the Elias forum: Explore the transcript archive.










Thursday, March 19, 1998

<  Session 269 (Private)  >

“Computer Questions IV”

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Forrest (Ellius).

Vic’s note, for reference see:

Transcripts: Computer Questions I, session 155, February 24, 1997

Transcripts: Computer Questions II, session 258, January 15, 1998

Transcripts: Computer Questions III, session 268, March 08, 1998

Also, the second half of this session is devoted to other subject matter.

Elias arrives at 1:01 PM. (Arrival time was twenty-six seconds.)

ELIAS: Good afternoon.

FORREST: Good afternoon, Elias. How are you doing today?

ELIAS: As always!

FORREST: Okay. Unless you have other business, Mary wants to clean up on a few questions from our computer friends. So if you’re willing, we’ll do that. (Elias nods) Okay. Paul asks for his essence name and family alignment.

ELIAS: (Accessing) Essence name, Benjamin.

FORREST: Benjamin? (Elias nods)

ELIAS: Essence family, Sumari; alignment, Tumold.

FORREST: Alright. He writes, “About accepting, when we finally accept a belief system, is that something that will happen in a flash of light, or will we gradually accept more and more of that belief until we have accepted it completely?”

ELIAS: It is possible to be accepting of a belief system instantaneously, although given the strength of many of your belief systems and the influence that is held in this area by other focuses which lend energy to the perpetuation of certain held belief systems, it is more probable that the belief system shall be accepted gradually.

FORREST: Okay. A person named Bunny asks about acupuncture and acupressure. The question is, essentially, “Why does it work?”

ELIAS: Partially this system of healing is accomplished in conjunction and compliance with your own belief systems, but partially there is an interaction between this system and the accessing of energy pockets within the physical form which may be released in increments by the application of this particular method.

In this, it is unnecessary for an individual to hold the belief system that this method shall be accomplishing the necessary action, for the individual facilitating the action may be releasing certain amounts of energy which is held in blockage by the individual receiving this treatment. There is automatically an agreement at the moment that the individual receiving the treatment engages the treatment. Therefore, there is an allowance in part by the individual receiving treatment to be releasing of their own energy which they are holding to in blocked areas. For individuals that hold the belief system also in this area, it may be more effective in allowing energy to be moved around, so to speak.

FORREST: Okay. The second question is, “If we are entirely new and unused consciousness with every aspect, focus, alternate or probable self,” – she refers to session 126 – “then it doesn’t seem to me that we remain, as Seth assured us, our own unique self throughout all of our experiences. I appreciate that we never remain the same as we are always in a state of becoming, but if we are new and unused, it implies that we are indeed a different personality. Help! I may have an identity crisis here! Please explain.”

ELIAS: In the idea that you hold to within physical focus that you are a unique individual identity, it is correct to be expressing that you are not singular. Each individual is continuously within a state of becoming. All of consciousness is in a continuous state of becoming. I have expressed previously in this area that the manner that you view yourselves in within physical focus is quite limited. You view yourselves to be a singular individual.

(Here, the telephone is ringing) If you are wishing to engage your equipment, you may.

FORREST: No, I just wish to shut it off! That’ll be the last ring.

ELIAS: Very well. In continuing: Within physical focus, as a focus manifestation, you are not singular. You hold countless alternate selves which are continuously interchanging with you. These alternate selves are all you. They are different aspects of the uniqueness of you, but they are all elements of what you may perceive to be the whole of the individual focus. In expressing that there are countless numbers of these aspects of yourselves, you may envision to yourselves numbers initially, if this be facilitating of an ease in your thought process. You may express that you hold ten thousand alternate selves – although this is figuratively speaking, for in actuality they are numberless – and in this you may also visualize to yourselves that within each moment there is an interchange, an exchange, that is occurring with different aspects of the self. At times within a particular focus, these aspects exchange places, so to speak. One aspect within the focus may be appearing to be dominant. This be the projection of the personality.

In this, in time frameworks that you are creating of different choices, you are exchanging positions with other aspects of self. You exchange with other aspects of self in different activities also. Certain aspects hold greater ability, so to speak, in different actions. Therefore, it is a continual exchange. You also are creating of probable selves quite often within the process of an individual focus. Each time that you are engaging what you would view to be a large or instrumental choice/decision in a specific direction, you are automatically creating a probable self which shall be moving in the direction unchosen.

FORREST: How important a choice is it that defines whether or not an alternate self will be branched off at that point, or a probable self will be branched off at that point?

ELIAS: An alternate and a probable are different.

FORREST: Using the word probable then.

