creature consciousness
ELIAS: “Creatures are not essence. Therefore, unlike essence which focuses simultaneously in many different physical dimensions, the creatures are a creation of yours within consciousness. They are a direction of energy of consciousness. Therefore, you direct energy within each physical manifestation aligned with the framework of that particular dimension, such as your genetic encoding within this particular physical dimension which is not incorporated within other physical dimensions. In this, you are within other physical dimensions presently. Your elephant is not. It is unique to this dimension and this physical focus.
“The creatures also hold free will and choice, for all consciousness holds free will and choice. You have manifest this, but as it is created it may continue within its own choices. Therefore it may choose, for its own value fulfillment, to be experiencing another dimension within physical manifestation. In this, within agreement to you it shall become extinct, and its energy shall be rearranged and remanifest within another physical dimension, encoded with the specifications which are necessary for that physical dimension.
“Your dinosaurs exist within another dimension. They move freely and appear in the same form as you visualize them to be within your dimension, but they do not exist within your time framework within this dimension any longer. Within another dimension they do exist, with different inner encoding. This is not necessarily genetic encoding in the same manner as your encoding, for this is unique to this dimension.” [session 179, June 01, 1997]
NATASHA: “I have a question I didn’t ask you in my previous sessions; I forgot, so I want to ask it now. Why am I drawn so much to water? Is it a matter of preference in this focus, or do I have something in other focuses that I dealt in water or lived in the water or something?”
ELIAS: “Both. You incorporate a preference in this focus and that is the reason that you draw other focuses and the energy of other focuses into a reinforcement of your experience in this focus.”
“In other focuses you incorporate an affinity to water in association with accomplishments, sports, and also in a genuine lack of separation in recognizing your interconnectedness to a symbol that represents life. And I may also express to you that you incorporate a focus as whale.”
NATASHA: “Thank you very much.”
ELIAS: “You are quite welcome.” [session 1468, November 08, 2003]
JIM: “Are whales and dolphins of a higher consciousness, so to speak, or is that a belief system that we’ve incorporated? Do they have other senses that we, I know we’re aware of them, but do they possess other senses that they possess that …
ELIAS: Whales possess a higher vibrational quality, this allowing them a higher element, so to speak, for there is no higher of consciousness. We will rephrase that to be wider element of consciousness. They also possess inner senses partially comparable to your own. They possess an awareness of inner senses. These animals have evolved within their consciousness to almost incorporate essence. (Pause)
CATHY: Is that why they snuff their trainers, because they know there’s no right or wrong? (Laughing)
JIM: That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
ELIAS: You would be amazed at the thinking process of these animals, and how they view your species!
CATHY: I’ll bet!
JIM: (Almost in unison) I’ll bet!” [session 43, October 08, 1995]
ELIAS: “We have been speaking of your cultural time and your natural time, your intellect and your intuition, to further offer you information to be connecting and understanding of yourselves and your connections. We will also be discussing your relationship with nature. Now I pose to you the question, ‘What is your connection with nature?’ (Pause)
VICKI: Well, we have created it.
ELIAS: How are you connected? (Pause)
RON: Hopefully, I think we would be part of it.
ELIAS: How are you part of it? (Pause)
JIM: Everything that nature is we are, and vice versa. (Pause)
ELIAS: Think to yourselves how you view your species in relation to nature. How do you view a plant in relation to nature? How do you view an antelope or a caribou in relation to nature? (Pause) Now express to me, how does man fit into nature?
JIM: Not very well! (Laughing)
ELIAS: This is precisely the answer I was expecting! You separate yourselves automatically. You view an animal, and although you may not have the ability to express, in words, how you believe it to be connected with nature, you automatically connect it. You view a tree or a flower, and there is no separation from nature. You view an ocean, and it is natural. It is part of nature. You cannot separate out these elements from nature, but you do separate out your species, therefore creating a barrier. You do this, for you do not see your own connections. You do not view your own affectingness. You do not see your interaction with nature. Therefore, how may you apply natural elements to yourselves, if you are not a part of nature itself? How may you incorporate natural time, if you are not natural? (Pause)
I will say to you, now view man and his connection to nature, for without your species, nature would not be what it is. As all other elements contribute to nature, so also do you. We have discussed previously these elements, but you do not make the connections. We have discussed your weather, your planetary conditions; earthquakes, floods, tornadoes; which you create, which are part of nature. We have also discussed your archaeology; your artifacts, your ancient remains; which remain only through holding of your remembrance. These are the contributions that you add to nature.
Through your emotions, you are influencing of your planetary conditions; your weather, your tides, your elements of natural occurrences upon your planet. Through your thought process, you hold the clarity of the focus. Your animals, your flowers, your clouds, your oceans, appear as they appear, for you are part of them. You hold the clarity. You hold the vision. What you see, what you visualize, is what is created. Therefore, you are a very intricate part of nature. You also feel the natural movement continuously, this being your natural time; which is natural to you equally as it is to your creatures.
VICKI: ... Okay. [Cathy’s] question is, do we create the reality of animals?
ELIAS: In a manner of your speaking, partially, yes; partially, no. Animals incorporate their own consciousness, and they also create their own reality, just as does a plant. It is not dependent upon essence to be creating of reality, for all consciousness creates reality. Therefore, an animal creates its reality; although some animals are quite affected by your consciousness, and influenced by your consciousness. Therefore, in a sense, you help to create the reality of some animals. In another sense, you are influencing of creating the reality of all animals; for we have discussed, this evening, that you are a part of nature, a very intricate part, which is quite affecting of all creatures. Therefore, in this respect yes, you create the reality of the creature; although they create their experiences, although you influence many of their experiences also.
You are more directly affecting of your domesticated animals, that your are directly involved with and connected to; for your consciousness works in cooperation with these animals, and you are more directly affecting of their reality. As I have expressed, you may project, to an animal that you are connected with, elements of your consciousness for the animal to be experiencing; or the animal may pick up, so to speak, elements of your consciousness and incorporate them into their experience. This is not accomplished on a ‘thinking level,’ so to speak. The animal does not make a decision and say to itself, ‘I believe I shall be depressed today, therefore my human connection may be happy’; although many times, an animal will assume elements of consciousness that you are projecting, and they will express them, whereas you may not; as in our case of your spouse, (looking at Jim) who also connected with your creature of your dog, which was experiencing physical expressions. (Pause) Shynla [Cathy] incorporates this with her own animal also.
VICKI: So when I notice her dog having moods, quite often that is a connection with Shynla [Cathy]?
ELIAS: Very much so. You will also notice physical expressions. This individual, choosing not to be expressing of discomfort within physical focus, this being not a part of her reality, not wishing to experience uncomfortableness, which her creature has connected with and experiences for her; also allowing expressions of belief systems, which you also may project. You may not be wishing to be incorporating your medical profession personally, continuously; therefore your pet will require much attention. Be remembering also, these examples are expressions of what you would term extreme areas, areas that are within consciousness of the individuals involved, with fears within belief systems, elements that may not be quite so easily expressed themselves. Therefore, they may connect with their creatures.
VICKI: So, these are ... what did you just say? Instances involving extremes?
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: So my experience with my own animals, that they require very little medical attention, as do I also require very little medical attention, that would be ...
ELIAS: A mirroring; as does Ron also require very little, which creates an ‘atmosphere’ around these creatures. The individual may not require much medical attention personally, but within a ‘layer of consciousness’ incorporates a belief system which leans heavily in this area; therefore it is an expression of energy and consciousness, which is ‘picked up on.’” [session 77 March 10, 1996]
VICKI: “Well, I have two questions, one for me, one for Michael [Mary]. For Michael [Mary], what about the mass manifestations of illness, say, within the animal world?
ELIAS: Creatures incorporate their own consciousness, as do all things. I have expressed to you that you do not incorporate an understanding of animal consciousness. Although they do not incorporate essence as do you, they do incorporate a highly efficient consciousness. They also incorporate a collective consciousness. I have expressed, there is thought. There is great feeling. Many creatures do not incorporate the thought process as you view this to be, but their emotional expression is great. I will also express to you that within their collective consciousness, they may choose for their own reasons collectively, not individually, to incorporate an action as to attain your noticing.
VICKI: Their choice.
ELIAS: Their choice.
VICKI: Their creation.
ELIAS: Some creatures will choose to mass create situations to be expressing of an issue. This issue to which Michael [Mary] holds confusion is related to a very simple expression. Man, in his ever-growing attempts to be incorporating ‘better’ ways of accomplishing, chooses to be feeding animals elements that are unnatural to them. I am not expressing of your drugs! (He’s reading my mind again!) I am expressing that certain animals eat vegetation. Their expression within physical form is designed, molecularly and cellularly, to assimilate this type of energy, which is less dense than other energy. We have spoken of this previously. In this, you choose to be incorporating fleshy products to animals that do not consume this type of energy. Therefore, within a collective expression, they choose to manifest illness.
VICKI: Do you mean they were feeding those cows meat??? (Incredulously) (In reference to the ‘mad cow disease’ in England)
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: Oh! (She’s blown away)
ELIAS: It is making for ‘beefier beef!’ (Grinning)
VICKI: Wow! That’s interesting! (And stupid!) And so then they respond with this mass response.
ELIAS: You may express, within your understanding, that this may be classified as a ‘protest!’ (Grinning)
VICKI: Oh, that’s interesting!
JIM: They all got real mad!
ELIAS: They do not incorporate anger. (Smiling)
JIM: Yes. Thank you.
VICKI: Well, what good is the mass protest if nobody knows that it’s a mass protest?
ELIAS: Ah, but they do respond. They may not understand the consciousness, but the event is noticed, and also acted upon.
VICKI: So the connection between the feeding and the expression is noticed by the people that are feeding the animals?
ELIAS: Correct.” [session 85, April 10, 1996]
CATHY: “Okay, I have a question. I would like to know if my puppy is manifesting a hematoma for me so I can view my issues of personal responsibility and my belief system in modern western veterinary medicine. (Quite sarcastically, as per the norm!)
ELIAS: Which you answer for yourself already!
CATHY: It’s a little tough to widen those belief systems, obviously!
ELIAS: You draw to you those issues which you choose to be addressing.
DREW: How do you help a puppy understand it can heal itself?
ELIAS: It is unnecessary! (Somebody says ‘It’s his creation')
DREW: His creation for her understanding?
ELIAS: In part.
DREW: Could a puppy have its own issues for which it would manifest disease?
ELIAS: If choosing, yes.
CATHY: But this is in alignment with me.
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: Isn’t that nice? That’s swell!
ELIAS: This is not always the case. There are times when you shall view creatures manifesting certain developments, in cooperation in consciousness, for the benefit of individuals. This is not always the situation though, for there are also times that creatures manifest for their own reasoning. You attach negative and positive to these manifestations. The creature does not.
VICKI: Do animals manifest physically as a result of holding energy in similar manner to people?
ELIAS: At times.
VICKI: Oh. They have belief systems and they hold energy because of their belief systems???
ELIAS: I did not express that they hold belief systems! It is not necessary to hold belief systems to hold energy.
GAIL: But we as humans do that. Animals don’t.
ELIAS: Correct. Creatures manifest for many different reasons. You, within your singularity of perception, view that creatures do not manifest unless they are within alignment to human individuals and creating in conjunction with your consciousness. Creatures are consciousness. Therefore, they also manifest their own value fulfillment. They also manifest their own experience physically. They do not hold the same thought process as do you, although they do hold thought processes. They do not hold the same emotional process as do you, although they do manifest emotional processes. They also dream, as do plants, as do rocks, as does all of consciousness; cells, molecules, atoms. All consciousness manifests certain behavior.
VICKI: Why is it that so many domestic animals sleep so much?
