Monday, January 21, 2002
“Lack of Motivation”
“More on Probable Selves”
Participants: Mary (Michael), Jo (Tyl), Paul H. (Caroll), and Paul T. (Xutrah).
Elias arrives at 12:22 PM. (Arrival time is 33 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good afternoon!
ALL: Good afternoon!
ELIAS: (Chuckles) And how shall we proceed?
PAUL T: Well, I guess I was designated as the first. Good afternoon, and thank you so much for the private session within a public session on Saturday. (Laughter) Fascinating how you do that.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Quite tricky business...
PAUL T: Indeed.
ELIAS: ...is it not? Ha ha ha!
PAUL T: So, my list of questions is short today. I’m just here to soak up ambiance for a change.
ELIAS: Ambiance, of course. (Chuckles)
PAUL T: With Ben yesterday I finally connected with, I think, my Oscar Wilde focus. It would be your brother. I don’t even know his name.
PAUL T: Ah, hark back to my very first session – let’s talk about motivations and that meeting of essence that I had in Regional Area 3 or wherever it was. (1) We talked about motivation and how that sort of meeting of essence lends so much energy to this focus and that sort of thing.
In the past couple, three months and especially in the last couple of weeks, I have felt the absence of that motivation. As a matter of fact, I have been chalking it up to transition, but a couple of weeks ago it was like ... I felt like I was seriously considering the option of disengagement of physical focus. It was like, “Oh, this is becoming so tedious.”
I have a few thoughts on that that I would like your comments on. It has to do with I have somehow lost that connection or that knowing of essence, and how that translates into sort of a meandering or wandering of energy that I can’t seem to direct in the manner in which I am so choosing. (Sighs)
I sure wish I could say, “Give me a method on how to do this,” but I know you won’t do that (Elias chuckles), so just some thoughts. I’m kind of at a loss for what direction I’m headed here in terms of this lack of motivation.
ELIAS: And your assessment and your impression?
PAUL T: Is ... I’m sorry, go ahead. (Elias nods for Paul to continue) Ah, okay. It is a disassociation with that conscious awareness of the fact that I am essence and it is more focusing outward as opposed to focusing inward on that connection.
ELIAS: And your impression concerning what this is an indication of? (Pause)
PAUL T: Well, the thing which occurred to me within the last week was paying attention more to the now and that perhaps my attention was being placed futurely and pastly, and not staying in the now and noticing what’s going on around me. The information that you were talking about with Zacharie on Saturday (2) also helped me to make some connections between that inner connection and the knowing of my worth, independent of anything that I do, say, or anything else, and how that is connected to the concept of service, that service has been presented to me as a way out of this feeling of lack of motivation, of non-worth. I recognize that the capacity to be of service to others is derived from that sense of self-worth, knowing that my worth is not derived from anything else other than the fact that I merely am.
ELIAS: Very well. I may express to you that your assessment of the situation is accurate and your impression concerning what you are presenting to yourself is also accurate. For in this lack of motivation you are expressing to yourself a type of floundering, for you have presented to yourself a particular direction that you associate with spirituality.
PAUL T: Ah!
ELIAS: In actuality, the expression of spirituality is all of you and all that you manifest. That which you direct your attention within in this physical dimension and physical manifestation is no less of an expression of spirituality. But within the expressed beliefs, the direction is to be seeking out beyond this physical expression to gain the true nature of spirituality, which is quite incorrect. This is seeking out a greater expression of yourself and expressing to yourself that you are seeking it out inwardly when in actuality you are seeking it out outwardly, for it is deemed to be an entity that is greater than yourself and outside of yourself, not incorporated within this physical manifestation but beyond this physical manifestation.
Now as you turn your attention and you move to not be generating that association with that experience, moving your attention more to the now, you present to yourself this experience of floundering, so to speak, for there is confusion in what you shall place your attention upon.
PAUL T: Aye, there be the rub!
ELIAS: And this is the subject matter that we spoke of in that group forum, moving into a direction of genuinely focusing your attention upon self in the now, in the moment, and not projecting your attention futurely or pastly in relation to experiences and associations with those experiences, and directing of yourself rather than moving your attention outside of yourself and looking to another force of energy to be directing of you...
