Saturday, May 22, 2004
“Essence Twins and Fragmentation”
Participants: Mary (Michael), Howard (Bosht) and Margot (Giselle).
(Elias’ arrival time is 15 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good morning!
HOWARD: Good morning!
MARGOT: Good morning, Elias!
ELIAS: (Chuckles) And what shall we be discussing?
HOWARD: We have some impressions that have come to us since our last talk, at least I have had. I gave some to Margot to ask you when she was last speaking to you, and she didn’t get around to it at the time. But most recently, I would like to do some discussion about focuses, before I get into some of the longer questions that I have.
Most recently when I have been going to sleep – and I can’t say whether I’m thinking of Margot or my grandmother or pleasant memories, which are a little tranquilizer that I use to kind of go to sleep – my grandmother’s face – I call her Grandmary – pops into my head and gets associated with Margot in a very pleasant and calming way. I wondered if Margot had a focus as Mary Smith, my grandmother.
ELIAS: No, but incorporates focuses with that individual and also incorporates focuses with you in similar capacity of relationship. Therefore, you recognize a similarity in the energies.
HOWARD: Well, are we talking a sibling, one of my grandmother’s siblings?
ELIAS: No. In other focuses.
HOWARD: I should like to ask my grandmother’s essence name, then.
ELIAS: Essence name, Gottya, G-O-T-T-Y-A (GAHT yah).
HOWARD: Very good, thank you. Would I be correct to say that Margot and Gottya, Giselle and Gottya, fragmented at the same time from...? I don’t know where I’m going with this, but that was also a relationship that I felt.
ELIAS: There is not a commonality in fragmentation, but as I have stated, these two essences incorporate very similar energy and similar qualities of essence, and in that, the familiarity is expressed in association with mergences of these two essences, which occurs quite frequently.
HOWARD: A related question, then, regarding my grandfather, Howard Smith, Howard Stanley: I have a very old question, which I wrote to myself back in 1999. Is my grandfather’s essence name Cepheus?
ELIAS: Yes, and this is also several focus names.
HOWARD: And was he Chief Joseph?
HOWARD: I identified many years ago a character, a young woman, a daughter of Chief Joseph’s, whose name was Hop-hop-onmi, Little Feet Running. And I said, “That’s you, Margot.” Would I be correct in that observation?
HOWARD: So what I am beginning to develop here is a Nez Perce connection by way of my grandfather. I think my grandmother was also very much involved there, and Margot, and of course I would be. We haven’t decided who yet. Would I be a white man in that relationship with Chief Joseph?
HOWARD: And I wouldn’t be one of the ministers, like the Whitmans, although I could see that. I’m beginning to think that I was the interpreter that accompanied Joseph to Ft. Leavenworth and then later to Congress; I think his name is Andrew...? Sorry, it’s missing me. I can’t call it a senior moment; it’s just gone. (Chuckles) The rancher who lived in Joseph’s city, who eventually...
ELIAS: No. The other individual.
HOWARD: The other? Whitman?
HOWARD: So that would mean, then, that my impression of how Christianity was introduced to the Indians is correct. That impression was that the Indian men were allowed or given license to have sex with the ministers’ wives, so that there would be these illegitimate children, half Indian, which the Indian leaders like Chief Joseph’s father fathered – his name was Olikut – to bring the so-called heathen into the Christian world by that method. Am I correct in my assumption?
ELIAS: At times, yes.
HOWARD: Was Olikut a child of either Whitman or Spalding?
ELIAS: (Pause) The second.
HOWARD: Spalding. It’s very interesting. Also, when I was watching some movies recently, there is a Spanish-speaking actor who has gotten my attention very much. I’m looking at him and I’d say to myself, “Who does he remind me of?” His name is Antonio Banderas. It occurred to me that I think this is a focus of Margot, and I’m asking, is that correct?
HOWARD: Well, he sure is fun to watch and I enjoy him a lot. (Elias chuckles) Margot did not agree with me because we had thought that we had identified all of her current focuses, but you never know. (Elias laughs)
There is also a person in Thelonious Monk’s relationship who has the name Berta or Bertha. Again, it occurred to me, since I’m trying to find this person and she wants to be – or it could be “he” right now, but I think it’s a she – very elusive from my investigation, and bingo, I went “Alberta Hunter!” We dug out one of her albums and put it on, and I could see, if not feel, Thelonius Monk enjoying her company and the way she was singing there in the early ‘40s. Would Alberta Hunter be this Berta, Bertha, that I’m looking for?
