What is the Elias phenomenon really about?

We really don’t have a scientific or religious framework to fully understand what Elias is or isn’t ... yet! The existing model of the human mind promoted by contemporary cognitive sciences is a very narrow, ego-bound view. Mainstream Western science still has its head stuck in the ground of the five physical senses.

According to psychologist Charles Tart, research in the area of parapsychology has already offered rigorous, laboratory proof of the existence of what is termed “psi” phenomena: telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. (1) But these results are still not accepted in the mainstream. Why? Because even though science’s goal is to provide answers to the unknown, they still don’t have all the answers. So what’s going on?

The notion that “you create your reality” is a central theme throughout the information offered by Elias. It’s a far cry from the classical Newtonian notion that reality is an externalized, separated machine made of parts that can be broken down and built back up again. This Newtonian model has been abandoned by physicists for over 50 years. Yet many scientists and physicians – unschooled in quantum theory – still hold this antiquated belief that the universe and the human mind are machines that can be broken down into separate parts. And on the other hand, religions teach us that in essence the “Whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and that there is no separation within consciousness. Talk about holding conflicting beliefs systems and still having an incomplete picture of how reality works!

If you ask the quantum physicists, they’ll tell you that as they probe deeper into matter with the five senses, matter behaves in chaotic and unpredictable ways. And yes, it takes an observer to create a measurement of any quantum state. Until that action occurs, there are an infinite number of probable or potential states. So, in a sense, science recognizes that we do create our reality. And the implications of that statement have profound implications for the postmodern era.

Willis Harman – philosopher, scientist, futurist, and former president of The Institute of Noetic Sciences in Sausalito, CA – offers tremendous insight into the issues affecting the schizophrenic separation of science and religion. He says that, “there appears to be no conflict between a mature science and a mature religion. Indeed, we must seriously question whether we have a mature science as long as such conflict appears to exist.” (2)

Some researchers in the avant garde fields of Transpersonal and Integral Psychology are beginning to call for the use of what Elias terms “inner senses” in their research. In other words, their methodology is evolving beyond the chains of the five physical senses. And this means that they are widening their belief systems to include intrapersonal, subjective experience. This is a revolutionary development and part of what the Elias phenomenon is all about: offering helpful information to promote a less distorted view of how our reality works, a view that integrates our rational and intuitive abilities. The horizons that now approach us make the Century of Change – the twentieth century – look like the calm before the storm.

Peter Russell, a physicist trained in the art of transcendental meditation, writes about the accelerating rate of change that our species is experiencing as we begin the new millennium. He observes the historical development of philosophy, religion, the arts, and sciences during the past three thousand years and notes how, in the past century alone, we have experienced just as much growth in terms of our knowledge base – new concepts, paradigms, and discoveries. It is now believed that our knowledge base is doubling every eighteen months! That means our cumulative knowledge is now increasing exponentially – two, four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, etc. times every eighteen months. If you were to draw a graph to represent this rate of change the line would presently be rising up off the scale toward potential evolutionary changes of unimagined magnitude.

If we are to successfully navigate our way through these changes, Russell says that, “this will entail a fundamental shift in thinking and perception – a shift in consciousness more profound and far-reaching than any in our history. It will mean awakening to the wisdom that lies within us all, of which the great sages have always spoken. This is our next step in evolution – not an outer step, but an inner step.” (3)

The channeling phenomenon is not a new one, it can be found in every culture that has a recorded history. Arthur Hastings, former president of the California Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in Palo Alto, California, traces it back to a Babylonian oracle of the goddess Astarte in the eleventh century BCE. He notes that ancient channels who:

“spoke in trances and ecstasy were considered prophets or oracles for the gods. Even now, in various mainstream and minority religions, within many cultures, possession by the holy spirit, speaking in ecstasy, or possession by spirits is considered a sign of spiritual development, and is often encouraged and facilitated by ceremony and ritual. Channeling may be the current equivalent of ancient prophecy, bringing spiritual guidance and teachings for this time.” (4)

It should also noted that Hastings’ definition of prophecy isn’t limited to predicting the future, but includes “speaking under the inspiration of the god or interpreting the will of god.” (5) To be clear, I am not in any way suggesting that Elias is the voice of God. I don’t believe that God is comprehensible through words alone. But it’s important to put the phenomenon of channeling in its historical perspective.