ELIAS: Their function, within the reality that you have created cooperatively, is different from the function of creatures independent of your human species, so to speak. Therefore, it is unnecessary for waking consciousness to be focused and alert within their own creating of their environment and their situations, for you create this much for them within this cooperation. Therefore, they incorporate more subjective activity. In this manner also, they are more influenced by your consciousness objectively within manifestation, for they are engaged in subjective activity more of your time element; allowing intersection with other consciousness, you, for more of your time period.
Creatures that you view to be wild, in your terminology, occupy more of their time element, which is perceived differently than you perceive the same time element, with the creation of their environment and their circumstances and their situations. You view this to be survival. It is far beyond survival, for they actively participate in the creation of their environment, to which they innately know they are connected with and a part of. They view no separation. Therefore, they also are aware that their attention must be directed in the area of creating their reality, which is the grasses, the plains, the oceans, the land, the trees, and also the cooperation and intermingling in creation of each other. In this, they also hold the innate understanding that there is no separation of consciousness. Therefore, what you view to be the cycle of life or your food chain is merely a reconstruction of energy in exchange by consumption, incorporating the experience of one consciousness into another; which these creatures hold the awareness of, for this is their focus. This is not your focus. This is not to say that these creature’s existences are more valuable or more enlightened than yours. It is different in its direction. Your creations focus within another angle for different experiences.” [session 154, February 23, 1997]
JIM: Do our creatures all have the same choices and alignments with their parents, as to how they would choose to manifest?
ELIAS: No. Within this, they choose physical genetic encoding to parents in alignment with this, but they do not incorporate as much information as do you. It is not quite the complex situation. Creatures also manifest within different creatures from focus to focus. They may not continue within the same species, excepting for your aquatic mammals. These exchange within each other, but not within other creatures within manifestations.
VICKI: Why is that?
ELIAS: It is the choice of this manifestation of consciousness. It is also the choice in agreement of yourselves, as creating of these constructs of energy consciousness within this dimension and physical focus.
JIM: Could a giraffe choose to manifest as a dolphin?
ELIAS: No. They may choose to be manifesting as another creature, but these aquatic mammals may only be exchanging within remanifestation to each other.
JIM: So it’s a higher consciousness, so to speak, within creatures ... I don’t mean to use those terms.
ELIAS: I am disliking of this higher consciousness! It is different.
JIM: Okay, a different consciousness. I understand that.
CAROL: So the consciousness would pre-exist, such as the way wolves mate for life and geese mate for life? That consciousness would pre-exist, and then that would be a choice to manifest within that physical manifestation because of those predispositions or those intents or choices? Well, they don’t have intents.
ELIAS: Yes, they do! There is no predisposition.
CAROL: Well, speaking of it in the way we were talking before, about someone deciding to physically manifest as a physical focus and choosing the parents, that type of a situation, would that exist in a consciousness that chose to become a wolf because it wanted the experience of mating for life, as opposed to some other creatures that don’t incorporate that action?
ELIAS: A focus of essence does not manifest as a creature. A creature does not manifest as an individual of your species.
CAROL: I didn’t mean that. Maybe I said it wrong ...
ELIAS: A creature may manifest as any chosen expression within creaturehood for the experience, except aquatic mammals or humans. They are not predisposed ...
CAROL: Let me clarify that because I really want to understand this. Do they sort of know ahead of time that wolves mate for life and want that experience?
ELIAS: This is what I am expressing to you. They are not predisposed. They manifest within a direction of consciousness for that experience, yes; but they are not predisposed to this. In this, I express to you also that there is not a closed system; for if you are singularly directing your attention to a wolf ... Consciousness that has chosen to engage manifestation as a creature within this dimension physically may choose to be a bear. It may choose subsequently to be a wolf, and as it is not predisposed it may, if it is choosing, for it holds free will, choose to not mate for life. It may choose, within alignment of the mass consciousness ... which is not a belief system! But within the mass consciousness and agreement of behavior within physical focus, it may choose to align and mate for life.
CAROL: Okay. What I’m trying to understand is what reasons would they have for choosing specifically different ... Is it because they have free will, and it’s just a choice?
ELIAS: It is merely a choice of experience.” [session 173, May 11, 1997]
ELIAS: “There are new species appearing upon your planet faster than there are species that become extinct. It is not an equal exchange of replacement. It is an endeavor of creativity. Therefore, within consciousness collectively, groups of essences introduce new species quite often upon your planet. This, as with all other creations, is requiring of much concentration within energy to be creating the physical manifestation encoded with its own genetic line, which shall be new and different from every other species known to your planet.
Species that become extinct, as we have touched upon previously, choose to become extinct. This is accomplished in many different ways with the aid of other species, yours also, which has aided many creatures in becoming extinct. This is not an elimination of the species or the creature. They have chosen to be disengaging from this particular physical dimension and shall manifest within another dimension. They have served for their value fulfillment within this dimension and choose to be experiencing within another dimension; therefore becoming extinct in one and appearing within another. Some species upon your planet have become extinct in another dimension and become manifest within your dimension!” (Chuckling, and we all laugh) [session 179, June 01, 1997]
DREW: “When you refer to creatures, does that include insects?
ELIAS: Yes.
RETA: Is the highest level of creature the development of the ape?
ELIAS: In which direction do you indicate highest?
RETA: Well, I’m just trying to divide the human essence focus from a creature. I know all creatures are beautiful and all creatures are wonderful, but I was wondering ... The most developed creature, I guess on the way to being as wonderful as we are, would be, I would have thought, the ape.
ELIAS: In actuality, although these creatures hold behavior patterns quite similar in some manners to yourselves, within what you are expressing and within consciousness, to your way of thinking of development, your sea mammals would be more aligned in this area.
RETA: Oh, yeah.
MJ: Like dolphins, for example?
ELIAS: And whales.” [session 179, Jiune 19, 1997]
MARGOT: “One more question on genetics: In regard to animal genetics, although animals can manifest as any kind of species from manifestation to manifestation, would a dog, for example, actually come back as a beetle, or a cat as a bird? Don’t animals usually tend to take their manifestations within a certain species, such as four-leggeds staying within that category?
ELIAS: No.
VICKI: Are there any generals to that?
ELIAS: Within your differences of species of animals, they may choose whatever experience they are wishing. This is a manifestation of consciousness directed by you. Therefore, there are no guidelines within the action of remanifestation.” [session 191a, July 10, 1997]
JIM: “One question, returning to the concept of cancer: Dogs get cancer. Do they create their own cancer?
ELIAS: Yes.
JIM: Do they have a ... they must have subjective mind.
ELIAS: Correct.
JIM: And they make choices?
ELIAS: Correct; although not in the same direction that you create choices.
JIM: Much more limited choices?
ELIAS: They are much more simple. They do not create in the same direction that you create. Their reasoning is much more simplified.
Creatures create diseases that your species creates as a result of your species. They have acquired the ability to be creating the same disease that you create, for YOU have created it, but their reasoning is much more simplified, and in their creation they are aware that they are creating an element that shall lead to their disengagement. Therefore, they are purposefully creating this. It is merely YOUR choices that you alter the creature’s creation by interfering with its creation. It has learned to create what you create, but it does not uncreate this situation if creating a severity of it. It allows for itself to be disengaging within its creation, but your species interferes and alters the creature’s creation by introducing it to your belief systems and your medical professions.
JIM: They must have learned it all from a subjective level.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. It is within a harmony. They learn this creation within a harmony of objective and subjective.
JIM: That gives them the ability to empathize far beyond what we would think.
ELIAS: Absolutely! They view you, they connect with your creations within physical focus, and they learn your creativity!” [session 232, October 31, 1997]
SUE: “I have a question. I dealt with asthma a few years ago, and one of my two cats has asthma, and I wonder if you could tell me if there’s any connection between her problem and mine?
ELIAS: Yes.
SUE: Can you tell me anything about what the connection is?
ELIAS: It is a sympathetic expression in connection to your energy. Many times creatures that are connected to you intimately, as what you view to be or express to be pets, mirror elements within yourself. They shall reflect back to you your own creations that you create within your reality. At times, they shall be offering expressions to you for your information and noticing. At times, they may be creating of situations within themselves physically that you project outwardly – not objectively, subjectively – that you wish not to be creating within yourself, and within agreement the creature may be creating for you. They may also mirror many elements of your belief systems, of your emotion, and of your physical creations.
SUE: So I’ve not only created it in myself, but I’ve sort of created it in her as well?
ELIAS: The creature holds the choice to be creating, but you are influencing, yes.
SUE: Okay. Thank you.
CHRIS: Okay, also if she got asthma and gave it to her cat, can she make it go away then, under the same principles?
ELIAS: She did not give this to the cat. The cat chooses to be mirroring an action within the individual.
CHRIS: She’s not really projecting it?
ELIAS: Energy; but the creature holds the choice to be accepting this or not and to be creating this as a mirror action. The creature also holds the choice to continue or to not continue within this action. Therefore, although you are influencing, you are not creating the situation, and if you are influencing of yourself and uncreating or affecting of your own situation, the creature may be choosing to be mirroring this also. Creatures often mirror your own fascinations and your own creations, and as you lend energy to these they continue to be creating of these elements, and as you are not lending energy they also allow the dissipation of the creation ... as you are familiar, Shynla! (Grinning) For you are quite adept at this creating, are you not??
CATHY: Yes, I am. I’m very adept at it. I do it very well, thank you.
ELIAS: Excellently! Perfectly! (Much laughter)
CATHY: You got it. Is there any other way?
ELIAS: Absolutely not!
JIM: So that’s what would follow through with my dog as well, with the lesion that we had discussed a few weeks ago?
ELIAS: Correct.
JIM: The fact now that I’m paying less attention to it ... he’s still bothering it. It’s still evident. Have I not allowed that to fully let go yet?
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: Although the dog may choose to have the lesion regardless.
ELIAS: Quite!
JIM: That’s true, no matter what.
ELIAS: Absolutely!
JIM: And my acceptance of that....
ELIAS: Absolutely! Acceptance, acceptance, acceptance! (Jim sighs deeply and we all crack up, as we’ve been observing Jim deal with this issue for quite some time now)
BOBBI: Why would they choose to do that? Just helpfulness?
ELIAS: Not always. At times, they are merely mirroring you. It is an energy exchange. You are continuously influencing within energy of all things.
BOBBI: So they just pick up on that?
ELIAS: At times they are choosing to be manifesting certain elements for your noticing and in helpfulness within information to you, but at times they are merely accepting of your energy and influence and creating accordingly.
I have expressed to you many times, every action that you create is influencing of ALL of consciousness. This presents itself evidently within individuals and creatures objectively close to you, that you may hold evidence of your affectingness.” [session 246, November 30, 1997]
DON: “Is it possible that this huge power of the sexual experience is part of the reason we’ve built up all these taboos about it? Do we fear it? Do we feel that we’re close to something, and build up fears and taboos?
ELIAS: Absolutely. (Don says something inaudible here) Absolutely. It is creating of much fearfulness, for it is an expression unbounded of yourself within physical focus which holds MUCH powerfulness.
DON: So maybe that’s the reason that humans and animals have such a different reaction to sex? Because animals don’t feel that power that we feel. For them, there’s no aspect to sex other than the physical aspect.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. Your creatures also do not hold belief systems. Therefore, they do not place judgments upon their sexual activity. But look to your creatures. They display tremendous ritual, and they also are accepting of their sexual actions. They place no belief systems and judgments upon them. They accept them for what they are. They do not hold quite the same action as do you, for they are not responding within their sexual orientation to elements of essence as are you, but they hold less difficulties and conflicts than do you, for they do not hold the belief systems. They also hold intimacy.
