Sunday, March 08, 1998
“Computer Questions III”
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Forrest (Ellius).
Vic’s note: This is the third session held specifically to ask questions sent via computer, the first two being #155 (2/24/97) and #258 (1/15/98). In like manner to #155, Elias appears more serious than usual. This is also the third time Mary has engaged Elias since her move to Vermont in February, but it’s the first tape I have received to transcribe, so bear with us as we work out the bugs! All questions/comments not indicated by quotation marks are Forrest’s.
For reference see:
Transcripts: Computer Questions I, session 155, February 24, 1997
Transcripts: Computer Questions II, session 258, January 15, 1998
Transcripts: Computer Questions IV, session 269, March 19, 1998
Elias arrives at 11:09 AM. (The arrival time is difficult to determine as the tape begins after Mary closes her eyes, but I estimate it to be between fifteen and twenty seconds.)
ELIAS: Good afternoon.
FORREST: Good afternoon. I am receiving of mail from people who are wishing to ask you questions, (Elias nods) and on their behalf I’m asking their questions, and your answers will be typed up and sent back to them. So, if you’re willing and are interested and have no other immediate business, then we shall proceed.
ELIAS: Very well.
FORREST: This question is from Vivien, sent a couple of days ago. She writes to us: “This Sunday I may be meeting with a possible future client. He is schizophrenic, hears voices most of the time; Vold, probably, and in transition. I’ve had zero clients with this “disorder” and would appreciate some of Elias’ comments. I don’t even know if I can be of any help to this person. If you engage Elias before Sunday, I would like some input as to how I might help this man. I’ve had some impressions, but really too vague to make much of; problems with abusive father, feeling unsafe in the world, persecuted, etc. Any information as to why the schizophrenia was created and whether he is choosing to uncreate it would be most appreciated.” (Here, there is a twenty-two second pause)
ELIAS: Within the probabilities which stand presently, there is what you may term to be a likelihood that there shall be an affectingness in engaging this individual. This individual stands within conflict presently, and has been within conflict for much time framework. The individual is not engaging transition within physical focus. The conflict stems from differences between choices and mass belief systems which have also been accepted into individual belief systems.
I shall explain. The individual has chosen for the experience within this particular focus to move outside of the framework of the officially accepted reality which is recognized within your societies. This action is not uncommon. The difficulty occurs within this action when the individual holds a realization that this choice to be moving outside of the officially accepted reality is challenged by the societal belief systems en masse.
Previous to these so-called past two centuries within your history, this choice to be moving outside of the officially accepted reality was viewed differently and much more accepted. Individuals choosing this particular action were not labeled in the manner that they have been labeled presently and within your recent past. They have been viewed previous to this as holding mystical qualities, and therefore partially accepted in their expression.
I have offered information as to what you view as a “condition” in this manner, and explanation as to the action which is being engaged. In this, these individuals choose to be holding less separation from subjective interaction and less separation of essence, and also accessing other focuses in a manner that your officially accepted reality does not allow for.
Within this past two centuries, the mass belief systems have shifted into more of a separation preceding the action of this shift in consciousness, becoming more rigid and strict and static for a time period, preparing for the throes of the onset of this shift in consciousness. I have also explained in this manner that this preceding action may be likened to the throes of the emergence of birth, the chaos that occurs before the calm within the emergence. It stems from a lack of understanding and an increase in separation from essence and subjective activity.
This has not slowed the choice of individuals to be choosing to be experiencing elements outside of your officially accepted reality, but the mass belief systems have moved into an area of less acceptance of this type of action. As opposed to viewing these individuals as holding less separation and [more] mystical qualities, your societies, for the most part – although there continues to remain societies that do not view in this manner – move in the direction of attempting to alter individuals’ behavior and their reality that they are choosing to be experiencing, for it does not fit within their guidelines of what is acceptable within your societies and what is not acceptable. In this situation, it is influencing of the individual, THIS individual in particular also, that there is a recognition objectively that their expression of experience is not accepted.
