BOBBI: “About two weeks ago, I went through a very difficult emotional period, and I’ve been having trouble connecting it with anything. I was very tired physically ... very depressed. I felt very constricted, as if I was waiting for something truly dreadful to happen. I was expecting someone to die, to be fired ... for myself to die! It was extremely intense.
“At the time, I was having a series of dreams with the common thread of separation, of divorce, of graduation, of running away. At the end of all of this, there was a bit of a dream that I remember. I was washing a cloth, and I lifted it, and underneath, it had bleached out. So I’m thinking, does this mean that this was a bleed-through? Like I say, I’m having quite a difficulty connecting to what that was all about.”
ELIAS: “Partially a bleed-through; but essentially, what you have been experiencing and what you are also offering yourself within your imagery is a recognition of an entering or an allowance of entering into the action of this shift, and a recognition of the separation of essence to focus. This images itself to you within areas of anxiety in a partial – this be your bleed-through aspect – a partial remembrance of the lack of separation of essence to focus.
“Each focus holds all of the information of essence, but you also hold a lack of remembrance. You hold no memory of essence. You have separated. You have divorced yourself. I have used this expression many times, that you have divorced yourself from essence for the purity of your experience within this dimension. But now, as you move into the action of this shift in consciousness, you reconnect yourselves with essence; and as you accomplish this, as you widen your awareness and open yourselves to essence, you also at times may hold anxiety or even the emotion of sadness or fearfulness or dread, for you have divorced yourself so very far from essence and its expression that moving closer to this natural expression of essence may be objectively fearful or hold anxiousness to you, or may even cause you sadness in what you have in your objective thought process ‘lost.’ You have not lost! But you think to yourselves within your belief systems of the joy of your creativity that you now open yourselves to, and within your belief systems you think of time frameworks lost, for this be your belief systems. It is not lost!
Y“ou have purposefully created what you have created within your separation for the purity of your experience, but you hold belief systems that express to you the negative element of what you wish to be experiencing and what you now open yourselves to, and you view within your experience, ‘Oh, the time lost! Oh, the experience lost!’ But it is not lost. You are merely expressing to yourself the emotion, within the context of your belief systems, that you need freely express to yourself, for you are an emotional creature. In this, you allow yourself the freedom to move into the experience of your new creativity.” [session 229, October 19, 1997]
ELIAS: “YOU ARE ESSENCE. Essence is not some ‘thing’ outside of you, and you are not a ‘piece’ of essence.
“Therefore, essence is not the greater part that you are merely a portion of. You yourself are all of essence. Your attention is merely focused in this particular direction.
“Now; let me express to you, individuals confuse themselves in the concept of essence, and reinforce this confusion as they inquire of an essence name or an essence tone.
“Once you are receiving objectively an essence name, this allows you quite automatically and quite comfortably to move into alignment with the beliefs that are already established and already held within you, and allows you a comfortable and familiar direction of separation.” [session 494, October 27, 1999]
ELIAS: “You are multidimensional. You express tremendous volume as essence. Essence is you, and is expressed fully within every focus of attention. You are not separated by time or manifestation from any other focus of attention of essence, any more than you are separated from you, within your perception, merely by the action of focusing your attention in different manners within your reality.
“You may hold your attention, as I have stated many times previously, in many different areas simultaneously, objectively, within your mundane waking reality. Within a moment that you create no intentional objective physical movement, your attention is projected in many different expressions and directions, not merely one.
“None of you are, in a manner of speaking, ever singularly focusing your attention in one area. You allow yourselves the identification or the illusion that you may be concentrating your attention, so to speak, objectively in one direction, but within any moment within your manifestation, your attention is occupied in many, many different expressions simultaneously.
“You merely allow yourself the perception of one direction of that attention – one expression, for the most part, of that attention – which appears to be the most dominant to you or the most interesting to you within any particular time framework. But in actuality, your attention is diversely expressed in many directions.
“This is, as I have stated many times, the mirror action, in physical expression, of nonphysical expression of essence. You – as you in this focus – are the physical presentment in manifestation of all of essence. Therefore, we now begin the piercing of a new veil of self, to be incorporating the realization, in objective terms, that you are an expression of energy personality consciousness.” [session 571, February 25, 2000]
NATASHA: “Another question that I had previously, how do you make yourself recognize interconnectedness?”
ELIAS: “That is an excellent question. I would express that it is, for most of you, initially not very easy, for you are manifest in this reality individually, singularly. You are housed in one individual body, and that creates this illusion of separateness. You each incorporate qualities and expressions and identities that are uniquely you. Therefore, that also creates the appearance of another separation and less of an interconnectedness. But energy, once again, is boundless, and although you each incorporate your own unique qualities and expressions and identities in this reality that are individual, your energy is not necessarily individual.”
NATASHA: “It’s not?”
ELIAS: “No. Energy is energy, and energy is a product of consciousness. It is a manifestation of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be separated; therefore, energy is not separated. Therefore, what you are interconnected with continuously, always, is energy, and it is not bounded, regardless of space or time. In that, regardless of opinions, regardless of qualities, of talents, of abilities, it matters not. Your energy is all connected.
“I will suggest to all of you to experiment. I have suggested previously that you experiment with physically viewing your energy fields, individually or with each other. Beyond viewing energy fields that are more associated with your individual body consciousness, I would suggest an experiment that you can each engage, in merely viewing energy. You will begin to see that regardless of what you are viewing the energy around, be it a chair or plant or your floor or a creature or any object, it blends with all other energy around it.
“Your energy is very similar, in a manner of speaking, to your air. Can you find or discover one area in your reality that there is no air?”
NATASHA: “What about a vacuum?”
ELIAS: “You can create a vacuum, but there is some aspect of air in the vacuum also, even within space. It is not necessarily air that you breathe, it is not necessarily air in the configuration that you are accustomed to, but it is present. In that, you cannot necessarily touch it, and unlike energy, you cannot necessarily see air unless it is colored with some other gas. You need no gas to see an energy field or to see energy at all. It is visible without any colorance; it colors itself.”
ELLA: “If I focus on anyone in this room, I could perceive an exchange of energy without necessarily seeing anything?”
ELLA: “But I could use the other senses...?”
ELIAS: “Yes, even without visually seeing – although you can visually see it, also – you can feel it. In this, you can experiment with energy, how interconnected you are, in FEELING energy, and experiment how many times you bump into other energies.
“You can feel, if you are paying attention, when you approach any other manifestation. You will bump into its energy. It will be very brief, for immediately they absorb together; they merge. But there is an initial tap that you can feel, if you are paying attention, in which you will notice that you are colliding with another energy. In that, you will also notice how very quickly they merge and intermingle together, just as any other gas mingles with your air and creates patterns.” [session 2867, October 24, 2009]
NORM: “I have a question. I’m not sure that it would be worth considerable discussion, but I feel that the area of cooperativeness is probably quite important in my life. The relationship between cooperativeness and separateness or individuality, do you have any wise words in regard to that?
ELIAS: You shall present yourself, as you already are aware, with the opportunities to notice what you choose to address. With respect to cooperation and separateness, these are your choice, both; although as you choose to engage widening and as you ask yourself for information and helpfulness, you shall present yourself with the opportunity to view aspects of yourself that you may notice that are less efficient. Therefore, you shall create the opportunity for choices within probabilities of change, and you shall eventually open to recognize the direction within cooperation, as you learn to understand that there is no separation.
This is a very difficult issue for all of you, without exception; for you have created a physical focus that holds a camouflage of separateness. It is not an illusion, but it is a very effective camouflage of separateness. As you realize that there is no separateness, there are no sections, there are no oranges (1), (grinning) you shall allow yourself more of an understanding of cooperation.
Be reminding yourself objectively that you are a part of all and all is a part of you, regardless of your tastefulness for any aspect. You may view another individual or activity as distasteful, but they are elements of you. It matters not. You are not removed and separate from all. There are no walls between any of you. You only allow yourself a temporary viewing that appears to be sectioned; but although you create a physical manifestation, even this is not contained and sectioned from all else.
You shall find also, as you continue within your widening process, as many of my dear friends have continued with me within these session periods, that as you request of yourself your own widening you shall offer this to yourself, and you shall confuse yourself, and you shall shriek with dismay at times! But, you have requested. Just as we have spoken, you objectively choose. You are not the victim of a conspiracy within subjective movement. You have chosen, and you shall present yourself with those elements that you need be viewing for your own awareness and your own widening; this allowing you to more efficiently engage your shift and transition within physical focus without senility!” [session 152, February 09, 1997]
ELIAS: “As you move into the action of your shift, you shall be allowing yourself more of a comprehensive understanding of these issues. For your understanding, I express to you a distinction of essence, for this holds tone. This holds direction. Within reality, there is no separation. All is consciousness. There is no differentiation of one entity as opposed to another entity, although within consciousness there are personality tones. These are not images or entities that you may create small images for. They are tones within the whole of consciousness, which is the direction of consciousness which creates you.” [session 185, June 21, 1997]
RETA: “You probably heard our conversation before you came to visit. The theory is that if we just go ahead and say, ‘Okay, it’s our belief system individually’ ... one of them believes that she deserved it. Another one believes it’s her own fault. I believe she was murdered. There’s a great feeling that this is a means to desensitize and not worry about others. (2)
ELIAS: This is not the action of acceptance. What occurs within consciousness objectively/subjectively to one, occurs to all. There is no separation. Therefore, the experience of the individual that has chosen is also incorporated within each one of you as if occurring to you, for there is no separation. The affectingness within the mass also is affecting within consciousness with you. There is no separation!
This is your opportunity, once again, to be viewing your own responses and your own belief systems in conjunction with your responses – be they emotional or non-emotional, be they a viewing of connectedness or lack of connectedness, be they what you view as a response or not a response. It is all a response, for you all respond to mass events, for they are mirror images of you. I have discussed this previously in depth of mass events and individual events and Source Events, and they are all reflections of each other, and they are all interconnected and intermingled and not separated.” [session 212 August 31, 1997]
HELEN: “Obviously, a long time ago, through religious factions and different things, we’ve created a stigma around sex. Can you explain why we did that?
ELIAS: This also reinforces your movement into separation from essence. In your movement throughout your history of becoming more separated in your attention and your forgetfulness of essence for the purity of your experience within this dimension, you also divorce yourself from elements of essence. Therefore, even within your imagery you create belief systems that shall be separating of you.
In this, you have created belief systems to be placing taboos on sexual activity. You also create this as another barrier in your lack of remembrance of essence, that there is no gender within essence. Therefore, to reinforce the purity of the experience within this physical focus – of emotion and sexual orientation and experiences – you separate, that you may more fully experience each manifestation of sexual orientation.” [session 255, January 04, 1998]
JAMES: “Could you tell me what the connection is between duplicity and separation?
ELIAS: Interesting question!
You have created a type of separation within this physical dimension between the focus and essence. You have created veils between these two aspects of essence. You have created veils between the different focuses of essence within physical dimensions. But as you have created this particular expression of separation, you have purposely created this action, that you may allow yourself the purity of experience within physical experiences in this dimension.
Now; the relation of duplicity in this area to separation is that as you have created this element of separation, you have also created a block in memory, or in other terms, you have forgotten many elements of essence. As you have forgotten elements of essence, you also have eliminated many of your own explanations to yourselves with respect to your reality within physical dimensions. As you offer yourselves explanations, you create belief systems. Within these belief systems and in conjunction with your separation, you have moved into identifications with yourselves that certain expressions of your reality are acceptable or good, and certain expressions are unacceptable or bad. Initially, this thought process has begun in creating a perception that certain actions or certain thoughts are more efficient within an individual’s reality than other thoughts and expressions.