DON: Are a lot of our belief systems built on fears that we will experience coming too close to something that’s essentially true?
ELIAS: Correct.
DON: And animals can’t experience that, so they couldn’t develop belief systems.
ELIAS: They have not been created in this manner. Your creatures are not essence. Therefore, they have not been created in a manner that you endow them with all of your belief systems. This is not necessarily limiting of them. In many aspects, they experience more freedom than you allow yourselves.
DON: There’s not much correlation. You look at dolphins and other very intelligent animals, and there’s really not much evidence that they develop any of the belief systems that we have.
ELIAS: No.
DON: So I guess my question is – what I’m trying to get to is – is there a direct correlation between the fact that we are central creatures and that we do develop belief systems? Are the two related? I mean, are we fighting ourselves in that way?
ELIAS: Yes, you are conflicting yourselves, but you are conflicting yourselves within your belief systems. You are limiting yourselves within your belief systems. You are no closer to consciousness than a dolphin. A creature merely holds no fearfulness of consciousness, for it has not separated itself as far from consciousness. There is an allowance of more subjective activity within creatures, for they do not block their subjective interaction. You hold fearfulness of what you term to be unknown; that which you have separated from, that which you do not remember.
DON: Is it because we do remember it on some level that we’re fearful of it?
ELIAS: No. It is that you have forgotten, and THIS creates the fearfulness; but as you move into a remembrance, the fearfulness dissipates.
HELEN: In other words, our belief systems are what keep us at a distance from our essence, so we can have purity of experience ...
ELIAS: Correct.
HELEN: ... in physical focus, and that’s why they were developed in the first place?
ELIAS: Correct; but it is becoming unnecessary for this separation. Therefore, you create this shift in consciousness to be exploring new aspects of your reality, incorporating more of your remembrance and of essence.
HELEN: And less belief systems.
ELIAS: Less separation.
HELEN: Less separation. But belief systems create the separation.
ELIAS: In accepting the belief systems, you create less separation.” [session 255, January 04, 1998]
SUE: “One question about my cat having asthma. One thing I realized after we talked about it a few weeks ago was that I tend to give her a lot of attention when she starts coughing, and I realized that I might be reinforcing her doing that. I’m still giving her the medicine that she appears to need, but I’m trying to ignore her when she coughs. Is that likely to make any difference in her having this?
ELIAS: As you reinforce, it shall continue to be created. It is being created in sympathetic action and agreement to yourself. As you do not reinforce your OWN need for attention within this area and you also do not reinforce this action with the creature, you do not concentrate upon this action as much and you do not lend energy to the perpetuation of its creation.
SUE: Okay. I thought it was probably better to not pay attention to her when she did it, but at times I felt like I was being mean to her, so I wasn’t sure whether....
ELIAS: You are also reinforcing your OWN belief systems within a mirror action in continuing this action. In this act, you are offering yourself a viewing of your own expectations and wantings within this focus. You are desiring of nurturing and affection and closeness; attention. Therefore, as the creature mirrors your action to you, you give to the creature what you are seeking yourself, but you are also perpetuating the creation.
SUE: Right. I feel guilty about her because she was always very playful, and the asthma slows her down and makes her quieter. I feel bad, as if I created this in her by wanting her to be less playful. Not that I mind her playing, but it annoyed me that she wanted me to play with her all the time.
ELIAS: This creature has created this action, this ailment, this constriction as an offering to YOU, in agreement and compliance with no expectation. It has offered this action to you, that you may view the very many elements of your own belief systems which cause you conflict. Therefore, it is unnecessary for you to engage guilt!
SUE: Thank you. That makes me feel better.” [session 256, January 10, 1998]
ELIAS: “Very well. This evening, shall we enter our discussion of your creatures? (Cathy mutters something in frustration here because she had stated before the session that she wasn’t prepared for this subject, and so we had chosen another) This being one of the topics that you have suggested that you are wishing to be discussing!
CATHY: So, why would a dog attack somebody in a coma? (Laughter)
ELIAS: (Grinning) Why would a creature be attacking of an individual which appears to be non-threatening? For within your belief systems, you believe that an animal shall only be attacking if it is being threatened or what you view to be as fearful or in defense of itself, for this is your belief system, within a lack of understanding of the consciousness of creatures. As I have stated previously, domesticated animals hold slight differences in consciousness than other creatures, for they are more influenced by your consciousness. Therefore, they also assume aspects of your consciousness. You with your belief systems are also influencing of them. You are also influencing of them within your thoughts and your emotions.
Consciousness transmits energy regardless of the physical state. I have expressed previously that the state of a coma is merely a removal of partial subjective interaction – a partial removal of the objective interaction also – but there remains an aspect of the subjective interaction with the individual choosing to be in the state of coma. Therefore, there continues a certain amount of subjective communication. The individual holds an awareness partially objectively also. This be the reason that your physicians may suggest to you that an individual within this state may hear you and also may respond to you. They also within this state hold the ability to be communicating subjectively.
Creatures receive more of their communication with you as individuals subjectively than they do objectively. They process information more efficiently subjectively. Therefore, a communication may be presented by an individual within this state of coma subjectively, and it may be received by a creature and responded to.
CATHY: So this was a subjective communication from this person saying....
RON: ‘Bite me!’
CATHY: Yeah!
ELIAS: It is a response to subjective communication.
CATHY: An automatic response by the dog?
ELIAS: Your view of automatic response by an animal is filtered through your belief systems. You understand that the animals do not think in terms that you think – they do not think in language as you think – although they do think! Their thought process is different from yours, but they do hold a thought process. This allows them also more vivid dream action.
CATHY: So, was it like an impulse?
ELIAS: It was a RESPONSE.
VICKI: What kind of subjective communication was occurring to initiate the response?
ELIAS: Agitation.
VICKI: On the part of the individual?
ELIAS: Correct, which is connected to by the creature and responded to. You view examples of your creatures which you view as pets responding to your subjective activity and your objective activity continuously. Your creatures also respond to your belief systems. They respond to your moods.
CATHY: I have a hard time with that one ’cause I know I’ve been in some raunchy moods sometimes and have gotten some very good dog work out of some very what I call sensitive dogs. Of course, I do have a belief system that some dogs are more in tune, so to speak, with me than others, but I KNOW. I’ve had the experience too many times of being in a total state of anxiety and still pulling stuff off, and that’s why this doesn’t make sense to me.
ELIAS: I am not expressing that a creature that is not your pet shall be responding to all of your moods. They SHALL respond to your belief systems. Also, your creature that resides with you shall respond to your belief systems despite your moods, at times.
CATHY: So they create things with intentions, but they don’t have belief systems?
ELIAS: Creatures do not hold an intent as you hold an intent.
CATHY: Well, I didn’t mean that. I just mean, if they’re chewing on themselves or licking their paws or something I quote/unquote call a neurotic behavior, are they doing that because I’m bouncing something off them or because of my subjective activity or because that’s just what they want to create ’cause they create their own reality or....
ELIAS: It is dependent upon the creature. At times they are creating what they wish to be creating for their own experience. At times their creations are very influenced by your belief systems. They may be creating of an event or an action, and may also respond differently within their own creation dependent upon YOUR belief systems and the influence that you project to them.
VICKI: I have a question. You said that we have belief systems that creatures attack us because they feel threatened. Is this the reality of the situation?
ELIAS: Not always.
VICKI: What is the reality of the situation?
ELIAS: At times they may be merely responding to your energy and to your belief systems.
VICKI: Would that be something that a person would normally be objectively aware of?
ELIAS: No; although in a manner of speaking, individuals at times DO hold a partial awareness of this. Example: An individual may be walking upon their road. They hold a tremendous fear of an animal, that it shall be aggressive to them and that it shall attack them – a dog. A dog appears, but within this creature its nature is not to be attacking this individual. As it approaches this individual, the individual is creating their own reality within their belief systems and fear and is projecting this energy to this creature, which is subjectively received and responded to, and this creature that may not ever bite another individual ever may suddenly alter its behavior and be attacking of this individual within a cooperation. It has not been threatened. It is not fearful. It is merely responding to the energy projected by the individual within their fears and their belief systems.
VICKI: So that’s kind of where we get the old saying that dogs smell fear? They do respond to fear?
ELIAS: To YOUR fear.
VICKI: Right. Well, I’d like to ask a personal question in this area so I can understand better. I’ve taken care of a lot of people’s animals, animals that I don’t know, and I’ve never had any problem with those animals. So, I’ve had a lot of experience in this area. One time I was taking care of an animal for Cathy, which I’ve also done a lot of times. This particular animal responded to me with fear. It didn’t attack me, but it did bark at me. It did growl at me. It would not let me approach it. It took me forever to contain it the way that I needed to contain it, and I’ve always been real curious as to what happened that day because it was a singular experience.
ELIAS: As I have stated, creatures are more complex than you realize and they do create their own realities also, and at times they also experience the same types of experiences in bleed-through as do you, therefore creating differences in their behaviors and their personalities ... which they hold personalities! In this, at times certain creatures may become more sensitive to individuals in recognizing certain bleed-through actions.
(Here, Elias turns and grins at Cathy) This shall be a session that Shynla [Cathy] shall mirror Michael [Mary] and not be repeating! There are areas for you all that you find objectively very difficult, but this is not to say that they are not truthful.
At times, certain animals may be responding within bleed-through action of a recognition; not in the manner that you recognize within thought processes, objectively knowing, but they may be responding to a certain individual in certain manners, holding a subjective recognition of another focus. They hold the same action that you hold, although they are not of essence; but they are also your creations. Therefore, subjectively they do hold much information within consciousness as to focuses and actions.
Within THIS situation, the creature is responding outside of your belief systems and challenging in recognition, in bleed-through of another focus NOT as a dog, and interaction that has been held between you.
VICKI: Really! That’s interesting. Do you buy that one, Cathy??
CATHY: Would that dog have done the same thing to me if I would have gone in at the same time that Vicki did and approached the dog? Would I have gotten the same reaction?
ELIAS: No.
CATHY: Because he was familiar with me?
ELIAS: For the reason that this would not be the same bleed-through action and recognition.
VICKI: So in other words, it’s possible that in another focus I had an interaction with this animal ... say, it might have been a bear.
ELIAS: A horse.
VICKI: Oh, it was a horse, and that’s what was being responded to?
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: Huh!
CATHY: Hmm!
ELIAS: Your interaction with horses has not always been the same as it is within THIS focus.
VICKI: Hmm!
ELIAS: Not quite as loving! (Grinning)
VICKI: Oh! (Laughing)
NORM: We’re talking about karma here!
ELIAS: Not at all! It is merely a response in a recognition.
VICKI: Yeah, I didn’t think animals responded to that.
ELIAS: (To Cathy) Just as I have expressed to you previously in your inquiry of why your little dog responds to clicking sounds.
CATHY: Then tell me why she doesn’t do that any more!
ELIAS: It is unnecessary.
CATHY: (With a hint of sarcasm) Why? Because she moved through something?? (Elias stares at Cathy with his famous ‘Oh brother’ look) Ooo! (Much laughter)
ELIAS: I may be playful if you wish to be playful, and we may discuss another subject! (Laughter) The creature need not ‘move through’ a belief system or an issue, for it does not hold these.
CATHY: So it was myself?
ELIAS: No.
CATHY: Then why is she not irritated? Because the other dog’s doing it now? Because he is!
ELIAS: The dog held a temporary response for the reason that I offered you: in response to another focus and the similar clicking sound. The dog moves to a point of non-allowance of this bleed-through action in recognition that this is not the same action occurring. It does not hold a thought process as do you. It does think, but not in the same manner that you think. Therefore, it does not analyze and evaluate that this sound is occurring and it is responding to the sound from the bleed-through. It does not analyze this action; it merely responds. Therefore, as it becomes accustomed to this sound and the safety of the sound, that no action occurs to it in harmfulness as suggested by the bleed-through, it becomes comfortable.