ELIAS: Yes. Probable selves are created within choices that appear to you in your focus as being more extreme. When you are choosing a different direction in your attention than you have chosen previously, or an altering choice of your focus, you automatically create probable selves. Now; be understanding that as you create a probable self scenario, you are not creating of merely one probable self. You are creating multiple probable selves that shall be experiencing all of the alternate choices that you have not chosen to actualize within the framework of this officially accepted reality.

An example of this action which has been partially stated previously would be to view yourself throughout your focus. As you are choosing to be attending a specific school, you create probable selves which move in different directions. As you attend a school, you create probable selves that do not attend a school. As you move into different relationships, you create probable selves. As you move away from different relationships, you create probable selves. Each decision or choice that you choose throughout your focus which may appear to you as an alteration in your direction, in ANY direction, this action is creating of probable selves which also move in alignment with yourself, although holding independence and free will and the ability of choice within themselves, once created.

There is an element of the existence of these probable selves that follows you and your existence. This is not to say that this may not be altered by the probable self or by influence of another individual. These probable selves may be accessed. You may interact with them. You may be encountering of them, given that you allow yourself the ability to be interactive objectively with them. This be a different type of situation than that of aspects. Aspects of self are YOU.

I have expressed previously that an analogy to this concept may be to view yourself and all of the different complexes that are you. Each emotion that you hold is a part of you which may not be separated from you but is not the whole of you. Each thought that you possess is an element of you but is not the whole of you and also may not be separated from you, but it is a priori within itself, although not separable from you. In this respect, alternate selves’ aspects are the same. They are interchangeable. You may hold many moods. At any given moment you may be experiencing one mood, and within another moment you may be experiencing another mood. These are you, but they are different aspects of you. Another example of objective evidence that you may view of alternate selves, of aspects of self, would be demonstrated within an individual focus within experiences. You may experience differences within your focus that you are noticing of. You are expressing differently than you are accustomed to. You may be creating of new experiences which seem to you to be slightly inconsistent with your previous creations. This is a recognition that you have exchanged positions with another aspect of yourself. You may consistently respond to another individual in the same manner, and within one moment you may begin responding to the individual slightly differently. This is an exchange of an alternate self, another aspect of you.

I have stated previously, this particular dimension of physical focus is extremely complex. There are many aspects of this particular physical dimension that far exceed your objective comprehension presently, although this is not to say that you do not hold the ability to access this information, for you do.

FORREST: To resolve the reference to “you,” are you referring to me, my species, or this person who is asking the question?

ELIAS: In general, and also to this individual in response to the question.

FORREST: Just as an aside, the threshold on the severity of the choice, is that defined by belief systems local to this particular reality? In other words, in determining how severe a choice needs to be in order to be creating of probable selves/possible selves, is that threshold defined by beliefs within this reality?

ELIAS: In one manner of speaking the belief systems are influencing, for all that you move into within choice is influenced by your belief systems within this particular reality; but as to the actual creation of a probable self, it is not contingent upon your belief systems. Your belief systems are influencing, for they are influencing of your choice, therefore placing you with the situation of creating a choice. The choice – outside of the context of belief systems – shall be creating of a probable self. It is the action of the choice itself which is creating of the situation.

FORREST: Do all choices create probable selves or just some of them, just the most severe ones?

ELIAS: Not all choices create probable selves. You may choose to be walking from one of your rooms to another room. You may be choosing to engage in an action of acquiring a glass of water within your other room. This choice is not creating of a probable self that chooses not to be acquiring a glass of water.

FORREST: What defines the threshold between choices which do create probable selves and those which do not create probable selves?

ELIAS: Those choices which alter your reality; choices, as I have stated, which appear to you to hold more significance; choices that affect your direction within your focus, within your probabilities; relationships, movements.

FORREST: Recognition of those kinds of choices is a function of the belief systems of the individual making the choices.

ELIAS: The belief systems influence them. You do not create choices within this physical focus which are NOT influenced by your belief systems objectively. You may be creating of a choice subjectively; very infrequently, but it is possible to be engaging choices subjectively outside of the confines and influences of your belief systems. As I have stated, your objective and subjective awarenesses move in harmony. Therefore, it is quite infrequent that you shall be creating of a choice subjectively which shall be outside of the influence of your held belief system; but at times, within movement outside of your pool of probabilities, dependent upon the severity of the movement outside of your pool of probabilities, you may be creating of a choice which is not influenced by your individually held belief systems.

FORREST: Continuing with the questions. Bunny asks, “Could you enlarge on what happens to the body consciousness if one chooses to be cremated? Is it better to be or not to be cremated, and for whom?

