Saturday, September 04, 2004
“Investigating with a Same-Timeframe Focus”
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Markus (Mikah).
(Elias’ arrival time is 18 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good evening!
MARKUS: Good evening. (Elias chuckles) How are you? Yes, I know, “as always.”
ELIAS: (Laughs) Quite correct!
MARKUS: Me, too! I had quite an interesting week this week. But before we start, I’d like to send you greetings from a friend of mine. His name is Walter. He’s a good friend of mine. I was talking to him this week and mentioned that I would be talking to you, and he just spontaneously said, “Tell him greetings, because if Elias is a friend of yours, he is a friend of mine.” So you have a new friend now.
ELIAS: (Laughs) Very well, and you may offer my greetings also.
MARKUS: Okay, I will do that! I’ve got a long list of questions. (Elias chuckles) I have the hardest time figuring out where to begin, but probably a good starting point would be to inquire about my essence name. Last time we were talking about that Mike would be another focus of the same essence. When listening to the recording again, we were talking about that issue, and I asked you if that meant my essence name would be Mikah. You responded that Mike was a focus of the same essence, which did not exactly answer the question.
In response to that, I was trying to feel into myself to find if I had a response to the name “Mikah,” which I did not have before, which in return was one of the reasons why I had discounted the idea that Mike might actually be another focus of mine. I’d like to use that as a starting point for the discussion.
ELIAS: And what is your question?
MARKUS: My question would be is Mikah my essence name?
MARKUS: So the next question would probably be why I don’t feel too much of a response when I meditate upon that name. Any insight about that?
ELIAS: That is not unusual. I may express to you, you can generate a responsiveness or a resonance with that tone if you are allowing yourself an openness, but it is dependent upon what direction you are engaging in the moment. I may express to you that many individuals do not necessarily feel a feeling in association with their essence tone or their essence name, so to speak. It is not unusual.
MARKUS: In the past, for instance seeing Mikah’s pictures on the website, I’m typically generating a response in the form of a chill or goose bumps. I expected that something like that would come up, and it actually didn’t.
ELIAS: Not necessarily. You are incorporating that type of responsiveness to the photographs, for this is an actual individual that is physically manifest and projecting actual energy within your physical reality. You recognize even within a photograph the energy of the other individual and its resonance with you, for it is also your energy.
MARKUS: That makes sense. Then, after our session, naturally I started to dig up Mikah’s old sessions and printed them. The funny thing was they came out of my printer in a big heap of paper, totally out of order, and I had to sort that out. That was quite a good picture of what happened next, when I actually started reading the sessions.
I was mainly giving attention to his questions about other focuses, because I thought it would be easy to relate to that kind of information rather than his personal problems. I did not find a lot of information that caused a response in me, at least only one or two things correlated with impressions I had myself previous to those sessions about other focuses. One thing which had caused quite a big question is that Mike had inquired many times about focuses being here in this dimension at the same time, and at least in those sessions which I have read so far, you always tell him that there are, besides him, three other people: one in South America, one in New Zealand, and one in Russia; naturally I was missing from that picture.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) Now; remember, as I have expressed many, many times repeatedly, there are no absolutes. Also, in identifying numbers of focuses of any individual, I have explained that these numbers fluctuate, and they are not absolute either. For as essence, you may be increasing or decreasing the number of focuses that you incorporate within any moment. It is not unusual to be incorporating that action as essence, to be fluctuating in numbers. There are many factors that influence that fluctuation. Therefore, in one moment you may incorporate four present focuses within this same time framework, and within another time framework you may incorporate six, or you may incorporate three. It is a fluctuation of energy of essence which creates this difference in numberings and the lack of absolutes in numberings.
I am understanding that that may appear to you to be somewhat confusing, for you think in linear terms. You do not actually, genuinely, objectively understand the concept of simultaneous time. All of these actions are occurring at once. Therefore, regardless of the fact, so to speak, that you have incorporated this manifestation for a certain numbering of years in what you term to be your life, and this other individual has incorporated a different number of years in the expanse of his life, you are both focuses of essence and that is all occurring at once, so to speak. Therefore, it matters not that you may not necessarily be identified in one moment as a focus of this essence and in another moment you may be.