HOWARD: And that would be a focus of Margot?
HOWARD: There you go, Margot! (Margot laughs and Elias chuckles)
Now we have a couple of other impressions... Let me go on to a question here. In our last session that just was most recently published, we had a wonderful discussion going about mortality, and suddenly the line went dead. I think I realized what I did wrong here, but it just stopped and it was okay, that’s a good place to end it. It was such a wonderful discussion we had, by the way, and thank you so much for helping me out with Joseph Smith and other philosophers... Did I say Smith? That’s funny – Campbell and other philosophers and their things about myth and mortality.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) You are welcome.
HOWARD: I mentioned, “I think, therefore I am” and I attributed that to Kant, and we got a letter or email from one of the readers of the transcripts and he said Descartes said that. Why I did make the mistake of attributing this statement to Kant, because Descartes, this is probably his most famous saying? I wrote back and said I don’t know, it’s not that I wrote it down, it’s just like the first words that came to my mind and I stand corrected. But I wondered at the time why you did not correct me in my impression.
ELIAS: For your impression was not concerning the individual but the concept.
HOWARD: That’s true. That is true, and I...
ELIAS: Which is what was being addressed to, not the imagery of an individual.
HOWARD: Thank you. So in that vein, then, there are some other little confusions involving Descartes now. When I think of him and his statement, “I think, therefore I am,” I also think of... And I’m sure this is another individual; I’ve spent time on the Net but I haven’t been able to do my research, so we’re just going with impressions here. We can call it a senior moment or what have you, but some of the mind baggage that I carry around... Descartes, I know he invented many logical things in mathematics, the Cartesian square grid, but I’m also just kind of doing a real quick segue into a period of incarceration, many years, and the development of the logarithms and other mathematical concepts. But I’m certain that he didn’t do that, and I’m wondering, am I dreaming? That would be one part of it. Who am I thinking of? Why I am getting Descartes and this other person wedged together?
ELIAS: This is a similar association that you have generated concerning your grandmother and your partner, a similar action that you are incorporating. You are noticing similarities of energies and attributing those energies to one individual or to one essence, in a manner of speaking. You are aware of one and are very familiar with one objectively, and you are allowing yourself an openness to other energies that are quite similar, and that becomes confusing.
This is the reason that it is significant to genuinely be paying attention to what you are tapping into in association with energies, to distinguish the subtle differences. You are beginning to offer yourself that information in recognizing that what you are tapping into is not actually the energy of the first individual, but you continue to generate that association even as you begin to question whether certain expressions are actually attributed to an individual. Therefore, you are generating the beginnings of this distinction of subtle differences in the energies, but you are also noticing, or what is attaining your attention initially, is the similarity.
HOWARD: So my grandmother was the focus of Descartes?
ELIAS: No, this is not what I am expressing to you. I am expressing to you that you are incorporating a similar action as you have in your associations between your grandmother and your partner. You are noticing the similarities in energy and thusly you are...
HOWARD: Oh! You used an analogy.
HOWARD: Oh, sorry! Okay, thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome.
HOWARD: I’m up to speed here. (Elias laughs) With regard to Ayn Rand, Margot and myself, there seems to be a misunderstanding developed when we discussed this subject several years ago. The twin soul is created as a result of fragmentation; I think I’m saying this correctly. I muddied the waters by introducing Margot as my example of a soul mate.
ELIAS: A soul mate is not the same identification as twin souls or twin essences.
HOWARD: Wow. Ayn Rand would be an example of a twin soul? (Pause)
MARGOT: So you’re saying that Bosht and the essence of Ayn Rand fragmented from the same source?
ELIAS: Let me clarify in association with fragmentation. What generates twin essences is not that they have necessarily been fragmented singularly from the same essence, but that they choose the same qualities of one or more essences as their own and therefore create this tremendous similarity in tone as essences, which Michael and Lawrence would be an example of. Michael and Lawrence chose the same qualities of essence, but they incorporate somewhat of a difference in fragmentation. That occurs as essences merge.