Now; in one manner of speaking, there is an element that is correct in this area, but you have developed belief systems in this area, forgetting in your separation that your perception is highly individualized. Therefore, although your experiences within your focus shall be your creations of your reality and are formed through your perception, they are relative to you, and not necessarily relative to another individual entirely. There are certain areas that you collectively agree upon within your creations in this physical reality, although there are individuals that deviate within their perceptions even from your most basic qualities of your reality. Therefore, I express to you that your perceptions are highly individualized.
In this, as you have viewed certain experiences within one perception of one individual to be efficient or not efficient in your own creating of your reality, you also, within your separation and your forgetting of essence, have created the offering of these experiences to other individuals, and in that action have created judgments as to their execution of the same experiences ... or with respect to their denial in acceptance of your offering. Therefore, duplicity is quite conjunctive to your separation within physical focus.
JAMES: Hmm. In the coming shift, as I understand it, we’re going to be eliminating duplicity, and also, the separation is going to be lessened to some extent. But do those two things necessarily go hand-in-hand, or might we have devised a shift which does one of those two things without the other?
ELIAS: Let me clarify to you.
In actuality, this shift in consciousness shall be accomplishing less separation between focus and essence. Therefore, within the creation of physical reality, you shall hold a greater awareness of essence objectively, but you shall not be eliminating duplicity. This is a misunderstanding. You shall be accepting the belief system, but this is quite a different action from eliminating the belief system.
This physical reality which you have created within this dimension holds, as a basic element to its reality, belief systems. Therefore, if you are eliminating the belief systems, you also shall be discontinuing this particular physical reality, for you have created this reality in this manner for the purpose of this type of experience.
In this shift in consciousness, you are not eliminating belief systems, and this also is the expression with regard to the belief system of duplicity. You shall be neutralizing this belief system of duplicity by accepting the belief system, but you are not eliminating the belief system. It shall continue. It shall merely be the cage without the birds.” [session 364, February 24, 1999]
FRANK: “… I have a belief system that my physicalness is separated from my spirituality. That’s something that I really haven’t addressed, almost indirectly, as being aware of the effect of that. So now I have that too, which is, I think, major to my physical situation overall.
ELIAS: Correct, which has always been present, but within your addressment to these issues, you have not held readiness to be addressing to this, to this point, for this becomes more abstract.
You have been moving in the direction with myself of absolute physical expressions: ‘Speak to me, Elias, in absolute terms, in concepts that I may understand objectively,’ and I have offered you information in this manner. Now you move into areas that you may view to be slightly more abstract, in the area of the lack of separation of your physical form and that element which you perceive to be the consciousness of you. There is no separation.
I express to you that you may remove any element of your physical form, and it shall contain the encoding of all of the rest of your physical form. It shall not contain any other energy signature but yours. In like manner, your consciousness IS your physical form. It may not be separated from that elusive element that you identify as the you of you. An element of the you of you IS your physical expression! They are not two entities. It is one creation, and in this, as you begin to recognize this, you also may address to the movement and the functioning of your physical form.
Simultaneously, you shall also be engaging step three [of accepting self and belief systems (3)], and this shall be affecting of you physically also. But in recognition of the lack of separation ... for what shall you separate if it is all one and not two entities? In this recognition of no separation, you also shall begin to address to the concept that your physical body is not creating elements outside of your permission or outside of your control. It is not sabotaging you!” [session 431, July 23, 1999]
ELIAS: “YOU ARE ESSENCE. Essence is not some ‘thing’ outside of you, and you are not a ‘piece’ of essence.
Therefore, essence is not the greater part that you are merely a portion of. You yourself are all of essence. Your attention is merely focused in this particular direction.
Now; let me express to you, individuals confuse themselves in the concept of essence, and reinforce this confusion as they inquire of an essence name or an essence tone.
Once you are receiving objectively an essence name, this allows you quite automatically and quite comfortably to move into alignment with the beliefs that are already established and already held within you, and allows you a comfortable and familiar direction of separation.
Now; in this, let me express to you a different type of direction.
Look to yourself. Look to your physical manifestation, the you that you know and you identify, this individual of Leslie. Now, look to your foot. Is this Leslie?
ELIAS: Look to your finger. Is this Leslie?
ELIAS: Yes ... and no!
ELIAS: For it is Leslie, but it is not entirely Leslie, but it may not be separated from all of Leslie, correct?
ELIAS: Therefore, you do not look to your foot or your finger and express that your foot is Aaron and your finger is Kathleen and the entirety of your physical body is Richard, but the ‘you of you’ is Leslie. No, you do not separate in this manner. You recognize that each element of your physical body is an element of you. It is not separate. It is not different. It is not outside of you.
But you also recognize that that element of you which you identify as you, that element of you which is undefined, that is not necessarily merely your physical body, that element of you which creates your emotions, which creates your thoughts, which creates your perception, this is not a piece of your physical body.
But you may not separate your physical body and all of its elements – your brain, your physical organs, your bones, your circulatory system, your respiratory system – you may not separate any of these elements from you.
(Intently) In this, look to yourself as precisely what I have expressed it to be. Your physical manifestation – that you term to be Leslie – is the mirror image, the projection into a physical manifestation of essence.
Do you express to yourself that the entirety of your physical body holds a different identification from Leslie? No, you do not. You look within your mirror, you view your physical body, and you express to yourself, ‘This is me.’ You do not express, ‘This is the image of another individual.’ You express, ‘This is myself.’
That image within the mirror is the image of Leslie.
This manifestation is the projection into a physical dimension within a physical time framework as the mirror image of the essence of Margaret [Leslie].
You merely create the identification of a physical name of Leslie to be identifying a distinction between one focus of attention and another focus of attention which are manifest simultaneously, in like manner to your physical body.
You identify a finger as a finger. You identify a foot as a foot. You identify a head as a head. They all exist simultaneously, and they are all you, Leslie. But each manifestation, each element of you holds an identification. Your liver holds the name of a liver!
You, as a focus of attention, are identified as Leslie, but you are Margaret [Leslie’s essence name], for you are essence, in the same manner that your finger is Leslie. It is a finger, but it is Leslie. Are you understanding?
LESLIE: Yes ... yes. I think if I listen to the tape a few times, it will come together better. I’m not going to say it’s going to happen overnight, but....
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha!
LESLIE: Well, you know, I like to do everything through osmosis! (Laughing) Thank you very much.
ELIAS: You are very welcome.
LESLIE: Yeah, ’cause I really do keep us totally separate. I just can’t ... I haven’t been able to get us together, you know?
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha!
LESLIE: And you know, you’re right, ’cause you mentioned that as soon as you get an essence name, you automatically separate, and that’s exactly what we do, I guess. Well, what I did anyway! Then it’s almost more difficult, once you have another name, to put them both together, ’cause then you think of ... I think of Margaret as totally separate.
ELIAS: Quite!” [session 494, October 27, 1999]
NICKY: “What’s the difference between the extremes in the first millennium and the second one?
ELIAS: You have held certain identifications and beliefs concerning this millennium.
NICKY: Why this one? The last one ... there was a lot of force put into that one too.
ELIAS: In a different manner, you are correct. The beliefs have intensified and have continued, in that the collective energy was not offered as intensely in the movement into this millennium.
As that movement progressed, within your terms, and as you all created more of an allowance of your expressions – less superstition, more movement into discovery of yourselves, of your universe, of your abilities, of your creations – as you continued within your exploration, you also have offered yourselves more of a knowing of your abilities and capabilities.
Therefore, in this, underlyingly, in a manner of speaking, you hold an awareness of a tremendous power that you hold. Simultaneously, you counter that knowing with the objective belief that you do not hold power and that you are not creating your reality, for this is the familiar. But within THIS time framework, you have moved yourselves quite purposefully into a realization of self, an exploration of self in many, many, many different expressions.
And now, within the end throes, so to speak, of this millennium, you move beyond all of these outward explorations that you may be inventing, and into the exploration of self and of essence and of consciousness, and the recognition of belief systems, and the recognition of your individuality.
To this point, you have not allowed yourselves in mass movement to be expressing or recognizing of your uniqueness and your individuality. You also have not allowed yourselves to this point to be recognizing of your lack of separation.
Your idea has moved in the direction of much separation, which you camouflage with another idea of the expression of individuality, but this is not actually the expression of the knowing of uniqueness and individuality. It is the expression of separation.
You now are moving into the genuine knowing of the lack of separation and the expression of individuality simultaneously.
You all hold, as I have stated previously, highly unique and individualized perceptions, and these are the manifestations of your orientations, and these are the expressions of your tone, which is highly individualized.
As you look to your individual physical bodies, you may not duplicate your signature of your fingerprints. They are so very highly individualized that there are no two individuals throughout your history that shall hold the same signature as any other focus.
(Intently) There are no two focuses throughout the entire creation of this physical dimension that are the same. They are intensely individualized, and in this, there is no separation.
This is a difficult concept, for it is not quite a reality yet with you. But it is a concept that you are offering to yourselves, and it is a difficult concept for you to assimilate objectively.
You know subjectively. The translation objectively is difficult. But I shall express to you, you also know objectively!” (Grinning) [session 502, November 11, 1999]
JOE: “I’m trying to discern exactly how encompassing an individual essence creation is, relative, say, to other essences, and this is what I’ve kind of gleaned from the information from different sources.
When you say that we create all of our reality, I take that literally, that every tree, every blade of grass, every car that passes, every animal that comes into sight we create individually as our creation. What I’m not sure about is, if I’m sitting on a post and a friend of mine is sitting on another post and we’re watching a car go by, we both see the same car, or at least I think we see the same car, or something very similar to the same car. We both agree that yes, the car is blue; yes, it’s a certain model. But there are actually two cars that we’re looking at. I’m looking at the car that I’m creating, and my friend is looking at the car that he’s creating.
What I don’t understand and have no comprehension of whatsoever is, at what level does this agreement come about, that these two things are created each individually by each essence, but yet exactly the same? (Elias chuckles) Deep subject, huh?
ELIAS: Let me express to you, Holden [Joe], this is a confusion that most individuals within your physical dimension hold objectively, for you are associating in familiar terms, and those familiar terms are expressed in segments or separation.
This is the manner in which you have created this physical dimension. This is the blueprint for this physical dimension, to be separating and to be segmenting all expressions, all things in your reality, and all of your associations. Therefore, as you turn your attention to questions concerning consciousness and essence, you also associate in the familiar, what is known to you. This is how you filter information.
In this, as you begin to turn your attention to concepts such as consciousness or essence, and the concept of being all and creating all as consciousness and as essence, the concept of all-inclusiveness and no separation does not quite fit into what is known objectively by you within your physical experience of this physical dimension.
Now; in viewing an example such as what you have presented, of two individuals in the same space arrangement and same time framework viewing their environment, and the same action of the same physical matter which is being created – your vehicle which may be passing by, so to speak – your automatic association and what is known to you objectively is to be viewing and assessing that situation as an agreement, as you have stated, and as two separate actions and two separate creations.
Now; how you move yourself into reconciliation with this association of the lack of separation, but also simultaneously continuing to incorporate some expression of separation ... which you are, for as you view yourself in what you have expressed as creating all of your reality and creating all of the expressions of it, but also creating an association that the other individual is engaging the same action, therefore is creating another reality of their own....
JOE: But is that the case?
ELIAS: This is what I am expressing to you. This is the identification of your automatic association.
In this, in attempting to reconcile the lack of separation and the automatic incorporation of separation – which you are, in a manner of speaking, grappling with simultaneously – you create an association that there exists a third reality, of which you express to yourself that both individuals are in agreement or creating an agreement to simultaneously view that expression of the third reality, and your explanation to yourself is that you filter your viewing of that third reality through your individual perceptions.
Now; this is the basis of the confusion and the lack of objective understanding of reality in its essence, so to speak. For in actuality, there is no third reality, first of all. There is no official reality, in those terms. Therefore, there is also no agreement that is necessarily being created between yourself and the other individual to be viewing the same experience or the same objects.