CATHY: So this was HER bleed-through of another animal she was manifest as, correct?
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: Okay, so why does the other dog do it? Is it the same thing?
ELIAS: This is a response to you.
CATHY: A response to me.
ELIAS: Correct, and your belief systems.
CATHY: But I’m not even thinking about anything! I mean, I’m doing something at the computer and I go to pop something open and bang! He’s like right there! That’s in response to something that I’m thinking subjectively, that I’m....
ELIAS: No. This is in response to your belief systems; which it is unnecessary for you to hold continuous objective thought! Your belief systems hold energy and are projected continuously. You hold a judgment which creates a belief system as to the personality type of this animal, and it is responsive to your belief systems and the energy that you project. It is your term for these creatures, this creature. It is neurotic! (Laughter) Therefore, it responds in like manner to you.
CATHY: Yeah, but ... (we all crack up) ... but before I was objectively aware that this dog reacted this way to certain noises ... the only thing I have to go by is that the noise happens and I see the dog just beside himself, you know? And so each time I see that, I just reinforce it and make it like something he’s just always going to always keep doing because I believe that’s what he’s going to do? So in response to me.... (Cathy is getting frustrated)
ELIAS: He may discontinue THIS action and create ANOTHER action in a neurosis!
CATHY: Well then, let me ask you this! What would I do or not do, or attempt, either one, to possibly make this dog more comfortable?
ELIAS: Allow yourself to hold less value judgments, and relax your very strong belief systems in the area of these animals. You hold VERY strong belief systems and VERY strong judgments in this area.
CATHY: Yes, I do! I’m not going to argue that point, and I’ll tell you that I’ve put that dog in situations where I thought, ‘Oh, this ought to be really good!’ And I know I’m thinking, ‘Oh, he’s just going to flip on this one!’ No response! So you see how I can’t figure it out? This dog has been the biggest I-can’t-figure-out-dog I’ve ever been around in my life! And I know I’ve drawn to him for some reason, but I just can’t figure it out! (Vic’s note: Cathy is an animal trainer in the film industry, so she works with animals she doesn’t know on a regular basis)
ELIAS: And does this not seem quite simple to you? You have drawn to this animal to be challenging of your belief systems, for it displays behavior that is not predictable.
CATHY: You have that right!
ELIAS: Therefore, this offers you the opportunity to challenge these belief systems.
CATHY: Oh boy! ’Cause I’ll tell you, this is one dog I have not been able to ... I use the term ‘get in his head.’ Haven’t been there, so it’s all ... well, I’m not surprised that I’d be drawn to this dog! Okay, somebody else ask a question! I’m going to take a rest! (Laughter, and Elias chuckles)
RETA: How about the dogs and cats in our lives? Have they been other animals in other focuses of our lives sometimes?
ELIAS: At times, yes.
RETA: For instance, I had a dog that I really loved in California. It was the smartest little dog! We moved to New Jersey, and the dog kept wanting to go home. It kept running away, coming back to California. Was that because I wanted to be there?
ELIAS: At times, this may be the situation. For the most part, this is a natural behavior that creatures create. Within physical focus they hold to familiarity as YOU hold to familiarity, but you challenge your familiarity and you explore beyond what is familiar to you, for you are inspired to this action, being essence. The creatures are not essence. Therefore, within physical manifestation of consciousness, it holds to its familiarity in a physical focus very strongly.
RETA: Well, our cats just circled and pretty soon they were familiar, but the dog just wanted to go. It finally was found by a trucker quite a few hundred miles away. But I just wondered if it was my thought-pattern, wanting to be back in California.
ELIAS: This may be quite influencing.
NORM: This particular dog appeared to talk to Reta. It would actually growl and whine and come up and look ... you’d swear that it was actually talking to her. This was most unusual, the first time I’ve ever seen anything like that. What kind of a response is that?
ELIAS: In actuality, this is more common that you realize. Many creatures that are domesticated, that reside with individuals as pets, attempt to be establishing a communication objectively with the individuals that they reside [with].
NORM: Recently, in fact I think it was today, I was reading an article about a football player who was extremely aggressive. He had owned pit bulls and they mauled his children. Now, the pit bull was obviously bred by us or created by us to be extremely aggressive. So, the mauling of the children could have been, as you say, any of the actions that you’ve talked about today, and it could have been that it was an experience that the pit bulls were wanting to have?
ELIAS: These situations I have spoken of previously. These situations are VERY influenced by the individuals that reside with the creatures. Creatures are responding to the emotion and issues of the individuals [with] which they live.
NORM: For example, elephants have been used by the rajahs of India as war elephants, and they can be trained to respond to thirty different commands by the rider of the elephant. So in this case, they are really being taught to do things that are not normally in their nature?
ELIAS: Correct; but creatures are, in your terms, much more intelligent than you allow for them.
KAAN: Elias, I have a question. First of all, very nice to meet you in objective terms! I had a creature event that I could not understand the meaning of that I drew upon myself. I was driving very late one night from one state to another, and was reviewing some of my fears. In association with these fears, the idea came that somehow in the Chinese system, my birth year was associated with rabbits. This wasn’t a pleasant idea and I especially associated with these fears, but I sort of tried to accept them and thought, ‘What if that’s the case? What if these fears are like that?’ and tried to see through them. As I was working with this, accepting those fears that were coming, a rabbit rushed by from the side of the road and basically died on the right front tire of the car. To this date, I don’t remember consciously running over an animal. It was in the middle of nowhere. Obviously this was an event that I drew upon myself. However, I could not interpret it. I wanted to do some interpretation, saying, ‘Well, this is how rabbit characters die, with these types of fears.’ I couldn’t interpret it, but I wanted to ask your opinion on it.
ELIAS: As I have stated, creatures are of your creation. Therefore, you may draw upon these creations at different moments to be offering yourself objective imagery in situations and they shall be in cooperation, recognizing that they are not separated from you. You look to yourselves as separated from nature, as you term it, and from each other and from all of your creatures, but they hold an understanding that they are not separated from you. Therefore, in this knowing they may be in cooperation with you in consciousness, holding no fearfulness of what you term to be death.
Creatures hold no fearfulness of death. Therefore, it matters not, for they also hold an understanding that at the moment of what you term to be death, the energy of their consciousness shall merely reconfigure and rearrange itself. In this, they may be drawn by you in cooperation, to offer you objective imagery for your own noticing and information. The rabbit offers itself as imagery to you, in your attempt for movement in the issue of fearfulness, as a symbol to be putting an end to the fearfulness, for you view death as an ending.
KAAN: Thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome. This is not ALWAYS the situation. You may be terminating, so to speak, (grinning) small creatures’ little lives with your carriages or other instruments many times. This is not to say that each squirrel that you are moving over and ending their little life – or each chipmunk or each rabbit or each possum or skunk or what have you – is always an example of this, but this particular situation IS an example of this.
KAAN: Yes. Because of the intensity of the experience, there was an understanding. However, the final point that you made was never clear in my mind, that it could be taken as a symbol of that. It was obvious that I drew upon this and I was saying something, but I couldn’t interpret my message in that sense. Thank you.
The other thing is, in the line that you’re developing about the creatures, I have followed some information from another source a while back about animals, so I want to run that by you, in terms of each creature having their own line of evolution and being a particular flavor-type or essence-type or whatever, and basically having their own evolution that is independent of us on this earth, with the exception of possibly those pets that are interacting more heavily with us ... not like us, being individualized, but a more collective form. And when they’re dying, for instance, they’re not living through the final moment of death in the body but jumping into another instance of an animal life immediately, and not experiencing physical death in the body in the way that we may be experiencing. So, is that correct?
ELIAS: I am understanding. In a manner of speaking, yes, you are correct, for a creature is not requiring a period of transition in their movement within consciousness. They merely reconstruct and reconfigure the energy pattern. It is unnecessary for a transitional period, for they do not hold belief systems.
KAAN: What is the essential difference in their inner construction that sets us apart from their type of development? Obviously we’re working with belief systems, but the modality of their consciousness being different, can it be described in other terms that we can understand?
ELIAS: They are not essence. They are created of consciousness. They hold their own consciousness, but they are not of essence. They are a creation that YOU have created, being essence, from consciousness, but they do not hold essence. Therefore, they also do not hold belief systems. This is not to say that essence holds belief systems, but within physical focus you have created certain experiences that you choose.
Creatures, your planet, your vegetation, may all be viewed as tentacles of you. Your finger does not think, but it responds to you. At times, your finger may hold an automatic response. It may twitch. In like manner, all that you have created within physical focus are as tentacles extending out from you. Certain tentacles you assign certain qualities to, mirroring you.
KAAN: So in other realities, they may actually display different qualities?
ELIAS: Absolutely! They may not BE creatures!
KAAN: But their context is strictly related to the intentions of the essence, and within that they don’t exist, in some sense?
ELIAS: Correct.
SUE: It seems to me that there was a mass belief system that cats and dogs hated each other and would chase each other and fight, and it seems to me that this is not as commonly accepted as it used to be, and also that cats and dogs don’t respond to each other in that way as much as they used to. Is that correct? Is that an example of a belief system, a mass belief system, that’s changed?
ELIAS: Correct, and you may also view how your mass belief systems are affecting of your creatures and their behavior.
SUE: When I got my first cat, I got her as a kitten. She was part of a litter of six kittens. I took some time deciding between her and a sister who looked very similar, and finally I picked this one. Somehow I’ve always had the feeling that it didn’t really matter which one I picked, that I would have ended up with the same cat no matter which of the two physical animals I chose. Is there any truth in that?
ELIAS: The response of the creature to you would have been the same.
SUE: Okay. I think that’s what I suspected.
ELIAS: The personalities would have been slightly different, but the response to you would have been the same.
SUE: Also, there is a squirrel that lives in the tree next to my balcony, and in the past six months or a year I’ve started feeding peanuts to the squirrel and taking interest in the squirrel, and the squirrel shows less fear of me than he used to and probably less than he should, for safety reasons for a squirrel ... not that I’m going to do anything to him! I was just curious why this occurred, if there’s any reason for it. I guess I really want to know what the squirrel thinks of me, if there’s any way of knowing that.
ELIAS: Many times, creatures that you view to be wild – undomesticated creatures – shall present themselves to individuals as an offering. It allows you the opportunity to feel less separated from that element which you view to be nature, which you view yourself to be separated from.
SUE: Okay. So as I started growing more plants on my balcony and getting that connection with nature, I suppose the squirrel also responded to that?
ELIAS: Correct. It is responding to YOU.
VICKI: I have a question about how animals think. I had an experience where I was medicating one of my cats, which the cat didn’t like. What I found interesting was that the cat started to bite me, and I know that it was an automatic response on the cat’s part. It stopped itself as it got to my finger. It was very clear that there was an automatic response that was stopped on the part of the animal. I’m curious what that indicates about how they think.
ELIAS: You are assuming that the creature is merely responding automatically.
VICKI: Okay. Yeah, I am.
ELIAS: Therefore, you are also intrigued that it displays non-automatic response. The creature is not responding within what you believe to be an automatic response. You merely BELIEVE within your belief systems that creatures hold automatic responses, for they do not think; they function through instinct. YOU function through instinct! We have discussed this previously. Instinct is not what you THINK it may be.
The creature is responding in offering YOU its desire. It is responding in its manner of communication to you. It does not communicate with you within language. Therefore, it is communicating to you in what you shall understand: ‘I am in disagreement with this action.’ But it also is responding to you in not following through with this action, recognizing that the follow-through of the action is not necessary. It has made its point.