So, there is an over three thousand year old tradition of people speaking in an “inspired” state, delivering helpful information geared toward the cultural needs and times of the locals. Sometimes the information pushes and pulls at the officially accepted, consensus reality of the times, helping to facilitate change from calcified dogmas that the collective consciousness has outgrown. In this light, the channeling phenomenon is clearly seen as a grass roots or populist movement.

Jon Klimo, a psychologist on the senior faculty at the Rosebridge Graduate School of Integrative Psychology in Concord, California, states that “since 1986, channeling has reached into the grassroots. It has entered the popular vocabulary. Channeling now is part of current mainstream consensus reality.” (6) A good example is the imagery that graced the cover of the March 26, 2000 Los Angeles Times Calendar Magazine, the one that reports on the local entertainment scene. It pictures comedian Billy Crystal, sitting barefoot and cross-legged, eyes closed in deep concentration, surrounded by icons of the year’s best movies nominated for the upcoming Academy Awards T.V. show. The headline simply reads, “Channeling Oscar.”

So just what is channeling? Klimo offers a useful working definition for the phenomenon of channeling as “the communication of information to or through a physically embodied human being from a source that is said to exist on some other level or dimension of reality than the physical as we know it, and that is not from the normal mind (or self) of the channel.” (7) Like all definitions, it is open to debate and continued refinement.

Elias uses the term “energy exchange” to make a distinction between the sources of the information in his situation and in channeling. According to Elias, those who channel are transmitting, receiving, and translating information from within the domain of their own psyche. Elias prefers the term “essence” to psyche, which he defines as a source personality that consists of multiple, distinct, stable personalities. So in an “energy exchange” there is an action of mergence between two essences in which information is transmitted, received, and translated. In either case the process of translation is filtered through the belief systems of the “receiver” with varying degrees of accuracy.

Any definition of channeling, in terms of spoken language, has inherent limitations. Once you use a word to label something you limit its potential to be anything else. It’s like an actor who gets type-cast into a single role; Leonard Nimoy will always be Mr. Spock, yes? Can you even imagine Leonard in The Terminator or Singing in the Rain? But seriously, this is also why poets, writers, and composers create art forms to break out of the molds of language, using words and music to paint mental images and stir our emotions. Still, we are trying to understand something that is primarily subjective and psychological in nature. Though channeling resists being easily poured into the containers of scientific and religious beliefs, we can glean some further understanding from the names used in various cultures to describe it:

“Throughout history and among various peoples, channels have been named according to what they do. Besides the term ‘medium’ and the more recent ‘channel,’ other names have included shaman, witch doctor, healer, and medicine man in native cultures. They have also been called fortune-tellers, oracles, seers, soothsayers, savants, and visionaries. In religious contexts, they have been known as priests, gurus, prophets, saints, mystics, and holy ones. And in the esoteric schools they are called light workers, initiates, teachers, adepts, or masters. The majority of mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists would probably regard the channels as hallucinating, delusional, suffering from dissociative identity disorder (once called multiple personality disorder), schizophrenic, or simply as persons with runaway imaginations, or even as downright frauds.” (8)

Like any body of subtle and complex knowledge, the information that Elias offers has its own learning curve. It is not intended to be embraced by 100% of the population or solve all of the world’s problems. It concentrates on the individual’s right to decide what is fulfilling for him or herself. It does not claim to be universal truth, but to offer a view on understanding universal “truths” filtered through our current, cultural belief systems.

Until organized science and religion expand their limited models of the human psyche, the Elias phenomenon may be best understood in light of what is called the perennial philosophy (or wisdom). A German philosopher and mathematician, Godfrey Leibniz (1646-1716), popularized the term “Philosophia Perennis” and writer Aldous Huxley made it well known in his book The Perennial Philosophy, first published in 1944.

Perennial wisdom is reflected in the established mystical traditions of the East and West in works such as the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad-Gita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the poetry of Rumi, The Kabbalah, parts of The Old and New Testaments, and the Gnostic Gospels. Perennial wisdom is not based upon dogma or orthodoxy, but reflects the common denominator of universal truths that lie behind all religious dogma and ceremony. This is what is meant, for example, by the Taoist saying, “the Tao which is written or spoken is not the true Tao.” In other words, the Tao represents the ineffable Source of all things: God. And despite our best attempts, our Source can never be fully expressed or captured by the limiting molds of human belief systems, languages, or dogma.