MARKUS: Because, speaking somewhat clumsily in linear terms, I may have been inserted in the year 1966, even after Mikah had asked the question.
ELIAS: Therefore, your manifestation is no less valid, it is a focus of attention of this essence, and this essence is you. But in the removal of linear time, a focus of attention may be added in any moment, and it also incorporates the fulfillment of the linear experience, for it is all occurring simultaneously.
MARKUS: I think, at least conceptually, I understand that. Actually, I already had that idea before this session, that I might have been inserted or been focused later, after Mikah asked the question, or maybe even in response to his search in finding someone being a focus in the same timeframe.
ELIAS: And that may also be participating in this forum.
MARKUS: Last session, I had another question about my essence color, and you said that I might investigate that together with Mike. I haven’t been able to contact him so far, but I think I’m just holding back this kind of contact until I’ve sorted a few things out with you.
I had an interesting experience yesterday. I was attending a place where they make small experiments to show the use of the senses. We were asked if we would like to attend a special experiment that consisted of dropping a drop of ink into water and watching how the ink moves inside the water. As soon as I saw that, I had a strong impression that the way the ink moved – it sank down and then split up in threads and then they split up as well – that this was a symbol for essence. I didn’t take this thought any further until today. Previously I had pondered the question about my essence color, and it occurred to me that my essence color may be ink blue.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) I shall express to you to continue your investigation, but I am acknowledging of you in your offering of imagery to yourself in association with some movements of essence. For in association with attentions of essence or focuses of essence, this would be a reasonable expression of imagery to explain some of the movements of essence to you in physical terms.
MARKUS: I thought that it was a more important part of the imagery that I had presented myself with.
ELIAS: I am understanding. There are many intricacies in the movements of essence. I may express to you, I am also understanding some of your hesitancy in being in actual objective contact with the other focus, for there are some challenges associated with that in regard to your own identity and how you view yourself as essence, without generating the separation that is automatic.
Let me also express to you, as I did previously in our previous conversation, you are already beginning to notice some of what I was expressing to you in relation to two focuses of the same essence being objectively aware of each other, that generally speaking they do not incorporate a tremendous interest in each other, for they are generating different experience. This is the point. It would be redundant for essence to be focusing four or five or six manifestations within the same time framework and to be experiencing or interested in all of the same subjects and directions. That would limit the exploration of the physical reality, and that is the point of focusing manifestations within physical reality, to explore all of its possibilities and all of its directions and expansions.
Therefore, what the other focus may incorporate as interests in certain directions, you may not necessarily. You may incorporate an interest in investigating different types of focuses or different time frameworks of focuses. You may be drawn to different physical locations within your reality than the other focus, for you may generate more of an association with other focuses. This is also the reason that I have expressed many times to individuals that there is a relative number of focuses – and this is also a fluctuating number – that each focus incorporates that are more easily accessible than the other focuses that they incorporate, for they incorporate a similarity with each other. (1)
MARKUS: I read that in Mikah’s sessions, actually. There are 53 similar in tone to him, and 700-something being the total number of focuses at the time he asked the question.
ELIAS: Correct, and therefore, that number of focuses that is more easily accessible to him may be different and may be a different group of focuses than may be more easily accessible to you. You may also incorporate some that overlap, that you each may access more easily or that you both may access easily, but this is associated with the differences in intents and the differences in explorations and directions.
MARKUS: That actually makes a lot of sense.
ELIAS: Now; this is not to say that you shall not also recognize some similarities; you shall recognize a similarity in energy. You shall notice that in a tremendous familiarity, for you are each other.
MARKUS: Yes, I think I do that already. I notice some of the things he says or deals with are actually relevant to what I am or what I’ve been, and some of the challenges he’s dealing with ring quite a bell here.
MARKUS: Mikah had asked a couple of times about being or becoming a final focus. Before I had contact with you, it would have been my impression that I was a final focus. So, now there is not really confusion, but...
ELIAS: That is a fluctuation also, and that has been a fluctuation for somewhat of a time framework.