PAUL T: Yes.
ELIAS: ...even though you view that other force of energy intellectually to be you, but not.
PAUL T: Indeed, and that has been the crux of my floundering, because my memory of that experience is something outside of myself. Intellectually I can say, “This IS me,” but it’s the difference of how to take that experience and to know that that is me.
ELIAS: And the manner in which you accomplish this is to genuinely focus your attention upon you.
PAUL T: In the now.
ELIAS: In the now, in the moment. And the manner in which you accomplish that is to be moving your attention to your choices, to what you actually choose, what you do.
PAUL T: Paying attention to where my attention is.
ELIAS: Yes, and what you are generating in the moment.
PAUL T: And how I am generating it.
ELIAS: Correct. And this is the nature of the exploration.
PAUL T: Oh, I do believe that is about as close to a method, I think, as I will ever get out of you! (Elias chuckles) All right.
ELIAS: As I have stated, my friend, this is an unfamiliar action. Therefore, the expression of a lack of motivation is quite commonly expressed, and the interpretation in singularity and absolutes and black and white, which is quite familiar to you all, of expressing to yourself the questioning whether this is a signal that you are choosing to be disengaging, is also quite commonly expressed.
But your expressions within objective reality, as I continue to reiterate, are quite abstract and not black and white. This is merely your automatic association: “I am unmotivated; therefore I must be choosing to be disengaging.”
PAUL T: Ah! (Elias chuckles) Quite incorrect.
PAUL H: Can I just offer a comment on what you two have been discussing? Yesterday Mary talked to the group about her own choices and thinking and feeling, and you mentioned choice again in the context of what you were just talking about. Paul used the word “method” and it dawned on me, in information you’ve offered before you’ve talked a lot about belief systems, accepting self, accepting others, accepting self. You talked about noticing, identifying, recognizing, addressing to, and acceptance, and this is really a continuation and expansion of the same process.
PAUL H: Directing attention to self is also part of this process, moving into addressing to and accepting. You have offered methods and other things too, exercises and things that draw the attention to self...
ELIAS: You are correct.
PAUL H: ...that are available. So I just wanted to throw that out. (3)
ELIAS: There are many methods; there are many processes. It matters not what you choose as a process or a method to be directing your attention. What holds significance is that you recognize your attention and that you recognize that you do hold the ability to manipulate it and move it, that it is not anchored in one direction.
PAUL T: Quite unfamiliar.
PAUL H: So by looking at choices, in another way we’re looking at the beliefs that are there, because they are behind, they’re filtering. Every choice has a belief behind it...
PAUL H: ...just about. There must be an exception to that, but in general.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. You choose to be in alignment with a belief or not.
PAUL H: Right, which is separate yet linked, but separate from the thought process that you’ve been talking about.
ELIAS: Correct. And in this, the point, as you are aware, is not to be changing beliefs, although this is an automatic response in association. But how may you change beliefs if you incorporate them all? What shall you change them to? And you may not eliminate them, for they are intrinsic to the design of this physical dimension. Therefore if you are choosing to continue to be physically manifest, you are also choosing to be creating within the physical design of this dimension, which incorporates beliefs.
Therefore, your direction is the acceptance of them, and what is the acceptance or what is the method of acceptance of the beliefs but to recognize their existence, not generate judgment concerning their existence, and offer yourselves choice, knowing that the belief is expressed but that you are not subject to it. You may align with it, and this is neither good or bad. Or you may choose not to align with it.
I may express to you an example of this method, which I have expressed to other individuals also. Choose any belief.
PAUL T: Religious.
ELIAS: This is a belief system. Choose one expression of any belief.
PAUL T: That I must be incorporating physical motion to move a physical object.
ELIAS: Very well.
Now; visualize the belief as an object, as an entity in itself, and this object, this belief, is set directly before you. This is the belief which concerns your ability to be creating an action or not.
Now; you also may incorporate the visualization that beside this belief is another physical object, which is the object that you wish to move without physical contact.
Now; you view this belief. As you acknowledge its existence, you are not attempting to eliminate it, you are not attempting to reconfigure it into some other shape, but merely noticing and recognizing that it exists.