The main difference between these perennial expressions and Elias’, then, is that Elias’ ideas are presented here in their original form, in the context of Western culture and belief systems, and have been “translated” only once into the mold of language. In this sense, they presently exist in a state of very low distortion. And it is Elias’ stated intent to deliver information with the least distortion possible.

Most of us have played the children’s game called “whisper down the lane” or “telephone.” One person whispers a phrase to the person next to them and this cycle repeats until the originator has the phrase whispered back to them. At this point, the original phrase is revealed and a good laugh centers around the differences between that and the final distorted version. The same thing happens with translations of mystical experiences – they get distorted and calcified through the filter of the individual’s perception into language. Thus the concepts experienced in mystical or subjective states that form the basis of the world’s religions can never be fully translated into words. As Norman Friedman, author of Bridging Science and Spirit says, “it is literally impossible to really understand these concepts because the mystics do not have a mystical calculus. In short, when the mystic has an experience, merely by the act of converting it into words or even possibly mathematics, it will fall short.” (9)

Patanjali, the Hindu sage who lived several centuries before the time of Christ, offers similar thoughts regarding those who become fanatical adherents of the written words of the Hindu scriptures. His thoughts also are appropriate to the readers of all religious scriptures and sources of channeled information:

“Patanjali taught that the authority of the scriptures was not proof of their truth, because no matter who propounds them, the scriptures have to be received through the sight, hearing, limited imagination, and reasoning power of the reader. According to Patanjali, the real inner teaching of a Christ cannot be understood through the testimony of others, nor by listening to their interpretations, but can be grasped only by the power of direct intuitive perception.” (10)

Proponents of the world’s mystical traditions have always understood that mystical experience is the translation of an experience of the eternal, transcendental state of Source Consciousness or God. These experiences are not limited to and thus can not be solely defined in terms of our five physical senses. And we are each endowed with our own inalienable, direct connection to this Source, for it is our Source. All of the writings about those individuals who have repeatedly experienced this state of being are likewise translations of their experiences, but not the experiences themselves.

Channeling is only one aspect of a larger spectrum of altered states of consciousness that connect us with our own inner knowing. They have been consistently experienced throughout recorded history. While not new to the species, they’re still excluded from mainstream Western scientific understanding. The words that describe an individual’s mystical experience, in themselves, hold incomplete and symbolic meanings. But the concepts hinted at, like all classical perennial literature, as well as the more recent channeled bodies of information, serve as a trigger for our own inner knowing. In other words, this knowing is latent within each of us and doesn’t exist “out there” somewhere. These triggers serve to open doors to further exploration and self-realization. Thus Elias, like all perennial teachings, focuses on the importance of our own direct experience, not the spoken or mathematical languages that describe those experiences:

ELIAS: “Experience is your best teacher. This will offer you information to build upon. I may explain the concepts to you many times, as I have! Now you may experience, and you will teach yourselves.” [session 55, November 15, 1995]

It is only through our own personal experience that we identify the many beliefs and belief systems we hold. Through learning how our perception – desire, intent, imagination, expectation, thoughts, and emotions, filtered through our belief systems – influences our everyday creations, we begin to come to terms with the many ways we create our own reality.

Elias’ information, regardless of its source, can be extremely useful in the process of noticing, identifying, and recognizing our complex belief systems. In this way, the Elias phenomenon can be considered a legitimate reminder from our inner selves that we are all conscious creators. Therefore, we each hold the responsibility to pursue an open-minded inquiry – combining the rational (skeptical) and the intuitive (imaginative) – in the search for personal truth. And ultimately, it is each one of us, individually, who decides what the truth is. So pull up your reading chair, pour a hot or cold one, and enjoy ...

[ Go to the top ]

Appendix I – About the Digests

Note: for those of you who read the Digests or Exercises, please don’t confuse Paul Helfrich with the Paul (Patel) that Ron Churchman channels. Wherever you see “Paul’s note”: Paul Helfrich is the author. Follow this link for Ron’s introduction and more information on Paul (Patel).

