the Elias forum: Explore the transcript archive.

Home

Introduction

Digests

Transcripts

Exercises

Gems

Library

Search

Donate

Tuesday, November 06, 2001

<  Session 951 (Private/Phone)  >

ďExploring a Physical AffectingnessĒ


Participants: Mary (Michael), Mike (Mikah), and an anonymous participant.

Elias arrives at 10:49 PM. (Arrival time is 19 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

MIKE: Morning, Elias. (Elias laughs) How are you?

ELIAS: As always, and yourself?

MIKE: Iím doing just fine today, thank you!

ELIAS: Ah!

MIKE: You sound surprised! (Laughing)

ELIAS: (Laughs) No creations of trauma?

MIKE: No, not yet!

ELIAS: Ah! Very well! (Laughs)

MIKE: Actually, I have a question for you, the main question for why I got the session today. I talked with you in February about my issues with sugar, and Iíve sort of created a similar experience every day without having to eat sugar. Iíve been spontaneously going through these phases of dizziness, being dazed, headaches, earaches, and it just totally distracts from everything that Iím doing in the moment. I guess I can kind of see the helpfulness of that, to bring my attention back to self, but itís becoming somewhat of a disruption to what Iím doing and what I like to do, because it also happens when Iím doing something that I like to do. So, Iím wondering why Iím creating this.

ELIAS: Are you in actuality questioning why you are creating it, or questioning how to discontinue it?

MIKE: Both.

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! You are already offering yourself as to why you are creating it.

MIKE: Yes, but I was thinking maybe there has to be a little more to ďwhy.Ē I donít understand the point.

ELIAS: Ah. There is quite an expression of a lack of understanding occurring presently with individuals! Ha ha ha ha!

Very well! As you are aware, this is not being created in association with any particular type of substance that you may be consuming. In this, you are offering yourself an example of your ability to be creating without what you view as an objective cause. You are also offering yourself information concerning how you create certain expressions, not in relation to cause and effect but in relation to choice.

MIKE: Not in relation to cause and effect but in relation to choice?

ELIAS: Correct. Now; in this, you are, as you are aware, creating a physical action which is distracting, so to speak. Be remembering what I have offered in information concerning paying attention to the choosing mechanism of yourself, in that it follows your direction. It is, in a manner of speaking, the expression of your direction.

Now; in this, it does not express in generalities. Therefore, what you choose to manifest is an expression specifically following the direction that you are engaging in the moment and at times within certain time frameworks Ė not extended time frameworks, but temporary time frameworks.

Now; in this, you choose to be distracting yourself purposefully to offer yourself an emphasized time framework or moments in which you discontinue concentration in intensity concerning what you may be generating in the moment.

Now; in the moment, you may be generating an activity that you may at times enjoy, so to speak, but you also incorporate some aspects of beliefs which express to you that these activities are also necessary. You, my friend Mikah, quite familiarly concentrate your attention in intensity and quite often in seriousness even in certain activities of fun.

MIKE: Yes, I do. (Laughs)

ELIAS: And in this, you have been moving into a direction of incorporating your assimilation of this information to be creating an application of it in your experience. Therefore, what you are addressing to is this seriousness and allowing yourself less of an intensity.

Now; in that direction, you have created a physical expression, in a manner of speaking, to interrupt or break the expression of intensity in moments. For if you are creating this type of an action of this physical affectingness, it is what you may term to be a strong enough and noticeable enough manifestation that it quite effectively does interrupt the concentration and the seriousness and intensity of the movement.

Now; you do not continue this action in extreme, and therefore allow yourself, in a manner of speaking, to return to the familiar expression of this intensity in whatever you are choosing to be expressing in the moment; but in offering yourself a temporary interruption, you allow yourself to relax for you view that you have no choice.

MIKE: I view that I have no choice in what?

ELIAS: You view that you have no choice but to respond to this physical affectingness and allow yourself a break within your concentration.

MIKE: I see. So if I acknowledge that Iím being too intense in the moment, when I notice that this begins, will that help me alleviate it in the moment?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Or do I have to make a promise to myself that I wonít be intense? (Laughs)

ELIAS: No. This is not the point.