Now; if you choose to pick up this object, this belief, you choose to comply with it. Therefore, as you direct your attention to the physical-matter object that you wish to move without physical contact, you shall not accomplish, for you have chosen to pick up and align with the expression of this belief that you may not move an object without physical contact.
If you choose NOT to pick up this object of this belief, you may offer yourself the choice to move the physical object without contact, for you are not choosing to align with the expression of that belief. In that action, you acknowledge the existence of the belief but you recognize that it does not control or dictate to you your movement or your choices. It does not incorporate that power. This is the neutralization of the power of the belief and returning the power of action to you, returning the power of choice to yourself rather than projecting the power to the belief.
Automatic responses are the action of transferring that power to the object of the belief rather than allowing yourself the power of choice. The belief continues to exist, but in itself it does not create your choices or your reality.
PAUL T: So therefore one of my major tasks is being able to identify all of the objects that are in front of me, all the beliefs that are in front of me.
ELIAS: Correct, and once recognizing...
PAUL T: Then I have the choice to either leave it on the table or pick it up.
PAUL T: Wow.
PAUL H: So the neutralization is like the latency, then. It is the potential for the belief to create action. It becomes latent in this neutralization of it. It still exists...
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.
PAUL H: ...so it’s a state shift, as best as I can conceptualize it.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes.
PAUL H: It becomes latent. It’s not ... are you bypassing it?
ELIAS: No. You are offering yourself choice. You are recognizing that you incorporate choice, and therefore whether you choose to pick up the belief or not, matters not. It is your choice in the moment. One is not better or worse than the other. The power lies in the choice.
PAUL H: And this action of choice can occur with thought process, but also without thought process.
ELIAS: Correct, for the thought process, as I have stated, continues regardless, in like manner to your heartbeat. It is merely a matter of whether you are directing your attention to it or not. It does not create your reality; it does not set your direction. It interprets and translates, in objective manner, what you are generating, for this is its function.
If you are paying attention to you in your entirety, you may allow yourself to incorporate all of these aspects of yourself simultaneously, harmoniously.
PAUL H: Is one way of saying that “becoming aware of the thinker of the thought, of the dreamer of the dream”?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.
PAUL H: In a manner of speaking, source identity.
ELIAS: Yes, incorporating allowance of your attention and to be aware of your communications, of your choice and of your thoughts simultaneously, which you quite efficiently hold the ability to be incorporating. You are merely familiar with moving your attention in certain expressions singularly. But you are also familiar with incorporating many actions in your attention simultaneously. You merely do not associate this with self, inwardly.
You are quite efficient at projecting your attention outwardly and occupying your attention with many expressions and directions simultaneously outside of yourself. You are unfamiliar with the action of incorporating your attention in many expressions simultaneously within yourself.
PAUL H: And this would lead us to the inner senses and engaging them more fully while in waking state?
ELIAS: If you are so choosing, yes, allowing yourself to be aware objectively of what you are generating and what you want, and in what you want, incorporating your abilities to generate that want. Be it through expressions of inner senses, outer senses, physical actions – it matters not, but offering yourself the genuine knowing of your abilities and permission to express them. For I may express to you all, my friends, even within the moment that you may offer yourself a genuine knowing of your abilities, you may not necessarily offer yourself permission to express them.
PAUL T: So I can turn that permission to myself into another object to lay on the table.
PAUL T: Ah! This could be very interesting.
ELIAS: Let me express to you, you fascinate yourselves with the expression of your abilities in outward experiences and manifestations, but you also generate fear in relation to these types of actions. For the mere action that many individuals seek so intensely, of moving a physical object without contact, may generate quite an expression of fear merely in the recognition of your own power and how powerful you actually are.
PAUL H: I totally understand that, because in some of my own experiences ... you freak yourself out and you pull back. Giving permission allows that opening and...
PAUL H: ...becoming familiar with the action.
PAUL H: That’s a big step.
ELIAS: And if you are so very powerful you also present to yourself the fear that you shall frighten other individuals with this great expression of power.