Now; this moves your attention and your curiosity in the direction of your question. What is actually being created, and what are the mechanics of that creation, and how is that expressed in terms of no separation?
In response to that questioning, I say to you, in the lack of separation of consciousness, the expression of essence is merely a distinction of aspects of consciousness that are expressed through the identification of personality tones and directions of attention. In this, each distinction of essence is a personality tone and a collective of attentions in certain directions.
Now; once again I shall deviate slightly into an association of your physical creation within your individual manifestations in this physical dimension, for as I have expressed previously many times, what you create in this physical manifestation, even to what you perceive to be its tiniest detail, is an actual reflection of All-That-Is in consciousness.
I have expressed previously, this is a highly unique and intricate physical dimension, for it does incorporate a precise and intricate reflection of consciousness as being All-That-Is in a physical translation, which creates an ultimate expression of diversity and complexness in this physical dimension.
Now; in this, you may look to your physical body expression and consciousness, and as you look to the expression in physical matter, the physical translation of energy in this manifestation, you may allow yourself to view a reflection of essence and therefore of consciousness.
For as you create a physical body, you express many, many actions and functions and directions and expressions within that physical form all simultaneous[ly], and in all of the movement and functions and expressions of this physical form, in one respect they appear to be specifically functioning independently of each other, but simultaneously in harmony and cooperation, and in a type of expression that is so very intricate that they may not be separated from each other as the expression of the whole of the individual.
Are you following thus far?
ELIAS: You may not separate, in your physical expression, your emotional communication and expression from actual physical interaction also. As you create one, it interplays with another.
You may not remove certain aspects of yourself and be you. All that is expressed in your physical manifestation of you are all components of you, and in the removal of any of those components of you, you are no longer completely expressed as you.
In this, you are creating a physical reflection of consciousness, that all of the aspects of consciousness are all components of one beingness. Therefore....
JOE: One what?
ELIAS: One beingness. Therefore, returning to your example of the two individuals viewing this event of a passing vehicle, in physical terms, you are one aspect of attention and the other individual is also one aspect of attention, and therefore you are each creating the entirety of your experience and your reality.
Therefore, in a manner of speaking, you are creating the entirety of the environment that you occupy. You are creating the other individual to be an element in that environment. You are creating the vehicle. You are creating its movement. In like manner....
JOE: So I would also be creating the clouds that pass by, the trees in the distance?
ELIAS: Yes. In like manner, the other focus of attention, the other individual, is creating the same action. All that is within their perception, they are creating, including you.
Now; what becomes confusing in this association in physical terms is your automatic association with separation and viewing that you are two separate entities, and how you reconcile this within your thought process is to express that you must be creating an agreement with this other individual to be viewing the same physical expressions, and therefore, in that agreement, your identification and definition of this situation is that you create a collaboration, so to speak, or an agreement that you shall view the same posts, the same trees, the same clouds, the same vehicle which passes by.
JOE: Yes. It would seem to me, at least from this viewpoint, that there would have to be a consensus in order for us to both experience basically the same reality, even though we’re creating the same thing.
ELIAS: And this is the familiar direction of association, for this incorporates the expression of separation.
Now; I may express to you, in actuality there is no necessity for agreement, for in actuality there is no separation. You ARE the other individual, and the other individual is you.
JOE: But then how could we experience the same thing, but yet differently through different perspectives?
ELIAS: For you are viewing through different attentions.
In the actual expression of no separation, and the recognition that there are different directions of attention but that there is no separation, there is no need for what you identify as collaboration. It is an automatic expression, and it is known and accepted automatically that you shall view the same experience or physical manifestation, for the most part, for it is merely one physical creation that is being expressed. The differences or the diversity of the experience in that creation is expressed through the different directions of attention.
Now; you provide yourselves with evidence of that which I am speaking of, even individually within your own individual, singular, so to speak, experiences. You may incorporate a particular direction of attention within yourself in an experience, and you shall perceive it in one manner which shall create a specific, particular experience in that moment. You may also create the same experience again, and move your attention in a different direction, and your perception of the same experience shall be different.
JOE: So basically – how do I put this? – the basis for no separation versus individuality is simply the focus of attention.
ELIAS: Yes. This is what I have been expressing to many individuals concerning other focuses of their essence, and it applies also to the concept of essence and consciousness. They are not separated. There are not individual sections or separated entities of consciousness.
But be recognizing that you associate through the blueprint of what is known in this physical dimension and reality. All that you present to yourself is filtered through what is known in objective terms in this physical reality, and this physical reality incorporates separation purposefully, and therefore you automatically associate in that known familiarity. Therefore, the concept of the lack of separation is unfamiliar to you, and presents to you in objective terms quite a challenge in your ability to be assimilating an understanding of that type of reality, or the concept of reality in those terms.
Now; this is also what I have expressed to you as the widening of your awareness and the incorporation of the remembrance.
The remembrance, as I have stated previously, is not memory. It is not the expression of recall or remembering previous experience, so to speak, or previous state of being, in a manner of speaking. The remembrance that I am expressing to you is the widening of your awareness objectively to the point that you incorporate a state of being which KNOWS the lack of separation.
JOE: It would seem to me, in just thinking about this, that we try to hold on to our individuality within this dimension as something totally and absolutely separate, whereas individuality in truth would be a focus of attention within a whole, and not something separated from, or in truth individual – and I don’t know how to put this – and separated, so it’s not. In fact, individuality within All-That-Is means something completely and absolutely different from what this focus of attention would ... or within this dimension, the standard definition would be.
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct, in like manner to the lack of separation of yourself as a focus of attention and all of your focuses of essence in this physical dimension also.
Your natural association, your automatic association, is to separate and view yourself as one individual in one time framework in one space arrangement, and to view all of your other focuses of essence as being separate individuals in separate time frameworks in separate physical locations. You occupy this physical location of a particular continent, a particular country, a particular state, a particular town, a particular home, and in this, you associate a pinpointing of specific physical space arrangement and a singularity and individuality of yourself, and you reinforce this through the creation of one particular physical body expression, one focused intent attention, and the creation of physical imagery that you define as your specific environment.
In this, what you do not recognize is that all physical reality is expressed in the same space arrangement. Therefore, as you begin to allow yourself the recognition that although you may hold another focus of attention in what you define as France in another time framework, such as your 1800s within your linear time framework, you view that to be another individual in another physical location in another time framework, and therefore as separated from you. And if you are interacting with that other focus, your assessment or your definition of your interaction is that you shall be creating a physical projection of yourself to that time and space in which the other individual occupies, or that the other individual shall project themselves to physically be moving to your space and time framework.
In actuality, you are occupying no time and the same space arrangement. Figuratively speaking, you may view all of these focuses of attention as occupying one physical expression, one physical space arrangement, one physical body, and that the attentions are superimposed upon each other simultaneously.
Let me express to you, have you not – which I am aware that you have (chuckling) – incorporated the experience within your one focus of attention in which you allow yourself a moment to be facing yourself within your mirror, your looking glass, and in a particular moment, you view the reflection of yourself and you create a thought within yourself assessing that you do not appear to yourself the same as you are accustomed to or that you are familiar with, and that you may not objectively recognize what may be expressly different, but you know in your assessment that you physically appear different to yourself.
This is one focus of attention, and even within the one focus of attention, at times you view yourself quite differently. You translate this into quite objective, physical terms, and once again in what is known, and also you incorporate the influence of your beliefs.
You may express to yourself in a particular moment, ‘I appear to myself to look older today than I am accustomed to,’ or ‘I appear to myself today, viewing myself in this mirror, to be younger than I am accustomed to viewing myself presently,’ or ‘I appear to myself to be viewing my reflection as brighter or heavier or darker or radiant.’ It matters not. The point is that even within one focus of attention, you offer yourselves the allowance to view yourselves in different expressions, and you question that only slightly, for you incorporate your beliefs, which shall automatically offer you what you term to be a rational explanation of what you are viewing, or you override what you are viewing through your thought process and create an explanation to yourself in terms of rationale.
In this, I may express to you, all of these other focuses are present within you in this one attention simultaneously, and you are present within all of them, and each attention creates its own individual perception of its location, of its environment, of its experience, of its interaction, of all of its reality. They are all present within you.
JOE: Then, Elias, let me ask you this, and I think I’m following pretty close to what it is that you’re telling me here. It would seem to me that each individual focus of attention’s blueprint for experience, although there may be a lot of leeway one way or another, is pretty well set at the time of that attention’s incorporation into the experience reality. (Pause, and Elias takes a deep breath)
ELIAS: In one respect, yes, but let us be clear.
In this, what you set, so to speak, into motion is, in a manner of speaking, a particular frequency of blinking, which creates an actual focus of attention, and in that attention, as you set the attention to a particular frequency of blinking in and out, the attention of the blinking in becomes set as a direction of that attention, which creates an exclusion in paying attention to all of the other blinking in and out that you engage.
JOE: So each focus has a different sequence?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. There is a different sequence or a different frequency of blinking. All of consciousness creates different sequences or frequencies of blinking, which creates the attentions.
And in this, as the attention is established in certain attentions, such as some physical attentions – and I may express to you, some nonphysical attentions also – they are set into a motion and direction that allows for the exclusion of the other attentions, and this allows for that particular attention to create its own individual experience and direction, uninterrupted and without distraction.
JOE: Would this explain, then, probable selves?
ELIAS: In which manner?
JOE: Well, if the focus of attention would be a single frequency, but within that frequency ... and this is in my own terms too, in trying to understand this. If each focus was a frequency, within that frequency would be a myriad amount of sub-frequencies.
JOE: So a focus of attention, as basically the carrier frequency, could branch off and actually initiate a lot of sub-frequencies.
ELIAS: Correct. In this context, yes, you are correct, and this also may be applied to the explanation concerning all of the aspects of you, which are not necessarily expressed as probable selves, but all of the alternate selves of you in one focus.
JOE: So basically, the only limiting factor would be the frequency. Everything inherent with that, and the capabilities inherent in that frequency, could be expressed.
Now; in this, what you are moving yourselves into in this shift in consciousness, in part, is widening your objective awareness to allow yourselves the ability to be continuing to create a reality within this physical dimension in the expression of individuality and in the expression of the one focus of attention and its consistency of blinking, but also allowing yourself to incorporate the expression of expansion in turning that attention to be incorporating other blinking.
JOE: So basically, what I’m understanding here in objective terms ... let me see. Basically, there will be an overlap of frequencies in the same blink? (Pause)
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. Let me express to you, it is the noticing of the blinking itself that you are becoming more aware of, which incorporates many different actions occurring simultaneously, not merely the recognition of one action.
You incorporate this movement, this action of blinking, continuously. But your association with your reality is that there is no blinking, for it is uninterrupted and created in a flow in which you do not view your own action of blinking in and out and all that you are participating within. Therefore, in allowing yourself the recognition of the very action of blinking, you allow yourself to be recognizing that you are incorporating in actuality many attentions and many actions and directions all simultaneously.
Within your physical experience, it may be likened to a mundane experience of yourself choosing to be incorporating an action of engaging in this time framework your physical computer, and simultaneously you may be listening to your music. You may be also engaging an action of interaction with another individual. You may be incorporating the action of reading. You may incorporate many actions simultaneously and hold your attention in all of them. This is what you are moving into in relation to consciousness, in movement within this shift.
To this point within your physical manifestations throughout your history, so to speak, you have singularly focused your attention in the one frequency of blinking, and created an association with that one frequency of blinking....
JOE: That we’ve expressed as a focus.
ELIAS: Correct, and in that, you view it as entirely uninterrupted, and you do not recognize that the action of the blinking is occurring, for there is no interruption....
JOE: So we view it simply as a singular thing.
JOE: When in fact, there is a tremendous multiplicity.
ELIAS: Yes, and you are beginning to allow yourselves an objective viewing, understanding, and allowance of participation with your attention in this action. The....