MIKE: Yes, I know. Iím teasing!

ELIAS: What is the point is the noticing and allowing yourself to genuinely be paying attention to self and what you are creating in the moment, what you are choosing in the moment and what you are doing; which is, in actuality, quite a challenge, for the familiar is to be projecting your attention outwardly. Although you may create a thought that you are paying attention to you, in actuality what you are paying attention to is your perception of your participation in a particular experience. This is quite different from actually paying attention to you.

MIKE: So youíre saying Iím paying attention to the perception of what Iím creating, rather than paying attention to myself? (Pause)

ELIAS: Not quite.

MIKE: Not quite? Then say that again, please.

ELIAS: Very well. What you are paying attention to is the perception of participation. In a manner of speaking, individuals quite frequently pay attention to this type of expression. This moves quite in association with the concept of co-creating, that you are participating in an experience in any situation. It need not be with another individual. It may be in relation to a concept, an action, an object, or another individual. But the expression or what is being viewed, figuratively speaking, may be recognized as almost an expression of viewing yourself as another individual outside of yourself, and therefore what you are creating is a viewing of participation of your perception, as though your perception were separate from yourself. Are you understanding?

MIKE: Interesting. Yes, now I do.

ELIAS: You do create this type of action in dream imagery, in which you allow yourself to participate within the dream but you also allow yourself to view yourself participating within the dream.

Now; as I have stated, objective imagery is quite abstract. Therefore, many times it appears less obvious to you objectively, the definition or the translation of the imagery of what you are actually creating. Within dream state, if you are allowing yourself this action, your objective recall of the dream imagery shall be quite clear, that you have allowed yourself to watch the dream and also simultaneously participate in the dream. In objective waking state, you create a very similar action, but it is not as obviously expressed.

In this, you are turning your attention to your perception and also outside of yourself to the experience and the interaction. In that movement of your attention, what you are creating is a viewing of your participation through your perception, associating that your perception is not you or it is an expression that is being created outside of you, which is partially the reason that individuals have created this belief that they identify as co-creating, for you view yourselves to be co-creating even in relation to yourselves.

MIKE: Interesting. So when Iím noticing this, and I start to incorporate and realize that Iím creating this and stop viewing that my perception is something outside of me, then will that help alleviate whatís occurring?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Yes, okay. Sounds simple Ė Iíll work on it. (Elias laughs with Mike) Thank you, Elias.

ELIAS: You are quite welcome, my friend.

MIKE: I have a couple more focus questions. There is an individual, I think his name is George Ė I donít know his last name, heís had a couple sessions with you Ė who has the impression ... this is filtered through a couple layers of distortion here, but as it got back to me, he has the impression that my focus who went to Columbia University in the early 1900s was a focus that he knew in the 1940s who committed suicide somewhere on campus. Is that true?

ELIAS: I may express to you, your recognition of distortion is quite accurate. (Laughs)

MIKE: (Laughing) Thank you!

ELIAS: I may express to you also, no, this is not the same individual, and no, this is not a focus of your essence.

MIKE: Okay, good. (Elias chuckles) Ben has two questions. He wants to know if his impression, and also my impression, is correct, that Iím the third observing essence in the focus of Bosie.

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Was this for the majority of the focus of Bosie or was this just during the Oscar period, or after, post Oscar?

ELIAS: In actuality, I may express to you that this choice has been expressed prior to that engagement and also within several years, as you term it to be, in the later expression of this individual.

MIKE: So I wasnít doing the observing during his time with you?

ELIAS: No, but in your terms in the time framework of a child and continuing to the point prior to University age, and then once again prior to disengagement for several years.

MIKE: Interesting. I know I was a schoolmate with Oscar in Oxford, but do I also have maybe another focus in that timeframe that knew Bosie, maybe as a family member or something?

ELIAS: No.

MIKE: Letís see. How many focuses do I share with [anonymous]?

ELIAS: And your impression?

