Friday, May 20, 2005
“Connections Between Focuses”
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Ken (Alida).
(Elias’ arrival time is 17 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good morning!
KEN: Good morning, Elias! This is a great honor to speak with you.
ELIAS: And what shall we discuss?
KEN: I have about 22 different topics here. I’m not sure I can get to every one of them. (Laughs) Let’s kind of get into the concept of belief systems, and why we choose things like dealing with sequential time focuses and physical life, making them so real that it’s very difficult to get outside of them when they’re nothing but a belief system. What I am attempting to reconcile is things that I’ve experienced myself, including a transfocal encounter kind of situation, where it was almost like I created a special focus for transitioning between two physical focuses. Is that something you know of?
ELIAS: Yes, I am understanding.
KEN: That’s where I end one what I call lifetime focus, go through the full life review, the full what-did-I-learn-this-lifetime kind of thing, and then start designing where will my growth be best at this moment – coming in at 1953 to parents who didn’t get along very well and were in Puerto Rico at the time. It’s almost like there was this real interesting continuity between them that certainly can lead people to believe in things like reincarnation. Do we have the ability to keep the concept of sequential time going even while we’re transitioning?
KEN: So in other words, when it’s a transition that’s going to lead to another focus, not the final one or anything like that, then it’s possible to keep a continuity going such that there’s some part of the focus that has the continuity between the one focus and the other.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, for they are all you and they are all occurring simultaneously. But within each one, there is a time element that is expressed in a linear fashion. You do incorporate the ability to merge with any other focus, for it is another aspect of yourself, and in that, in the merging with the other focus, you would experience linear time in relation to experiences with that other focus, and can even experience that as yourself and not generate a distinguishment between yourself and the other focus, for it is you.
Also, within one focus, you do also incorporate the ability to generate recall or memory in relation to other focuses of yourself, in which you may be aware of the events, the circumstances, the environment, the experiences of that other individual as you, and they may be as clear and as real as the experiences that you are generating in this focus. That is merely a matter of being open and aware of self to an extent in which you allow yourself to open to your other focuses in a manner that generates more of a clarity. In that, you shall experience their experiences as your own.
KEN: So in other words, this Ken focus didn’t begin on July 22, 1953 when I was born in Puerto Rico, but may have begun earlier as I was preparing and maybe incorporating experiences and maybe thoughts from the prior, the other focus from Germany.
ELIAS: It is not quite that simplistic, for it is not a matter of incorporating experiences or influences from merely one focus. What I am expressing to you is it is a matter of your openness and your awareness. In that, at times one focus, which may have been the most recent past focus, may appear to be clearer and may be incorporated as a memory more clearly initially, but that is not to say that that one focus is the only focus that is incorporating bleed-through, or that you do not incorporate the ability to be aware of all of the other focuses equally as clearly, even future focuses.
At times, individuals within the stage of youth may actually even interact with other focuses of themselves as they would with any other individual within their environment. They may interact with past focuses or with future focuses. Many individuals also incorporate dream imagery that is quite vivid and quite real, which may be a memory of another focus.
Generally, these types of bleed-throughs are associated with another focus that within your linear time framework would be most closely associated with your present focus. But as with all of experience, it is not an absolute. At times, an individual may incorporate that type of memory concerning another focus that appears to be far removed in association with time. But as I have stated, generally speaking, it occurs much more frequently in relation to a focus that is closely associated within time framework.
KEN: This was a special circumstance. One might in 2002, I had, well, regressions is what I called them then. It feels like a TFE. That is one person doing the same kinds of things that Michael Newton is doing, that has to do with looking at what happens after a person dies, what they call between life focuses or regressions. He’s come up with two really interesting books, “Journey of Souls” and “Destiny of Souls,” which I am guessing that Mary may not have read.
KEN: What actually happened earlier is my first experience with other focuses that was a quote “I know” experience unquote actually occurred with one that was in the Religious Book, an Inquisition lifetime. That was pure bleed-through that occurred that time. I was watching a violent movie, “The Little Drummer Girl,” and then I got this thought of kind of like rooting them on when they were going to quote get the information out of this guy, that kind of thing. Then I started getting that’s not a nice thought, a censor kind of thing. Then it’s like stop, hold on here, and I froze the circumstance and turned the television off, got into a meditative state, and then started following the thought to see if I could figure out where that thought came from. I brought it all the way to the Inquisition. This was a real, real strong thing.