VICKI: Hmm!
ELIAS: It wishes not to be harmful to you, but it also wishes to be in communication to you. Your creatures communicate to you continuously within actions. Their thought, so to speak, is translated into a type of sign language.
VICKI: Well, my immediate thought after that is, that being the case, it’s a pretty lousy thing for me to continue my action with a creature under those circumstances.
ELIAS: But you hold belief systems in these areas.
VICKI: Yeah, that’s where that comes from.
ELIAS: You hold belief systems that you must be affecting of your creatures’ creations, that they have not created this through their choice, in the same manner that you ‘catch’ a cold! (Grinning)
VICKI: Yeah, I understand that part, but it’s interesting to think about that action as not an automatic response but as a language that basically I didn’t respond to, that probably many of us don’t respond to.
ELIAS: Quite, for you are operating within your belief systems and you are not listening or noticing the communication, for you are blocking that and blinding yourself to this within your belief systems.
VICKI: Interesting. So conceivably then, were I to accept that particular belief system and be responding outside of it, I would no longer have medicated the cat?
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: I get it.
ELIAS: You would be accepting of the creature’s creation and its communication to you.
VICKI: On the other hand, if I stop medicating the creature but continue to hold the belief system, that’s different.
ELIAS: You may be influencing of the perpetuation of the creation, for you continue to hold the belief system and you are avoiding.
VICKI: Hmm. That’s interesting.
DREW: ... So now let’s take this back to Vicki’s example of the cat. The cat holds no belief systems. Any action that Vicki would have with this cat could only be by agreement.
ELIAS: In one layer of consciousness. The agreement may not be objectively.
DREW: Well, if the cat holds no belief systems, what would cause the cat to see itself as a victim of displeasurable action?
ELIAS: It is not viewing itself as a victim. It is recognizing of its creation of its reality, and it is merely responding to its own desire to be creating its reality.
DREW: Which it is!
ELIAS: But the individual is attempting to alter its creation of its reality. Not all creatures may be responding in this manner. You may be attempting to alter a creature’s reality by offering it medication, as you have stated, and it shall be compliant with this if it is objectively in agreement with your action. If it is choosing to be creating of a specific event or experience and YOU through your belief systems are attempting to alter its creation, it MAY choose to comply with you, but it may choose initially to voice its opinion of its own creation.
DREW: If we all create our own reality – and if this is different for animals, that might be the distinction or why I’m getting confused – how can you alter someone else’s reality??
ELIAS: You may alter a creature’s reality. You may alter a plant’s reality. They are not essence.
DREW: But don’t they only draw to themselves the action by agreement? I don’t understand this. This doesn’t make sense. I’m totally lost here, because if I step on a bug and crush it, isn’t that only by agreement?
ELIAS: Not in the manner that you are thinking.
DREW: Subjectively.
ELIAS: Not entirely subjectively either. In another layer of consciousness, yes, it is an agreement, for every action is an agreement in another layer of consciousness. They agree to exist. Consciousness itself agrees to configure. It agrees to exist within a physical reality. It agrees to interact. But you are creating your reality spontaneously within each moment. Therefore, the idea that you hold of agreement to incidents or events is not the same as your thought process magnates to.
Consciousness agrees to experience. Therefore, in THIS respect, there is no right, there is no wrong, there are no victims, there are no perpetrators, there is no good, there is no bad. But within each individual dimension and reality, YOU choose the types of experiences. (Pause)
DREW: Well, I think that’s exactly my point. Let’s take it out of the realm of animals for a second, because that may be a distinction. That may be the difference. If I create my own reality, nobody in this room and nobody I interact with at any point in my life can alter my reality in any way that I don’t choose for them to do it.
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: Okay. Is that true with animals as well?
ELIAS: No.
DREW: Okay. So I just want to make sure I understand this, at least in terms of other individuals. If Stephen [Norm] were to get up and punch me in the nose, he could not do that unless I chose that as part of my reality.
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: He could not alter my reality in any way I choose him not to.
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: Not so with an animal.
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: ... Can we follow up the conversation where we left off at break?
ELIAS: If you are so choosing.
DREW: If it is possible to be altering of the reality that an animal chooses and if it is possible for an animal to experience action that it has not necessarily agreed to, then what does that say to an animal’s freedom of choice?
ELIAS: The creature holds the freedom of choice. If the creature wishes you completely to not be altering its creation, if it is in complete disagreement, it shall remove itself from you. It shall not allow you to alter its reality.
SUE: So it will run away or die?
ELIAS: Correct, or it may be forcefully communicating to you. It may be attacking and not allowing you to be altering its creation. It may not remove itself completely if it so chooses, if it is choosing to continue to be within your presence, but it shall create an action that shall prevent you from altering its creation.
DREW: So then it’s NOT possible to alter the reality of a creature if it’s not choosing then?
ELIAS: If it is not in complete agreement; but you may be altering the reality that a creature is choosing within your belief systems as they are dictated by you, and the creature may not be in agreement with this initially and it may be expressing of this, but it may also be choosing to alter its disagreement with you in compliance with you. The creature DOES create its own reality also.
KAAN: On that point, if we use more of our own essence within physicality or objective reality, would we have an overruling power or entry in changing creatures’ realities just because we are accessing a deeper layer of consciousness in which we have even allowed the process of its own choosing to take place?
ELIAS: You have created your creatures to be developing their own choice and their own free will, as you have stated. Initially, this was not the case. Initially, you were creating all actions for these creatures and dictating to them their reality, but in this dimension you have created the reality of allowance of these creatures to be creating of their OWN reality. Therefore now, and for much of your time framework, they are creating of their own reality. They are creating this independent of you, in a manner of speaking, but they also continue their connection with you. Therefore, they also continue to allow you to be very influencing of their creating of their reality.
KAAN: But that level is not ordinarily accessible in the objective state that we know ourselves, where we can override.
ELIAS: Objectively, you ARE quite influencing. Objectively, many times you DO override their creation of their reality, for they are creating of an action that you may be in disagreement with. Therefore, you shall impose YOUR energy and belief systems upon them and alter their behavior.
KAAN: So would confining wild horses be an objective example?
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: But those horses couldn’t be confined unless they agreed to the experience.
ELIAS: (Humorously) We are going to ride this hamster wheel for quite a while tonight! (Much laughter)
DREW: It seems like a fairly important concept because on the one hand, I’m hearing yes, you can alter their reality. On the other hand, I’m hearing they have free choice and they can do whatever they want. So I’m a little confused about which it is.
ELIAS: It is BOTH.
DREW: It is both. Could wild horses be corralled if they hadn’t chosen to be?
ELIAS: They do not objectively choose to be!
DREW: Understood. I understand that. I’m talking about on a subjective level.
ELIAS: No; but objectively they do NOT choose to be, and you impose YOUR belief systems upon them.
The point of all of this discussion is to allow you the opportunity to view more of your reality, therefore hold a greater understanding of acceptance. By identifying your belief systems and how they are affecting of not only yourselves and each other but of your creatures and of all that you create, you may also view how you are subjecting other elements of your reality to your belief systems also, and the affectingness of these belief systems. You have not quite identified that you even HOLD belief systems in many areas. Therefore, how may you be affecting of certain elements if you do not hold a belief system in this area? How may you widen your awareness if you may not even identify that you hold belief systems? In offering this information, this provides you the opportunity to view more of your belief systems and how they are influencing and affecting of all of your reality that you create.
DREW: Okay, I’ll let it go for now! (Laughter)
VICKI: Wouldn’t this be the same if Drew attempts to alter my reality? I have a choice at that point whether or not to allow that?
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: Isn’t it pretty much the same?
ELIAS: Very much the same.
DREW: Except it’s different! (Laughter)
ELIAS: There IS a difference, correct.
DREW: Because you said it IS possible to alter a creature’s reality, but not another individual’s reality.
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: So there IS a difference, and that seems like a fairly important difference to me.
ELIAS: You are correct, for you may alter a creature’s reality in areas that you may not with another individual; this being for the reason that YOU have created YOUR reality differently, as being essence, in the same manner that you may choose an action for yourself. In like manner to our tentacles, you may create an action for yourself. You may choose to cut off your finger. Your finger is not choosing to be cut off, but you are choosing for your finger. Your creatures are an element of you. You MAY alter their reality. You have altered the reality of your finger if you are cutting it off. You have disengaged it from your physical form. It is not your finger’s choice, and your finger holds consciousness, and you have altered its reality.
VICKI: Would we find that wild animals are probably less compliant with our altering of their reality than our domestic animals?
ELIAS: You are correct. You do not interact objectively to the extent with what you term to be wild animals. Therefore, you allow them more of a freedom to be creating their own reality in the manner that they choose.
DREW: If animals don’t fear death, why, for example, do zebras run when a lion attacks the herd?
ELIAS: There are several reasons for this action. The manner that you have created your creatures in mirrors elements of yourself and the manner that you have created your own physical forms. Within this particular dimension, one of the aspects of your physical creation which also mirrors an aspect of essence is movement. All of your creatures move. You move. Within your physical form, you require movement for its functioning. As you view, if you are not engaging movement for extended periods of your time, your physical form begins to deteriorate. The manner that you have created your creatures in some respects mirrors this, but they do not hold the thought processes that you hold. Therefore, they do not hold the motivation for movement as do you.
In this, look to your creatures. They engage more subjective activity than objective. Look to the behavior of very many of your species of creatures and how much of their physical time they spend sleeping, which they do. They spend MUCH of their time sleeping. Therefore, as they have been created to be subjectively interacting more than objective interaction, you have created a design for movement. Be remembering, this is ONE reason. In this, there is a need for motivation for movement. Your herd animals, which are mainly grazing animals, which are mainly prey animals, spend much of their time framework grazing and sleeping. Your predator animals spend much of their time merely sleeping. Therefore, within the action of movement, it is motivating for your predator to be engaging the action of catching its prey, which serves as physical motion that continues their physical form in its fitness, so to speak. They may not chase a prey that merely stands. There shall be nothing to catch if they are chasing a tree! Therefore, it is a cooperation between the predator and the prey, that one shall receive its motion in pursuit and one shall receive much of its motion in retreat.
DREW: So that whole action of a lion chasing a herd is basically for the exercise?
ELIAS: In many respects, yes.
DREW: Huh!
ELIAS: A lion shall not motivate itself to move very much if it is not in pursuit, and it shall not be in pursuit if it is not feeding itself. A lion may lay about for days and not be consuming and not be moving.
DREW: Interesting!
KAAN: So there is no element of fearfulness while the animal is being chased? The experience of the animal is nothing close to our fear?
ELIAS: No.
VICKI: It’s not??
ELIAS: No. There IS a type of emotional responsiveness, but it is not what you would be understanding in the area of fearfulness. There is a bond of community and family within these creatures and therefore there is an element of emotional involvement, but it is not fear in the manner that you view fear.
KAAN: When we look in the animal’s eyes, there is something we recognize in that base emotion, though. As a fearful person’s eyes will change in a pretty good manner, the animals’ eyes will also change upon danger, in which we can recognize the same base emotion. Now, we do label that fear.
ELIAS: Correct.
KAAN: But in them, that’s not how it is. So, we must be experiencing that base feeling, even though on top of it fear and other belief systems are tagged on. Is that correct?
ELIAS: Correct. (Here, Cathy and Vic start talking at the same time)
VICKI: (To Cathy) Go ahead!
CATHY: Domestic animals, do they have fear?
ELIAS: Domestic animals acquire an element of fear, which is in response to what they learn from you.
CATHY: So I’m correct in my assessment of a certain dog that I believe has been trained through fear, and that’s the only way he knows how to work.