ELIAS: There is no better or worse within this situation. It is a choice. There is a difference in the action and the affectingness in consciousness in your choice of how you shall be disengaging your body consciousness, but no choice is better or worse. They are merely different choices. In choosing the action of cremation you are choosing to be disengaging the body consciousness within a relatively quick time framework, therefore uniting the energy of the body consciousness with that of the objective consciousness which shall be within the area of transition. Each choice that you engage in conjunction with your disengagement of physical focus creates a different type of scenario within your movement in the area of transition.

As I have stated, it is not a rule that an individual shall be disengaging the body consciousness in this manner within a final focus, although it is common. It is also common that an individual within a final focus may choose another method, so to speak, of swift disengagement of the body consciousness; the assimilation of the energy into transitional areas quickly. Allowing for the continuation of the body consciousness within the choice and ritual of burial allows a continuation of partial elements of the body consciousness within physical focus. Therefore, there is not an entire assimilation within transition temporarily.

FORREST: She asks if her daughter Betsy is a member of the Borle ... I don’t know how to pronounce the word.

ELIAS: Borledim. (Smiling) This would be an alignment.

FORREST: Alright, the next question is from Carter, who asks me to address you as “Big Guy.” (Elias chuckles) “What essence or essences am I, Cynthia, (essence name) fragmented from?”

ELIAS: (Accessing) This fragmentation has occurred within the action of a mergence of three essences; the essence of Mordow, M-O-R-D-O-W, Zephell, Z-E-P-H-E-L-L, and Joseph.

FORREST: He asks, “What is my connection to the core group?” (Pause)

ELIAS: In responding to this question, I address personally to this individual and also to ALL individuals that draw themselves to this forum. There is no separation within essence, and in this action of drawing to this forum and this information, all are interconnected in the manner of shared alignment within their focuses and within their intents in this particular focus to be acquiring information and to be offering this information in conjunction with the action of helpfulness in consciousness within this shift. Each individual that draws to this forum also lends energy to the accomplishment of this shift within the least amount of trauma, and may be recognizing of the interconnectedness of consciousness in the area of intent of you all which are drawn in this area.

In expressing questioning of, “What is my connection to this particular group of individuals?,” this be a specific question. There are many connections, but within this particular specific question, the answer is the interconnectedness of the focuses and the essences which are being facilitating of the movement of this shift in consciousness, in respect to diverting probabilities which are viewed to be undesirable and unnecessary for insertion into this particular officially accepted reality.

FORREST: From Vivien: She asks on behalf of a Chinese friend, Qiu Feng, what her essence name, family and alignment is.

ELIAS: (Accessing) Essence name, Willown, W-I-L-L-O-W-N. Essence family, Tumold; alignment, Sumari.

FORREST: She feels herself at a crossroads in her life and would appreciate any information that you can give to help her gain clarity within her intent for this focus. (Pause)

ELIAS: Understood. Clarity may be offered in one area which may be affecting. In the area of essence family and alignment, it may be helpful to this individual to be understanding that the action and intent held within the family that [she] is belonging to is different from the expression of the alignment with this same family. Belonging to the family of Tumold holds a very different expression than that which is expressed within a particular focus by an individual aligning with the Tumold family. This may be creating of confusion to many individuals that are belonging to the Tumold family within a particular focus, and more so within this particular focus, as you offer yourselves more information of these essence families.

The expression is obvious to be witnessed in the alignment of individuals to this essence family of Tumold. Individuals aligning move in more overt areas of what you define objectively as healing. Individuals belonging to this family may become confused in feeling some draws in this area, but moving themselves into actions which are contrary to the intent that they hold within that particular family. The intent of this particular family is to be holding to the originality of this creation within this particular physical focus dimension, and to be holding to the original function and state of this particular physical dimension. Therefore, their action also extends into that of returning elements to their original state. This is an unrealized action objectively within the expression of those individuals ALIGNING with this family, for their belief systems move them into different actions. Their expression takes on a different quality. The alignment within a particular focus is that which is more obviously expressed. Therefore, I offer the suggestion to this individual to be connecting with the alignment of Sumari, recognizing the qualities which are displayed in this particular focus which ARE in alignment with this essence family and its expression and to be allowing of a more free expression in this area, also recognizing that the underlying intent of the Tumold shall be naturally expressed effortlessly in this action.

I am understanding that individuals seek explanations and directions of, “Shall I move into this new area? Shall I acquire new employ? Shall I move into a new relationship? Shall I alter my focus in my thought process and my interaction with other individuals?” But this answer that I offer is more effective and efficient and encompassing than these individual mundane concerns, and in accepting the reality of this particular answer, it shall encompass all these of mundane areas.

FORREST: Vivien, on behalf of a married couple, John and Anita, asks for their respective essence names, families and alignments.