What I ended up doing was calling for a dream conference with this particular focus and asking my oversoul – because “Oversoul 7” was a recent book at that time, “The Education of Oversoul 7” – asking for a dream conference where I was going to see if I could talk this focus into a career change. (Elias chuckles) Apparently, I did a fair amount of good work with this particular one. It felt really good. I got some follow-up stuff from other sources that I had sort of helped to bring this other focus the idea of the sanctity of human life and that it’s not really that cool to be doing what he was doing. So that’s the thing – my very first personal experience was definitely about the simultaneousness of different focuses.
ELIAS: Yes. But also, I would express to you a cautioning in association with other focuses and what may be termed to be meddling in other focuses’ experiences. Remember, these are all you, and beliefs are relative to the individual. Your beliefs may be different in this focus than those that are expressed in another focus, which is purposeful. For the point in choosing to participate within this physical reality is to be experiencing it in relation to its blueprint, which includes beliefs. In that, the purpose of manifesting in any focus is to experience. Therefore, in association with each focus and the beliefs that each focus aligns with, each focus shall be exploring experiences within the framework of their expressed beliefs.
Now; regardless of whether you in this focus agree with the choices and experiences of another focus, if you are genuinely allowing yourself to view the big picture, so to speak, of yourself as essence with a myriad of attentions that are physically focused, it is quite understandable that you as essence would choose to experience many, many different types of expressions and many different beliefs and how they may be incorporated within your experience.
Therefore, in one focus, you may be generating experiences and behaviors and actions that you would revile in this focus, but it matters not, for you are generating a wide spectrum of experiences within one particular physical dimension and within the blueprint of that physical dimension. Just as an individual may in one focus find it disturbing that they may discover another focus of themselves that they would judge and view to be a murderous barbarian, within that focus of the murderous barbarian, their choices and behavior and their guidelines of their beliefs may be quite acceptable to them.
KEN: They might look quite askew at what happens in the present day focus.
ELIAS: Correct. Therefore, it is not advisable to be attempting to alter the experiences or the alignments with certain beliefs in other focuses to appease your beliefs in this focus.
KEN: This was a 1986 thing. The thing about it was, and this is one of the strong influences on this focus, how did I die then? Well, I was hung by the neck till I was dead, dead, dead, and I have chronic neck issues in this focus. There’s other things like that, where it’s like there’s little details, little correlations between them.
ELIAS: Yes, I am understanding. In such situations, it is generally beneficial to the individual to be exploring the experiences of another focus which may be bleeding through into this focus and therefore allow yourself a greater understanding and a recognition that you may be drawing energy to yourself from a particular focus and translating that energy in a manner in which you manifest some expression in this focus. Once you recognize that you are generating this bleed-through and that you are translating specific energies into manifestations within your own focus, that may be helpful to lessen the intensity of the experience in this focus or even dissipate it to the point in which you stop creating that within this focus.
These are reasons that it may be beneficial to be investigating other focuses, other than also reinforcing your trust of yourself in your abilities and also widening your awareness of self and expanding your perception of self as not so singular and incorporating a much greater volume than you would be aware of in merely paying attention to this one focus.
As I have stated, many individuals generate strong bleed-through in association with dream imagery that may be associated with another focus. Once recognizing that this dream imagery is a memory of actual experiences and events, generally speaking the individual discontinues with that type of dream imagery, for they have addressed what it is expressing. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to continue with that recall.
KEN: In general, I’ve felt that I’ve limited my own spontaneous transfocal encounters to specific focuses that I feel I can actually learn from this time, in other words, where there are correlations between them. I have not really had an interest in looking if I have been a famous person. I haven’t really had an interest in just doing TFEs just to do TFEs.
ELIAS: I am understanding, and this is beneficial to be focusing upon other focuses that provide you with information in association with your focus now. That also, generally speaking, for most individuals is the easiest and first direction that they generate in exploring other focuses. Not necessarily with that intention and not necessarily incorporating an awareness of why they are drawing themselves to specific focuses initially, but that is the automatic direction that individuals generally create, and perhaps subsequently shall recognize the information that they offer to themselves in relation to this focus and how those other focuses correlate or what the similarities or the differences are and how that is affecting of themselves.