JOE: So basically, I think in the past – and I might be wrong as to the number, but the idea is the same – I had 51 individual focuses of essence within this dimension. So each of those 51 focuses, although they are actually the same essence, they blink, say, in the first century or the 13th century or the 16th century, but they all occupy the same time space.
JOE: It’s just when the focus of attention is, say, within right now, in the year 2001, at a specific date, at a specific second in time, the attention of focus is there.
JOE: At another point ... and it’s hard to incorporate this into non-time. But in the time framework, at another instant in time, at a point in time, I’m in the 13th century.
JOE: Or the 12th century or the 18th century or whatever.
JOE: But it’s all exactly the same essence.
JOE: So that’s the way we incorporate this singularity of focus within this time framework.
JOE: Now, I still don’t quite understand how we incorporate that ... and I think it has to come to, we interpret individuality as separate and apart from, when in truth, individuality, as far as essence goes, might be ... it is certainly not the way we understand individuality to be, but we would almost have to think of individuality completely differently, as not so much set apart from, but part of and still separate. I mean, it’s a tough concept.
ELIAS: (Laughing) This is the reason that we speak in terms of attentions. Shall you place your attention in the direction of walking across your room, or your attention in listening to music, or your attention in interaction with another individual, and shall you express to yourself that you are separate individuals in each of those actions?
JOE: No. The separation I would see would be in my interaction with another individual.
ELIAS: And this is what I am expressing to you, that as consciousness, the other individual is you also, and you are them.
JOE: But the other individual is consciousness in its own singular attention.
ELIAS: Not singular. It is creating a singularity of attention, just as your attention may be singularly created in focusing in an action of reading a book or riding a horse or swimming within your water. You are creating different actions, and your attention is directed in those actions, but the actions are all being created by you.
JOE: Okay, then let me ask you this. If the actions are being created by me, who is actually ... who or what ... is it the singular action of attention who experiences the experience, or without an action of attention, can all of consciousness experience the experience?
ELIAS: Ah, interesting question! For in the nature of consciousness to be experiencing itself and its infinite creativity, it creates attentions to explore its beingness, and this is what you are and this is what you are doing, so to speak.
JOE: But on a singular level, I mean ... that would mean that Elias is – at least in my understanding, correct me here – that Elias is a singular attention.
JOE: That Holden [Joe] is a singular attention, and Michael [Mary] is a singular attention, and Shynla [Cathy] – all of them.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, and within that attention, there are MANY attentions.
JOE: Okay. Yes, exactly. But as a singular attention, I don’t experience what, say, Elias experiences. I don’t experience, or at least I’m not aware of the experience of Michael or Vicki or....
ELIAS: For the most part, objectively, you are correct. Although I shall also express to you, at times you DO allow yourself an objective awareness of the experience of what you view to be another individual.
JOE: Well, that’s true. When I think about it, that’s true. But the only thing that I’ve felt along those lines is simply a steadily developing empathic sense. Am I on the right track? Is that exactly what it is?
ELIAS: I may express to you, it may not necessarily be defined as a ‘developing’ empathic sense, but that you are allowing yourself to be open to an awareness of that sense, and incorporating an allowance of experience.
Now; in this, these in actuality are merely avenues that allow you to explore and recognize more of you in objective terms.
JOE: More of me in what respect? As a singular focus of attention?
ELIAS: Both as a focus of attention and as all of consciousness.
JOE: So basically, and I’m saying a deeper level, but that’s not really a very good term, not in terms that we’re speaking of, since higher and lower, left and right, deeper or shallower don’t really exist. I just have to use that in order to try to express within a vocabulary. But any experience that has ever been experienced by any part of consciousness, as a singular focus or whatever, is available to all of us at any time, if we allow ourselves the awareness of it.
JOE: Pretty potent stuff there, Elias!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! (Joe laughs) And creates a tremendous expression of availability for experience, does it not?
JOE: Yes, but it also brings ... are our belief systems actually the fibers that weave this veil of separation that we incorporate?
ELIAS: Not necessarily, although I may express to you that they serve to reinforce it. For the veil of separation has been created, figuratively speaking, in your physical terms, through intention prior to the incorporation of belief systems. This is the design, the blueprint of this particular physical dimension, with the express purpose of creating a purity of experience in a particular direction. Each physical dimension is created to be allowing consciousness to explore its beingness in different manners, in different expressions of creativity.
JOE: Following along that line, it would almost seem like our term for infinite really just doesn’t have any meaning whatsoever.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Quite! Your term for infinite and infinity continues to hold limitation! Ha ha ha ha!
JOE: (Laughing) Yes. I’m starting maybe to just get a glimpse of what that limitation is.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha!
In this, I may express to you that within the design of physical association and what is known in physical terms, without the incorporation of this shift in consciousness and a widening of awareness, it is incomprehensible to your objective understanding to view the vastness and the genuine infiniteness of what you are as consciousness, and what consciousness is.” (Grinning) [session 758, January 14, 2001]
ELIAS: “As I have stated, in this physical dimension, one of the most integral aspects of this physical dimension is communication, and in that, it is the communication that you offer to yourself. You have created a physical reality which incorporates in its design the expression of separation, which has created an efficient design within this reality in the manner in which you have chosen to be experiencing it.
But you are changing your reality. You ARE incorporating this shift in consciousness quite purposefully. Therefore, you are altering your perception of your physical reality, which in actuality alters the reality itself.
In this alteration of your reality, one of the most important and strongest expressions that you are moving into in altering your perception is dropping this veil of separation, continuing to be manifest with this physical dimension to be experiencing physical manipulation of consciousness, but dropping the veil of separation in the manner in which you have associated with your reality previously.
Acceptance is the other most expressive and important aspect of the movement that you are creating within this shift in consciousness.
But this aspect of dropping the veil of separation also creates a TREMENDOUS alteration of your reality, for your association automatically moves in the defining of yourself and any other aspect, any other manifestation, within your dimension as separate entities.
You associate that you are you, a creature is a creature, another individual is another individual, a mountain is a mountain, an ocean is an ocean, a tree is a tree, and all of these are separate entities, and all of these create their own reality, and all of these create their own choices. In relation to consciousness, this is correct; in relation to the links of consciousness, this is correct. In relation to YOU as all of consciousness, this is incorrect, for you as all of consciousness are allowing yourself to focus attention into a physical manifestation.
You are not a separate entity. You are a projection of attention, and in like manner, all that this focus of attention views and interacts with is a creation of that focus of attention. Your physical self that you recognize as an individual, a physical body, is a projection of your attention, and every other aspect of your entire universe is also.
Therefore, you are you, and all that is within your reality is a projection of you also, for it is all created through your perception – other individuals, your creatures, your world, your universe – and each individual is a focus of attention, and each individual is also creating the same action. Therefore, within this one physical dimension, within this one physical reality, there are billions of physical realities being created, all simultaneously, and that is expressed merely in this one moment in this one time framework. There are NUMBERLESS realities being created in this moment in relation to simultaneous time, without the veil of separation of time frameworks.
JIM: That’s boggling!
ELIAS: You view your universe to be one entity and that you are an entity placed within it, and that all other aspects of your reality are other entities placed within your physical universe as separate from yourself.
JIM: And placed in it outside of me.
JIM: The truth is, I’ve placed them there.
ELIAS: You have created ALL of it. You may look to the billions of individuals that occupy your planet, and each of them is creating what you are creating: their own individual projection of the entirety of their universe. For you are ALL consciousness, and in actuality, there is no separation of consciousness.” (Grinning) [session 766, January 26, 2001]
HOWARD: “... I think what I’ll do is start with kind of bringing back the discussion that we had regarding Gage T.’s passing and your suggestion to me that you would be available to talk some more about the feelings that I had regarding his withdrawal, the sudden withdrawal, from my life. (4) I said to you I believed that I would be working on this over the year, and a year has transpired and here the session is in front of me again.
I thought it would be pertinent to bring this up in the light of Vicki’s sudden departure and how it affected so many people (5), and if there was something we haven’t touched yet regarding the hole, the emptiness – excuse me – (emotionally) that we feel when a friend has passed on. That’s it. It’s an open plea, if you will, for understanding.
ELIAS: Very well. This may offer you the opportunity to examine in reality the strength of your beliefs, not merely in concept. In these types of situations, my friend, you present yourself with actual experience in relation to the intensity of the influence of your beliefs in association with your perceptions and the opportunity to notice the reality of your perception and how this perception actually does create your physical reality. For in this, as you allow yourselves to be paying attention to what you generate in such intensity in what you identify as feelings, you also present to yourself now the opportunity to examine the information that I have offered to you not merely in concept but to explore this information and these concepts, and turn to allow yourself to generate them in reality rather than merely intellectual concept.
I have expressed to you that emotion is a communication. I have also expressed to you that within this physical dimension you generate a tremendous expression of separation, which prior to this shift in consciousness has been quite purposeful and has served you quite well in generating an allowance in the purity of your experiences. But I have also expressed that within the action of this shift you are thinning, and even in some aspects dropping, these veils of separation. You hold an awareness of this intellectually and in concept, but you also generate confusion in how you shall be creating that expression of dropping these veils.
From the onset of this forum, my friend, I have been expressing, one of the veils of separation that you are piercing in the action of this shift is that between physical focus and nonphysical expressions, and the concept of death. I have also expressed to you all to turn your attentions to self and allow yourselves to view your actual abilities.
This shift is now progressing into the objective insertion into your reality. Recently I have offered information to you all concerning paying attention to HOW you create your reality, not merely WHAT you create within your reality. And now, my friend, energy surges are occurring in strength to be almost FORCING yourselves to move your attentions to yourselves in association with all of these concepts to generate an actual reality. These are all aspects of this shift, and I have also expressed to you that these movements do generate trauma. In this, as you begin to allow yourself to pay attention to all of these concepts that I have offered to you in information and piece them together as an immense puzzle, you may begin to generate an understanding of HOW you create your movement.
Allow yourself the recognition of what I am expressing to you of the power of perception and how it actually generates all – ALL – of your physical reality, and in this, I am not speaking figuratively to you in the moments in which I express to you that although you do interact with other individuals’ energies, you individually actually generate through your perception the actual physical manifestation of other individuals.
Recently I have offered information concerning what you engage in exchange of energy or interaction of energy with other individuals. I have explained that many times you are actually allowing yourselves to receive an energy expression, a projection, from another individual which is expressed with the other individual’s attention, but there are also other time frameworks, moments, in which you interact with energy of another individual but not necessarily energy which contains the individual’s attention. These may be energy deposits of the other individual, which are just as real and are aspects of the other individual’s projected energy but may not necessarily incorporate the individual’s attention. I have offered explanation in how you may recognize this difference, for you all engage these actions throughout your focuses. (6)
The point of offering that information was to allow for an explanation concerning the individual’s attention, YOUR attention, and what you create through your perception concerning individuals that have disengaged. For even as an individual may continue to be physically manifest within your physical dimension, what you interact with in actual physical manifestation is a creation of your own. It is a projection of YOUR perception.
Therefore, I have offered information to allow you to recognize, in your terms, what it means to be interactive with the energy expression of another individual and that that action is no different within physical focus or within nonphysical focus. The energy that you choose to be interactive with is the same, and you incorporate the ability to generate the configuration of that energy in physical expressions in the same manner as you do with an individual that is participating in physical focus as one that has chosen to disengage through what you term to be death and may be nonphysically focused. This also may be generated in association with other focuses of your own essence within this dimension and other dimensions.
I have offered explanation from the onset of this forum that this is an aspect of this shift in consciousness, but now, as you are inserting this shift into your objective reality, you are moving your awareness to a point of actually recognizing your abilities in these expressions. It may be initially confusing, but now you are actually allowing yourselves to begin creating these actions, not merely assimilating them subjectively.