MIKE: My impression Ė I knew you were going to say that! (Elias laughs loudly) I donít know, 40? (Pause)

ELIAS: Twenty-three.

MIKE: How many focuses do Ben, [anonymous], and myself share together, the three of us where we had interaction together?

ELIAS: Five.

MIKE: I see. Ben has a question; I will ask it for him. He would like to know, out of those five that the three of us share, how many of them would qualify as a ďfuckusĒ? (Laughing, and laughter in the background)

ELIAS: (Smiling) Clarify.

MIKE: How many of those five involved being lovers or involved having that sort of interaction? (Laughing)

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Four.

MIKE: Ah, now, okay. The number of focuses that I have with [anonymous], how many of them were intimate? Like lovers, or whatever you term it. (Pause)

ELIAS: Eight.

MIKE: And how about with [anonymous] and Ben, Albert?

ELIAS: Four.

MIKE: So the four that the three of us share that thereís intimate relationship, was that by chance the three of us were somehow involved with each other during that focus, or like in pairs and the other one knew the couple or...?

ELIAS: All three.

MIKE: Good Ė sounds like fun! (Elias laughs) I have two more questions. I wanted to know what my connection with Rembrandt is. I hear you had a good laugh when I had my sister ask you about my impressions, and I was wondering what the connection was if those two impressions were not valid.

ELIAS: This in actuality is associated with a similar expression of energy that you recognize and hold an appreciation of in relation to your focus as an artist.

MIKE: In relation to my focus now?

ELIAS: Your focus as an artist.

MIKE: So are you saying a different focus of mine thatís an artist?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Any focus in particular?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Which one?

ELIAS: Shall you not express to me?

MIKE: Would this be in reference to Juan?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Juan Gris?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: Interesting Ė so they had similar energies, is that what youíre saying?

ELIAS: Yes.

MIKE: And then just as a side note, my number of total focuses Ė I was wondering, did that change again?

ELIAS: Not within this now.

MIKE: Whatís the counting total?

ELIAS: Ah! And you are creating slyness, are you not?

MIKE: Iím always sly, Elias!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! And shall you identify that this present focus may be defined in your terms as your evil focus? HA HA HA!

MIKE: My evil focus?! (Laughing)

ELIAS: If the numbering is unchanged, it is unchanged, and therefore you need not be inquiring to myself to be reiterating of the numbering!

MIKE: Oooh! Okay, fine. Thatís acceptable. I accept your answer. (Laughing, and Elias laughs)

Jeremy wants me to ask a question of you. He wants validation of his impression that he feels heís engaging the most probable probability of working with Steveís new business in November.

ELIAS: Ah! More future crystal ball questions.

MIKE: Yes. He wants to know if itís not a valid impression, then if itís just a projection of his impatience.

ELIAS: You may express to Opan it is both. It is an impression, but he is also projecting in impatience.

MIKE: My mother also has a question for you. She wanted to know, in seven words or less, what happened to her Saturday night. She had some kind of an experience in the evening; I donít know the details. She wants me to ask you, in seven words or less what happened? (Pause)

ELIAS: (Speaking slowly) An opportunity for noticing choice.

MIKE: Youíre brilliant! (Laughs, and Elias chuckles) You did it in less than seven words! That will have to go down in the record books for the shortest answer ever. (Elias laughs loudly)

I have one more question. I want to know how many focuses I have as a Mayan warrior.

ELIAS: Two.

MIKE: Okay, thatís it. Iím done with you today, Elias. Thank you very much. (Elias laughs) Iím going to give you to [anonymous].

ELIAS: Very well!

MIKE: Thank you very much, Elias!

ELIAS: You are quite welcome, my friend. (Laughing)

MIKE: Iíll talk with you soon, I hope. Donít be shy! (Elias laughs)

ELIAS: I am never shy!

MIKE: Youíre never shy! Okay, thank you Elias! (Laughing)

ELIAS: Au revoir, my friend.

MIKE: Au revoir.

(11:23 AM; session continues and closes with the anonymous participant.)


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


© 2001 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.