ELIAS: There are some creatures that you interact with which have been domesticated that LEARN fear. They learn this from YOU.
CATHY: Right, and so actually, their motivation to work is fear.
ELIAS: It is an acquired emotion.
CATHY: I understand this. So, I am correct.
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: There are a lot of animals that their motivation to work is fear.
ELIAS: Correct.
BOBBI: So could they pick up that fear, not particularly by an interactive experience of fearfulness? I’m thinking particularly of a situation where my cat was out all night. That particular night, I saw a coyote in the backyard. I figured, ‘That’s it, she’s gone.’ She came in the next morning and stayed in the house hiding for the next three days, to me seeming very fearful. Was she picking up on my fearfulness for her, for her safety?
ELIAS: Correct.
BOBBI: Responding to that?
ELIAS: It is not necessarily an action and a response from an event. You believe within your belief systems that if you are harsh with an animal or you are violent with an animal that they are responding fearfully to the action. What they are responding to is you and your projection of fearfulness. You hold the fearfulness of the creature and its ability to be hurtful. Therefore, you rearrange this energy and project it outward to the creature and it assumes this emotion. They hold, as you have stated, the basic element, which is different. The experience of this is different. It is not fear in the manner that you experience fear within emotion, but it may BECOME a learned emotion from its interaction with you.
CATHY: This is a belief system, I know, but I have a real issue with animals that are motivated through fear to work, and so that makes it difficult for me to work one that way, but I have. I have, if that’s the only way I can figure out how to do it in the moment. But is that probably one of the reasons why I’m having a little bit of difficulty, is because I have such a big belief system in that area?
ELIAS: At times.
CATHY: But most of it is probably fear, the fear that I have myself, my fear?
ELIAS: Correct. The fear that YOU hold shall be projected to those creatures that you are very interactive with.
CATHY: When I’m speaking of my fear, I’m speaking of ... because to me in my experience, if I think a dog is going to bite me, I’m not going to push it in any manner, way, shape or form, or else I’m going to have leverage or something to where it can’t get to me. Most of the animals I’ve worked with, I don’t believe I’ve had a fear of them biting me or something like that, within what I’m asking them to do. That part was kind of confusing to me, when you were talking about the projection of fear that way. I’m talking about fear of myself and of my abilities, blah blah blah.
ELIAS: Quite; but other individuals may be interactive with your animals, and their reasoning subjectively for this treatment is that they hold the fear and they project this out to the creature, viewing that this shall be protective of themselves.
CATHY: Well, I’m not really understanding this!
VICKI: I have a question about fear and animals. I’ve had a lot of experiences with dropping a mouse in a snake cage and watching the mouse piss all over itself. If it ain’t scared, what is it?
ELIAS: It is responding in several manners. In one respect it is responding to the energy that YOU project. In another manner it is merely responding physically to the situation, which it is aware of, but its awareness is also influenced by you. Within a natural situation, a snake may come upon a mouse. The mouse shall pay little attention to the snake, for it is NOT fearful. This be the reason that so many mice are eaten by so many snakes! (Grinning) You may also view the experience of another individual who may drop a mouse into a cage with a snake, and the mouse may climb all over the snake. It is not afraid of the snake.
KAAN: Mary had a question: What is the similarity between a creature and a child which makes us approach them in a similar way at times, treat dogs like children or children like dogs in playfulness or our expectation of their behavior and their spontaneity?
ELIAS: The similarity that you view is very simple; this is that children are interacting more subjectively than objectively. They also hold much more subjective awareness than objective awareness for a time frame. In this, they may be more likened to your creatures, for they also are interacting more subjectively than objectively.
A small infant is more comparable to your creatures in their behavior than even a small child. A small infant also spends much of its time framework sleeping and interacting subjectively and responding to what you think of as basic needs, but also holding some emotion and a different type of thought process, for it has not objectively learned language yet.
KAAN: So most of our beliefs hang on with our rational side, which objectifies things which they lack. Is that true?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. Your beliefs are also held subjectively.
KAAN: But those are the basic beliefs that construct this reality, not the later things that are acquired in society and culture. Is that true?
ELIAS: At times, for there are times that you transition into physical focus and you bring with you, so to speak, many belief systems.
KAAN: So an infant would still have those belief systems, but they’re not expressed at that level because it doesn’t have the....
ELIAS: Correct. They are not objectifying, although at times they do not hold these belief systems. It is a matter of choice of the focus.
KAAN: So if they DO hold these belief systems, the infants reacting to OUR beliefs at an early age would be filtered through these belief systems subjectively?
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: I have a question about what you guys were talking about, this concept of children and animals. It makes sense to me what you said about infants. That’s been my experience too. Infants DO sleep a lot, just like animals do, and quite often respond in similar manners. To go back to Mary’s question, I was listening to her express her question too. Her experience is that her domestic pets ... she equates their behavior with the behavior of small children. My personal experience is entirely different, and I’m sure each individual can relate a different experience. My question is, isn’t that an individual choice as to how your animals respond to you?
ELIAS: And which animals you draw to yourself. You draw certain animals to yourself in compliance with your belief systems and in compliance of what you choose to be creating.
VICKI: Right. So two different people can go get a dog, say, and they’re going to be picking two completely different personalities depending on their own personal ...
ELIAS: Correct.
VICKI: ... what? Issues? Choices? Belief systems? Desires?
ELIAS: All.
VICKI: All of these things.
ELIAS: And their creatures shall be responding in like manner.
VICKI: Yeah, that makes sense to me.
ELIAS: Michael [Mary] may be drawing to himself creatures that are in compliance with his belief systems and his desires and his choices, and these creatures are in agreement with this. Therefore, if he holds a belief system that his creatures shall be responding as small children, they shall be in agreement with this and comply with this and respond as small children. You may each be very influencing of your creatures in this same manner. They are responding within consciousness to YOUR belief systems.
VICKI: Right, which brings up one other question I have, and I’m sure we’ve all had this experience too, where you select an animal and within a very short period of time ... you don’t keep the animal. You get rid of the animal because it’s behavior is such that it causes you too much conflict. What have you drawn to yourself in those sorts of situations? It’s kind of counter to what we were just talking about.
ELIAS: You have drawn to yourself the opportunity to view that these creatures DO create their reality and may not always be manipulated by you.
VICKI: That makes sense. So when you want to get rid of your children, this would be the same thing, right? (Much laughter)
ELIAS: (Grinning) This would be your choice, although you hold stronger belief systems in THIS area, for you hold the belief systems that many times creatures may be disposable!
VICKI: Hmm! That’s way different!
ELIAS: You do not hold the belief system of disposable children!
VICKI: No, we’re not putting our children to sleep yet!
ELIAS: This is quite true!
SUE: ... Do our domesticated animals feel love for us?
ELIAS: They hold emotion and they do experience affection. They do not experience what YOU term to be love, but they DO experience the emotion of affection.
KAAN: How about fascination?
ELIAS: Yes, they hold fascination.
KAAN: With our reality and interacting with us?
ELIAS: In certain respects, yes.
NORM: ... I have some questions in regard to creatures. The definition of creatures in regard to everything that you’ve been talking about applies to, for example, one-celled animals to multi-celled animals. Also, it occurs to me that the characteristics and personalities of creatures can also be applied to such things as storms, and that the interaction that occurs between storms and individuals is very similar to the action that occurs between creatures and individuals. Am I going too far there?
ELIAS: There is a distinction. You have created these creatures to hold personality.
NORM: Storms don’t hold personality?
ELIAS: You have also created these creatures with choice and emotion. Storms are a projection of emotion, of YOU. They are an action.
NORM: Hmm. And the Earth is almost like a creature?
ELIAS: It also is a projection of you.
NORM: And all of us, of course.
ELIAS: Correct.
NORM: And can be modified by us, and of course is being modified.
ELIAS: Correct.” [session 260, January 18, 1998]
ELIAS: “Very well! Shall we continue our discussion as to your creatures?
RETA: I have something I’d like to contribute to creatures, just as an interesting point. A very dear friend of mine had to put her dog to sleep last week. She’s had him seventeen years. Her little girl is maybe two-and-a-half or three years old, and she was trying to explain to her daughter that he was old and that it was necessary to put him to sleep, and she thought the daughter would be very upset. And the daughter turned to her mom and said, ‘Well, you know, you’ve made him wait so long to go.’ How intuitive for a little girl!
ELIAS: Also, how clear an example of belief systems that are transmitted within very early ages!
CATHY: I would like to know if dogs, or animals in general, have impulses?
ELIAS: Yes. They are interpreted differently than your impulses, for you filter your interpretation of impulses though thoughts and emotion. An animal does not filter through an emotion or a thought, but automatically responds to an impulse.
CATHY: Okay. Last week you said that I don’t think that dogs think. Did I hear that correctly? Is this an underlying belief system that I’m not aware of?
ELIAS: You hold a belief system that they may hold a very limited thought process, but for the most part they respond to learned behavior.
CATHY: Okay. (Pause) Okay, I’ll sit with that for a second! (Elias grins and nods)
KAAN: I have a question for my friend Cynthia, who is working with greenhouses. That’s his job, his profession, and he said that as a part of his job he has to struggle with insects all the time. He’s been putting lots of attention over the years to doing this from a level of consciousness where he doesn’t invite them, and he’d like them to go without eradicating them in more violent ways. He believes that he understands that he does not have belief systems in terms of not inflicting them with something that he thinks is very terrible for them, but he also holds a belief that he has to respect all of consciousness. Therefore, he’d like to find a better way. He asks for your comments on this, on how he can deal with this problem.
ELIAS: This be a situation that many individuals may encounter in dealing with your vegetation within this dimension, for you create conflicting choices. You have created a choice to create these creatures and their natural habitat and their natural food source. Then you create a conflicting creation, that you wish them not to be interacting with their natural habitat! (Smiling)
In this, the individual creates conflict for themselves, although there are certain means within your vegetation that are naturally repelling of these creatures in themselves. In planting certain combinations of plant life, they act as natural repellents for these creatures, which accomplishes the individual’s goal, so to speak, of not creating what he views to be harmfulness to the creatures, but also affects the outcome that he is desiring. Certain vegetation are natural repellents to these creatures, and they in turn shall move to another area and discover a new source for creating their own natural habitat. Express radishes! (Grinning)
RETA: Is not another one marigolds, to prevent tomato worms? Doesn’t that keep the tomato bugs away?
ELIAS: This has become a mass belief system, although the creatures themselves do not always comply with this mass belief system!
CATHY: Okay. One of the base belief systems that I have with animals would be that I believe only certain dogs that are happy and have a good temperament and are willing to work are the ones that should be working in Hollywood, so to speak. Is that one of them?
ELIAS: This would be a strong belief system that you hold.
CATHY: I’m just checking! I’m just identifying here. And another one: Could it be that I go a lot by past experiences of what I’ve had with dogs, and I believe that the same experience is influencing of my reality that I’m creating right now?
ELIAS: Quite.
CATHY: So if I haven’t had the experience of doing something ... I give myself more anxiety and stuff about doing things with animals if I haven’t experienced it before?
ELIAS: For this is unfamiliar.
CATHY: Because it’s unfamiliar. So that’s probably one of the big ones, and I need to be more accepting of myself and trusting of myself when it comes to those situations?
ELIAS: Correct; and recognize how many times, within your relying on your past experiences, so to speak, you limit yourselves. In relying on merely your past experiences, you are also denying many of your choices, for you view things in absolutes.
CATHY: Yes, I do! But I am kind of wider in that area because I don’t have the same attitude I used to have when new, non-experienced trainers come in and pull things off without the experience that I have. I’m a lot more accepting of those kinds of people now.