PAUL H: Right, that’s very much a part of my perception with other events that have happened to me, becoming a freak. “What will others think of me?” (4)
ELIAS: Generally speaking, individuals within your dimension do align with this belief concerning themselves with the perceptions of other individuals, and the reason that this is expressed so generally is that you incorporate this judgment within self and you reflect it outwardly in association with other individuals. Genuinely you do not fear the perception of other individuals; you fear your own perceptions of yourselves and your own judgments of yourselves, and this is what you reflect.
PAUL T: So this recognizing and knowing of the true power that I as an individual focus hold we talked about last time in terms of creation of new focuses of essence. (5) Is there a time framework? Because we talked, or you mentioned, excuse me, that I have not created this action yet of manifesting another focus of my essence. In linear time framework terms, when would that be occurring?
ELIAS: There is no term. It is a choice.
PAUL T: Yet you, at that time in the last session, said that no one ... no, excuse me, you said that I had not manifest that action yet, of creating another focus of attention of my essence.
PAUL T: I took that to imply that it would be post-shift when that sort of action would become more, shall we say, more commonplace.
PAUL T: Incorrect. Ah!
ELIAS: I have merely expressed this to you to offer you information that it is possible, not that it is commonly expressed and not that it shall become commonly expressed futurely, or that it is an action that is associated with this shift in consciousness. It is merely a statement that this is possible to generate another focus, which alters what you term as the original simultaneous manifestation of all of your focuses in a particular dimension.
But there is no set designation or time framework. This is a choice of the essence, which only translates in association with your perception of linear time. (Pause)
PAUL T: Okay. So the concept of the number of focuses of attention of my essence changing is only relative to linear time, as I perceive it?
PAUL T: The total numbering, in simultaneous time, does not change.
ELIAS: The total numbering within simultaneous time does not cease to change.
PAUL T: Ah! (Chuckles) So it’s a snapshot.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking.
PAUL H: In linear terms.
PAUL H: What else could it be?
ELIAS: And it is the reason that I continue to express to you all that there are no absolutes. Although you associate with absolutes within your physical dimension, there ARE no absolutes. Consciousness is continuous movement. Therefore, how may you create an absolute? Even consciousness itself is not an absolute, for it is continuously altering. It is continuously changing, exploring, expanding.
PAUL T: Becoming.
PAUL H: Can I ask one more question in this area? The snapshot is a very helpful conceptualization of the information you’ve offered to date in linear terms. You’ve offered to Paul and others a number of focuses in this dimension. You offer a concrete number like 971, and then maybe it’s 972 in another snapshot. In the same sense of a single focus and the probable selves that we’ve discussed as bifurcating or branching off, splintering off based on an intensity of a major decision or something, would you at this point offer a concrete number of probable selves if I were to say, “How many probable selves do I have in this now?” What would your answer to that be?
ELIAS: Numberless, for what you do not recognize concerning these types of actions is that this is all you. Each time you generate one probable self, you generate countless probable selves, for all probabilities are actualized. Therefore in each moment that you create a choice, you also generate every other choice in probability. Therefore, it is a continuous action with no end, and each probable self generates countless probable selves.
PAUL H: So then just a follow-up question. A focus of Paul, a probable Paul disengages, so there are numberless deaths for each focus?
PAUL H: From your perception, your perspective is...
ELIAS: Correct. It is merely a matter of attentions, and each attention creates its own unique expression.
PAUL H: So each focus – and you’ve said this before but I’m just coming at it from a different way – I mean it’s, as our friend Vic (pointing to where she usually sat on her sofa) would say, “BIG.” (6)
PAUL H: Vast. Because we say, “We’re just a single focus, blah-blah, and we’re so little.” But it’s vast, the energy involved in a single focus of attention.
ELIAS: Now incorporate that concept into the concept of you and the powerfulness of you. If you are generating all of this action continuously in one focus of attention, the power that you incorporate is unlimited. (Intently) Without limit.
PAUL H: And there’s responsibility that comes with that power.
ELIAS: To self.
PAUL H: To self, in the context of expression of essence, as you’ve expressed.
PAUL H: Is that an innate quality, this responsibility to self, as you open, become aware, the thinker of the thoughts, the dreamer of the dreams? It’s hard to articulate. I have a conceptual sense of an innate action occurs of awareness widening and a sense of responsibility to self and how self deals with ... in the context of this whole vast array of energy, of consciousness.
