept or idea has a ... is it a counterpart or a blueprint or ... I’m connecting, conceptualizing with a subjective energy?

ELIAS: You are, but you may also incorporate an objective energy in that action also. It is not limited to the subjective awareness.

PAUL: Okay, that’s clear. Thank you. Another question then about the empathic sense.

I have been for years merging with objects. This is just something I do for fun; for example, just diving through a floor, sticking my arm in a wall, literally, in out-of-body state, so to speak, and moving and feeling the resistance of the energy of this wall, or diving into a lawn and breathing the dirt, so to speak, the earth. I just wanted to get your feedback, perhaps validation, that that is the sense that I’m using primarily during those actions.

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

PAUL: Great. Okay, so that’s a good example of that.

And then, differential time, this third fundamental sense, I guess I look at it in two primary ways, such as when, when/where, in terms of perhaps objective terms, but also duration, and I know you’ve talked a lot about compressed and expanded time, and certainly in this state of projection, the time sense is very different.

There’s one scenario I want to bounce off of you today in which I connected with a focus of mine – I suspect it was a woman – and in the moment, it just seemed ... I was asking her, “What time do you come from?” I guess that’s where I was at, at the moment. In other words, I sensed she was not from this present now or time framework that I live in. She did not answer me, but I’m wondering if that is the sort of thing, in terms of time sense, that I was attempting to engage in that action.

ELIAS: This inner sense is not necessarily merely the identification of differences within time frameworks or sensing differences within time frameworks, but the actual allowance of yourself to be recognizing the flexibility of time and your ability to be manipulating it; that time is an invention or a creation of your perception within this physical dimension, and that it is quite elastic and that it is also quite changeable, and may vary considerably between individuals.

You look to the element of time as being an absolute, as you look at many elements within your physical dimension as absolutes, but I express to you that it is not an absolute.

In this, it may be quite changeable and bendable by each individual, regardless that you may be participating in an officially accepted reality within a particular physical dimension. Even within the guidelines of your officially accepted reality, the configuration of linear time may be altered.

PAUL: Interesting, and clear.

So one follow-up question to that would be, I have experiences where my objective memory may or may not contain lots of specifics, but I wake up from the experience with the sense of bigness or vastness. Would that be an example of manipulating time – the sense of having experienced an entire book’s worth of experiences in several hours?

ELIAS: Indirectly; not ... not directly. But indirectly, it may be identified in conjunction with this inner sense.

This is an identification of a momentary recognition of the being of essence, and not necessarily an action which is engaged through this particular inner sense.

As I have stated, the action which is incorporated by this inner sense is to in actuality be manipulating of time itself, and creating the translation of that manipulation of time in energy into objective terms, in which you hold an objective recognition that you have bent time or that you have altered its configuration.

You DO this action quite frequently, and you express and experience it in objective terms, but you do not allow yourself to be noticing. You ARE accomplishing this reconfiguration of time or manipulation of time very often, and you are accomplishing this in objective terms, but you are not allowing yourself an objective awareness of it as you are creating it.

And this would be an element of what you move into now within the action of this shift, to be becoming more aware of what you are creating objectively and to be noticing what you are automatically creating already.

ALL of what you hold in abilities is being expressed already. You merely do not allow yourself an objective recognition of the abilities that you hold.

It is not the situation that you are creating this shift in consciousness to be allowing yourselves new abilities or to be creating new abilities, or abilities that you have not held previously. You already hold all of these abilities and are already exercising them! You merely do not allow yourself to be noticing or to be objectively aware of what you are already creating.

And I am not expressing to you that you are creating entirely subjectively. I am expressing to you that you are already creating objectively, and you are not allowing yourself an awareness of what you are creating.

This be the reason that I am expressing to individuals so very often that there is no element of your reality that is hidden from you. There is no subconscious or unconscious or beneath conscious or below conscious or removed consciousness from you. You merely do not pay attention. You merely do not notice what you are already creating. It is all available to you objectively, and you ARE objectively creating all that you seek to be creating effortlessly. You merely do not notice and you do not pay attention.

And this is the point – allowing yourselves to be dropping the veils that you have created and to be allowing yourselves the objective recognition and noticing of what you are already creating, and in this, you allow yourselves to be expanding what you are creating, for you allow yourselves more of your expression of creativity in what you are already expressing in ability.

PAUL: Thanks for the reminder! (They both laugh) It would seem that in terms of this shift in consciousness, in a sense, that we’ve been the sleepwalkers and that we’re beginning to awaken, so to speak, in terms of this noticing that you’re talking about, and noticing how we’re creating these things automatically and effortlessly, so that we have greater ability to explore and manipulate.

ELIAS: Quite! You are correct.