KEN: I used to think that it was like the power of association, that I’m thinking about a particular topic and this particular topic was extremely important in another focus. But then you’ve been talking about how some focuses have a tone quality that is similar to the tone quality of this one. Is it one, the other, or both?
KEN: Sometimes the association with a topic that’s extremely important can cut through even great tone differences.
ELIAS: Yes. For that is your motivating factor, which allows you to tap into other focuses that may be experiencing the subject matter that you incorporate an interest with.
KEN: Now, when we’re doing transfocal encounters, is it almost like we’re turning temporarily into an observing essence for that particular focus in a way, just temporarily?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking – not literally, for it is you. But in a manner of speaking, yes, you can interpret in that manner, for the action is quite similar. You can temporarily move your attention so fully that you become the other individual and shall incorporate no objective awareness of this individual that you are now.
KEN: That would be some of the epic dreams that I’ve had.
ELIAS: At times, yes.
KEN: While I am involved with the dream, that’s pretty much reality for that period of time.
KEN: One of my notes here, “Observing essence for focus, analogy of watching a chess game quote observing unquote the focus start to make a really bad move.” I am thinking that it might be kind of difficult to be an observing essence because it would be kind of hard to just stand back and watch while the person makes a move that the essence might have judgments about.
ELIAS: That is not the experience of an observing essence. The observing essence experiences the focus in the same manner as the directing focus. They are generating the same experience. Therefore, it is not an experience such as you have offered as example, in which the observing essence would be removed and merely watching what is occurring within a particular focus.
The observing essence is merged with that focus, and therefore is that individual and is experiencing in the same manner as the directing essence. It is the choice of the focus which essence it incorporates as itself. The focus can choose to change which is the directing essence.
KEN: Is that what some people think of as a walk-in, if a focus decides to change their primary aspect and from the controlling essence that’s been there to what was an observing essence? Is that what people term as walk-in?
ELIAS: Not exactly. You are confusing two subject matters. You are confusing altering a primary aspect, which is one action, and in that, it may be associated with what individuals misinterpret and label as a walk-in. For in altering the primary aspect of a focus, if that is expressed in a dramatic manner in which the alteration is more extreme to the point in which the individual’s personality alters and the individual incorporates what may be termed to be a loss of time or memory, that would be a dramatic expression of altering primary aspects. Generally speaking, individuals do not necessarily choose that type of action, although in many situations, as a small one, this is a much more frequently expressed action. But as an adult, it is much less common that individuals generate that type of action. But it may be frequently expressed in what you term to be childhood years, in which...
KEN: I made the mistake of mistaking the essence, whether it’s controlling or observing, with the primary aspect that’s controlling the body. That’s not the same.
KEN: I came up with an interesting scenario I am kind of wondering about. A focus comes to a fork in the road with a difficult decision – this is probability material here – and essence one really wants to go in one direction and essence two really wants to go in another direction. For clarity, I am making this an either/or. Do you have a situation where one essence is the controlling essence for one set of probabilities and another essence is the controlling essence for a different set of probabilities?
ELIAS: No. Now; let me also clarify to you, essence is not controlling. YOU ARE ALL OF ESSENCE IN EACH FOCUS. Therefore, essence is not an entity that is separated from you and is not distinguished as beyond you. Also, it is an expression of somewhat devaluing the focus. The focus is what generates all of the choices and all of the decisions. There is no other element or other entity that is controlling or choosing or deciding or offering information in relation to choices and decisions. That is all you, for you ARE essence.
KEN: Let’s go back to that analogy. I think I am getting closer to this, because if I have this analogy that I am a focus sitting at a chess board playing chess with a different focus and I have a bunch of people standing behind me, and then on the other side, they have their own bunch of people that are standing behind them. I think I was maybe looking at that in not the best way. Because the people who are standing behind me while I am playing, it could get very annoying if some of them were saying, “Don’t take that bishop!” or something like that, yelling at me that I am about to make a bad move on the chessboard or make a bad move in life.
ELIAS: I am understanding, but this is not the situation. It is not that there is an observance in that manner of speaking by any other essences. It is not a question of observing potential choices that would be disagreed with or would be viewed precognitively suggesting an uncomfortable direction or a comfortable direction. It is YOUR choice. Whatever you choose, whatever move you choose, that is your direction, and it is being incorporated purposefully to offer you information in some manner through experience. Therefore, even if you generate a judgment with yourself expressing that a particular move is a bad move, that is not to say that it is not valuable. For even with that assessment, you offer yourself information.