FORREST: By society.
ELIAS: Correct. The belief systems are held very strongly. The energy projected within these belief systems IS affecting. Even individuals that continue to choose to move outside of your officially accepted reality are very influenced and affected by the power of the energy which is projected within mass. You ALL are affected by mass belief systems. Even in the areas that you express to yourself that you do not align with mass belief systems, they continue to be affecting underlyingly. In THIS situation, the effect is not underlying. It is objectively held, therefore creating conflict. In addition to the affectingness, the individual himself has also partially accepted – partially accepted – this mass belief system into his own individual belief system, viewing the expression as unacceptable, outside of the norm, and also dysfunctional.
FORREST: Which is why he’s a client.
ELIAS: Correct. There is a searching and a partial desire to be moving into the area of compliance with the mass belief system which is projected within this particular society in which he resides, but in conflict with this accepted belief system ... hold momentarily. I shall qualify: The belief system itself has not been accepted in the terms that I express acceptance of a belief system, but has been accepted into his reality.
The belief system is creating conflict, for the choice of experience is not discontinued. It has been chosen within this focus to be experiencing this element of consciousness outside of the officially accepted reality. Therefore, the creation continues, but the belief system has been accepted into the reality also, causing a pulling within the individual between experience and beliefs.
Other belief systems surrounding the base belief system are also influencing, belief systems concerning this behavior and this particular choice of experience, which is reinforcing of the mass expression and the individual expression of duplicity in this area, which increases the belief system of duplicity and contributes to more conflict. The individual views that this choice of experience is not only unacceptable, but bad and detrimental and conflicting to other individuals. All of these thought processes contribute immensely to the perpetuation of the belief system of duplicity, which is also creating of tremendous conflict. Therefore, the quest is engaged to be attempting to alter the reality within himself and to be changing the choice of experience.
Now; let me be clear. The choice continues to be held for the experience outside of the officially accepted reality. Therefore, within interaction of Miriam (Vivien) to this individual, there may be affectingness, but not in the area of altering the reality of the choice of experience.
The affectingness that may offered in helpfulness is to be offering acceptance and explanation and understanding to the individual of what they have chosen to be creating, and the understanding of the conflict in conjunction with the held belief system. It is unnecessary for the individual to alter their choice of experience within the focus. This is a choice. It is helpful for understanding that this choice is not bad and also that this choice does not indicate lunacy within this individual’s experience, but merely a choice to be less separated from essence; therefore the allowance of interactiveness objectively with other aspects of essence, other focuses, and other elements of reality beyond the confines and limitations of the officially accepted reality within this society.
Confusion also arises in this area, for the individual objectively engages other aspects of essence, viewing these at times to be elements of self and at other times to be disconnected and outside of self, therefore creating a suspect situation. If offered the information – not merely once – that these actions of communication and interaction are not harmful but also are not this particular focus and may be recognized as other aspects, other focuses of this essence, the individual may be influenced to view that there is no compulsion to respond or accept direction from these other focuses, but merely recognize that there is a tapping into the experience and communication of these other focuses which is not necessarily directed to him.
You may liken this situation to yourselves in the manner that you may watch a program upon your instrument, your equipment of your television, presently. You are viewing, but the interaction occurring upon your television is not involving you. It is occurring between the characters which are playing roles to each other in a sense apart from you, but your viewing of this is interactive. You are a part of the interaction, for you are viewing. Therefore, you hold a communication also.
In this same manner, in viewing the interaction upon your television, as one individual communicates to another within the play, they may be instructing within that context of direction to another individual. They may be expressing to another individual, “Fetch this water and bring this hither to me.” They are not in communication with YOU, therefore you do not move and fetch water; but you are viewing, therefore you are interactive. The communication is inclusive.
In this same manner, the individual is viewing other focuses in part and therefore receives the communication, but the communication is not directed to him. It is misunderstood and accepted as direct communication, but it is not. There is an interactiveness and it is inclusive; it is merely not directed to him.