ELIAS: (Accessing) Respectively; essence name, Jon, J-O-N. Family, Sumari; alignment, Vold. Essence name, Altu, A-L-T-U. Essence family, Sumafi; alignment, Milumet.

FORREST: She asks, Do you have any information that would help them understand why they’re experiencing conflict and difficulty in their relationship?” (Thirty-second pause)

ELIAS: A common situation in this area; holding differences in belief systems with respect to the action of shared relationships, differences in the belief systems of friendships, and an expression of lack of acceptance within these differences which are held within belief systems. There are also certain aspects underlying in belief systems concerning differences held within religious belief systems. This may be investigated and addressed to as the individuals allow themselves the acceptance of self in this area, for I am aware that the expression of “underlying belief systems in the area of religious belief systems” shall be invoking questioning and possible disagreement. But this is the reality, and if viewing and allowing the surfacing of these underlying belief systems, it shall be understood, the affectingness in the area of conflict in this situation.

FORREST: She asks for John, “He’s also experiencing difficulty in his working environment and wants to understand why. He also wants to know why he’s created the ringing in his ears.”

ELIAS: (Chuckling) Ringing in ears! This is quite common, as I have expressed previously, and as you move into an opening of consciousness you may also be experiencing this particular physical action, for your physical senses are accessing vibrational tones of essence, and in this you physically experience what you term to be a ringing in ears.

This situation of difficulty within employ is also related to the same issues held in relationship: a lack of acceptance of self and a lack of acceptance of others, belief systems held strongly in the areas of expectation of other individuals and their performance.

FORREST: Just as an aside, you’re referring to ringing which ... those hums which come and then pass?

ELIAS: At times. Certain individuals experience this for much more of a time framework than other individuals.

FORREST: When experiencing that, what would you recommend that somebody do to facilitate that process of acknowledgment of essence?

ELIAS: Merely be acknowledging!

FORREST: She asks on behalf of Anita, “What beliefs does she hold to create her weight problem and other physical problems?”

ELIAS: Look to essence families and the counterpart action of the Milumet and the Zuli. This is quite affecting of many individuals in this situation. Also, within the lack of acceptance of self and the perpetuation of duplicity, many individuals within your particular society presently manifest this similar action. This offers an avenue objectively for the extreme perpetuation of this duplicity, for you hold belief systems of good and bad and right and wrong, and you view yourselves as not worthy and inadequate, and you create objective imagery to reinforce this situation and belief system.

In this also, I may offer the suggestion of attempting to be connecting with the counterpart action of the Zuli family and engaging this to be helpful in movement through these belief systems and therefore allowing more of an easement into the accomplishment of the desired effect, viewing the self as perfect and as aesthetically beautiful.

FORREST: Vivien asks one last question for herself and her husband Jim. “What were the beliefs involved last year with the accidents with the three cars?”

ELIAS: Initially I shall be expressing, as I have expressed previously to Miriam, as I have expressed to many other individuals: Questions are presented, answers are presented, and these are also benefiting of other individuals. This be the reason that we have initiated this system, so to speak, of transcription for information to many individuals. In this situation, individuals do not engage their telepathic sense and are not understanding of your questioning if you are not offering explanation. I shall answer this question, but futurely I express that questions shall be posed in a manner that other individuals may be understanding and connecting to the contents and the context of the information, that they may also be benefiting of the answer. (Pause, accessing)

The underlying belief systems affecting of this situation were those of not an entire acceptance of the concept – not the reality, but the concept – of creating your own reality, and that you may not be drawing yourself to specific situations for your own benefit but that situations may occur which are not of your control. Therefore, also the underlying belief system which has been influencing in this area is that of control within physical focus. The word itself is a belief system! You do not hold control or lack of control within physical focus or within essence or within consciousness. It is a belief system developed by fear within physical focus.

Therefore, it may be viewed that these two belief systems have been most influencing in the creation of this situation, and these belief systems may be viewed and also investigated as to be dismantling much of the power that these belief systems hold presently. Be mindful, these are underlying belief systems. Therefore, they shall not appear as overtly as those recognized more easily.

FORREST: Okay. That concludes questions from other people. Mary has asked me to ask you a question about the pendant, regarding the shift of energy from the stone to the crystal and the dragon.

ELIAS: It has not shifted.

FORREST: Whatever is going on with the pendant then?

ELIAS: Very well. As you are aware, you may be projecting energy to physical objects which may retain this energy. You use different words, but the action is the same. YOU use different words; the action is the same. In this, the creation of the configuration of the pendant that you have offered holds the ability to hold much projected energy. Temporarily, the energy which is projected to the stone, which Michael has held as gift from myself, has been partially withdrawn. This purposefully has been engaged to allow for the energy implementation to the other stone and symbol.