The point in moving within this shift is to widen your awareness to the point in which you may evaluate what you are doing, but not necessarily generate the judgment in relation to a good move or a bad move, but recognizing that whatever you do is a choice, and that in that choice, you offer yourself opportunities and potential for new information. You also offer yourself the opportunity to generate more clarity in association with your preferences or what are not your preferences, what your own guidelines are and what they are not, and in association with what you want and what you do not want. Therefore, even a bad move, in your terms, is beneficial and purposeful.
KEN: I definitely have, after the fact, figured that out on some of the cases. Some moves I made, quote unquote, in my life, that generated lots and lots of judgment on my part, like moving to Connecticut in ‘95 for example, generated lots of judgment of the if-onlys. “If only I’d stayed over there, maybe I could have gotten my finances in order.” But on the other hand, there’s some things that probably would not have happened that I considered extremely beneficial now.
ELIAS: I am understanding. And this is the point. Individuals, generally speaking, discount themselves for they recognize that they generate an understanding and more of a clarity subsequent to the engagement of an action. They incorporate doing, and subsequently they evaluate and offer themselves information. The pitfall is that the individual generally shall express a disappointment and a judgment of themselves that they are merely accessing information after the experience. But generally speaking, this is the manner, the method in which you do offer yourselves information. You generate an action, and once you have generated an action, you stop and you evaluate what you have done.
In generating more clarity and more familiarity with self and widening your awareness with self, you move closer to being aware of what you are doing in the moment and allowing yourself to evaluate in the moment and offer yourself more choices in the moment. This is not to say that you are limiting your choices in the other method. For subsequently, once you generate your evaluation of what you have done, you do offer yourself much more choices in relation to what you may do now.
KEN: I think I have an example of that from my own life – this was way back – I had this situation where I could go to a seminar in a different city, and I was torn between doing that because I was also quite needed locally. I had this dream where I went up there, went to the seminar, and then ended up stranded at the side of the road with the car not working. So, my action after that dream was thank you very much, and I chose the other side. I chose to stay locally and had a really good weekend locally.
ELIAS: I am understanding. As I have expressed previously, you can incorporate these types of actions within dream state and create two actions within the same time framework. You are generating two realities within one reality.
KEN: I was asking for insight on a particular choice, and in the dream state, I got the less comfortable version. That made it easy for me to choose the other side, which came out to be fairly comfortable and productive.
ELIAS: Yes, but both were real and both were experienced, for the dream imagery is as real as the waking imagery.
KEN: Another thing I am learning about now is aspects, what I’ve been calling subpersonalities. I’ve been kind of naming them. We have a primary aspect that’s directly controlling the body, but then we have secondary aspects that are like right next to them. I have a particular part of myself I call day job Ken that handles computers particularly well, and then I have a part of myself I call Seattle Ken that maneuvers myself around Seattle. I think I’ve sort of figured out that those are like secondary aspects that are hovering around, helping my primary aspect out.
ELIAS: Yes, in a manner of speaking.
KEN: What I finally got, actually, with a little bit of chemical help, is what it feels like temporarily to be with a different primary aspect, and that is a definitely a different feel.
KEN: But even when I had the other primary aspect, I still had some of the same secondary aspects hovering around helping out.
ELIAS: Yes, and that is quite common. As I have expressed, unless an individual chooses to be altering primary aspects in a dramatic manner...
KEN: Permanently, maybe? In other words, where one primary aspect says, “I don’t want to do this anymore,” that kind of a thing?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. But an individual may desire some type of dramatic alteration within their focus and choose to alter primary aspects dramatically, in which the new primary aspect shall express very different qualities from the previous primary aspect.
In such situations, generally speaking, the individual shall also incorporate the experience of not incorporating an awareness of memory. The memory of the initial primary aspect shall not be expressed objectively any longer, for the new primary aspect, if it is a dramatic alteration, shall incorporate its own memory and different experience. Or it may have been a dormant aspect for an extended time framework, and therefore, it may not incorporate memory of experiences, for it has not directly been generating experiences objectively.