PAUL: Just to finish up on my inner senses questions, I wanted to make sure ... to date, you have also discussed four other characteristics of inner senses that you’ve termed telepathy, tone and touch, and clairvoyance, and I just wanted to make sure that I haven’t missed any. Are those seven basically what you’ve offered thus far?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

PAUL: Thank you.

ELIAS: (Grinning) Although I may also express to you that once again, this is a complication of the simplistic element!

All of these may be expressed within the three initial inner senses that I have offered to you, but within the recognition of your desire for complication and classification, that you may hold objectively an understanding, I have also offered further classification of the simplification! (Chuckling) (5)

PAUL: (Laughing) That’s very clear, and I thank you again for that.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome.

PAUL: I do have one more question about my projection adventures. You’ve mentioned using the inner senses objectively. An example of that is involved with processes that go on in our physical bodies, like digestion or hair growth or our heart beat and breathing, and that’s clear to me, that at least experientially, evidentially ... examples of inner senses in very objective and useful terms.

So, I have a sense of no thought process being involved in my heart beating presently or my breath and so forth. But in out-of-body state, in this projection state, I’m still quite objectively present. I very much have an objective thought process. Are there analogous no-thought aspects of inner senses that are still happening in this state of projection?

ELIAS: Yes. (Pause)

PAUL: Can you give me some further information on those processes that ... of those no-thought processes in terms of inner sensing in that state?

ELIAS: Think to your pond once again. In this, your action of projection is similar to your physical body diving into your pond, and the movement of the water all about you – as an element of you, not as a separate entity – is comparable to the movement of your inner senses as you engage projections, for as you are creating any type of projection activity within consciousness, your inner senses are engaging what you may term to be “feelers,” so to speak, in objective terms, that spread as fingers out from yourself, or ripples through your water, or currents that you create within your water.

And these movements of energy within your inner senses connect with different elements of the action of your projection, allowing you to be engaging different elements of expressions of these inner senses, which offers you more information. You engage empathically, you engage conceptually, and you engage the aspect of altering time frameworks.

PAUL: Thank you. One final question – I just realized I had another one.

In one of the Oversoul Seven books, Grandpa George is a character who experiments with out-of-body states, and he had a technique – and I recognize it’s a method – where he would project, and he would issue a mental command to the environment that he found himself in, of “Hallucinations be gone.” (6)

I wanted to talk a little bit about this condition of what we might term hallucinations that we as a focus personality project into this environment, and also in an attempt to reduce ... well, to make them go away, to get to what is present in the environment that is not just a projection of ourselves, but a projection obviously of other aspects that are inside.

So, I wonder if you would comment on this action of what we project as so-called hallucinations when we do project, and the utility or usefulness of those, and the action perhaps of diminishing them to pursue other activities.

ELIAS: (Chuckling, and Paul laughs) I shall express to you, quite simply, there are no hallucinations!

PAUL: (Cracking up) Oh great! Thank you! (7)

ELIAS: You are quite welcome. (Chuckling)

PAUL: Okay. Let’s see here....

ELIAS: We shall be disengaging this day, and we shall be continuing futurely. I offer to you encouragement in your continuation of your exploration and your objective offering of discussion and information with other individuals.

PAUL: And I wanted to just thank you so very much for offering more information for me to think about.

ELIAS: You are very welcome. I express to you this day great affection, and offer to you a very loving au revoir.

PAUL: Au revoir!

Elias departs at 3:50 PM.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NORM: Not even feelings or intuition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELIAS: We continue.

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

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

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

ELIAS: Accessing energy! Very good beginning!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) Paul’s note: just to clarify my intent in this statement; I have come to think of my private conversations with Elias as a mirror action occurring within “the mirror of Self.” This is my own metaphor for the perennial notion that there is no separation within consciousness.

In this metaphor Elias represents subjective areas of “my” wider consciousness objectively translated for my own benefit. The mirror imagery is further reinforced by the fact that Elias consistently “reflects” all inquiries back to me in terms of noticing, accepting, and trusting self.

Don’t get me wrong here, I don’t consider myself to be Elias or anyone else for that matter, but realize that our conversations occur WITHIN a living web of consciousness. In that multidimensional context, I am “talking to mySelf.”

Oftentimes these conversations are accompanied by a sense of wonder, discovery, and indescribable beauty! So I would use the following spelling in this sentence, “Sometimes I can’t believe I’m having this conversation with mySelf!”

(5) Paul’s note: and just to complete the loop here; the reason I asked this question was even though Elias has been clear about the three primary inner senses from the beginning, he also has used the terms, “telepathy,” “tone and touch,” and “clairvoyance” in various sessions when discussing them further. So I was curious if they were additional primary inner senses or just aspects of the three primary inner senses of empathic, conceptualization, and differential time. It seems clear that they are secondary aspects in the context of this explanation.