ELIAS: Correct, yes. For in this, you become objectively more aware of the lack of separation in this vastness in the expression of consciousness, and therefore you recognize that there is no action of intrusion. For in NOT expressing of essence, in your terms, that which you express is expressed to yourself.
In your physical terms, in narrow expression, if you are generating an action in physical manifestation that is hurtful to another individual, or that which you deem to be intrusive to another individual, you are not creating hurtfulness or intrusiveness to another individual. You are [creating hurtfulness] to yourself, for that which you project outwardly is merely a reflection of yourself. It all is your perception, therefore it is your reality, therefore it is you.
PAUL H: Thank you. JoJo, you must have some questions. That was beautiful, by the way. I just had to say that. (7) (Elias chuckles)
JO: Hi. I had a really wonderful dream about Carl Jung about a month ago. I just wanted to talk to you a bit about it. First of all, more out of curiosity than anything, is he a focus of mine?
JO: Thank you. He represents to me a knowledgeable figure, and he presented himself in a way that I could trust him by calming this tiger, which may represent the natural instincts part of myself also. He said he was there to help me build bridges. There was also a section – I’d like to talk a little more about that – but there was also the word “generocity” with a “c” that was spoken during that dream. Is that correct?
JO: I think that may have to do with generosity towards self, but I think that’s just part of the picture. I think this may have to do with my intent.
I picked up a copy of his book the next day and resonated with it a great deal. I’m wondering if there’s some kind of a thought succession that I kind of not inherited but ... I’ve always been drawn to the Myers/Briggs work, and I was wondering if I was one of those two.
JO: Okay. I’ve been wondering if it would be a productive thing or an efficient thing to see how their work maps to yours. Can you tell me – I’m not sure how to ask this question – if there is a high probability of connectivity between their preferences typing and your work? Because it occurred to me that there might be an orientation segment in there and how worthy would it be to plot those with your work to help build a bridge with this fairly accepted body of work – for me also, in particular.
ELIAS: As always, this would be your choice. I may be acknowledging of you that you are correct in your assessment concerning direction of your intent and choosing another avenue to be creating this action, what you term to be building bridges.
Intents are general. The actions of generating the intent are highly specific. The directions of intent are varied and many, but within one general direction. This is the expression of each individual’s intent in any particular focus of attention.
In this, your identification of the general direction, associating that with building bridges, is quite accurate, and each specific direction that you choose to be expressing and generating that intent is your choice and beneficial.
Therefore, shall it be beneficial if you are choosing to be generating that bridge? Yes. Shall it be beneficial to merely yourself? No, for it shall ripple out. Shall you generate that action in relation to yourself, not concerning yourself with the ripple? Yes, for the ripple is automatic. The choice is your choice, to be beneficial to you in generating less separation and recognizing that any information may be correlated to Jung.
JO: (Laughing) Okay! Let me ask you specifics about that, then. Is his sense of the intuitive versus the sensory, is that a distortion of the orientations, common verses soft?
ELIAS: Offer your correlation or your interpretation.
JO: I believe that when he was talking about the intuitive in this book, he mentioned ... and that’s a personality type or a preference, he thinks. It’s not a personality type, it’s a preference about whether or not people choose to respond in more objective ways, as I would put it, in your terms, or internal ways. He mentioned that intuitive types, people using that preference more than the other, think about probabilities. They consider the probabilities more. That’s an association that I make with the soft orientation. I wondered if those correspond in that way with your information.
ELIAS: No. For regardless of orientation, which is a hue of a perception, all individuals incorporate this ability that you are speaking of. Each individual may incorporate it differently in expression or in method, but you all incorporate the qualities and the abilities to be expressing in these manners.
Now; I may express to you that the soft orientation in its hue of perception may allow itself more of an ease in a natural flow in what you are speaking of in that action. But this is not to say that it is intrinsic to this orientation and that the other orientations do not incorporate this also.
JO: I would predict then that the thinking/feeling part of that may correspond closely with your thought-focused versus ... (to Paul) can you help me?
PAUL H: Emotional?
JO: Emotionally focused individuals. Is that correct?
ELIAS: More closely.
JO: Other than that they seem fairly discrete, very discrete.