In this, the reason that you generate such an intensity of sorrow in association with another individual that has chosen to be incorporating death is that this type of choice emphasizes to you the strength of your association with beliefs concerning separation. What is actually being communicated in that emotion is the clear identification of that influence of beliefs expressing to yourself, ‘Within this moment you are extremely denying your choices and discounting your ability.’ As I have expressed recently to other individuals, figuratively speaking in a manner that you may understand objectively, denial of your choices and extreme discounting of your abilities is so contrary to the natural expression of essence, for choice is so intrinsic to essence, that this is an expression that may almost move the essence to weep.
I may express to you, my friend, this type of extreme denial of choice within self is not expressed often, but in the moments in which it is, you shall incorporate a tremendous objective awareness for your communication to yourself shall almost be a scream. It shall be generated in tremendous intensity, and this is what you experience in the signal, in the feeling of tremendous sorrow and that which you have expressed as this immense hole. It is not an expression that has been generated by the choice of the other individual or that you are missing the other individual, although this is your automatic response and how you define what you are feeling. In actuality, what you are feeling is a tremendous inability to allow yourself to generate the same action of interacting with the other individual’s energy that you allowed yourself prior to the other individual’s disengagement.
Let me express to you, quite realistically there are individuals that do allow themselves to continue interaction with other individuals’ energy expressions even subsequent to the individual’s disengagement. Some allow themselves to open enough to merely allow an audible interaction in which they hear the other individual. Some allow merely for impressions of the other individual. Some allow dream interaction with the other individual. But there are some individuals that allow themselves to actually engage the same type of interaction with energy with an individual that has disengaged physical focus and generate an actual physical manifestation of the other individual in the same manner that they allowed themselves prior to the individual’s disengagement.
Now; your societies view this type of expression as lunacy and express tremendous disbelief that an individual is engaging this type of interaction, but I may express to you quite literally, there are individuals that do allow themselves to continue to generate through their perception an actual physical manifestation of the other individual in the same manner that they generated it prior to the disengagement, for it is YOUR creation.
The only veil that stands between your energy and another individual’s energy is that which you generate in association with your beliefs – PERIOD. For in actuality there IS no separation. Therefore, the energy continues to be expressed by yourself and by the other individual.
HOWARD: I wrote a thing a long time ago after reading one of Krishnamurti’s books, that the difference between creating your own reality and being a victim was really how you perceive yourself, that if you live your life as other people perceive you to be, you’re a victim. The only way to do things would be to live your life as you perceive yourself to be.
ELIAS: And to offer yourself choice.
HOWARD: Well, thank you so much for that. It was once again a reminder that there is light at the end of the tunnel, or that we’re not in a pit of someone else’s making.
ELIAS: You are not – but you are, if you perceive yourself to be.
HOWARD: Correct. What I’ve heard from you will be something that I’ll be looking at more in the future about my reactions to certain people, for example, and business situations and so on. Thank you, because it’s given me a reminder that what I’m seeing is pretty much the feedback of what I’m giving...
HOWARD: ...and I can change that.
ELIAS: And so you may.” [session 1018, February 25, 2002]
SHAHMA: “... the other day I was outside having a smoke, actually, with a couple of friends, and they were talking about the tragedy of September 11 and the grief aspect of the families left behind. And I said, ‘Yeah, but if I was to die with a whole group of people like in a plane, if the plane went down and suddenly there we were on the other side, I would be looking around saying, ‘Wow! Why did we all go at once?” (Laughs) And they just looked at me kind of strangely. I didn’t feel any conflict in what I was saying, but... So I’m not always offering things in opposition, but as just a different way of looking at it.
ELIAS: I am understanding.
SHAHMA: Because I did feel a lot of sad feelings and everything with the whole thing that happened. I think my sadness... And that was another thing that I was going to ask about. It seems like when these emotions come up, it’s like I’m feeling what the grieving person that is left behind is feeling, and a lot of emotion comes up within me.
I don’t feel that dying, per se, is... Well, there is no death. I don’t feel a whole lot of challenge in that area, but there’s emotions that come up with me, and I’m wondering if this is an empathic thing. But it happens so often, even when I’m watching a movie, even sometimes a commercial on TV! I seem to automatically, if someone seems to be grieving, these emotions just kind of well up within me, and...
In fact I’ve had a little trouble in the past with interacting with someone that is going through a lot of sadness or grief because my automatic re... No, let’s not call it a reaction. The emotion that comes up within me, which I know it’s communicating something to me, is that I want to cry along with them. (7)It’s like I’m feeling the same thing! This happens, like I said, even when I’m watching TV or... It’s like there are all these triggers.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about that you say that the emotions are not a reaction, that they are communicating something, and I’m wondering what, in these instances, is the communication.
ELIAS: The communication is an identification of your association with the belief of separation and the strength of that influence in association with your perception. Separation is an illusion, and it is created by your objective perception. This expression of sadness, this signal of feeling sadness within you, is the signal to allow yourself to listen to the communication concerning separation.
Now; let me express to you, there is an action that is being generated in you with your empathic sense, but you engage that empathic sense in relation to other individual’s sadness to be EMPHASIZING the communication to yourself, and this is the reason that you continue to generate this experience and this signal repeatedly with yourself.
You generate this signal quite strongly at times, which I am aware that at times the strength of this signal influences another signal to your physical body consciousness which moves you to weeping, which is a release of energy and tension. Your physical body consciousness creates an automatic action to be releasing energy, for the expression of tension becomes intense.
In this, throughout your focus, my friend, in your exploration and movement towards the ‘eye,’ you have expressed a strong association with this belief of separation, and in that strong association, you have been attempting to move towards the objective recognition in genuineness of the lack of separation.
SHAHMA: Yeah. (Weeping) That’s what I feel.
ELIAS: And this is such a strongly expressed desire within you that the communication which identifies the alignment of separation is generated quite strongly.
Let me express to you, my friend, merely allowing yourself to NOTICE the communication and acknowledge it may be quite affecting. For each time you acknowledge this communication to yourself – and you need not DO with it; you need not attempt to CHANGE the expression – but merely in the acknowledgment of it, you dissipate some of that energy which reinforces that expression of separation.
SHAHMA: That makes a lot of sense. I think I have done that sometimes.
SHAHMA: I definitely... Okay.
ELIAS: Yes, you have.
SHAHMA: When I begin to even think about the lack of separation, the oneness, or like once I remember talking to my youngest daughter about the consciousness within everything and that we’re all consciousness and everything is alive, and I was going on and I just felt this upwelling of incredible – wooo! – feeling within me. It’s almost like this kind of... It’s like a yearning, but it’s almost like I’m going toward a lover.
ELIAS: Yes! And THAT is the ‘eye.’
SHAHMA: Oh, wow! (Emotionally) Oh, thank you! This is really, really helpful.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome.” [session 1053, April 08, 2002]
ELIAS: “Good afternoon! Welcome! This day we shall be discussing attachments. Are any of you aware presently of attachments to your genuine identity and what they are?
ELIAS: (Laughs) In a manner of speaking, but some are more significant than others. One very significant aspect of this shift in consciousness which is occurring presently – a movement of your individual shifting, which is also being evidenced en mass – is moving into a recognition of your genuine identity. What is your genuine identity?
Your genuine identity is that you stripped apart from all of the attachments that you think of as being a part of your identity, but they are not. And what is an attachment to your identity? An attachment is associated with your experiences, with what you have learned and what you have been taught. Some of these factors of what you have learned or what you have been taught, and also what you yourselves have generated in relation to your own experiences, become attachments to your identity.
One simple example that would be associated with experiences – most individuals generate experiences in regard to relationships, and you generate associations with those experiences. I have defined previously that associations are the assessments that you generate in relation to any experience. You do this with every experience; you create an association. Some are more obvious and stronger than others, but with every experience, you generate an association.
With that evaluation of your experience, you generate an assessment of whether the experience is good or bad. Therefore, an association is an assessment with the attachment of good or bad in relation to an experience: ‘I kissed a girl, and it was good.’ (Laughter) The kiss is the experience; the association is the evaluation of the experience: ‘The kiss was good.’
Now; in relation to experiences and associations, many times you generate repeated experiences or you generate experiences that are very similar to each other: ‘I kissed a girl several times, and each time it was good.’ (Laughter) In that situation, what you are doing is you are reinforcing the association. In that situation, the association becomes stronger and stronger – not that you always engage thinking about the association, but it is registered. Your body consciousness stores all memory; therefore, all of your experiences are stored in memory with your body consciousness. If all of your experiences in memory are stored with the body consciousness, so also your associations, whether the experience was good or bad.
In this, some associations and experiences become so familiar and so much a part of what you do that they become attachments to your identity.
JEREMY: Would this be in relation to shrines, that you talked about previously?
ELIAS: It can be, but not necessarily. They can become shrines, but they do not begin as being shrines. They are attachments.
In this, an individual may express that in regard to relationships they are an individual that enjoys being very playful. That may not necessarily actually be a part of the individual’s genuine identity. It may be a part of their experience. It may be that in their experience, repeatedly what they enjoy most of all in relationships is to generate playful relationships or to be silly or to be very active. That may or may not be an actual part of the individual’s genuine identity, but it most definitely will be a part of an attachment that is formed from the individual’s experiences.
Or ‘I am not very accomplished at relationships; I do not function well within them; I always seem to generate disruptions and cannot seem to create a lasting ongoing relationship.’ This may not be the individual’s genuine identity, but it is their experience. Therefore, they generate an attachment to their identity and express that that is them: ‘This is me; I cannot generate a successful relationship.’ For, the individual’s experience is that they have not been successful yet in attempting to generate a relationship. That is not who they are, but they may begin to generate this addition or this attachment to their identity – which is actually a part of their experiences, not necessarily who they are. That is an example of EXPERIENCE being an attachment.
There are other types of attachments to your identity, elements that are learned or that are taught. Learned is not always taught. You can, in your terms, learn without being instructed. An individual may generate a perception and an assessment of themself that they are clumsy. For in their experience, they generate a tendency to perhaps not pay attention very closely to what they are doing, and perhaps they generate an awkwardness physically. Therefore, in that, they LEARN in relation to their body consciousness, and they generate an assessment, and with that assessment, they attach to their identity: ‘I am not physically coordinated.’ That may not necessarily be accurate or correct, and it may not be a part of their genuine identity, but they have attached it to their identity. Now the individual associates ‘This is a part of me. This is a part of who I am.’ No, not necessarily.
One very large attachment that will be being addressed to that you all share is the attachment that is the gem of yourselves and of your societies. This gem is very precious; you ALL very much value this gem. This ATTACHMENT is independence. You all want independence. You all value independence. You all want to be independent, and you will sacrifice for independence, for this is a very prized gem. And what do you equate independence with? Freedom.
This term ‘independence’ is almost synonymous to you with freedom. I will express to you presently, independence is NOT freedom and bears little resemblance to actual freedom. Independence is binding. For with independence, it incorporates its own tentacles, which create its own attachments. With independence comes responsibility and control and right choices. These are the foundation of independence. If you are independent, you must generate right choices. You must be responsible, and you must be in control of that independence to maintain it. And the maintenance of independence is an ongoing job! How do you perceive the term ‘job’? Work. Independence is a job. It requires considerable energy to maintain.
In this, let me express that whatever the attachments are that you generate so very strongly with your identities, we are not discussing this subject to eliminate it. It is not that independence is entirely bad, for there are many aspects of independence, or any attachment, that are beneficial and that do serve you. But there are also aspects of attachments that are binding and that are obstacles and that are a hindrance.
With independence, one of the obstacles and one of the hindrances is that independence is a moving away-from. You do not become independent-TO, you are independent-FROM. Independence is the action of moving away from some aspect of your reality. Generally, what you think of that you are moving away from is some type of obstacle or some type of restriction – but independence is a restriction. For one of the largest restrictions that is expressed in independence is that it discourages interconnection and it discourages receiving. For, why shall you receive? You can do yourself. Why shall you be interconnected? You can be yourself. You can accomplish yourself. There is no binding or holding upon you if you are independent – but is there?