As essences merge, figuratively speaking – this is not literal, for it does not translate quite accurately within your language or within what you understand objectively – but figuratively speaking, as essences merge for a time period, although it is not a time period, in that mergence, in some situations the two essences or the more than two essences may become indistinguishable, therefore generating some qualities in those mergences that are not quite the qualities of one essence or another essence but are generating qualities that are created in the action of the mergence. Within that action, the qualities that are created may choose to be fragmented. Remember, fragmentation is not an action in which an essence is discarding some element of itself; it is a choice of the qualities of the essence to be generating a new essence.
Now; in a mergence between myself and my dear one, qualities were generated which were the expressions of Michael and Lawrence. Those qualities chose to be fragmented.
Now; in that, the difference was that Lawrence expressed somewhat of a stronger association with the qualities that would be more closely associated with Patel. Michael generated qualities that would be more associated with myself. Therefore, in the identification of those fragmentations, it was expressed that Michael was fragmented of myself and Lawrence was fragmented of myself and Patel.
These are very simplistic explanations, and they are not entirely accurate, for it does not translate accurately within your language or within what you know and understand within your physical reality and your objective awareness. They may be understood in a knowing capacity if you are generating an experience with your sense of conceptualization, but as you recognize, for the most part in moments in which you generate that conceptualization sense, once you have experienced you also incorporate tremendous difficulty in attempting to explain what you know or even generate images concerning what you know. You merely know.
As to the subject of fragmentation, this is an action that occurs nonphysically and therefore is difficult to explain in association with any physical reality. There are many manners in which fragmentation occurs. The reason that I do not offer tremendous information concerning these actions is that I am aware that they are not accurate in the translation, and also it reinforces an automatic tendency within you to be associating these actions in relation to what you do know within your physical reality and how you produce offspring, which is not what the action of fragmentation is.
HOWARD: When I wrote the book “We the Angels,” I explained everything I knew at the time based on my impressions of it. Soul braiding is something I can totally understand, but you call it mergence. At times the only difference between you and my impression 12 or 15 years ago was that was the directing essence and then there was the observing essence, and it becomes a mergence of two, where one is actually incorporating the experience and the other is absorbing without interacting. I think I understand that...
ELIAS: But that is not the action of fragmentation.
HOWARD: No, but when that individual, such as myself who has had and probably continues to have observing essences, when I choose to fragment or Bosht chooses to, portions of those that have shared are there for the new essence to choose from, correct?
ELIAS: Qualities, yes.
HOWARD: Speaking of that, I’ve never asked you – well, I have asked you and you said it’s not important and we both decided at the time – but I have an impression and I’d like to know who I was fragmented from. I wrote down here Otha and Ordin. Am I close? (Pause)
ELIAS: Otha, Ordin and Tomkin.
HOWARD: I have another impression here; this was written this year, actually. We’re catching up to some stuff! (Elias laughs) It was January 30 of this year, I was watching C-Span and a fellow was talking about Chinese literature in comparison to Shakespeare and western poets of the like. He went through a whole list of them. “But who here,” he said, “has ever heard of Li Po?” I picked up my head and looked at him. Li Po, or Li Bo is the way I heard it, is a Chinese poet back centuries ago, perhaps a millennium, China’s most famous poet. I said, “Whoa, I either know him or he’s me.” It was really out of the blue. So I’d like to ask if my impression is correct about the Chinese poet Li Po and whether that is one of my focuses.
ELIAS: It is not one of your focuses, but you do incorporate a focus that is associated with that individual and is well known to that individual.
HOWARD: His stuff, when I read it, is very much like some of my stuff, and so it just felt incredibly familiar.
ELIAS: I am understanding.
HOWARD: Then we have, just switching and going on to a somewhat lighter but more sinister focus, (Elias laughs) was I the focus of John Wesley Hardin, sheriff and gunslinger?
HOWARD: Yes, I thought so. For the readers, this guy just killed people because they looked at him – they snored. (Elias laughs) I think it was like 45 or 48 people. And he lived to die of an old age. It’s remarkable. Actually, that’s not true either, is it? He was killed by the husband of a woman he had a relationship with, right?
ELIAS: Poetic justice. (Both laugh)
HOWARD: So he didn’t die of old age. Oh well, he had his boots on, that’s for sure. (Elias chuckles) On a lighter note and not quite as sinister – I wrote this down many years ago – I’m asking about terms that creep into American English lexicon, but I feel that I invented them. The first is the sound of a popping pimple; we now call it a “zit.” The second is a term now used in ice hockey, which is known for the defensive contribution of the ice hockey goalie called the “save percentage.” Would I be correct in saying that I coined these terms?