Here’s an excerpt from an earlier session (336 October 27, 1998) that may shed some additional light on my intent in this line of inquiry:

PAUL: I do have another question about some information you’ve given on the inner senses, and it’s from session 162, and you say, “You have been offered exercises to exercise your empathic sense, your sense of conceptualization, and also your inner sense of tone and touch, this being what you have exercised with our example of clarity.” That sort of confuses me, and I wonder if you would clarify – in the clarity exercise – the inner sense of tone and touch. What do you mean by that? (Pause)

ELIAS: Tone is different from sound. Tone is a vibrational quality, and in this, your outer sense is a physical mirror image in its quality of connecting with sound. Within, in the inner senses, tone is the vibrational qualities that are held within consciousness, which you may access, and this may offer you information to the different qualities of different expressions of essence, although this particular type of tapping into within inner senses is more difficult for your understanding, for this is requiring of more translation within your thought process, for if you are allowing yourself to be accessing in conjunction with your conceptualization, you may more easily be understanding what you are accessing.

Certain elements of consciousness are much more difficultly translated into your physical language. Your thought processes are also a form of physical language. It is a translation of energy, and this is your means of communication to yourself and to other individuals, within physical terms. But much of consciousness is expressed through tone, and this is not so very easily translated into your thought energy. Therefore, it is not as easily accessed, although it is possible and you do hold the ability within physical focus to be accessing this information.

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

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

PAUL: Great. That was very helpful in terms of tone, Elias. That clears up your reference there in the sense of tone, but could you comment on the comment you made about tone and touch? Touch seems so physically focused, and tone doesn’t. I can understand the word tone in terms of subjective state, but touch seems so physical. Is the word touch connected to an inner sense somehow?

ELIAS: Yes. This also moves in the direction of empathic, although it is slightly different from the empathic sense, for it moves more in the direction of the allowance of connection with other aspects of consciousness and other essences in mergence.

Just as within your objective physical terms, you look to your sense of touch as an expression of connection with another individual or any other object or element within your physical focus, within inner senses this also would be the case, but within the expression of mergence, which allowsyou to be accessing more information through experience. This may be, as I have stated, moved into in conjunction with your empathic sense and may be offering you more fullness in the area of experiencing other elements of consciousness, not merely other essences or other individuals as focuses of essence. [session 336, October 27, 1998]

(6) Paul’s note: the character “Grandpa George” Brainbridge is from Oversoul Seven and the Museum of Time, Jane Roberts’s Oversoul Seven trilogy. George is a late 19th century dentist who uses nitrous oxide (laughing gas) to explore out-of-body states.

The following excerpts were in the back of my mind when I asked this question about the action of “hallucinations” within the out-of-body state:

“Without thinking about it, Seven hallucinated a pipe for George, who didn’t realize that he was still in his dream body; then Seven said moodily, “I’ve got to think my way out of this because your grandson – he must be your grandson – needs me and I don’t even know what trouble he’s in.”

“Ah,” said George, dreamily.

“Ah?” said Seven, a bit loudly. “A lot of help you are; sniffing gas and hallucinating demons and God knows what....” [Chapter 2, pg. 436]

And later ...

“The room was the same, but again the furniture was different. Soft lights emerged from the ceiling, though George couldn’t see their source. A group of people, looking as if they were on a trip, stood looking at the room in which he stood. There were ohs and ahs, but no one saw him. Was he hallucinating all this? George wondered. “Let all hallucinations vanish,” he commanded mentally, with more confidence than he felt.

“Nothing happened. George gasped; if he was right, then the people and room would have vanished if he were creating them himself. So he must have outdone himself. But where was he, and what was going on?” [Chapter 13, pg. 509]

(7) Paul’s note: you never know what direction Elias will take during a session. Usually he builds on previous concepts and interactions. However, he occasionally goes into what I perceive to be “the Zen of Elias.” By that, I mean Elias will use paradox and/or contradiction in the form of unexpected responses. These nudge and even force the rational mind into a non-rational area, as the rational mind alone can never provide ALL of the answers. The initial results are intentional confusion that eventually give way to further understanding.

I had covered mostly rational ground to this point in the session, and the moment he went into that “there are no ...” direction, it made me belly-laugh, as I am beginning to recognize the intent behind an unexpected response. Still, Elias’ timing was perfect. I was caught off-guard and fumbling for another question to ask. He immediately ended the session as if to emphasize this “final” exchange. And I must say, it made quite an impression on me as a reminder of those times when I think too much.

< Previous session | Go to the top | Next session >

© 1999 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.