I think that you’ve also told me that I’m perfectly willing and able to build bridges. In fact, I probably need to be select about my bridges, because there are so many things I see that I can build bridges with but... (Laughs)
ELIAS: And it is merely a choice.
JO: Right. It’s just choosing from what point to what point in some cases, but to concentrate more on...
JO: ...the end of my bridge.
ELIAS: To pay attention to you and your direction with that action and your motivation. Let your motivation be you.
JO: (Softly) Thank you.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome.
PAUL H: Just one follow-up from what you guys just talked about; I’m just playing with personality and the bigness of it. What you’ve discussed as intent, what you’ve discussed as an essence family alignment, I want to focus now on attention, intent, essence family alignment, thought/political/religious/emotional focus, and orientation. Now, I know there’s no absolutes but I’m looking for boundaries here. I’m trying to see the boundaries of a focus and all these probables, infinite probables. Do those four elements, those four traits, do they maintain a consistency in all that infinite variation, as a rule?
ELIAS: Of one focus?
PAUL H: Yes, of one focus.
PAUL H: So those are boundaries, then, from the essence perspective of the focus of attention that then...
ELIAS: Aspects of that focus of attention, yes.
PAUL H: So that the infinite unfolding of consciousness within the ... these are sort of – “constraints” is not the right word – but filters that are chosen for that design and because it leads to certain areas of outcomes and experiences...
PAUL H: ...to be explored. Cool. Okay, thank you. (8)
ELIAS: You are quite welcome.
PAUL H: Oh! I have one more follow-up and then maybe I’ll stop for today. (Elias laughs loudly with the group) You got me going! Sumafi!
I just wanted to follow-up on some of what we discussed on Saturday, because there was some confusion in my perception and others’ about the proportions of the three orientations. You offered...
PAUL H: ...two-thirds for common, and then...
ELIAS: ...of the third, five-eighths.
PAUL H: Is which orientation?
PAUL H: Soft, very good. Then the three-eighths is intermediate. (9)
ELIAS: Correct. As I have stated, intermediate is the least expressed orientation within any one time framework, soft being what you may term to be in the middle. As is also, in a manner of speaking, their position. (Chuckles) (To Jo) As the bridges.
JO: Amen! (Laughing) The squishy ones in the middle.
PAUL H: Jo, did you want to ask about the mothers?
JO: Oh, sure! We know that Paul’s mom is intermediate; my mother, I believe, is intermediate; Cathy’s mom also we think is intermediate. We’d just like verification from you. Mylo’s mother and possibly Ron’s mother, are they all...
PAUL H: Vicki’s, don’t forget Vicki’s mother.
JO: Oh, and Vicki’s mother – I thought I said that. Are they all intermediate? (Pause)
ELIAS: Yes. (10)
JO: What’s up with that? (Laughing) Is it something that we agreed to because we wanted that commonality within our meeting years later?
ELIAS: In potentiality. But each has chosen to be manifest in association with those individuals, and offering each an experience of a particular relationship with that orientation in different capacities.
JO: Then it’s purposeful?
ELIAS: ALL that you generate is purposeful, my friend! Ha ha ha ha!
JO: (Laughing) I have missed you!
PAUL H: It’s an interesting coincidence (Elias laughs), which we know there are none of!
JO: We shall be investigating!
ELIAS: Ah! Very well! (Laughing)
JO: That’s funny! Thank you.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome.
PAUL T: You had your question about pyramid points.
PAUL H: Do we have time? How are you doing with time today?
ELIAS: You may incorporate one more question.
PAUL H: Great. It’s a question about the pyramid focus, is how I think of it, of the five pyramid points that you’ve talked about. Now one of our beloved pyramid points is no longer physically focused in this probable set of probabilities. (11) I wonder if you would just comment a little bit on the action. You’ve offered information about the action of the pyramid within consciousness as filters, lenses, beacons within consciousness, subjectively speaking.
When one of the pyramid ... I guess my first question is how rare or common is a pyramid focus with groupings around the planet presently?
ELIAS: It is not necessarily rare.
PAUL H: That doesn’t surprise me. It’s a set of relationships within the collective context and all its richness.