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: That’s kind of a big deal for me! (Somebody applauds)
ELIAS: I am acknowledging! (Grinning)
RON: You ARE wide! (Laughter)
CATHY: Okay! Well, I could ask another one here. I have several! I’m interested in your comment about how animals’ thought processes are different from ours, and this allows them a more vivid dream action. Could you elaborate on that?
ELIAS: You think within your thought process quite objectively. You think in terms of language, and you also think in terms of imagery. Your creatures’ thought processes are more dream-like than are yours, although your dream imagery also is quite objective and is translated to you within imagery and language – words – for this is the process that you have chosen for thoughts. Thoughts are generally words. In this, creatures are more interactive subjectively. They do hold images as thought in similar manner to you – not entirely, but similarly – but without the same type of language. Therefore, their interpretation is different. Also be remembering that they do not hold the belief systems also which are influencing within your thought process.
All of your thoughts are influenced by the belief systems that you hold. Therefore, what you create within your interpretations of subjective activity – what you objectively create – is influenced and filtered through your belief systems, even within your dream state. Although your belief systems are relaxed within your dream state, they ARE interactive. Therefore, they are continuing to be influencing within your dream state also. For a creature, they are not filtering through belief systems. Therefore, they connect to their own type of thought process in a subjective imagery type of manner. The images do not change as being influenced by belief systems. In this manner, their awareness of consciousness is slightly clearer than yours.
CATHY: We always say that if we see a dog whimpering or their feet moving, that means they’re dreaming. That is what they’re doing right at that moment, when they’re carrying on like that?
ELIAS: Correct, although creatures engage in sleep state throughout much of their focus and are interactive within dream state throughout this time. It is merely more obvious at certain times to you.
CATHY: Because of the noise and the movement they’re making.
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: ’Cause I notice some do it more than others. I was wondering if animals manifest in groups repeatedly, like some of us do here.
ELIAS: At times, in certain situations; more so with what you term to be untamed or wild animals than with domestic animals.
CATHY: So do domestic animals have a tendency to remanifest with the same people? Like has Caleigh been my dog in another focus, or some other animal?
ELIAS: Many times creatures that you have drawn to yourself within domestic animals do remanifest in conjunction with individuals.
CATHY: Do they have more of a tendency to ... like is a dog going to remanifest as a dog a lot, a domestic dog?
ELIAS: Not necessarily.
CATHY: It’ll be a cat or bird or whatever?
ELIAS: Correct.
SUE: Could I ask, are you aware of the cats as they move through this room during sessions, and are the cats aware of you?
ELIAS: They are aware of the energy. I am aware of their energy but hold little attention in this area, for it is unnecessary for my interaction with them; although at times I have interacted with them, and other creatures that have been presented within this forum.
DREW: If animals aren’t of essence, how do they manifest? You’ve said they are projections of us, but how do they manifest and how do they remanifest if they are a projection of us?
ELIAS: They are consciousness.
DREW: So once projected and created, they then ...?
ELIAS: They hold choice. All of consciousness holds choice.
DREW: So when they disengage, the consciousness ... what’s the unifying subjective ... hmm. When we disengage ... I’d better be careful with my words here. When we disengage, we are part of essence. When they disengage, what are they part of?
ELIAS: Consciousness.
DREW: That part of consciousness which is not essence.
ELIAS: Correct.
DREW: Okay. Does their energy and consciousness disperse or does it hold a personality tone, for example, so that when it remanifests ... in other words, something must sort of – excuse my language – hold it together in a sense, so that if they do remanifest, it’s not just dispersed energy. What’s the unifying element that holds the consciousness together so that an animal could remanifest as that? Is it a personality tone?
ELIAS: No. I am understanding of your inquiry, although it is not the same as what you are thinking within the terms of essence. You look to a focus, or all of essence, and you may apply a personality tone. Therefore, you view within your thought process that there is a structure that binds a certain element of consciousness, that it shall configure itself in one manner and remain in this manner. I shall not dispute this thought process with you. Although it is distorted, it is efficient for your understanding presently.
With a creature, it is energy. Therefore, at the point of disengagement the energy IS dispersed and allowed to re-configure itself in whichever manner it chooses. This would be the choice of the links of consciousness. These links may rearrange themselves within agreement and form together again and create within agreement another creature, joining together with other links of consciousness, but it is not the same action as what you engage within essence.
DREW: Okay, that makes sense to me. Thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome.
KAAN: Within this context, I came across an idea that therefore a cat, within that energy range, could not turn into a dog in the next manifestation, so to speak; that there is still vibration or a quality that within our context pushes in some way for that creature to manifest with the same type of physiology.
ELIAS: No. This may be the reason that you may view one creature within your focus that shall disengage, and you may encounter another creature of another species that displays many qualities that you notice that seem to be the same as a different creature that you have witnessed and interacted with which has disengaged; for the energy, once dispersed within the links of consciousness, may choose to join in cooperation with other links of consciousness which have been engaged in the manifestation of a different species. Therefore, there is an intermingling.
CATHY: When animals disengage, can they remanifest immediately?
ELIAS: Yes.
CATHY: I just want to be clear on this. Once a dog has chosen to be a dog, he’s probably not going to choose to be a dog again, but he could?
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: So it’s a possibility that he could?
ELIAS: Correct.
CATHY: Do they have final focuses?
ELIAS: Not in the manner that you hold a final focus, no.
CATHY: Well, how?
ELIAS: They continue within energy until you choose not to be engaging this dimension, with the exception of certain species choosing collectively to disengage from this particular dimension. This be the action of creating your extinction.
CATHY: So we’d have to uncreate this dimension, and then there wouldn’t be anything left? We can’t do that, can we?
ELIAS: If you choose.
CATHY: Really! Oh, it would like one of those trauma-shift things, right? I guess we could, huh!
ELIAS: You may collectively disengage this dimension if you are so choosing.
CATHY: So....
ELIAS: This particular physical dimension, as I have expressed to you previously, has blinked in and out many times. Therefore, in your physical terms it has existed, and it has not existed, and it has existed again.
DREW: Is that what you mean when you talk about what we call mythological animals having lived at one time? Is it within one of the blinkings of the dimension? Or Atlantis, or those kind of things? Those were in the other blinks of this dimension?
ELIAS: Those are OTHER dimensions, although I have expressed to you that you have created experimentations in forms within this dimension, within this particular blink.
DREW: Within THIS particular blink?
ELIAS: Correct.
PAUL: Can I just ask a question about the blinking? Are you referring to the very quick ten-to-the-minus fifty-six?
ELIAS: No.
PAUL: This is a different action?
ELIAS: Correct. You as focuses blink in and out very rapidly. Your dimension, your physical reality, your planet, blinks in and out of reality physically in very slow increments, what you would term to be billions of years at a time.
DREW: So in the past when you’ve referred to dragons having existed and unicorns and those kinds of things, those weren’t other experimentations with this dimension? Those were other dimensions?
ELIAS: They were experimentations within this dimension.
DREW: During one of the other, if you will, blinks of this dimension?
ELIAS: Within THIS blink.
DREW: Oh, really!
ELIAS: Correct. They have been inserted into another dimension, for they have not been viewed as efficient within your choice within THIS dimension.
KAAN: So then extinction becomes only the extinction of the form that consciousness takes, that consciousness takes on within our dimension?
ELIAS: I have expressed previously that there are creations within creatures – and also within cultures, within peoples – that choose not to be engaging this dimension any longer. Therefore, they create a movement into another dimension and disengage this dimension completely. Their form continues the same in another dimension and they continue in similar action to what they have created within THIS dimension, but they move into a different dimension.
PAUL: Elias, is this different dimension in Regional Area 1, as we’re describing it?
ELIAS: THIS is Regional Area 1.
PAUL: So this other dimension is ...?
ELIAS: Not! (Laughter)
PAUL: Which Regional Area does it fit within?
ELIAS: It would fit within its own Regional Area 1 of physical dimension, within an entirely different set of Regional Areas.
RETA: So let me ask you about extinction. When we’re always talking about forms of species that are in extinction, and they’re always saying it’s our fault ... in other words, you’re saying it was the choice of that particular creature to become extinct, not necessarily because of the way we behaved toward it?
ELIAS: It IS the choice of the species, yes.
RETA: And it just happens to be that we’re shooting them all out of the area, but that was their choice to become extinct?
ELIAS: You are in cooperation and influencing of their choice, but it is their choice.
RETA: And then when we go to great lengths to get back a species, like the Black Swan, try to get them back, is that another agreement with the species, or are we interfering with their choice?
ELIAS: It is partially an agreement. If the species chooses to be continuing, then your efforts shall be acknowledged and what you term to be successful. But you within your species have attempted to prevent the extinction of certain creatures throughout your history unsuccessfully, for the creatures have chosen to be moving out of this particular physical dimension.
BOBBI: If as a species they decide to move into another dimension, does that mean species from other dimensions can come into this one? Would they?
ELIAS: Not necessarily, for what is presented within this particular dimension is of your creation.
BOBBI: I see. That’s how we’ve created this dimension.
ELIAS: Correct.
BOBBI: I see. So when they find a new species of butterfly or something like that....
ELIAS: This is your creation.
BOBBI: Okay. They haven’t come from somewhere else.
ELIAS: Correct; but once the energy and consciousness has been configured, you are the designer, but the consciousness that is designed and created then holds choice.
BOBBI: So it can ...
ELIAS: Correct.
BOBBI: ... do what it wants from that point. (Elias nods)
RETA: Would that be in the same manner as flowers or vegetation?
ELIAS: Correct.
SUE: If unicorns and dragons once existed physically here, is it possible that someday we will discover unicorn skeletons? Or have all the physical traces of them left this dimension?
ELIAS: There are some artifacts remaining, but very few.
RETA: While we’re talking about their time of existence, perhaps the unicorn, can you give us a time space? A billion years? How far ago in our dimension were they around? (Pause)
ELIAS: In roaming freely and being accepted as a temporary reality, before what you view to be the known age of this planet.
RETA: A long time.
ELIAS: But they also have had remnants which have continued infrequently as near within your history as to six hundred years previous.
RETA: Wow! That’s interesting!
CATHY: Didn’t you say something about artifacts like that, that if we’re not putting energy into it, they’re not going to be around?
ELIAS: Correct. This be why there is very little.
CATHY: Because the mass belief is that there’s no such thing as a unicorn.
ELIAS: Correct.
PAUL: So as soon as the mass belief were to change as to a unicorn, we would start to find artifacts, evidence of their existence?
ELIAS: Correct.
PAUL: We would literally shift into those probabilities where that existed.
ELIAS: Correct.
RETA: Well, it’s interesting that there is an actual concept of a unicorn. It’s in all of our cultures. It had to be presented some place as a mass belief because it’s so popular.
ELIAS: And a reality! I have expressed to you previously, you look to your mythology as imagination and it is not ... although imagination is reality also! (Grinning)
PAUL: Elias, I have one question. A recent Seth book came out called The Way Toward Health, and in it, Jane was in her hospital bed and she watched a Leonard Nimoy hosted program, Ancient Mysteries or something, and Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, was covered on that. Seth delivered a couple of pages of material stating that there were two bipedal mammals with us today, basically validating that what we conventionally call Sasquatch or Bigfoot is with us, and I wonder if you could comment on that. I believe they’re out there. Does that mean that they do exist? And another question too: There’s a famous piece of videotape footage showing a female looking at the camera and then walking off. Is that the real deal, or is that a fabrication?