There are presently 165 Digests containing over 6,000 pages of Essential Elias – various terms, concepts, metaphors, analogies, allegories, and aphorisms he has introduced and consistently refers to.

The purpose of the Digests is to introduce these terms, etc., in a “reader’s digest” format that provides a greater depth of the information not available in any single transcript.

The Digests are also in a linear order that reveals the development and consistency of Elias’ ideas as they unfold in time. Each excerpt is presented with a link to its original transcript so that a reader can easily access its wider context.

Every group session is included in the Digests, since they contain the most in-depth explanations and interactions.

Clicking on the blue or purple session date inside the brackets at the end of each excerpt will take you to the exact place within the original Transcripts where the excerpt begins.

For example: [session 217, September 14, 1997]

All excerpts from the Elias sessions have been selected from the original Transcripts, which have been transcribed, edited, and proof-read by Mary Jane Gilcrease, Bobbi Houle, Vicki Pendley, Margot Reed, and Paul Tews.

Why are there at the top of each page?

Each Digest begins with a series of excerpts or “gems” that provide an overview and important orienting concepts – enclosed by the gem icons. These are also available in “random” fashion by clicking on the word Gems on the gold, left-hand margin.

There are now over 650 quotes in our database. Some people find this a useful way to enter the site and begin reading transcripts. Just pick a quote and then click on the link to the original transcript.

Why do some Digests use quotes in their titles?

There are quotes around certain “New Age” concepts that Elias attempts to clarify. This is not an attempt to invalidate anyone’s experience in these areas, but an attempt to clarify the language Elias uses in his intent to deliver helpful information with the least distortion possible. Some examples:

“akashic records”	world views | energy deposits
“chakras”	energy centers
“channeling”	energy exchanges
“reincarnation”	cycle of manifestation | manifestation
“walk-ins”	alternate selves | focus of essence; an overview

Why are there Digest links at the bottom of each page?

As you read the Digests you’ll notice that certain concepts are used repeatedly to present core ideas. Learning them helps build an understanding of Elias’ worldview. To facilitate that, related Digests are referenced at the bottom of each page so you can look them up with the click of a mouse.

This is very useful when you read online and come across a term or phrase that you don’t understand. Click the Digest links at the bottom for an instant primer and then click your back button to return.

You will also notice additional links to the Introduction, Transcripts, Exercises, and Library where appropriate.

What is an essence family and why are their names in color?

Elias has presented extensive information on the concept of nine essence families. He describes an essence family as a foundational “pool of consciousness” that provides the “source energy” from which we all spring. Elias uses the word “family” because it is familiar and one of our most cherished belief systems. Culturally speaking, the family concept forms the foundation of our social, religious, economic, political, and legal institutions.

This concept is not an absolute offered in some type of mathematical language or philosophical dialectic based upon pure reason. It must be experienced intuitively to be more fully understood. Try to imagine the reality of six billion human beings as individuals that make up the collective human consciousness. If you were to imagine this group, metaphorically speaking, as a Rainbow of Consciousness, then each discrete color would represent a basic “family” nature or intent. When viewing this Rainbow from afar you can’t find the exact place where red ends and orange begins, yet you can clearly distinguish both colors. As your vision zooms in, each color also reveals infinite shades of gradation and the edges that seemed separate from a longer distance literally disappear. So the foundation of nine can easily be extended into an infinite spectrum of consciousness with plenty of room for individual variations. Therefore, we really aren’t limited to nine discrete “colors.”

All this to say that the concept of nine “families” is really, what integral psychologist Ken Wilber calls, an orienting generalization. (11) It is a foundational, orienting concept intended to set the stage from which to explore greater depths of meaning, allowing for interpersonal and subjective differences. As you dig into it you begin to realize that it is just a tool that helps us better understand ourselves and our Source; that vast, archetypal wellspring from which the collective human consciousness emerges.

Another way to understand the nine “families” concept is in terms of mythos and mythology. Every culture holds a set of beliefs that defines the origins of their universe and their species. When this set of beliefs changes, the effects can have significant consequences.