A mergence is occurring between yourself and Michael. The energy becomes more and more merged. In this, you also each subjectively and partially objectively project more and more energy into this symbol, allowing its strength to grow. The purpose for the disengagement of the other stone is to allow a free flow of the energy being projected into the representative stone and symbol of yourselves. Once you have accomplished your desire in this area and have sufficiently engaged these elements, I shall be returning the energy engagement with the other stone, but wish not to be interrupting or interfering with the action that you each are creating in conjunction to each other.

This is a symbol of your mergence. This is no accident that you have created this symbol. It is also no accident that you have attached this symbol to the circle which surrounds the stone which is the gift, connecting all three in your symbolism, which you shall be understanding of in conjunction with our last discussion. The symbol which you have chosen conjointly grows in strength as you each move closer in mergence with each other. (Pause)

Be remembering, this is a symbol very personally created by you both to each other. It shall hold significance futurely in conjunction with another symbol that you shall create together as a more objective symbol of your connection and your mergence with each other. You shall be creating of that symbol.

FORREST: Futurely speaking. (Elias nods)

ELIAS: It shall be offered as your pledge.

FORREST: Other than the ones that I’ve made already?

ELIAS: You have not created this symbol yet, although you hold objective awareness of its future creation. That symbol shall be your objective expression futurely of your pledge to each other, which also shall hold much energy deposit and shall be in conjunction with this symbol which is presently held, for there shall be an alignment of energy.

We shall break, and you may continue with your questioning.


BREAK 2:16 PM.
RESUME 2:40 PM. (Unable to determine arrival time)

ELIAS: Continuing.

FORREST: Anyway, I’ll try to keep this fairly short. I have a couple of questions, one about love, one about mathematics, and then I suppose we could go into one of these essays next. Would that be suited to your purpose? (Elias nods) It is? Okay.

I understand love to be a concept that refers to that which enables choice. In that sense of that word, would you say that you are beyond love or not beyond love? Michael has mentioned or referred to you being outside of the frame of reference of what we refer to as love altogether. I’m trying to clarify the meaning of that, in defining the term “love” in the way that I just did as opposed to the societal way.

ELIAS: Within this context, I am not outside of this framework. I am outside the framework of your belief systems concerning this concept of love and I am also outside the framework of emotion which is associated with this concept, for the emotion is relative to this physical dimension.

FORREST: Makes sense. I wanted also to clarify some of your earlier comments, as expressed to me by Michael, regarding the subject of mathematics. As I understand his paraphrase, he describes you describing mathematics as being local to only this particular physical framework. I first want to clarify the meaning of mathematics. Are you meaning mathematics as encompassing logic in the sense that statements within a domain have a certain predication relationship to one another, or are you referring to mathematics in the sense of say geometry, or outside of this altogether? (Pause)

ELIAS: In part, both. Mathematics as referred to within your definition of a language involving theorems and numerical sequences is relative to this particular dimensional reality. Mathematics in the concept of logic is partially relative to this physical dimension.

FORREST: Partially relative. In defining a set of axioms within a mathematical system, would you view that as creating a framework which is all to itself? In other words, I tend to think in terms of this concept of domains, and in creating a set of axioms I create a domain, which is the development of those axioms into a theory. Would you in this sense view mathematics as being a domain, or rather, a particular branch of mathematics as being a domain?

ELIAS: Yes. I would also offer the explanation that it has been created as a language, a communication tool.

FORREST: Describing relationship?

ELIAS: Correct.

FORREST: And in the sense that relationship is physical, that the language is physical?

ELIAS: Correct.

FORREST: If we were in a sense to be studying the quality of interaction as opposed to relationship, would not then logic be more the description, or would not then the process of relationship between interaction be a general one?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, but your language within framework of mathematics is too small to be encompassing those kinds of interaction outside of the context of physical focus. It may not be applied to consciousness non-physically oriented or to elements of certain physical focuses which are subjectively oriented.

FORREST: This be a referent to the limitations of existing mathematical languages as known to us at this time?

ELIAS: Correct.

FORREST: Which is not to say that the development of a more encompassing language of logic or mathematics is not possible.

ELIAS: It IS possible.

FORREST: It is possible.

ELIAS: This still would not be encompassing of all of consciousness, though. It would not hold entire relevance to all of consciousness, therefore cannot be expressed as a truth, for there are elements outside of its framework that may not be expressed inclusively. Framework – the word itself denotes boundaries.

FORREST: So in saying this, we’re basically coming back to a recognition that there is no “universal” or absolute language that is encompassing of all realities, of all of consciousness?