MARKUS: Yes, I read that one of the focuses in the 16th century had had the final focus designation for some time, and then the Russian focus, Sonya, seems to have dealt with that. I would basically just ask about my current impression, speaking of now, that I had been toying with the idea of being final focus, or even having had that designation for some time, but I’m currently moving more in the direction of fragmentation.
ELIAS: Yes. You have been the designated final focus temporarily also but have chosen not to be the designated final focus, and therefore are not, and are a continuing focus. There is a potential that if the designated final focus disengages, there is the potential that you would incorporate the action of fragmenting.
MARKUS: That was pretty much my impression. That’s nice to hear.
In one session of Mikah’s there had been a mentioning of a process of transition, which I am pretty much aware of, but I think it was mentioned in relation to being in transition while being focused, and I had never come across that idea. It may be a misunderstanding, because my understanding has been that transition is a process that is engaged after the focus, and basically would be termed death.
ELIAS: That is correct, but it also may be engaged within the time framework that you are continuing within physical focus. This is not an unusual action. I may express to you, especially within this time framework and within your previous century there has been the choice to engage this action much more frequently and much more commonly, for it is an action that is somewhat facilitating in shifting.
It is not the same action; the action of transition in the nonphysical expression of it, once you have engaged the choice of death, that action is incorporated to shed the beliefs associated with this physical reality and also to shed the objective awareness, for it is not necessary in nonphysical areas of consciousness. This also disengages perception, for that also is an objective tool associated with physical reality.
But in shedding those beliefs associated with the physical reality, there is also a process of examination of all of the beliefs that have been incorporated associated with the physical reality. That action can be expressed within the time framework in which an individual is continuing to be physically manifest. Many individuals do engage that action and therefore are incorporating transition within physical focus.
Now; there are many different degrees of how individuals incorporate that action. Some individuals – many individuals – choose to be incorporating transition within physical focus to the extent that they create an allowance of themselves to be blinking in and out of this time framework, and allow themselves to be more objectively, actually interactive with other focuses and even experiencing other focuses while continuing within this physical reality. That has been deemed within your medical sciences as senility and also classified as a dis-ease, labeled to be the dis-ease of Alzheimer’s, which is an incorrect classification, but it offers you an explanation for behavior that is unusual and that you do not necessarily understand.
In this, that also, in a manner of speaking, prepares the individual to move directly into the further action of transition upon disengagement. As I have explained many times to individuals, many, many, many individuals do not immediately engage the action of transition once they have chosen death. Many individuals continue to be generating an objective awareness, and therefore they also continue to be generating objective physical imagery.
MARKUS: Yes, I think I have read that. Mike actually asked the question if he would go directly to transition or if it was more likely that he would continue to create objective reality.
ELIAS: Correct. That is the choice and the action of each focus. In this, individuals may choose to be engaging transition to move them more immediately into the further action of it upon the choice of death, but some individuals do not choose that. There are also some individuals that choose to be engaging a lesser degree of transition within physical focus to be helpful to them in shifting, in accepting beliefs. In that action, they may not necessarily, upon the choice of death, move directly into the further action of transition. They may also generate a continuation of objective imagery and physical imagery, for their choice was not necessarily to be engaging transition in association with death, but more as a tool to be helpful in acceptance of their beliefs in association with shifting.
MARKUS: I think that I understand that.
ELIAS: Therefore, there are many different degrees that you may be engaging elements of transition within physical focus, and they may be incorporated to facilitate different actions.
MARKUS: In another session by someone else, I felt one of those signals or chills when I first read that there could be a double alignment. My perception or understanding is that currently I am belonging to the Sumafi family...
MARKUS: ...that my alignment would be Sumari...
MARKUS: ...and I also think I’m pretty much in response with the Zuli family.
ELIAS: Yes, you fluctuate. At times you may be expressing a stronger alignment with the Zuli family, and at times you express a stronger alignment with the Sumari family.
MARKUS: That would have been my assessment, also. Another of those chills that I’ve experienced was sometime last year while I was on the Internet looking for books. One book in particular actually almost made my skin crawl, huge goose bumps. The title of the book was “The Handmaid’s Tale,” but I think I responded more to the picture on the cover, which was a painting of a hooded figure where the face could only be seen in half. I did some research, and that picture was painted by a person named Fletcher Sibthorp. Could you tell me what kind of connection there is between me and that situation, that book or that picture?