HOWARD: So I should take credit for “save percentage”?
ELIAS: (Chuckles) Partially.
HOWARD: Oh, come on! (Elias laughs) I know when I invented that! I had to make these kids feel good about being bowled by these pucks, you know?
ELIAS: I am understanding what you are expressing, and you are partially correct within your reality and in expressing that outwardly, which has been received. Therefore, you partially may be credited, and a few other individuals may also be partially credited.
HOWARD: Then what about the term “zit”?
HOWARD: That’s mine?
ELIAS: Partially, in the same manner.
HOWARD: (Laughs) That’s not fair!
ELIAS: For what occurs in these situations is that you create a word, and simultaneously in other physical areas other individuals are connecting with that energy and they generate their invention of the same word. As each of you in different locations continue to incorporate that word, it becomes introduced into the mass.
HOWARD: Well, I can go with that. I mean, that’s certainly the hundred-monkey idea, wouldn’t you say?
ELIAS: (Laughs) Yes.
HOWARD: Very good. Margot has a very deep connection to the Book of Esther, and I wrote this down because I was reading about Zoroaster and the like and the Persians. Esther is very, very well respected in Persia, in Iran, and has her own temple. She’s not a Jewish lady, that’s my impression. I’m wondering, is Margot Esther? And is the Book of Esther also a Zoroastrian kind of epic brought into the Old Testament?
ELIAS: To your first question, observing; to your second question, yes, but somewhat loosely translated.
HOWARD: That would be a marvelous segue into the Sumerians. The Sumerian epic, to my knowledge, no one has talked to you or asked you questions about that, but they came out of nowhere in history, at least what we would call recorded history, and brought forth the flood and the fellow Gilgamesh and his epic. The Sumerians have tablets, cuneiforms, so they were really here; but were they like trans-dimensional? I’m saying that they appeared so suddenly and kind of went away, complete with their own language and their own method of written communication, which was very sudden and very different.
ELIAS: I am understanding, and this has occurred with different groups somewhat consistently throughout your history. This is not to say that they are what you term to be trans-dimensional, but this is what you would term to be somewhat of a phenomenon of groups of essences that choose to be physically manifest within your physical reality temporarily and do not choose to be incorporating what is generally expressed by essences that choose to be physically manifest within your physical reality. They do incorporate the agreement to incorporate at least three focuses, in keeping with the blueprint of your physical reality, but these essences choose to be in cooperation with each other, creating a physical manifestation or experience with a theme, collectively. Therefore, they may incorporate what you would term to be a short time framework in which their collective group or tribe participates within your physical reality, and once accomplishing their specific theme and accomplishing their three focuses – although some do incorporate many more than three, but at the very least, three – they appear to you to simply disappear.
HOWARD: My follow-up to this – and then I will turn the balance over, like a senator in parliamentary procedure I will relinquish the balance of my time to Margot – Gilgamesh, then, I knew this person?
HOWARD: And I was part of that band?
ELIAS: Partially; for as I have stated, these types of groups are generally created by a group of essences that do not necessarily participate in any other time framework of your history.
HOWARD: Then in that case, was my first focus here in this plane now, number one of the 1900 I’ve got, in a place called Dilmun or called Hufhuf in Saudi Arabia?
ELIAS: Your initiating focus?
HOWARD: I had the book, “In Search of Dilmun,” which is a great story about archeological studies that Gilgamesh spoke about, a place on the other side of the water called Dilmun. D-I-L-M-U-N is its spelling, I think. So I’ll thank you for that, and I’ll relinquish my time to Margot.
ELIAS: Very well.
HOWARD: Thank you for everything.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome, my friend.
MARGOT: Hi, Elias!
ELIAS: Good morning!
MARGOT: As you know so very well, because I talked to you so much about it and you were there, I had a bad fall a couple-three weeks ago. I had really stressed myself out, so I know the reason for the fall and why I did that. But I had a very strange thought as the ground was flying up at me very, very fast. Just as I began to fall down in the parking lot of my bank, I had seen a man that had pulled in and had gotten out of his car across the lot and was on his way into the bank. And this very interesting thought came to me – and I was in the middle of the fall at that point – so I thought it was quite strange that my pervasive thought was, “There’s Elias on his way to help me.” (Elias nods in agreement, and begins to say “Correct.”) I would like to know why I got that kind of a thought at that point, and if that was actually you?