The definition of mythos from Webster’s Dictionary is: 1a. myth, b. mythology, 2. a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture, 3. theme, plot.

Joseph Campbell, the twentieth century’s foremost mythologist, offers this definition: “Mythology is an organization of images metaphoric of experience, action, and fulfillment of the human spirit in the field of a given culture at a given time.” (12)

Willis Harman – philosopher, scientist, futurist, and former president of The Institute of Noetic Sciences in Sausalito, CA – offers the following version of the Western world’s myth:

“In the beginning was the Big Bang. Following that were something like 15 billion years of evolution of stars and planets; the coming together of certain chemicals to create life on planet Earth; the further evolution of more complex life forms, and their sorting out through natural selection; the resulting formation of increasingly complex neuronal networks culminating in the human brain with its fantastic capabilities. Thus the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as the consequence of an evolutionary succession of random events (from the origin of life to later mutations) and natural selections, and hence accidental – without purpose or meaning. The essence of ourselves is to be found in a material substance, the DNA with which we are born. Since our basic drives appear to be survival, pleasure, and procreation, it is only natural that the economy should have become the paramount institution of modern society, around which everything else revolves, and that economic logic and values should be the primary guides to our individual and collective decision making. It is only natural that we should treat the Earth and our fellow creatures as ‘resources,’ to be used in the service of the economy, and that we should view controlling nature through technology as one of modern society’s most impressive achievements.

“This central myth infuses and informs our education, healthcare policy, legal justice system, business, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications are far-reaching.” (13)

According to Joseph Campbell there is presently a new myth in the process of emerging from the collective consciousness in the Western world. When Bill Moyers asked him, during an interview, what the world needed now (during the mid-1980’s), he replied, “a new myth.” Campbell didn’t pretend to know the specifics of this new myth, but knew it had to be holistic and encompass the entire planet and all people, not just one region or set of “special people.”

Myths are archetypal, symbolic inner expressions meant to help us understand our universe and our place in it. They are not to be taken literally, but metaphorically. And this requires an abstract, intuitive kind of perception that is relatively new to the mainstream Western mind and neurological pathways. I believe that Elias’ nine “families” concept falls into this archetypal area of a newly emerging mythos. Only time will tell whether or not this mythos manifests in a more widespread, objectified manner or remains in the subconscious edges of the collective consciousness.

So, any time one of the nine names is mentioned in the Digests, it appears in the color that Elias assigns to it:

Sumafi

Milumet

Gramada

Vold

Ilda

Sumari

Tumold

Zuli

Borledim

Digests: find out more about essence families; an overview.

What does Elias have to say about the Digests?

Elias has commented several times on our efforts to publish this information in various forms of booklets, books, and this website.

ELIAS: “As to this information, I may express to you as I have expressed previously, you hold many books upon your shelves. Therefore, if you are choosing to move in the direction of creating another book and delivering THIS information, then I am suggesting to you that you not be altering of the information as it is presented. You may be offering additional information in clarification and for understanding, but the information offered has been offered purposefully and with care. Therefore, it shall speak of its own and needs no alteration.”

PAUL: “Elias, one comment on that. We’ve been discussing/debating about the ‘95 material, and I’m just wondering about what you said. It sounds like as long as the context within which the information was offered is clearly stated, and perhaps in our own words which of course represent our own belief systems, our own interpretations of that context, as long as that context is presented within our own attempt at least distortion, then that’s acceptable to you?”

ELIAS: “Correct; and in this, be mindful of your responsibility for the least amount of distortion. You are of the Sumafi, for the most part. Some of the individuals are not, but for the most part many of you are of the Sumafi, and the information is delivered by the Sumafi. Therefore, it holds significance that it also be presented within that intent. If this be not so, then the information shall be delivered by a different family within a different context.”

PAUL: “Is this your definition of the least acceptable distortion, from our point of view of writing additional narrative or written words to support the context within which this information could be delivered?”

ELIAS: “Correct. This is what we term to be a cooperative effort, and if you are presenting the information in your book form – if you are presenting information that has allowed for distortion purposefully – this needs be stated, for I have offered explanations to you throughout our engagement of these sessions. I have offered the explanation that at times there has been an allowance for certain elements of distortion temporarily, which ARE re-addressed, merely for the reason that the individuals may not be assimilating that information within that particular time frame.”