ELIAS: The picture, for you incorporate an observing essence role of the individual that created the picture.
MARKUS: That was a really, really strong signal.
Last year, I visited a weekend gathering with a spiritual teacher named Mario Mantese. There were meditations on Sunday, and while listening to him speak and during one of those meditations I visualized a scene which felt like it was from a previous or parallel life. He, Mario Mantese, had been an officer on a ship, and I had been on the ship’s crew, as well. There had been a boy, probably sixteen or so, who had been accused of some wrong-doing, and the officer of the ship was about to engage a punishment of whipping. I had the impression that I was one of the other crew members who knew that the punishment was not correct, in the sense that this person, this boy, hadn’t done the deed for which he was about to be punished, and that I would have taken a part or all of the punishment.
MARKUS: Is that a scene that actually happened with that person?
MARKUS: Because that was absolutely pretty clear.
ELIAS: Yes, that is another focus.
MARKUS: Also last year, with a friend of mine who is following a spiritual teacher named John David, there was one event in particular. I had met this person, John David, for a session for two hours, and we didn’t get along too well. A day later or two – my friend’s name is Markus as well – Markus had a meeting with John David, and it was sort of probable that this meeting would result in some sort of confrontation. On that day when the meeting was, I was sitting on the sofa with my girlfriend in a meditative mood, and I felt some sort of call for help. I felt into the issue, and I thought that there may be a confrontation between the two. I was trying to send energy, and that call for help really intensified. In some sort of imagery, I pulled in a lot of energy, even from other focuses, put that together and projected that near the house where the meeting was. After that happened, I called them, and I was informed that there was some sort of confrontation. At least from the people who were there, it wasn’t observed to be critical, but I had had the impression that it was some sort of a life or death thing. Can you shed some light on that?
ELIAS: I may express to you that you are interpreting energy. What you have drawn to yourself in association of allowance of yourself with regard to the other individuals’ energies is valid. You incorporated a translation of that, which you translated into what you viewed to be an extreme, and this was your translation of intensity. Therefore, you translated into an idea of life and death, and in actuality it may not necessarily be involving that type of action, but it is...
MARKUS: My impression was that some part of the psyche of my friend Markus was feeling a subjective danger situation.
ELIAS: Yes, and that is the expression of the extreme. That is what you were receiving, the intensity and the extreme of the energy. This is the reason that you translated it in this manner.
For let me express to you, although other individuals may be generating different physical actions, it is not unusual, if you are expressing an openness to the energy of other individuals, for you to somewhat accurately receive the energy and assess the energy of the other individual, and thusly translate that into some type of imagery or feeling that will communicate the type of energy that the other individual is generating. Your imagery may be different, but it is reflecting the type of energy that the other individual is expressing.
MARKUS: When that happened, it was a pretty intense experience. I had some other imagery which may have been an aftermath of that, but I think it was actually a bleed-through from other focuses. I had the impression in this situation, I felt some sort of opposition or rivalry with this person, John David, and I had the impression that this is not the only focus where this happened. I had the imagery of 16th century warships, where John David, as a ship commander, would threaten to attack another ship commanded by my friend Markus, and I would come to help him, where it was sufficient that my ship arrived to deescalate or prevent the actual act of aggression. I had the same imagery with spaceships, which may just be a translation of ships in general. I had another imagery of some sort attack on a street that led to a small area of forest where Markus was traveling. The person of John David in that focus would be what we usually call a robber and attacked the group that was traveling there.
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct in all of these impressions, and these are all other focuses.
Now; let me also express to you that at times these types of bleed-throughs are drawn to you in a recognition of familiarity of energy of another individual, which at times may also be quite influencing if an individual does not recognize that they are engaging a very familiar energy, that the individual that they are interacting with is very familiar, that there have been these types of repeated scenarios and experiences in other focuses, and that is the type of familiarity that they are connecting to. It maybe quite influencing to the individual in intensifying their energy in extreme in conflict or anxiety or suspicion, or in a situation of feeling threatened.