ELIAS: It may be translated into your word of language, which is quite limiting, but within your thought process you may express that consciousness does hold a language of a sort which is all-encompassing, which is an expression of movement and energy, a tonal quality which extends through all of what you term to be domains.

FORREST: And all of consciousness?

ELIAS: Correct.

FORREST: But that any other language, if we were to call that tonal quality of consciousness of domains to be a language, that all other languages would be less than encompassing because of their limits, in the sense that the concept of language is isomorphic with the concept of framework or of domain?

ELIAS: Correct. (Pause)

FORREST: I’m going to sit and think about that. Moving on to the first essay, in addressing to your notations. In the essay Introduction To Objectivity, you’ve highlighted a phrase in the first paragraph, third page: “Fred is still only an illusion that only you see.” You wanted to say something about that, I think. (1)

Vic’s note: Fred is presented as an imaginary friend in the essay.

ELIAS: The idea is not an illusion. There is no illusion. Therefore, your reference to the word within your language is incorrect.

FORREST: What would you recommend, given the context of this essay, as a presentation to less metaphysically-oriented people?

ELIAS: You may express to individuals that Fred may APPEAR to be an illusion, although the word illusion invokes ideas and belief systems within individuals that they attach to absolutely, viewing that an illusion is non-reality, which there is no non-reality! Therefore, there is no illusion. The mere creation of Fred is a reality and holds its own independent quality. Once created, it is.

Therefore, you may view this within your belief systems as an illusion, but once the energy has been created in ANY configuration that you may be creating of, the symbol not only remains a symbol, but also becomes a thing in itself and holds its own qualities. In this, Fred may express to you in entirely predicable manners and shall still be a reality and a creation in itself. It may not be objectively inserted into your official reality, but regardless, it shall hold an independent existence within a parallel reality, which also is reality. Therefore, it is incorrect to be expressing that this creation is an illusion in an absolute form, for it is NOT an illusion, regardless of its expression. You may merely be allowing its expression to be predictable.

FORREST: I understand.

ELIAS: I am not expressing that you are incorrect in your idea or your concept.

FORREST: But not the presentation in the essay.

ELIAS: Correct. Your concept is accurate, and a distinction may be drawn between an actual energy exchange and a creation of your own or an accessing of your own essence or of other energy deposits. This would not be the same action as an energy exchange of essences. Therefore, your concept holds and is accurate. Your expression of your concept is inaccurate and misleading.

FORREST: The terminology used.

ELIAS: Correct. This offers a reinforcement of belief systems held by individuals, which distorts your own information.

FORREST: In another paragraph on the same page, the fourth paragraph, you highlighted the last part of the sentence: “... of closed and consistent rings of interactions that are so formed.” (Entire sentence: “If there were several other people present and they all reported the same things about Fred, then the degree of consensus reality increases in proportion to the number of people, or rather the number of closed and consistent rings of interactions that are so formed.”)

ELIAS: I am also, once again, understanding of your concepts which you are developing, and in like manner to your first example, I express to you cautioning in your terminology. THERE ARE NO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Therefore, in expressing this terminology of closed rings, you project the idea of a closed system, which is not reality.

FORREST: So the word “closed” is the hinging word here. Would you say that just referring to “complete” would be enough?

ELIAS: Acceptable.

FORREST: Okay. In relation to the third ring, you highlighted almost all of the fourth paragraph and a fair portion of the third. I’ve never been really happy with the concept of surprise because it’s not cleanly defined. The sentence that you highlighted in the third paragraph is, “If you always and already knew what Fred was going to do, then is there any reason for you to regard Fred as not yourself and therefore not external to yourself at all?”

ELIAS: In addressing to this question, it is important that you realize – and in regard to your students – that you all hold the ability to access this type of information and to know the action which is occurring. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the element of surprise in the respect to how you are presenting this concept, for you hold the ability within consciousness to know the action occurring, for this action to be familiar to you.

FORREST: I don’t think I quite follow you here. That it’s possible for us to know another essence?

ELIAS: Absolutely. There is no separation. Therefore, there is no point – viewing back to your mathematics – there is no point within consciousness that does not intersect every other point. In this, all which is known is known to all, and all which is being created and becoming is known to all. Your element of surprise extends in areas beyond, but within your example it is quite possible that you may access information and allow yourself the ability to know all which is being created within the moment and not hold surprise, for it has already been created. You already hold the knowing.

FORREST: But that takes us out of the imminent framework in which this concept ... in other words, the all-knowing aspect of the self would, in my terminology, be the transcendent aspect of self.