If you incorporate a home and you maintain this home for you are independent, this home now is your responsibility, and in that, those three factors are very much in play. When you are independent, all that is within your environment, all that is within your focus is within your charge. Whatever you associate with your independence is within your charge. You are responsible for it. Therefore, you are also in control of, and therefore, you must generate right choices in relation to what you control and what you are responsible for. What are those right choices? This generates tremendous confusion and conflict for many individuals, for it is a continuous struggle to decipher what are the right choices to engage in my independence.
When you are entirely independent, you are less likely to allow helpfulness from other individuals. You are less likely to allow receiving gifts – unless the are warranted. But if they are not warranted, if they are merely offered freely with no reason, that is not entirely necessary. ‘It is not necessary for you to offer me a gift! I can offer myself a gift! I do not need from you. I can care for myself. I do not need help, for I can solve my dilemmas.’ And even when you do allow for helpfulness, you allow that when you are more in the direction of desperate or when you perceive that you entirely cannot solve a problem yourself. Then you will engage or enlist helpfulness, on your terms.
Therefore, there are many aspects of independence that are actually binding. But it is not merely independence; that is one attachment. It is a very LARGE attachment. It is one that all of you share and that all of you view as a very precious gem, but there are many different attachments. The point of this subject is to understand that who you are is not necessarily what you do. Who you are is not what you have learned. It is not what you have been taught.
Another example: an individual may, in their genuine self, generate a direction in their own free-flow of their expression that they incorporate no actual preference in relation to relationships and partners. Perhaps the individual naturally expresses in a manner to not necessarily couple themself, and perhaps the individual in their natural identity and expression, if allowed, would generate many relationships with many individuals and would not necessarily couple themself with any. But that same individual, in relation to what they have learned and what they have been taught, may reach an age of early 20s, shall we say, and shall move in a direction of seeking out a partner and couple themselves with this partner with the plan and the idea of being coupled, engaging a family, incorporating a home, generating a particular career. This is what the individual has been taught, what the individual is ‘supposed to do.’ Many individuals do engage these types of actions and are comfortable with that and are moving in a natural direction, but many are not.
This is merely one example, in which that individual may generate those experiences and may choose those directions and may not necessarily be entirely comfortable. They may tolerate what they are doing – I would not necessarily express that they accept it – but this is what is expected, this is what they expect of themself, this is what you do, and therefore, this is what I shall do. And they do, and they may be safe. They may be, at times, neutrally comfortable. The individual may at times generate a genuine comfort in moments, but overall they are existing. They are not honoring their genuine self. They do not even know who their genuine self is. For, what they see of their genuine self is all of the attachments.
Now; what is the point of being aware of the attachments? The point is when you know and you can identify these attachments to your identity, you can also recognize this is not necessarily actually me; this is what I do or this is what I WANT to do, not what I MUST do. Attachments create the have-tos, the musts, the shoulds, the should-nots. The genuine identity does not incorporate the shoulds, the should nots, the have-tos, the musts, the musn’ts. Those are not associated with your genuine self.
Now; this is not to say that you do not choose those aspects, those expressions of attachments, or even that you do not want to choose some of them – you do! There are aspects of all of your attachments that you prefer, that you actually like, that you want to express. Therefore, they are not necessarily bad, but they are limiting if you are not aware of them. How many individuals discount themselves very strongly and then justify it, expressing, ‘But this is myself; this is who I am; I cannot change that.’ Yes, you can. For your genuine self is not as limited as the attachments that you place upon yourselves.
These attachments can either be a very hard encasing shell that you cannot shine through, or they can be adorning decorations. They create interesting and wondrous and curious patterns that you shine through. But in many situations, they are the hard shell that is not allowing you to express yourselves genuinely and freely in who you actually are.
Some individuals are naturally observers and are comfortable and naturally express not engaging. But they may be within the midst of a group of individuals, and other individuals may be pressing to engage. Therefore, they do – for they should, SHOULD be speaking with other individuals. But that may not necessarily be your genuine self. Therefore, what SHOULD you be doing? And why SHOULD you engage in a manner that is not natural to you?
Some individuals are naturally flamboyant, and they may be in a group of individuals that want them to be quiet! (Laughter) Very well, why should you be quiet? It is not your natural expression.
In that, yes, you do interact with each other, you do generate guidelines in groups, and you do generate guidelines in behaviors. But in knowing what your natural movement is, what your natural expression is, you can also choose with whom and where you interact. If you are not naturally an individual that enjoys being quiet, you will not choose to be in situations in which you are expected to be quiet. If you are an individual that is naturally quiet and not as interactive, you will not choose to be in situations in which you must be interactive and engaging. If you are aware of your own independence, you can choose how to express that – not to your own detriment but to your benefit, how you can be interconnected, not alone.
How many individuals present here have experienced moments in which they feel very alone? If any of you were to express to myself that you did not (chuckles), I would express to you that you are delusional! (Laughter) Ah, yes! And when is it, generally speaking, that you feel most alone?
KEN G.: When I’m discounting myself.
ELIAS: Very much so. When you are judging yourselves, you feel very alone. When you perceive you are generating a wrong action, you feel very disconnected and alone, for no other individual would understand and no other individual incorporates your experience. Therefore, you are very alone. When you cannot decipher what you perceive to be a significant problem that you are generating, you feel alone.
You are NEVER alone. I would express, although there are no absolutes, this would be the closest absolute. It is almost not possible for you to be alone. For you are consciousness; therefore, you are always interconnected. Whether you allow yourself to recognize that and acknowledge that or not is a different situation, but you are NEVER alone.
Now; this is not to say that what you feel is not very real. It is. Is it valid? No. Does it matter that it’s not valid? In many situations, not always. Do you care if it is not valid in many situations when you are feeling very alone? No. Can you ask yourself, ‘Is this feeling valid?’ Yes, you can, and can you express to yourself, ‘No, this is not necessarily valid’? Does that generally matter to you at that moment? For, you are feeling what you are feeling. No, it generally does not matter to you that it may not be valid.
LYNDA: Wow, I didn’t know that you knew that. (Laughter) But you do! Thanks.
ELIAS: In this, what is significant to remember is that although you are each very unique and individual and perhaps even somewhat independent, you are not alone and you are not one thread by yourselves. You are a fabric that is all interwoven, and distance or time is not a factor in this fabric. Physical proximity matters not in this fabric. You cannot be separated out from it. And when one thread in that fabric turns dull, the whole of the fabric begins to stop shimmering. When one thread of the fabric glows, the rest of the fabric shines also.
It may not SEEM to be this in your individual experiences, but the reason that it does not SEEM to be this is that you become so very caught in your own web of attachments and isolation and independence, which creates this perception of disconnection. But you are NOT disconnected. Yes?
PAT B.: As you talk about independence, I keep going back to the idea of our country, our country having the Declaration of Independence and what we were pushing away from. As we are pushing away and we think that we are so separate and we have such a great responsibility being the United States of America, we’re actually pulling ourselves away from the rest of the world in our independence, separating ourselves.
ELIAS: And what do you do, as your country? Those three factors are very much in play, are they not? Right choices, responsibility and control.
PAT B.: Exactly, and that’s where we are right now. That’s where so much of the world is looking down on us, because we have separated ourselves, putting ourselves on a pedestal because of our independence.
PAT B.: So everything you’re saying here, I’m relating to as a country...
ELIAS: And you do that individually!
PAT B.: ...not just as individuals but in mass.
ELIAS: Yes, very much so.
JOHN: I think you can see that internally in the health care debate, as well.
ELIAS: Very much so. it is very much being reflected in more of an obvious manner now, for you are addressing to it now.
PAT B.: And we stand behind the Declaration of Independence and who we are and what we are, and we’re not getting our freedom. What we’re doing is we’re separating ourselves and becoming more responsible to others.
ELIAS: Correct, and more disconnected rather than interconnected.
Freedom is gained and expressed in interconnection. This is where your freedom lies, in being interconnected, in knowing that whatever you may not necessarily generate an ability to do another individual does and complements you. Therefore, you are accomplishing. And whenever, in your very realistic terms, you fall, there is another to help you up, for you ARE interconnected.
When you generate an action, it is not merely theory or hypothetical that what you do is felt a world away – it IS. It IS affecting. What you do that you perceive is merely your own individual small experience and does not touch any other individual, and that no other individuals benefit from what you are doing for they do not even know what you are doing, they do. They may not know your name, they may not know your face, but they feel your energy.
Energy is a very real expression. It is as real as your physical bodies. It is bigger than your physical bodies, and it is freer than your physical bodies and your intellect, for it knows no boundaries. It can move in any direction and span any distance. Your energy, being in this room presently this day, reaches to the farthest extent of your universe that you cannot even see. But it is present.
The point is what you do with that energy. You are EACH – I cannot emphasize this strongly enough, whether you believe it or not, which we shall also be discussing, what you believe – EACH of you incorporates equal strength to any society. However strong you perceive a collective to be in a society, each of you individually is equally as strong and incorporates equal ability to accomplish.
Another example of a current situation in your reality with your economy, with your global situation and in this particular country, there are individuals – are there not, Catherine [Susan]? – that regardless of what the economy appears to be or how many employments or jobs there are not can create the precise job that is wanted and doing precisely what you desire to do. Correct?
ELIAS: Correct, regardless that the society around you is expressing doom and gloom and that this is not the time framework to be engaging certain actions, for it is all very negative.
You are equally as strong as your government. Regardless of how many individuals incorporate that mass, your one individual self is equally as strong. It is equally as strong as any society, and you can accomplish whatever you choose to do, whenever you choose to do it. It is merely a matter of removing some of your own obstacles – your own cliché of ‘moving out of your own way’ – and in that, your own way is your own attachments, allowing them not to be such very strong incredible clamps upon you, but rather flowing materials that are decorations rather than boxes that trap you, that allow you genuine freedom in your interconnectedness.
How many times have I expressed to all of you that in relation to manipulating energy, if you want to accomplish a particular action in manipulating energy how much easier and more efficient and more quickly you can accomplish that if you pool energy? All of you are familiar with that term, pooling energy. What is that? That is interconnected. You accomplish much quickly, much more efficiently, effectively and stronger when you are interconnected than you do when you separate yourselves out to be alone. (Quietly) And you are not alone.
Another point in this which is also connected with what we were expressing in relation to feeling alone and when you feel alone and questioning yourself is ‘is this valid?’ Does it matter if it is valid? What is significant is what you believe in that moment – not what your beliefs are, but what you believe in the moment that you are experiencing. This holds for whatever your experience is, but it is very important in moments when you are uncomfortable, you are distressed, you are disconnected, you are feeling alone. What are you believing at that moment? For whatever you believe, you trust; you do not question. You very strongly, almost implicitly trust what you believe. Therefore, it is significant to question yourself: ‘In this moment, what do I believe? What do I believe is occurring? What do I believe about myself? What do I believe about my world, about other individuals?’ For, that is what you trust in that moment.
Also, paying attention to what you believe can very strongly but very easily reinforce your recognition of trust. We discuss trust considerably and frequently. Trust, in some capacities for many individuals, can be somewhat elusive: ‘What is trust? How do I know that I am trusting?’
One manner in which you know you are trusting is to ask yourself what you believe, for you do trust that and how easily you express that. It does not incorporate much effort or work. In whatever you believe, you merely believe it, and that is a very strong example of what you trust and how you trust. If I believe this, I trust it. This is a manner in which you can evaluate with yourselves how you are trusting, what you trust, what you do not trust, and a manner in which it is easy to define what you are trusting and what you are not trusting in relation to yourselves also: ‘What do I believe about myself? What do I not believe about myself? Those are what I trust and what I do not trust about myself.’ They can be very telling, but they can be very helpful in you generating more clarity in relation to your genuineness, who you are and what choices you want to engage, rather than merely engaging automatically.