MARKUS: I’ve been entirely blown away by the energy that was flowing at that moment. It was absolutely disproportionate to what was happening objectively, what someone outside would have viewed that to be. With those bleed-throughs, I was actually viewing those whole events, the ship thing, the spaceship thing, the thing in the forest, as one event that would be happening through simultaneous time and where the outcome of the event in any of those sites would influence what was going on in the other focuses at the same time.
ELIAS: Yes, and in this focus now, in intensifying the energy which is being expressed. Therefore, although what is being created objectively may not necessarily appear to be an intensity, what is being generated inwardly is much more intense.
MARKUS: Yes, that was pretty much what had happened.
Another question that would be related to other focuses is recently when I had sex with my girlfriend, I think I had a huge bleed-through from another focus, where I had been a Roman person, probably a Roman food merchant, and where she had been a black slave girl.
MARKUS: That was basically pretty clear. (Elias laughs) I just wanted to verify it, anyway. Another thing that just popped up is, is my girlfriend the same essence as Mike’s mother, Nicky? (Pause)
ELIAS: Observing, but there is a strong counterpart action also.
MARKUS: Another thing, I don’t know if you are able, just from my description, but my girlfriend a few years back had been on vacation in Great Britain and Ireland a few times. She was sitting on the wall of a graveyard – a couple of times, actually – she went there during different vacations, and sat there overlooking a river and felt a profound sadness when being there, which she could not explain. Do you have any insight on that?
ELIAS: Yes, this is also associated with other focuses, one which incorporates the death of a small one, and this individual was the mother of that small one. That focus incorporates tremendous grieving in association with the death of the small one. There is another focus that is incorporated in that location, and that focus actually has been incorporated with you also in another situation of death and a tremendous experience of loss – a tremendous connection and affection between the two individuals and a tremendous experience of loss, which was quite overwhelming.
MARKUS: I tried to feel into that situation, and I got the impression that one of my focuses would actually be buried in that graveyard.
MARKUS: I also had images of a burning house.
MARKUS: Would that be the cause of the death?
MARKUS: That small one who died, is that related to the small one named Mike, of which Mike had been asking, who died of a lung problem in an early year?
MARKUS: That’s quite interesting. I understand why Mike got the hang of these focus-hunting sessions. (Elias laughs)
This individual which I mentioned initially who has extended the greeting to you, Walter, I actually never met him in person. We’ve been on the phone some time and we have been active together in an online forum, but I feel an intense sense of friendship with him. One of the first impressions I had was that, as you might say, we had saved each other’s asses in other focuses countless times.
ELIAS: (Laughs) That would be accurate!
MARKUS: One of the focuses I think we incorporated together was at a ship school.
MARKUS: Another focus, of which Mike had inquired, as a fighter in the American Civil War, on the side of the South.
MARKUS: That explains a lot of things. (Elias laughs)
In one of the sessions, Mike had been asking about the essence with whom he had shared most focuses. The number was 38 close in tone and some 200 regardless of tone. Last time when I asked you about my connection with Jane Roberts, you said that we had many, many focuses together. Would that be the connection?
ELIAS: No. That would not be the same as essence that he was inquiring of.
MARKUS: How many focuses would I share with the essence of Jane Roberts, roughly? ELIAS: Forty-nine.
MARKUS: Wow, that’s quite many. This other essence with whom I’m sharing so many focuses, do I have a close connection with that person right now in this focus at this time?
MARKUS: At one point you were commenting that Mike would be active in a counterpart connection with a fighter pilot. I have felt in the past a tremendous connection with Richard Bach, the American writer, the author of “Jonathan Livingston Seagull,” who had been a fighter pilot. At times when I was reading his biography, I almost had the impression that this person was outlining some of the probabilities that I had laid out for my own life. Would that assessment be true?
ELIAS: Yes, and that would also be a strong counterpart action.
MARKUS: Two focuses which have appeared in my life – actually, they were the first which I had ever been aware of – one was in the past in Russia or Mongolia with a group of horse people involved in tremendous violence, like the historical person of Attila the Hun. Do you see some of that there?
ELIAS: Yes. Not that individual, but quite similar.