Therefore, the individual may experience what you term to be a loss of memory, in which they incorporate no memory of any experiences and therefore are, in a manner of speaking, figuratively beginning anew with a new memory and a new experience and even a new personality. That, as I have expressed, within the time framework of a focus that you term to be adult, does not occur very often. It is somewhat rare. It does occur quite commonly in children.
KEN: We’ve got about ten minutes left. There’s one thing that I just now remembered that I have not asked about yet, and that’s whether I am intellectual, emotional, political, religious.
ELIAS: Thought, emotion, religious, or political.
KEN: Am I thought?
KEN: A number of people guessed that over in New Orleans. That’s good perception. I’ll read up more on that, then.
One thing when I was reading on chapter focuses, one of the notes I put down is am I involved in an epilogue chapter of the Religious Book? You’re saying that the Religious Book ended in 1953, but I think there’s a little bit of an epilogue chapter being written now with all this stuff going on.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.
KEN: Earlier, I mentioned that I was doing a transfocal encounter with an Inquisition focus. That definitely was in the Religious Book.
KEN: Then the other thing, I am still looking at an upcoming focus in Iceland in a female body. I feel like I am still imaginatively planning that focus and the details are not in stone yet. It’s definitely not being done in a linear fashion, because I have more details of what’s going to happen as an adult and have not really chosen how I will come into the life there. Is that how we tend to build a lifetime, like in an inside out, sideways fashion?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. What you are generating or connecting to within your impressions is the individual’s pool of probabilities. Therefore, what you are tapping into in that pool are potentials. They may change, but you do create a pool of probabilities prior to manifesting physically within this reality. Generally speaking, most individuals move through their focus in relation to that pool of probabilities, but at times individuals may move outside of that pool of probabilities and generate different probabilities and different directions that would have been deemed highly unlikely.
KEN: I know I’ve done that in this focus.
KEN: I’ve kind of gotten out and back in. Now I am back in the pool of probabilities, but I believe that when I was on the east coast, I was sort of like hovering around on the outside of them.
KEN: Let me go through my list. Has Mary Ennis read an author called Emanuel Swedenborg? He lived in the 1700s. There’s a lot of correlation between your view of what happens with one focus. He goes even farther as far as not believing in reincarnation. He’s definitely the one-lifetime-period kind of a thing. He talks about the continuation of the energy of the person even after they’ve died, how they kind of meet up with like-minded souls and spend time in communities, that kind of thing.
ELIAS: That is a possibility. It is not a rule. But as to your question, no, the book has not been incorporated.
KEN: What I was wondering about from that point of view was a person dies in the 1940s from Germany, then I experience the part about them, taking that and running with it, and then coming into life in 1953 in Puerto Rico as Ken. That particular person is still around, still experiencing that focus. You definitely mentioned that focuses do not go away, they’re still around.
ELIAS: Yes. That focus of attention continues and explores in...
KEN: Has its own set of experiences.
ELIAS: Yes, and explores in different areas.
KEN: That’s where I think that Emanuel Swedenborg was going, except that then he didn’t go anywhere past that.
ELIAS: It is not a matter of each focus being assimilated into this entity of essence, and it is not a matter of remanifestation or reincarnation, in which the individual disengages and reenters the physical reality. No. All of the focuses are occurring simultaneously. In this, whichever focus disengages in any moment, that focus of attention continues as its own unique expression. Therefore, the uniqueness and the qualities of what is you is not lost, and the identity of what is you is not lost subsequent to disengagement. That continues. You merely continue to explore in different manners.
Now; you, as this attention, have endless or countless possibilities for exploration once you disengage from this particular reality. You may choose to continue exploring within nonphysical areas of consciousness, or you may choose to explore other realities.
KEN: That will have to be the topic for another time, because it looks like we’re running out of time.
ELIAS: (Laughs) Very well! I shall be anticipating our next discussion.
KEN: I very much enjoy interacting with you.
ELIAS: And I with you also, my friend!
KEN: Thank you so much.
ELIAS: You are very welcome. I express to you encouragement and affection as always, and I shall be offering my energy to you in playfulness.
KEN: Yes, that’s great to have energy!
ELIAS: Very well. To you, my dear friend, au revoir.
KEN: Au revoir.
Elias departs after 1 hour.
© 2005 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.