PAUL: “It also stands to reason that within this present now we also have a limited understanding of the information, and sometimes we get caught up in thinking that perhaps six months, six years down the road you will present additional information that will clear up our misunderstanding. That only gets us to the point of powerlessness to act, to get anything done. Can you address that situation?”

ELIAS: “You hold information in many areas presently which is accurate and holds the least amount of distortion. You hold enough information and enough understanding that if you are so choosing to be presenting information in this form, you may do so accurately and without distortion. You are correct that at any given point there is more information than you may be assimilating, and that as you widen your awareness I shall also continue to be offering additional information for clarification. But within this present time frame, you do hold MUCH information in MANY areas; many aspects of reality, much information concerning this shift in consciousness and concerning your individual and mass reality. Therefore, you do hold the ability to be compiling the information in an accurate manner.”

PAUL: “Another question. We’re prototyping a Glossary [that evolved into these Digests], and one of our debates is our ability to write a short descriptive paragraph of the concept and support that with pieces of the information, the material as delivered. Does that concept fit within your definition of acceptable least distortion?”

ELIAS: “You may be offering my definitions of terminology, which I have offered within this information definitions of all of the terminology that I have introduced to you, and you may, if you are so choosing, be offering your interpretations, but once again I express to you a cautioning in the area of remembrance of your responsibility, and that in this you may specify that these are your interpretations.”

PAUL: “So within that context, that’s acceptable least distortion?”

ELIAS: “Correct.”

PAUL: “Thank you.” [session 281, May 17, 1998]

The following session occurred after a forty-five minute conversation with Mary Ennis about this website, in which we reviewed hard copies of all of the Digests. These consisted of two, three inch ring-binder notebooks with over 2,000 printed pages of information that weighed close to twenty pounds.

ELIAS: “Good day!”

PAUL: “Good day, old friend! How are you?”

ELIAS: “As always!”

PAUL: “It’s good to hear your voice again!”

ELIAS: “And you are engaged in much activity, I am aware of.”

PAUL: “We have been very busy, yes. (Elias chuckles) So I do have a question for you this morning. Mary and Joanne and I were just talking about the website that we’ve been working on, and regarding the cautioning that you expressed back in May – it was session 281 – your cautioning was in the area of remembrance of our responsibility. I’m wondering, in the effort that we have done to date, if we have accomplished what we talked about in terms of acceptable least distortion. If you would comment on that, it would be very helpful.”

ELIAS: “Very well. I express to you that within your expression and your efforts in your endeavors, I am quite encouraging of your actions, and I may be expressing to you that I am quite understanding of situations that hold within physical focus.

“Now; let me also express to you that there are held concerns within physical focus that do not concern this essence, for the point is to be offering the information within the direction of this agenda, and I do not hold to all of the physical concerns that individuals within physical focus occupy themselves with. Within my own direction and expression, you may be offering this information, and as you are continuing in the direction of recognizing your responsibilities within the forum of this information, this is acceptable to this essence.

“It matters not which direction you choose to be moving into. My information, which I have offered to many individuals, shall be helpful regardless, and I am quite encouraging of each individual’s creative expression in this area, for as you each move in this direction, you are also lending energy to the action of this shift and its accomplishment.” [session 336, October 27, 1998]

The following exchange occurred after I described a lucid dream in which I saw the titles of five books written by Elias. So I was curious if and when he planned on dictating his own books.

ELIAS: “I express to you that within probabilities, there ARE probabilities that have been set into motion already as to the incorporation of objective, physical books in which the information has been offered by myself, but it is not translated into what you have viewed within your dream imagery as an absolute, in the manner that I shall be creating these books in the format of books.

“I shall not be, within this present time framework, incorporating the action of dictation and the creation of your physical books.

“I have expressed previously to individuals that I shall be holding a willingness to be incorporating interaction with individuals in helpfulness if they are so choosing to be incorporating this action, but I shall not initiate this action myself and shall not be offering dictation for the creation of more of your books upon your shelves.

“In this, my incorporation of interaction is to be engaging individuals and engaging their energy in objective manner. This is accomplished within groups and individually, and this is fulfilling of the intent and purpose that I have engaged in this interaction of this phenomenon.