MARKUS: I used the example of that individual just to give you an idea of the type of energy involved.
MARKUS: Another focus that had influenced me quite probably in the past would be someone Japanese who had been in wars, and quite to the contrary of the Russian focus, that person would have been involved in tremendous discipline.
ELIAS: Yes. There are several focuses within the location and culture of Japan.
MARKUS: I had to try to get some further impressions on that Japanese focus. One thing is that I am, in this focus, very fond of anything that has to do with blades, like with knives or swords. My impression was that I had actually been a sword smith somewhere in the past in Japan.
ELIAS: Yes, and also a samurai.
MARKUS: In pursuit of those Japanese focuses, I felt there is also some sort of a counterpart or an opposite experience to the focus involving tremendous discipline. I also felt a female focus who had become a renegade samurai, which in the Japanese culture would be an unthinkable thing, a woman being a samurai and also a renegade.
MARKUS: Wow. (Elias laughs) I thought I had to [inaudible] your sessions because it would take away all my nice impressions! (Elias laughs)
You mentioned a focus as a cardinal in one of Mike’s sessions.
MARKUS: What popped here was I remembered that Seth in his books has mentioned that he had been a pope at one time. Given the number of connections or shared focuses with Jane Roberts, the idea pops up that this cardinal would somehow have been connected to Seth’s pope.
MARKUS: Wow, that’s really great!
Could you give me the essence name of my girlfriend and also her orientation and alignment? (Pause)
ELIAS: Essence name, Kammi, K-A-M-M-I (KAM mee). And your impression as to essence family and alignment?
MARKUS: I had given it some thought, but the only thing I was able to come up with was that there is definitely a Zuli thing with her.
ELIAS: Correct. That would be the alignment.
MARKUS: Then, Borledim family?
ELIAS: Correct. And your impression as to orientation?
MARKUS: I haven’t dealt with that too much. Common?
MARKUS: My orientation would be common, too.
MARKUS: I think that’s obvious! (Elias laughs)
Last question: my friend Markus, I think his family would be Borledim and alignment Tumold.
MARKUS: His orientation is common?
MARKUS: Wow! (Elias laughs) I’m very, very happy. I may even get into the process of more focus hunting.
ELIAS: Very well.
MARKUS: Next time, definitely we will take some time discussing simultaneous time.
ELIAS: Very well.
MARKUS: I will probably be the second person on earth, other than your friend Simon, who will actually be able to understand simultaneous time, and I will take the name of Si-man II, someday. (2)
ELIAS: (Laughs loudly) And this shall be an interesting game!
MARKUS: I’m looking forward to the challenge!
ELIAS: Very well, my friend, I shall be anticipating our next interaction.
MARKUS: Me, too.
ELIAS: And I express to you, as always, my affection and playful energy with you. (Chuckles)
MARKUS: I will see if I can send you playful energy. Has it been your playful energy that has mixed up my printed papers?
ELIAS: (Laughs) I would express to you that that was actually your energy and your other focus’s energy.
MARKUS: They said hello and waved with papers instead of hands! (Elias laughs) Thank you very, very much, not for your time because I know you have enough of that, but for your attention.
ELIAS: Very well, my friend, you are quite welcome. I express to you in fond friendship, au revoir.
Elias departs after 1 hour, 7 minutes.
(1) Originally expressed as: “This is also the reason that I have expressed many times to individuals, which is also a fluctuating number, but that there is a relative number of focuses that each focus incorporates that are more easily accessible than the other focuses that they incorporate, for they incorporate a similarity with each other.”
(2) Markus is referring to Bob/Simon or Si-man: “Elias has humorously given Bob (Siman) the title of “Simultaneous Time Man,” saying that he is the only human on the planet to be accepting and therefore understanding the concept of simultaneous time. We have since presented an official certificate to Bob acknowledging his achievement. Bob’s essence name was first given as Simon, which he has since changed to Siman (Si-man) for this reason. This explanation is offered in full seriousness, with no tongue-in-cheek intended. (And if you “believe” that, you need to examine your own belief systems!)” From the footnotes to session 187, June 28, 1997.
Digests: find out more about simultaneous time.
© 2004 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.