ELIAS: You are speaking in terms of physical focus. This is what I am addressing to, that you adjust your language to be including this and not adding an element of distortion to your students that may be suggestive that this concept applies to other areas of consciousness or other domains beyond what you are expressing, the here-and-now objective reality. Your concepts apply very well, very effectively and accurately, to the here-and-now objective reality, that which is known to you objectively. Your concepts blur in relation to subjective reality outside of the framework of this dimension and reality, for the subjective in connection with this reality is also partially bound by your concepts, for it is within harmony of the objective. It merely expresses a little more freedom in movement, but it is in alignment with the objective awareness and creation. Therefore, your concepts shall also apply to the subjective awareness within this domain.

FORREST: What about to other realities where there is a veil, where there is a degree of separation between physical focus and essence?

ELIAS: This would also apply, but it does not apply to all. This be the distinction. It DOES apply to many physical realities. It merely does not apply to ALL physical realities.

FORREST: Those that don’t have a veil?

ELIAS: There are some physical realities created that do not hold the separation that this and many other realities hold.

FORREST: So within a reality that has the element of separation, how do you refer to the element of, for lack of a better word, surprise that is created by the separation?

ELIAS: The separation in itself is a purposeful lack of remembrance. Therefore, the element of surprise is the recognition of memory.

FORREST: Hmm. Okay. I generally conceive of memory as being the subjective context, so in that sense, another essence or another focus in physicality would be part of our subjective context?

ELIAS: It may be. (Eighteen-second pause)

FORREST: Continuing where you left off ... that’s all you have on that point? (Elias nods) In highlighting this other section in the fourth paragraph, I’m recognizing that the concept of independence is not valid at a transcendental level, but would only be applicable at the physical level where there’s a separation between physical focus and essence, or where there’s a belief in separation between physical focus and essence.

ELIAS: The operative word is belief, which also creates the reality.

FORREST: Where there is such a belief that the physical focuses so created will be different from one another in reflection of the differences between the essences, right? (Pause)

ELIAS: To a degree. You may hold extreme similarities, but each creation holds its own uniqueness. Even creatures that you have created within this physical dimension that appear to your visual as being identical shall hold some element of uniqueness.

FORREST: I guess my question is, what in this paragraph can be written in such a way that it is consistent with both the imminent and transcendent perceptions? In other words, that element of surprise plays into this whole reality business really well. Is there some way that I can construct the concepts that don’t have the kinds of distortions that you are referring to?

ELIAS: Merely clarify yourself. As I have stated, your concepts are accurate, but you need hold more clarity in their expression, that you do not allow for confusion with other individuals in the area that they may automatically move into distortion. Individuals shall automatically distort the information, for they receive objectively and filter through their belief systems. In this there shall always be an element of distortion, but you within your intent in this focus shall move in the direction of much attention to little distortion and the least amount of distortion. You, in the same manner as Uriel, hold double alignment and family. Therefore, your intent is singular. Your underlying intent is the same as your expressed intent within the focus, which compels you to move in the direction that you move and create the thought processes that you create. Your attention to detail is expressed in response to this intent. (Pause)

FORREST: Okay. A few pages later you highlighted, “... is regarded as objective and not part of self.” That’s again referring to the distinction of the veil. (Entire sentence: “Any perceptual experiences which, on omniscient comparison to one another, reveal consistency with the three rings is regarded as objective and not part of self, and everything else that does not fit the three rings is subjective and a part of the self.”)

ELIAS: Objective IS self. It cannot be separated. Although within your belief systems you view a separation of objective and subjective, they are within harmony and merged and may not be separated.

FORREST: But they are distinct concepts.

ELIAS: They are distinct actions, but they are both self, and within physical focus you may not hold one without the other.


ELIAS: They are intrinsic to your creation. Therefore, the expression that objective is not of self is incorrect.

FORREST: But within the belief system, objective is regarded as being not of self.

ELIAS: You are not attempting to align with the belief system, but to move outside and add clarity to the reality aside from the belief systems. This be the intent of the Sumafi/Sumafi.

FORREST: You highlighted, “In this manner, the split between subjective and objective is defined by the continuum of the degree of adherence to the three rings.” The concept of split, in that sense that I wrote it down, was in reference to the distinctness of the two concepts, subjective and objective.