So back to our specific one that we know, when one focus of this pyramid focus disengages, how does that change the ... obviously, there’s obvious objective changes. One is no longer there in that mode, but subjectively, of course, our dear Lawrence is still quite with us. I just wondered if you’d comment on the change, though. When that change occurs, and as a second one disengages and a third one, is there some relationship between the unfolding of that? I’m not articulating this very clearly but I think...
ELIAS: I am understanding. These types of expressions are generated purposefully to initiate, to offer an initiation of movement to be figuratively speaking a central point or a focal point, in a manner of speaking the cog which incorporates the initial movement and the strength to be generating the outward movement. This has been accomplished. Does the connection, in your terms, between the focuses of attentions or the essences discontinue? No. But the purpose of generating the pyramid action has been accomplished, therefore it is no longer necessary for it has generated what it chose to generate.
PAUL H: And so one member of the [original] pyramid, so to speak, will not disengage until that is accomplished?
PAUL H: So that is imagery, objective imagery to us that that action has been accomplished, (humorously) without you having to say so.
ELIAS: It has been accomplished, yes. And now in the expansion of the movement, those individuals associated with that pyramid action [who] lend to the expansion and continuation of this action associated with this phenomenon in objective expression shall choose to continue in association with each other, and those that choose not, may not – be it within physical focus or not.
PAUL H: Thank you.
ELIAS: You are quite welcome. Very well, my friends!
PAUL T: My dear old friend.
ELIAS: To you all this day, as always, I continue to offer encouragement, and I express great affection to you each and much playfulness in anticipation of our next meeting.
PAUL H: Backatcha!
ELIAS: To you each this day, in the wondrousness of the vastness of yourselves, au revoir.
ALL: Au revoir.
Elias departs at 1:29 PM.
(3) Paul H’s note: Elias has offered at least forty-nine exercises (as of November 2003). They are now available on this website. However, at the time of this session, January 2002, this website was not yet published.
Digests: find out more about Elias exercises.
Early in the 1995 sessions Elias introduced an underlying concept that informs every one of his exercises: ‘noticing self.’ If the perennial concept of ‘yoga’ means union of inner Self and outer self, then ‘noticing self’ is just another method in which to remember who and what we really are: essence/consciousness.
Digests: find out more about noticing self.
In 1999, Elias introduced a method that I call NIRAA (Noticing, Identifying, Recognizing, Addressing to, Accepting beliefs/self), pronounced ‘nigh-rah.’ There are four basic steps, and you guessed it, the first one is:
The process of accepting self is not strictly linear. Since we each hold many hundreds, even thousands of related beliefs, we actually engage all four actions simultaneously in varying degrees. So the process is more like a four-way, hyperlinked (holonic) feedback loop:
Elias has stated that no one to date has accepted a belief system, though we all have learned to accept individual beliefs. Even people we consider saints, sages, and religious leaders have not accepted a belief system, according to Elias. So we’re all in very good company!
Digests: find out more about these four actions.
Finally, Elias acknowledges here that he uses complementary strategies to work with belief systems. So the concepts of noticing self, NIRAA, and accepting self all work together. He introduced another complementary idea – attention (doing and choosing) – that provides yet another angle in which to explore belief systems.
(4) Paul H’s note: I had in mind a lucid dream from September 18, 2000 that was the direct result of practicing Tibetan Dzogchen dream yoga. The dream was long and involved. One vivid scenario involved a visit to the Water Street apartments of Jane Roberts and Rob Butts in Elmira New York. At one point I was healing Jane of her ‘symptoms’ of joint stiffness with Rob looking on very supportively. I felt as though we all literally changed probabilities. And as proof, I was certain I’d find different Seth/Jane books on my physical bookshelf when I awoke because Jane had not yet written all of her books during the ‘time’ of the dream.
I checked the bookcase in the morning, and sheepishly saw that nothing had changed, at least in my objective memory of the books. Yet, I wondered how would I be able to verify changing probable realities from the dream state anyway? There must be some kind of metrics, but what are they? Furthermore, who was I to think that my lucid dream would literally change entire probabilities for others including myself? Isn’t that just my ego-self, or objective awareness, being delusional in thinking its thoughts alone, even lucid dream thoughts, would create someone else’s reality? Anyway, this experience made me realize how much more I had to learn about the complex relationships between subjective and objective awareness.