“I have not incorporated the direction of creating books. You may be creating of books. I shall be creating of interaction with individuals.”

PAUL: “That’s very clear, and thank you so much for that answer.”

ELIAS: “Ha ha ha! You are quite welcome.” [session 455, August 25, 1999]

Finally, while it is still possible that Elias may choose to dictate books some day, it seems clear that he is primarily focused on a real-time style of interaction with individuals and groups. This type of teaching style is used in many perennial traditions, where the written word is given less importance than real-time interaction that focuses on knowledge gained through direct experience. This kind of question and answer format is also known in the West as “Socratic Method.”

It is also clear that when Elias speaks, he simultaneously addresses a larger audience than the individual or group situation he is commenting on. In other words, he is aware that the sessions are being transcribed and they are intended to offer helpful information with the least distortion to anyone who reads them, whether they are in the form of transcripts, books, or a website.

[ Go to the top ]

Appendix II – About the Exercises

Elias offers various exercises to enhance our physical senses, in conjunction with, what he calls, inner senses. The inner senses are like a set of “sixth” senses or deep intuition. They are the tools that allow anyone to perceive reality beyond the “limits” of their five physical senses.

Elias has not prescribed any order or best way to approach these exercises. Each is given in response to peoples’ needs in the moment as they interact with him. So it’s important to understand the full context in which the exercise was given, that’s why there are also links directly to the original transcript. As always, trust that you will draw yourself to exactly what you need, and you will.

“What I offer to you in exercises or in affirmations or in any offering of methods that you may employ, these are all suggestions. They are not absolutes, and they are not the only direction that you may offer to yourself that may be effective. They are suggestions that may be helpful to you in time periods in which you are not allowing yourself to offer your own suggestions to you.” [session 620, May 25, 2000]

The exercises fall into three related groups:

I. Noticing self

II. Noticing your waking/dreaming state

III. Noticing your senses

Each grouping follows the order by date in which each exercise is given. So there is no right or wrong way to do them! Some are short, some are more involved. Try whatever exercise that feels like it may be beneficial to you, but be persistent and consistent in your practice, the results will follow.

As Elias often says, the results you obtain will be based solely upon your intent, desire, and motivation. Understanding those may be a good place to begin. Learning about your inner senses may also provide a framework for further exploration. This exercise listing is NOT prescriptive but serves as a point of departure to enhance our own personal practices.

“These exercises are offered to you not as time consumers. They are offered to you to allow you the opportunity to be clear within your manifestation within physical focus, and be appreciating of your creative power.” [session 149, January 19, 1997]

“I have expressed to you previously that you understand and incorporate and assimilate information by experience. I may talk and talk and talk to you, and it shall mean little if you are not incorporating the experience. This shall create the reality to you, as you allow yourselves to experience all of these elements of which we speak. Therefore, this being why these exercises hold importance. They allow you the experience, and therefore allow you to realize the reality.” [session 162, April 06, 1997]

“I may sit before you all for the next twenty years and expound upon the subjects of how you create your reality and offer you exercises and offer you information, and you shall NOT be accomplishing objectively until YOU are noticing and YOU are offering yourself objectively your own information; for although you believe yourselves to pay close attention to these words, you pay closer attention to your own selves. You pay closer attention to your own experiences and the information that you offer yourself, for this within yourselves is MORE REAL than my offering to you.” [session 259, January 17, 1998]

Finally, for those interested in a more balanced and comprehensive way to get the most out of Elias exercises, checkout The Toolbox on NewWorldView.

Why are there Digest links at the bottom of each exercise page?

As you read the Exercises you’ll notice that certain concepts are used repeatedly to present core ideas. Learning them provides a gateway to understanding Elias’ worldview and message. To facilitate that, related Digests are referenced at the bottom of each page.

You will also notice additional links to the Introduction, Transcripts, and Library where appropriate.

[ Go to the top ]

End Notes:

(13) Willis Harman, Global Mind Change: The Promise of the 21st Century, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, 1998.

[ Go to the top ]

The Elias Transcripts are held in © copyright 1995 – 2024 by Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.

© 1997 – 2018 Paul Helfrich, All Rights Reserved. | Comments to: helfrich@eliasforum.org