ELIAS: Ah, the real deal! (Grinning and chuckling) More elements exist within your reality, within this dimension, than you realize! It is just merely not presenting itself to you continuously. Yes, these creatures do exist within your physical objective reality, and several other species exist also. Certain creatures that you view to be extinct have not entirely removed themselves from this particular dimension, just as with your creatures that you view to be mythological creatures. Although their reality and existence within this dimension was before the time of your known planet – or what you view to be the known age of your planet – as I have stated, in part they continued throughout your history to the time of about six hundred years ago. Also, within this present now there are continuing creatures that you would view to be prehistoric.
PAUL: Can you give an example of one? A dinosaur?
ELIAS: A mammoth.
DREW: Would the Loch Ness monster be another one?
ELIAS: This would be slightly different. You view this creature, which does exist, to be a remnant of a prehistoric, in your terms, creature, although it is in actuality another creation which would not be considered necessarily in the category of your prehistoric creatures. But the mammoth qualifies.
PAUL: So where is this mammoth roaming?
ELIAS: In your northern regions of your planet presently, nearing to what you presently term to be Iceland.
PAUL: Interesting!
KAAN: How about dragons and giants? They’re still mentioned in very recent history in some cultures.
ELIAS: Quite; for as I have stated, they have existed within this particular dimension and reality.
KAAN: And continuing?
ELIAS: They continue presently within another dimension, for they have created extinction for themselves.
KAAN: Just like unicorns though, you said that they lived long ago, but their remnants are the way that they interact with more recent cultures. Would dragons sort of bleed through or whatever still in some cultures which accept this, and maybe even accept it as an auspicious phenomenon or something else, organizing some social events around it?
ELIAS: Certain individuals may tap into a viewing of the dimension that they have inserted themselves into, but they are not physically bleeding through into this dimension.
RETA: On a Discovery program not too long ago, there was a remote island on which they had found what they would consider to be the closest remnants to a dragon; their features, their body style. I guess they were five or six feet long and they called them dragons, but they had another word for it. But would this be the closest thing we have right now to a dragon? I don’t even know the name of the island at this point.
ELIAS: These creatures that you term to be dragons were much larger than any of these creatures that are focused within your dimension presently.
RETA: When you’re saying larger, are you saying ten or twelve feet?
ELIAS: Extending head to tail, the equivalency of one hundred to one hundred fifty feet.
RETA: Wow!
PAUL: Cool!
RETA: And color-wise, would it be the green, reptile look?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. They have manifest in different species in several different colors.
RETA: With reptile skin?
ELIAS: Some, not all.
JO: Do any of them breathe fire? (Laughter)
ELIAS: (Chuckling) Not actual fire, but have held gaseous masses within their organs internally which created a vaporous smoke, so to speak; not fire.
SUE: Did Saint George actually kill one? (Laughter)
PAUL: Did Saint George actually live? (Elias laughs)
ELIAS: (Humorously) Did Saint George actually live? Yes. And has he actually encountered one of these enormous creatures within what I describe to you as this species? No. But he has encountered a similar species which is not in actuality a dragon and not breathing fire! (Chuckles again)
NORM: The Chinese, the Emperors, considered the concept of the dragon to be imperial, and it’s my understanding that the Chinese people consider the dragon to be good luck. Why is that?
ELIAS: These individuals hold a very strong action of story telling. I am not expressing fictional story, but they have created an art of relaying stories from generation to generation. In this they have taken information that they have witnessed within their reality and they have handed to each generation the stories of the events that they have participated within, unlike individuals within other areas of your planet which connect to the bleed-through ideas of these creatures or may visualize these creatures and view themselves to be creating your modern mythology in dealing with these creatures. They are unfamiliar with them. Therefore, they view them as fearsome and threatening. But this culture, and a few other cultures also, have held a remembrance, much in the fashion of the Milumet family and their intent. They have held this remembrance of interaction without the interference of fearfulness, of speculation. Therefore, their stories are more accurate than your myths within western cultures of these creatures. These creatures have roamed within a time frame that your species has been involved within your planet also.
NORM: So the Chinese people had a subjective remembrance, or objective?
ELIAS: Objective!
NORM: Three thousand BC, or ...?
ELIAS: They have continued, as I have stated, throughout your history to the time of six hundred years ago.
RETA: When you talk about this period of six hundred years ago, what was the big change at that time?
ELIAS: It was merely a choice to be moving into a different dimension.
RETA: But it just happened to be around six hundred years ago? There wasn’t any special event?
ELIAS: You within your focuses began changing and moving into a new creation of your reality.
RETA: A mass event for our focuses at that time?
ELIAS: You began to move in the direction towards your shift now.
RETA: That many years ago. Hmm.
BOBBI: Was that the Renaissance period?
ELIAS: Not quite, but close to this time period, yes.
KAAN: How about the monkey-like species that are mentioned in the Vedic Ramayana scripts, that apparently lived alongside with humans at that time and interacted?
ELIAS: At different times within your history, you have created different creatures that you have interacted with quite intimately. Certain cultures have created interaction with creatures at times even more intimately than you understand within what you view to be your civilized cultures, understanding that these are creations of their own and projections within consciousness, therefore allowing an intimate relationship, knowing that this is of their own manipulation of consciousness and understanding their own ability for interaction with this.
KAAN: Would that be a subjective understanding, or objective?
ELIAS: Objective.
KAAN: So those creatures did not hold essence or were not of essence similar to us?
ELIAS: No.” [session 262, January 25, 1998]
MICHAEL: “I don’t know how old I was, I was 4 or 5 years old, but this dog bit me for no reason. I was not even playing with it. I was doing something under the table, according to other people, and the dog bit me. I had to get stitches and all kinds of stuff. Now, I read in one of the transcripts that sometimes animals react to other focuses that they held.
ELIAS: Correct.
MICHAEL: Was this a case of that? For him attacking me?
ELIAS: Yes. Let me express to you that the consciousness of creatures is quite baffling to most individuals within physical focus, for you lean in the direction of ‘people-izing’ all of your creatures. You assign traits to them that are alike to yourselves, but creatures do not hold the same thought process or emotional involvement that you as individuals hold within your experiences.
Creatures may respond in action to remembrances and hold no emotion in conjunction with this action. They are merely responding to the remembrance, which is held differently from you. As you experience a remembrance, you would term this to be a memory. You are quite aware that you remain within your present now, but you pull to your present now the memory; which you may visualize and hold the remembrance of an event while continuing to hold the awareness of the present now in distinguishing between the two. A creature does not engage in remembrance in this manner. Creatures engage remembrance in the action of simultaneous time. Therefore, in allowing a remembrance, they are in effect within the moment of a different situation. Are you understanding?
MICHAEL: Yes.
ELIAS: Therefore, as the creature is viewing you within your present moment at a very small age and you are not provoking of this creature, it is sparked into a remembrance of another interaction, and it then engages responsiveness to the interaction that it is perceiving within simultaneous time, for its awareness of your perception of linear time has dissipated and it is now occupying its attention with the moment of the remembrance, which is its reality. In this, it is not responding emotionally, but merely in action of what it knows objectively in its own form of communication. Is this clear?
MICHAEL: Yes, very.
ELIAS: Very well.
MICHAEL: Okay then, what might I ask was he responding to? What was he remembering of me when that happened?
ELIAS: This remembrance ... hmm ... is of another time frame in which you as a focus are a young woman, and you possess a pet of another dog. This dog that you possess, in response to you as its owner, is antagonistic, so to speak, to this particular dog, which was also a dog within that focus. Now, mind you, neither of these creatures is exhibiting emotional qualities of their own that are intrinsic to them. The one creature is responding to the energy that you as the focused individual is projecting within your distaste for the other dog. Therefore, the pet that is your dog responds to your energy and appears to be antagonistic to the other dog. In this, the other dog is responsive also, not within emotional quality but merely within communication in its own manner of communicating, and in this it responds in what you think of as being attacking. Creatures display this type of behavior with other creatures, for it communicates to the other creatures that they wish not to continue with this behavior.
MICHAEL: Hmm. That’s interesting. So when we view them to be attacking, or other actions similar, is their way of communicating.
ELIAS: Correct. Just as you may look to your wild creatures, so to speak, and you may view a mother lion and her cubs, and she may be appearing to you agitated, growling, snarling, and even snapping at one of her own young, but this is merely a communication that shall be understood by the small one to be discontinuing the action or the behavior that it has been engaging.
MICHAEL: Okay. Whew! Alright, my next thing about animals is, I was reading the animal consciousness transcript and someone had asked why we don’t find remnants of like unicorns, and that was because the mass belief systems dictate that they don’t exist. So until that belief changes, we won’t find them, correct?
ELIAS: Correct.
MICHAEL: Okay. Then what is the thing with the dinosaurs then? Why are we finding remnants, all kinds of remnants, of them? I mean, I don’t any remembrance right now of being around when dinosaurs were, so how did they end up being found? (Elias smiles)
ELIAS: These creatures are more acceptable to you. They offer you an alignment with your belief systems in the direction of your evolutionary scale. They validate your belief systems in the area of evolution. Therefore, you allow yourselves the continuation of artifacts, that you may piece together your own puzzle of linear time and your evolutionary scale.
I shall be speaking futurely as to this matter also, but for this present now I shall express to you that as I have expressed previously, your species has experimented with many forms throughout millennium, and in this you have not chosen to be exhibiting evidence of many of your experiments in forms within this particular dimension. What you have left for yourselves are what you term to be mythology now. You offer yourselves stories and myths that you view to be purely imagination, which they are reality, but you have also efficiently removed from this officially accepted reality and dimension the evidences of the existences of these experiments within forms in your creation.
They also interrupt your belief systems of science and of religions. Your religions express to you that you as a species have been created in the image of a supreme being. (Humorously) We would not wish for strange creatures to be appearing upon your planet which shall call into question the creative force of that which you believe to be the supreme being!
You also shall not oppose yourselves within your sciences. Within the dictates of the belief systems of your sciences, you believe your planet to be only so many amount of years old, and within that time framework you believe an evolutionary process to have occurred and to be continuing within this present now. I express to you that the evolutionary process is not that which your science dictates and that you have not evolved in the manner to which you believe. You also have not appeared here as divine creations of an external supreme being transplanting you onto this one little planet in all of space! Therefore there are quite enough reasons, as you may view, that you shall not offer yourselves evidences of these creatures or of other manifestations of your own species until you have moved away from your very strong hold upon your religious and scientific belief systems.
MICHAEL: Okay, another animal I wish to question is what we call Sasquatch or Bigfoot.
ELIAS: Correct.
MICHAEL: You said that there still exists in our time framework this species, right?
ELIAS: Yes.
MICHAEL: Okay. I noticed you said many species ...
ELIAS: Correct.
MICHAEL: ... of this animal?
ELIAS: Yes.
MICHAEL: Okay, what do you mean by many? Do you mean like many Bigfoots, or different variations of the form?
ELIAS: In this, there is not one species which is common to them all. There are subsets, just as you have your family species of felines, but there are many species of felines. In this same regard, there are many species of this particular creature and they are not appearing identical to each other, although they hold similarities just as your felines hold similarities, but they also hold unique qualities to each of their own species, and in this same manner, this creature holds many species and its own unique qualities within each one.
MICHAEL: Okay. Are we not finding them or are they not appearing for the same reason that we’re not finding remnants of other species that have chosen to leave?
ELIAS: There are many species of creatures that inhabit your planet that you are not finding, so to speak, in your terms, just as I have expressed. You continue to hold small mammoths upon your planet, but you do not view them. This is partially for the reason that the masses, within their manifestation of energy of mass belief systems, deny the existence of certain species of creatures. Therefore, this is affecting of your ability to be intersecting with these creatures. It also, within the strength of energy of the belief systems, is affecting of the creatures themselves, which creates a situation that they become reclusive in areas, that they shall not be disturbed, an