ELIAS: Yes, for you incorporated that identification in a recognition of my energy, which being, in a manner of speaking, superimposed with the other individual in a strength to generate the recognition by yourself of my presence.
MARGOT: That’s about the way I figured it out. Now, this man did come and help me; he helped me get up. The first thing I did was look in his eyes to see if they were blue (Elias laughs), and they weren’t; they were brown. In fact, he was kind of a scruffy-looking guy, and it also occurred to me that the presentation of you I was translating into a focus I had with you when we were man and wife.
MARGOT: I thought I was right on that one! At any rate, I didn’t break any bones and I’m almost over the bruises and all ready to go to Vienna, so that was good. (Elias laughs) I think I’d better move on to some quick questions that others have asked me to ask, so that I can be sure and get their answers for them. This is from Marta/Bourjn. She wants to know if she holds the focus of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
MARGOT: She wants to know if she holds the focus of the Athenian statesman Pericles.
ELIAS: No, but does incorporate a focus in that time framework which is known to that individual.
MARGOT: And she also has received the impression that she is the artist Vincent Van Gogh.
MARGOT: Three of us, who are Sandel and myself and Bourjn, we have gotten ourselves a little bit confused over the identification of Thais. Now, I talked to you about Thais some time back – this would be the Thais who was the mistress of Alexander the Great – and I understood from you then that I am the observing essence of that Thais. I thought at the time that you told me that Sandel was the directing essence of that individual, Thais. Is that so?
MARGOT: Now, Sandel tells me that the Thais that she is was Athenian and was Ptolemy’s mistress.
ELIAS: That is a different focus.
MARGOT: So then, the Thais that Bourjn is, is that another Thais?
MARGOT: Another Thais, I thought that was probably so. So this one isn’t connected to Alexander the Great?
MARGOT: We have a relatively new person in the group whose name is Lisa W. She’d like to know her essence name and her families and all that good introductory stuff.
ELIAS: Essence name, Cassio, C-A-S-S-I-O. And the impressions of essence families?
MARGOT: She didn’t give me any impressions on that. She thinks she’s emotionally focused.
ELIAS: Correct. That is correct.
ELIAS: Essence family, Borledim; alignment, Vold.
MARGOT: And her orientation?
MARGOT: Very good. I have thought a lot about a connection that I may have with the poet Sylvia Plath. Last night we saw a film about her, and it brought it back to my mind a great deal. Do I know her?
MARGOT: Am I a counterpart or am I somehow related to her?
ELIAS: You do incorporate counterpart and also friendship.
MARGOT: Thank you, that kind of solves that for me a little bit.
You once told me some time ago that just about everything physically that occurs to me, like just about everything, has to do with the fact that I’ve been in transition for so long. I have a very strange sort of an outbreak on my back and I’ve attributed this to dry skin, but it’s really getting to be very annoying to me. Now, is this something other than the fact that I am in transition?
ELIAS: It is also associated with anxiousness.
MARGOT: Oh! Will I get all over this when I finally get to Vienna?
ELIAS: (Laughs) Perhaps that may be quite the medicine to be incorporating, allowing yourself to relax and to be incorporating fun and playfulness and distraction.
MARGOT: Oh, won’t that be nice! I’m so looking forward to that. (Elias laughs) In my focus of Otto Frank, I’ve read about everything I can find on him, and I’ve been working very hard to try to pick up on energies, the differences in energies from a printed page, so to speak. That’s not been very easy for me to do. So I was looking very, very hard to find out who Anne Frank is, and I think that what I finally picked up is that Vicki/Lawrence is Anne Frank.
MARGOT: Oh, thank you very much! (Elias laughs) And also that Anne’s friend Peter van Pels is Michael.
MARGOT: Oh! I may learn how to do that! (Elias laughs)
The last time that I talked to you, I talked to you about the fact that I’d gotten a projection from my ex-husband – I’m having a problem with my voice today; I’m having a hard time getting this out – and then he came to me again after I talked to you about that. You confirmed that he was investigating disengagement and that’s how come I picked up on it. The next time he came, it was all vocal. I heard him saying, “Hello!” He was so excited, and I think that he knows who he’s projecting to now.
MARGOT: Good. That’s excellent.
Civil War focuses, I asked you about one and you confirmed that I was Mary Elizabeth Bowser, who was five. Sandel thinks that I should ask about Civil War focuses I have in the area of New Orleans. Do I have any there?