ELIAS: But they are within harmony. Therefore, the distinction is much less than you view. You are creating a separation. You are perpetuating the belief system of separation. The objective, so to speak, and more so within this present now within this present focus in the action of this shift, is to be lessening the separation; not perpetuating the concept or idea or belief system of separation, but to be offering information of reality that these areas of consciousness which you have created dually in this particular reality are not separated. They are expressed differently, partially, but they are not separate. (Twenty-five second pause)

FORREST: I guess I don’t even have to ask about this one. You highlighted, “Consciousness cannot be considered a part of real objective reality where the definitions of the terms would render any such assignment in lexical inconsistency.” I realize that this is not as precise as it could be, and could be expressed much differently than I have, so I think I’ll let that one go unless you have other comments to make. (Elias smiles and shakes his head) Alright. Moving on to the second essay, The Application of Atomic Theory of Consciousness Theory. In the abstract I write, “Consciousness does not have a unit of composition.” You highlight that, and now I’m very curious to see what that’s about! (Laughing)

ELIAS: Oh yes! “Consciousness does not hold a unit.” Very incorrect! Consciousness is links. Therefore, it IS units that are basic to itself. They are not THINGS in the terms that you think of, but consciousness is composed of links – links of consciousness – which are, in a manner of speaking, units. I do not use the terminology of units, for this also implies a closed system and a “thing,” but in what you are expressing, your idea is slightly off.

FORREST: I have been working with the concept as a form of interaction or a quality of metric upon interaction. Are you understanding my meaning?

ELIAS: Correct, which is also the links. As I have expressed, consciousness is not a thing. It is an action.

FORREST: Right. But that action, that interaction of that action, doesn’t have any scale built into it.

Here, the tape stops at 3:21, and resumes at 3:32 PM.

FORREST: It’s apparently going again. I hope I didn’t lose anything. Could you repeat that last sentence again? I really need to be sure I got that. I think what you said was something along the lines of, the definitions of subjective idealism in connection to those versions of monism are closer to the subjective versus objective split as related in the first essay we did.

ELIAS: The definitions which I have directed to in this particular essay are closer to the actual definitions of subjective and objective awareness in relation to this particular dimension. They are not exact, but they are closer to the reality of the definition of subjective awareness and objective awareness within this particular reality as you have created it.

FORREST: Okay. But in the sense that these are terms which have appeared historically, would it not be better for me to preserve the definitions as they appear historically in the sense that the essay is trying to ... in other words, the term “monism” is something which is out of an existing philosophic tradition within this domain, within this present now.

ELIAS: This is an offering to you. This is not to be altering your essay.

FORREST: Okay, cool. Just making sure.

ELIAS: This is an offering for your information that you may build upon within your essays, within the context of your theory and your research. It is a gift.

FORREST: That’s cool. That makes a lot of sense. I think that’s it for questions at this point.

ELIAS: Very well.

FORREST: So, unless you have something else that you want to ...

ELIAS: Not all of my interjection is to be critical. I may be clarifying with you. I have offered helpfulness. My intent is not to be discounting of your work, but be offering you clarity and helpfulness in complement to your work, and also at times to be offering you information in conjunction with your work that has not been offered previously to other individuals. At times, although you view my interjection into your notes as negative or as critical, it may be an offering of information to you. This last, as I have stated, being a gift to you, not in criticism.

FORREST: That’s very cool. Thank you. I do appreciate it because I’ve got a lot of beliefs about criticism, of course!

ELIAS: Quite! (Smiling)

FORREST: Well, what would you expect? (Laughing)

ELIAS: This is acceptable, and we shall be moving around this issue!

FORREST: Moving around? Well, I’d like to move it away! (Laughing) Getting outside of those sorts of beliefs is my acceptance, I suppose.

ELIAS: Ah! Very good! (Smiling)

FORREST: I learn quick! (Laughing) Okay, I guess I don’t need to take up any more of your time at this point, although I realize you probably have an infinite amount of it! Although actually, since this is the subject, one itty-bitty question. In the metaphor that I was explaining to Michael last night, between the dreams and fragmentation, I guess my first question is, was that metaphor or is that explanation to him for his understanding correct?


FORREST: So in that sense, I can be defining time in an imminent sense as distinct from time in an omniscient sense, as it’s viewed in this particular world?

ELIAS: Correct.

FORREST: Am I also in correct in saying that this sense of imminent time is something which is intrinsic to all of consciousness in the form of it being interaction, as we stated earlier?

ELIAS: Correct.

FORREST: Cool. That’s all I have for now.

ELIAS: Very well. Then I shall be disengaging, and I shall be encountering you subsequently within very little of your time framework! (This is in reference to the first group session in Vermont that was held later that evening)

FORREST: Be gentle! (Laughing)

ELIAS: I am anticipating our meeting! I shall express to you affection this day, and I shall bid you a fond adieu!

Elias departs at 3:39 PM.


(1) In Forrest’s words, this is how the highlighting occurred: “Mary read the essays consciously as she normally would, and when her intuition told her to, she highlighted in the usual manner with a yellow pen.”

< Previous session | Go to the top | Next session >

© 1998 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.