JEREMY: ... Well, as we all know, I love to talk, but I’m going to do something a little bit different this time. I’d like you to address possibly how vulnerability and people at large viewing it as a weakness, how that works into independence and the openness that vulnerability creates that people fear, yadda-yadda. Now you take the floor. I’ve already done my song and dance.
ELIAS: (Laughs) Therefore, your question and subject matter is ‘how vulnerability associates with independence’?
JEREMY: Yes, in the sense that if you’re independent you have a strength to yourself, but if you’re vulnerable and you’re relying on all these other individuals, that creates an openness that most people view as a weakness.
ELIAS: Very well. First of all, it is a matter of defining independence and recognizing that dependence is not actually the reverse of independence, that dependence is an entirely different expression and is not actually related to independence, contrary to what you think of it.
Dependence generally is expressed in individuals that are significantly to severely discounting themselves and their abilities, and generate the perception that they cannot accomplish actions themselves. Therefore, they turn their attention outside of themselves for approval, for abilities, and in that, they move in a direction of reliance upon other individuals to be generating actions for them in relation to their tremendous self-discounting.
Independence is an entirely different subject, for individuals can severely discount themselves and also continue to be independent. Independence is more an action in which individuals generate this perception of what you term to be self-reliance. In that, this is the reason that individuals prize this expression so very much. For in one manner of speaking, it does allow the individual to show, in a manner of speaking, their abilities, to express their abilities. Therefore, that would be the aspect of independence that you would term to be good or beneficial.
But it is also generated in extreme, and therefore creates the situation of disconnect and not acknowledging that interconnection – not merely with other individuals, but interconnection with All That Is, interconnection with all of your environment, with your world, with your universe, with consciousness regardless of how it is manifest. You are interconnected with it all. You are interconnected with a mountain, with a stream, with the air and with the universe as you see it or as you perceive it – not merely other individuals, although other individuals are a significant part of what you are interconnected with.
Now; in relation to vulnerability, that can be expressed in either situation. In actuality, vulnerability would be less expressed with individuals that you would term to be dependent. For although surfacely they appear or they present the facade or the camouflage of being more vulnerable, in actuality they are not. These individuals generally are expressing more shielding and therefore more boundaries, more of blockages, more walls in relation to that factor of interconnectedness. They allow less interconnectedness. Regardless that they surfacely are enlisting other individuals for what appears to be helpfulness, what they are doing is they are enlisting other individuals’ abilities and their expressions, and substituting them as their own.
In this, they are not expressing a vulnerability or an openness, for generally speaking they do not want other individuals to see them. They want to be hidden. They do not want you to see their vulnerability or their openness, for that merely would enhance and emphasize what they are already discounting within themselves – a lack of their own abilities, or how they perceive them.
In relation to independence, it can move in either direction. If an individual is genuinely recognizing their interconnection with other individuals and with All That Is, they can be expressing a genuine vulnerability and openness and not be threatened, for they are also expressing confidence and a satisfaction within themselves. When they are comfortable themselves, then it is easy to allow that interconnectedness with other individuals. Generally speaking, when you are uncomfortable with yourself, you also block that interconnection with other individuals, which also lends to that feeling of aloneness.
In this, if an individual is expressing independence in relation to the attachment in the manner that we were discussing, that can create a block in relation to vulnerability, for the individual can be closed within themself and not allowing themself to recognize that interconnectedness with All That Is, and therefore, they are generating considerable energy merely maintaining their own independence and not allowing for that openness and that interconnectedness.
Vulnerability is not a negative. It is not an open invitation to be hurt. Vulnerability is an expression of openness that allows you to gain. It allows you to receive. Contrary to religious beliefs that express ‘giving is much better than receiving,’ I would disagree. Receiving is the ultimate gift that you can offer to yourselves, for there is so much richness in your reality that receiving is merely an action of allowing yourself to absorb that richness, to participate with that richness. It is not always that it generates the action of giving a thing to one another. Receiving is an action of allowance. It is yourself allowing yourself to connect, to draw-in from outwardly.
We discuss considerably how important it is to be paying attention to yourselves and to be aware of what is occurring inwardly with yourselves, but you are not participating in a reality in isolation. You are not one individual that occupies the entirety of your earth. There are many, many, many, many, many of you, and you all are interacting together, and you all affect each other, as I expressed previously. Whether you are objectively aware of it or not, you are affecting of each other in manners that you would not even generally comprehend, but in this, in an expression of independence, knowing that you are interconnected and in that interconnection that other individuals are not set upon being intrusive or hurtful to you.
This is also a significant point in relation to vulnerability. Individuals are leery of expressing that openness and vulnerability, for you do automatically associate that that creates an open door for any other individual to be hurtful or to be intrusive or to take advantage. No individual can be intrusive, hurtful or take advantage of you unless you allow them to do so. Generally speaking, when you allow them to do so, you are already projecting an energy of discounting yourself, which is drawing that action to you. Long before another individual approaches you in some manner that is distressing or disturbing or hurtful or annoying, you have already been projecting that energy within yourself and are drawing that, are attracting that to you. Therefore, you create it.
In this, genuine vulnerability is a genuine expression of openness. When individuals express that they are hurt or they are intruded upon, they are not expressing an openness. Openness requires a prerequisite of acknowledgment of yourself, of your worth, a recognition of your own value. An expression of vulnerability, in your terms, in which an individual is expressing, ‘I am being very open,’ and the individual thusly experiences some hurtful action, no, this is not a genuine openness; this is a false openness. It is a facade. It is what you think you are being, being open: ‘I am allowing this other individual to interact with me.’ Allowing another individual to interact with you is not necessarily being open. You are continuously allowing other individuals to interact with you.
If you were to actually look at, visually see, your own energy fields while you are interacting with other individuals, that would indicate to you if you were actually being vulnerable. If your energy field is being held very close and tight to your body consciousness, no, you are not being open or vulnerable, although you may express that you are for you are allowing another individual to interact with you.
There is a significant difference between allowing another individual to interact with you and being open to that other individual interacting with you, which you all are familiar with in generating situations in which you may be engaging a conversation with another individual and you are allowing the other individual to express themself in their opinion, and within you, you are expressing to yourself, ‘Well, that is your opinion, and you may have it, and I care not. I disagree with you, and I am not actually listening to you – but you can express yourself. I will not receive it, but I also will not stop you from expressing yourself. And I will express to myself that I am being accepting, for I am allowing you to express.’ No, you are not being accepting, and no, you are not being vulnerable. You are not expressing openness. You are merely allowing another individual to express. Are you receiving? No. That is not vulnerability.
When you are confident within yourself, you can afford to be vulnerable, for you are not generating the fear of the threat that there is some hurt. For there is no threat of hurt in genuine vulnerability, in genuine openness, for you are already aware that if there is a hurt, you are creating it, not the other individual.
Now; let me emphasize a point in this – not to say that hurt is not very real, it is, and not to say that feeling hurt is wrong or bad; it is not. Individuals feel hurt many times, even if they know that they themselves are creating that and it is not the fault of another individual. There are time frameworks and situations in which you may present to yourself a significant difference between yourself and another individual, and depending upon that difference and depending upon how invested you are in your own guidelines and your own perception – not that this is wrong; it is not – you may feel hurt, for an aspect of you may grieve in that difference. That is not necessarily generating a judgment of wrong in relation to what the other individual is expressing. What it is expressing is an acknowledgment of your own difference and that the difference itself grieves you, for many times significant differences with individuals creates barriers. It creates a type of separation. Therefore, that is unnatural, and your genuine self knows that.
Therefore, you may feel hurt, but it is not the type of hurt that you define or that you are accustomed to defining. It may feel the same in whether you blame another individual or whether you blame yourself: ‘I did this to myself; I created this.’ It matters not; the hurt is the same, and the hurt is real. That is not a result of vulnerability. For, vulnerability and hurt is an action of threat. There is no threat in genuine vulnerability, for you recognize that no outside source can generate hurtfulness to you unless you allow that; therefore, there is no threat. But hurtfulness can be expressed in your own recognition inwardly of that grieving of separation and a lack of connection when you generate significant differences.
I will express again, this is not bad, and we are not generating utopia in this shift. You are not eliminating all of your feelings, and you are also not replacing all of the feelings that are uncomfortable with all pleasant, joyful feelings. One of the reasons is the very nature of yourselves, your human species. As humans, discomfort is motivating. You strive and strive and strive for comfort, you attain it, and you become complacent with it. You express continuously over and over to myself, ‘How can I maintain comfort continuously, always, and never experience any discomfort?’ Disengage from this reality! (Laughter) For this reality incorporates emotion.
JEREMY: That kind of verges on a creative dilemma, right?
ELIAS: How so?
JEREMY: Well, you create a conflict, but it’s more a beneficial conflict. It’s not a conflict that needs resolving so much. In fact, the resolving would kind of dissipate the creativity that blossoms from it, so it would be a creative dilemma.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. It is dependent upon the individual. Yes, conflicts do blossom into new information and new explorations and experimentations. Are they comfortable? Not necessarily.
NATASHA: Can you stay open during the conflicts?
ELIAS: You can, yes.
NATASHA: How do you recognize that you are open during the conflict or during the discussion or during the conversation and you are disagreeing with your opposite? How do we know that?
ELIAS: You can disagree and not be threatened. When you notice in a conversation, in an interaction in your disagreement, that you are expressing any aspect of defense, you are no longer open, for you are now engaging a threat and you are expressing to that threat with defense. And defense can be expressed in many different capacities.
Defense is not always expressed in the capacity of what you would perceive as protecting yourself, although that is what you are doing. But it can be expressed in a very aggressive manner. You can be motivated to be expressing more strongly in an attempt to convince another individual of your opinion or your point of view or to instruct them in what they do not understand or what you perceive they do not understand or to correct them in what they are interpreting wrong. Any of these expressions are a defense; you are defending your position.
When you are defending your position, you are not being open. You are not being genuine with the other individual. You are not being vulnerable. You are protecting; you are shielding; you are blocking the other individual. You are not allowing yourselves to receive. What you are doing is you are projecting, and generally speaking, you generate that harder and harder and harder until the point that one individual, either yourself or the other, concedes. And in that, you draw stalemates.
NATASHA: Another question that I had previously, how do you make yourself recognize interconnectedness?
ELIAS: That is an excellent question. I would express that it is, for most of you, initially not very easy, for you are manifest in this reality individually, singularly. You are housed in one individual body, and that creates this illusion of separateness. You each incorporate qualities and expressions and identities that are uniquely you. Therefore, that also creates the appearance of another separation and less of an interconnectedness. But energy, once again, is boundless, and although you each incorporate your own unique qualities and expressions and identities in this reality that are individual, your energy is not necessarily individual.
NATASHA: It’s not?
ELIAS: No. Energy is energy, and energy is a product of consciousness. It is a manifestation of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be separated; therefore, energy is not separated. Therefore, what you are interconnected with continuously, always, is energy, and it is not bounded, regardless of space or time. In that, regardless of opinions, regardless of qualities, of talents, of abilities, it matters not. Your energy is all connected.
I will suggest to all of you to experiment. I have suggested previously that you experiment with physically viewing your energy fields, individually or with each other. Beyond viewing energy fields that are more associated with your individual body consciousness, I would suggest an experiment that you can each engage, in merely viewing energy. You will begin to see that regardless of what you are viewing the energy around, be it a chair or plant or your floor or a creature or any object, it blends with all other energy around it.
Your energy is very similar, in a manner of speaking, to your air. Can you find or discover one area in your reality that there is no air?
NATASHA: What about a vacuum?