MARGOT: More than one?
MARGOT: Okay, I’ll work on that. I hadn’t really thought into that very much. In a dream, I heard myself being called Aratha, and I sensed that that’s my name in the 11:11 dimension. Is that true?
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.
MARGOT: This seems strange, but somehow within the group we seem to still get ourselves confused about what a soul mate is. I looked way back in the early sessions, and I find that you were saying then what you told me, that we are all soul mates; anybody that we share a focus with is a soul mate, right?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes; but in association with what individuals have inquired of recently, I am aware of their definition and what they are seeking confirmation of or validation of, and in that capacity they are inquiring as to a type of soul mate which incorporates many intimate relationships within their focuses, within many, many, many focuses together. That intimate relationship is not necessarily limited to romantic relationships but any type of strongly expressed intimate relationships.
MARGOT: So I think that we’re all right; I think all of us that have picked up on this, I have begun to sense that it is an intimate relationship but does not necessarily have to be... Or it does have to be an intimate relationship?
ELIAS: No, it is not necessary. In a manner of speaking, you are correct; you are all soul mates in one capacity. But the identification of what some individuals are seeking in their terminology of “soul mate” does concern intimate relationships.
MARGOT: I think we’ve got that now, and it’s about time for me to let you go.
ELIAS: Very well.
MARGOT: I want to thank you for being there in the parking lot of the bank and picking me up and dusting me off.
ELIAS: You are very welcome. I am always with you. (Laughs)
MARGOT: You certainly were that day, and I couldn’t believe that that was you that was going to come and help me. I thought it was really nice, even if you didn’t have blue eyes. (Elias laughs)
HOWARD: Before you wrap it up, I’ve got an ancient one here. I didn’t mean to cut her off, but if she wishes to yield the balance of time... If you recall, some time ago I had an incident of what I call flying a whalebone. It’s a beluga white whale bone that a friend of ours – a backbone, vertebra, it’s about 30 inches tall, a foot wide – and my friends asked me to put my hands on it and impart images. We were in the correct space and time to do this.
The images started immediately, and I felt like I was in a place about 35,000 years ago. There were three people standing on the edge of the sea, the water edge: Margot, myself and a friend of ours whose name is Carol. It was in Sedona, Arizona. There seemed to be a desperation of action needed. There were earthquakes and cosmic events, and we acted like three priests determined to overcome this pending calamity. Margot and Carol held each other, putting all of their reality on hold, and I jumped into the water and began swimming. Then it started to rain on the land, and it rained and rained and rained forever; it seemed like 1000 years or more. All the while, I was swimming about and morphed into this very whale whose vertebrae I was touching. Time passes and it finally stops raining; it’s now about 10,000 BC. I became aware of human beings on the surface and their drama. Everything is different; I don’t know what happened to Margot and Carol, but I knew that they were okay.
I think that what was going on was a blink-out and a blink-in and a change of our reality. Also this morphing-thing underwater, like dream imagery of deep subjective baptism, so to speak, seemed to be an insertion of their dimension into ours. I took these images of emergence and decided it was Lemuria or our Atlantis coming into ours. Also, there appears to be a time when the transformation of land-dwelling, lung-breathing humanoids become whales and dolphins, and in the interim between this, in the blink-out there were beings like mermaids in existence. Can you validate that impression? I mean, it is really real to me.
ELIAS: I am aware of the reality, and you are correct in your assessment of the blink-out and blinking into another reality.
HOWARD: Ah. The beluga, was that me, was that a focus of mine?
HOWARD: Well, that is so... Makes my heart pump! (Elias chuckles) I mean, there were other things the whalebone showed me. There were wars from Cuba, there were missiles being launched, hot spots. I mean, there was stuff going on in that interim here in the United States that I guess we have no record of.
ELIAS: For they are probable realities, and they are not inserted into this reality. But that is not to say that they do not exist.
HOWARD: That’s comforting, in a way. (Margot and Elias laugh) My heart’s pounding; that is so cool! (Elias chuckles) Well, I guess that’s it for me then.
MARGOT: That’s it for both of us.
ELIAS: Very well, my friends. I shall be anticipating our next meeting, and I shall continue to be offering my energy to both of you in encouragement and supportiveness. In great lovingness, as always my dear friends, au revoir.
MARGOT: Au revoir, Elias.
Elias departs after 1 hour, 7 minutes.
© 2004 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.