JOE: “Elias, in the books dictated by Seth, he talks of All-That-Is, and he talks of All-That-Is being, in his terms, a primal gestalt.
“Now, in the beginning ... and I know that’s a very, very relative term. In Seth’s books, he talks about All-That-Is basically giving up of himself – and I’m saying ‘him’ just in an explanatory sort of way – giving up of himself to many, many different parts, each basically being granted individuality as a soul. According to Seth, all souls were in the beginning, and none since, and yet different aspects of an individual essence can give freedom to a part of itself. But also, Seth said that this isn’t done lightly.
“In reading all of the transcripts ... not all the transcripts, but in reading the transcripts, I kind of get the feeling that you’re saying basically the same thing. Can you offer any insight into that, or something along those lines?”
ELIAS: “Are you wishing of information as to what you have defined as ‘All-That-Is,’ or are you wishing for information concerning the offering of individuality to different aspects of what you have termed to be the soul? (No pause for a response)
“I express to you that my identification is merely a difference in terminology, in that Seth has presented this concept of ‘All-That-Is,’ and I express a similar concept in the terminology of ‘all of consciousness,’ which is essentially the same expression.” [session 749, December 31, 2000]