ELIAS: You can create a vacuum, but there is some aspect of air in the vacuum also, even within space. It is not necessarily air that you breathe, it is not necessarily air in the configuration that you are accustomed to, but it is present. In that, you cannot necessarily touch it, and unlike energy, you cannot necessarily see air unless it is colored with some other gas. You need no gas to see an energy field or to see energy at all. It is visible without any colorance; it colors itself.
ELLA: If I focus on anyone in this room, I could perceive an exchange of energy without necessarily seeing anything?
ELLA: But I could use the other senses...?
ELIAS: Yes, even without visually seeing – although you can visually see it, also – you can feel it. In this, you can experiment with energy, how interconnected you are, in FEELING energy, and experiment how many times you bump into other energies.
You can feel, if you are paying attention, when you approach any other manifestation. You will bump into its energy. It will be very brief, for immediately they absorb together; they merge. But there is an initial tap that you can feel, if you are paying attention, in which you will notice that you are colliding with another energy. In that, you will also notice how very quickly they merge and intermingle together, just as any other gas mingles with your air and creates patterns.
ELLA: Elias, I would like to ask you, we have observed the trend of what you are discussing right now already for a couple of sessions, so obviously a time has come where you are leading us somewhere. While we are on our journey, still many of us would value what you describe as self-reliance, and there is nothing wrong with it?
ELLA: What you are saying is that maybe we could notice and find the balance between self-reliance and still be interconnected?
ELLA: Is there anything, other than what you just described as that experiment, that you are suggesting for us to do or to notice other than what you have just given?
ELIAS: Listen to other individuals. Pay attention. Question other individuals’ experiences. You will begin to recognize that they are not so dissimilar from your own. As unique as you each are, you are all interconnected, and that shows itself in your experiences and in the similarities in what you do, in how you perceive, in how you feel. Even in situations in which you can present yourself with an individual that you would deem to be extremely mentally disturbed, an individual that you perceive incorporates no conscience, that can express the most heinous actions and not feel remorse, even those individuals feel similarly to all of you in some capacities.
ELLA: So you’re saying to focus on similarities rather than on differences, as much as possible?
ELIAS: As an experiment to recognize that interconnection more, not necessarily in general. I am not expressing the power of positive thinking, and I am not expressing that you entirely consume yourself with positiveness and that therefore you will all recognize your interconnection.
ELLA: Actually, I didn’t mean it this way. I’m just saying that lately – we are all different – but there is a sense that I could value those differences and find similarities almost as a common denominator...
ELLA: ...rather than focus on ‘you are different; go away.’
ELIAS: And a complement. Yes, you are correct.
HOWIE: Elias, I was wondering if we could get a few moments of elaboration revolving back to the idea of attachment and similar related ideas which I have found in culture, that say attachment or all attachment leads to suffering. In that respect, there’s also the piece of ‘detachment,’ which might be what you were describing as moving away from. That’s something I’m not clear on, and aversion or avoidance and how this all plays into participation or not.
ELIAS: Aversion, avoidance, detaching, these are all actions that individuals generate to be isolating. They are motivated by or stem from the individual discounting themself, not accepting certain aspects of themself, viewing certain aspects of themself as bad or wrong, and therefore not wanting to connect for they already view themselves as being wrong or bad.
Generally speaking, this is another commonality that you do when you perceive yourselves in a particular way. You automatically assume that every other individual will know that too, or will perceive you in that manner also: ‘I am viewing myself as bad or not adequate, and therefore when I present myself to other individuals, that is what they will see also; that is how they will perceive me.’ Or, ‘If I do not generate this action in a particular manner, other individuals will perceive me as not adequate or as wrong or as not good enough.’ The individual themself is already discounting of themself, and therefore, once again, that is the energy they are projecting. Therefore, that is what they will draw to themselves. They will create that attraction, and in many situations, they will match it.
But surprisingly, there are situations in which the individual may be discounting themself but also may incorporate enough value of themself, regardless that they can be discounting themselves, that they will not necessarily reflect from other individuals that they are wrong or they are bad or that they are not good enough. They may reflect to themselves the entire reverse, in which individuals genuinely do appreciate them and express that, regardless that they may not be feeling very well about themselves in any particular time framework.
But once again, that is associated with their experience at that time, what they are experiencing themself, and how they are generating their own judgment of themself in that time framework. Which yes, that does move in conjunction with some attachments, for it may be an individual is judging themself or discounting themself in regard to a relationship or in regard to their employment, and perhaps their opinion and their perception of themself is that they are not generating adequately or not enough in whatever they are doing. There is an aspect of that that is an attachment of either what they have learned or what they have been taught – more so more likely what they have been taught – of how to perform and what is acceptable productivity and what is not acceptable productivity. Therefore, that aspect of the attachment plays into their own discounting of themselves and their own feelings that they are already generating, and it exacerbates that and creates that being expressed even more strongly.
Another point in relation to this is you all are aware that each of you incorporates your core beliefs, your core truths. Most of you have identified what your core truth is, which we have established is your guideline.
Now; that, in this focus, in this reality, is a natural movement. It is not your identity, but it is a natural movement for you, and in that, many times your own natural movement with your own core beliefs or core truth can become intertwined with attachments also. An individual may incorporate a core truth of responsibility and also incorporate an attachment of responsibility. An individual may incorporate a core truth of respect and also incorporate an attachment of how respect is expressed and what it is. An individual may incorporate a core truth of roles or image, and also incorporate attachments that emphasize those. And that can become tricky, for in that, it is a matter of evaluating and discerning ‘what have I learned in relation to this subject, what have I been taught in relation to this subject, what are my experiences with this subject that influence me, and what is my genuine expression of it?’ And there are differences.
An individual may be a naturally supportive individual. That may be an actual natural element of their genuine identity. They genuinely naturally express supportiveness, but they may also incorporate attachments in relation to personal responsibility. That can become confused in being supportive or being instructive to other individuals, for you are incorporating personal responsibility for them and they are not accomplishing well enough, for they are not generating adequately enough and they cannot generate their own choices well enough. Therefore, it is your responsibility to generate the choices for them. That is personal responsibility for other individuals; but you also may naturally express a supportiveness of other individuals.
Some individuals naturally express in their genuine identity actions and expressions of participating and giving. Other individuals may view that individual and express, ‘This individual incorporates difficulties and problems for they are always giving to other individuals. Obviously, they are not focusing their attention upon themself.’ Perhaps not; perhaps they are. And perhaps this is a natural expression that the individual does.
It is a matter of evaluating within each of you. What are you naturally doing? What would you naturally do if you allowed yourself? What would you NOT naturally do if you allowed yourself, as opposed to what you do for this is what you have learned and what you have been taught and this is what your experiences suggest to you? More so, what would you NOT do if you allowed yourself permission to not do?
KEN G.: Is this what you referred to in the past as impulses, or true impulses?
ELIAS: Impulses move in conjunction with that, yes, for impulses are promptings that you present to yourself without thinking and many times without feeling. They are inner promptings. They are not necessarily thought of logically. They are not planned; they are spontaneous. Many times, they are in response to what you may be presenting to yourself.
You may present to yourself an interaction with another individual that is very uncomfortable, and you may generate an impulse to remove yourself. Whether you listen to that impulse or not is a choice. Generally, depending upon the situation, I would express that the impulse may be ignored for it is not what you have learned and it is not what you are taught: ‘That is rude.’
KEN G.: Are true impulses always from genuineness?
JEREMY: So when you ask for impressions, for people to give their impressions about things all these years, is that your way of saying not to listen to the attachments but to listen more to that genuine identity, like through the interconnectedness of that?
ELIAS: Somewhat. That would be somewhat different from impulses.
Impressions are knowledge that you incorporate that you are not necessarily always objectively aware of but is available to you, and that you know but you are not always thinking of. Therefore, impressions appear to you to be more spontaneous. In actuality, they are not, for you already possess the information. It is merely a matter of listening to the information that you already possess.
Impulses are promptings. Those are actions, and those are generally spontaneous. They are not planned. They are not already stored, so to speak. They are not an action that is calculated, in a manner of speaking. They are inner promptings in a moment in association with whatever probabilities you are engaging in that moment and whatever is the most beneficial to you in that moment, which is also another reason that generally many of you do not listen to them. Your thinking overrides them, and your intellect expresses that you know more than your impulses.
PAT B.: Where does a twinge come in?
ELIAS: That would be very similar in certain capacities to impulses, but twinges can also be associated with intuition or impressions.
PAT B.: Whenever I have a twinge, I usually can look at it and say I made a judgment.
ELIAS: It is information that you already possess, and it is being brought to your objective attention. You prompt yourself, in a manner of speaking, which could be termed to be a twinge, in which there is information that you know.
PAT B.: It’s always a judgment? Every time you have a twinge, are you making a judgment? Or am I wrong there?
ELIAS: Not necessarily, for I would express that for the most part whatever you are expressing you are attaching some type of a judgment to. That is the difference between the belief system of duplicity and the other belief systems. Duplicity is the one belief system that attaches itself to ALL of the belief systems. It attaches itself to all actions and all that you do, whether it be...
PAT B.: And a twinge is part of that duplicity.
ELIAS: It can be, yes.
LYNDA: I swear I’m not feeling responsible, but we have to close up.
ELIAS: Very well!” [session 2867, October 24, 2009]
(1) Paul’s note: Elias uses the metaphor of orange sections to show that there is no separation within consciousness, that it’s all connected. He says that we create the artificial division of sections where none really exist. The same is true with our physical selves and our essence.
(2) Paul’s note: a reference to the death of Dianna, the Princess of Wales. Diana Spencer, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul were fatally injured on August 31, 1997 in Paris, France in a car accident. Diana’s death had a tremendous impact on England and the rest of the world. Her funeral was reportedly witnessed, via satellite television links, by over two and a half billion people.
(3) Paul’s note: In 1999, Elias introduced a method that I call NIRAA (Noticing, Identifying, Recognizing, Addressing to, Accepting beliefs/self), pronounced “nigh-rah.” There are four basic steps, and you guessed it, the first one is:
The process of accepting self is not strictly linear. Since we each hold many hundreds, even thousands of related beliefs, we actually engage all four actions simultaneously in varying degrees. So the process is more like a four-way, multidimensional (holonic) feedback loop:
Elias has stated that no one to date has accepted a belief system, though we all have learned to accept individual beliefs. Even people we consider saints, sages, and religious leaders have not accepted a belief system, according to Elias. So we’re all in very good company!
Digests: find out more about these four actions.
(5) Paul’s note: Vicky Pendley passed away unexpectedly on December 06, 2001 after a short bout of flu and pneumonia. She had been present from the second Elias session forward, and became responsible for transcribing and disseminating the Elias transcripts, among other things. Vic personally attended virtually all of the 264 sessions recorded in Castaic, California from April 29, 1995 to February 05, 1998. Her boisterous presence can be felt throughout the sessions she transcribed (through session 764 that, ironically, was a private with her and Bobbi Houle, her friend and neighbor who inherited her job). Vic’s endnotes and other comments provided a valuable source of background information, insight, and occasional comic relief. This website is dedicated to her memory. We miss you old friend!
Library: find out more about Vicky Pendley.
(7) Shahma’s note: Just saying this brought tears!
Digests – see also: | aspects of essence; an overview | attention (doing and choosing) | avenues of communication | belief systems; an overview | bleed-through | camouflage | choices/agreements | creatures | dimension | dimension veils | disengage (death) | duplicity | energy signatures | essence; an overview | essence names | essence tones | fear | focus of essence; an overview | forum | imagery | information | manifestation | mirror action | noticing self | objective/subjective awareness | oubliette | perception | engaging periphery | probabilities | religion (spirituality) | remembrance of essence | sexuality; gender, orientation, and preference | shrines | shift in consciousness | Source Events | time frameworks | transition | vicitms/perpetrators | widening awareness | you create your reality |
The Elias Transcripts are held in © copyright 1995 – 2013 by Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.
© copyright 1997 – 2013 by Paul M. Helfrich, All Rights Reserved. | Comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org