More importantly, I directly confronted the fear of change or widening awareness that would radically change my sense of ego-self. And ego-self didn’t want to change! I had a powerful and direct glimpse that my identity would be something quite different from officially accepted norms if I continued with my dream yoga, and I knew I wasn’t ready at that time. So I backed off from that practice for a while.
Still, Elias sometimes talks about trauma of the shift, and this was a personal glimpse of what may occur when objective awareness is directly confronted with increasing subjective bleed through. I was also reminded of the aphorism, ‘careful what you wish for, you just may get it.’
(6) Paul H.’s note: this session occurred about six weeks after Vicki Pendley’s untimely passing on December 06, 2001 from pneumonia. Vic in her own boisterous manner would occasionally use the term BIG to describe the vastness and importance of particular concepts.
Also, this session was one of the last to take place in Vicki and Ron’s home where the initial Elias sessions were held (from session 12, June 04, 1995 until session 265, February 05, 1998). Mary was in Castaic for her annual visit, and was sitting on the white sofa in the living room. Joanne, Paul T., and I were seated across from her. I was sitting on the rocking chair, where I often sat, and Vic’s usual seat on the sofa to my right was empty.
The house was also in the process of being sold and many of Vicki and Ron’s belongings had already been packed and moved to what they called “the red house.” So this house reflected the recent changes in our lives and there was more than a bit of nostalgia in the air. While it wasn’t recorded on the tape, I very much felt Vic’s presence and legacy as I spoke about her during this session.
Library: find out more about Vicky Pendley.
(7) Paul H.’s note: people interact with Elias’ energy in a variety of ways – from visual, auditory, emotional, and kinesthetic imagery to electrical phenomena to dream interaction. None are inherently better or worse. Beginning in the summer of 1999, during a series of private sessions, I began to engage a lovely altered state when “listening” to Elias answer my queries. I was struck by how he answered me personally yet there was always an aspect of him directed to everyone who would read the transcript. And I found this duality quite beautiful, as though my little ego-self was tuning into the collective-ego self through this interaction. This serene altered state occurred again in this session, so I made an effort to verbally acknowledge it.
(8) Paul H.’s note: I was wrestling with the idea of constraints, boundaries, or filters in the context of the relationship between subjective and objective awareness and the mechanics of conscious creation. Elias sometimes refers to the basic design of our dimension as “blueprints” found in Regional Area 2.
Interestingly, this session occurred before I connected Ken Wilber’s concept of holons with many of Elias’ concepts. Put simply, a holon is a “whole made of parts” that exists within various nested forms that can go “wider (super)” or “narrower” (sub). For example, a liver cell is a narrower or subholon (made of atoms and molecule holons) of my body holon, which in turn is a superholon in relation to the liver cell. So holons have their own “species” of boundaries or veils within consciousness.
Holons also relate to what Elias calls aspects of essence. That is, aspects are holonic, and consist of “wholes made of parts” in ways we’re only beginning to understand. The idea is that any “part” is never really isolated or separated from a “whole.” Thus, multidimensional personality tone is really holonic.
For more info on holons, session 1357, May 29, 2003.
(9) Paul H’s note: the math works out roughly to the following:
Common = 16/24 (or 2 in 3)
Digests: find out more about orientations.
(10) Paul H.’s note: we had previously discovered that a couple of our mothers held intermediate orientation. As we talked more about it, we wondered if all of our mothers held intermediate orientation and Elias’ answer was a surprising “yes.”
That is, Ron Churchman, Vicki Pendley, Cathy McCallum, David Tate, Joanne and Paul Helfrich’s mothers are all intermediate! What are the odds? And what does it really mean? It’s an interesting coincidence, but we are still investigating this one.
(11) Paul H.’s note: as previously mentioned, Vicki Pendley passed away rather suddenly, after a brief bout of pneumonia, on December 06, 2001. Vicki had been present since the very beginnings of the Elias phenomenon, and played a crucial role in transcribing and disseminating the Elias transcripts. My line of questioning dealt with the impact of her passing on the so-called pyramid “action” and those of the five “points” sharing this particular pyramid focus.
© 2002 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.