As the individual becomes aware and holds an understanding of the experience objectively in its entirety, the experience alters within the confines of the belief system. The experience itself may continue, but the belief system is rendered neutral and not affecting, for the understanding is held that regardless of the lack of understanding and separation -- not lack of separation, lack of understanding AND the separation -- of the masses within the present society, the experience is acceptable. It is merely a choice outside of the officially accepted reality.
Not all of what you view to be mental illness, which is ludicrous for it is not an illness, but as you label this, not all of these actions fall into this same category, but this particular choice DOES fall into this area in all situations of this particularly-labeled dis-ease, which it is not a dis-ease. It merely becomes a dis-ease as the belief systems are allowed to be so very affecting.
Therefore, Miriam may approach this situation with acceptance and reinforcement of the allowance of this choice of experience and be offering explanation to the action of this particular experience, and in difference to reinforcing the duplicity, within her healing abilities, which she holds objectively quite efficiently, to be reinforcing of the acceptance of the choice of experience and offering helpfulness within explanation for a clearer understanding, which shall be healing and helpful to the individual in allowing an acceptance of self and therefore eliminating the conflict which is held within these opposing experiences.
FORREST: So in that sense, the explanation presents feedback between the various levels of belief that create the conflict, so that acceptance becomes a natural process.
FORREST: In your summary, you’re essentially emphasizing the experience in the present moment as being unrelated to ... in other words, the choice of having an experience outside of the currently accepted belief systems as being unrelated to the person’s past, so there doesn’t need to be any focus on that.
FORREST: How would you address the aspect of the particulars of the received voices? When we watch television we see a scene, but sometimes the contents of that scene have symbolic as opposed to literal interpretations. Would you view it as being confusing to the individual to be trying to interpret the symbolism of his viewing of connection while trying to explain the dynamics of the belief systems involved? Would you view that as being necessary to the healing process or not in this particular instance?
ELIAS: It is unnecessary within this present now, for the individual does not hold an awareness enough to be interpreting the imagery which may be connected to this particular focus.
Now; I may offer that eventually, within continued communication with this individual and as the individual acquires an awareness and an acceptance of the choice which has been created, then there may be offered additional information which may also be helpful in interpretation of these experiences and how they are relating to this particular focus. Within this present now this would be considered “skipping shells,” for the individual does not hold a readiness yet to be skipping to these shells. The more base situation is to create fertile ground for the acceptance of self and the choice of experience within this particular focus, recognizing that there has been no action which has held a cause and effect situation or consequence and has been creating of this experience. This is a choice.
(Firmly) This also is a belief system that individuals hold within your new science of your psychology, which we are aware of the ineffectiveness of this particular science for the most part, and the DAMAGE that this particular science creates and the reinforcement of the belief systems of duplicity which this particular science is EXTREMELY adept at creating. (Pause, sighing) Michael shall take issue with me, but I shall hold to the truthfulness of these sciences, which are in many areas extremely inefficient. (Here, the phone rings)
FORREST: Should I get that?
ELIAS: It is your choice. I may be allowing you a break, and you may be engaging your equipment if you are so choosing.
FORREST: I’ll let it go.
ELIAS: Very well.
FORREST: Okay, the next one. This is a person named Daryl. He’s asking about his eye condition. He’s saying, “What else can I do to uncreate my eye condition?” The answer is going back to him. Whatever I’m asking is on their behalf.
ELIAS: I am aware. It is unnecessary to reiterate yourself. (Fifteen-second pause)
This situation holds two-fold. This individual has created two choices in this situation. As to the question of uncreating this function of vision, this may be more complicated than some other individuals with similar situations.
This situation has been created initially as an acceptance, in entering into this particular focus, of certain genetic elements. This is not to say that this may not be altered, for any individual within physical focus may alter their genetic encoding at any given moment. You always hold the choice in this area, although once again, your sciences view this to be fixed and static. It is not. It is a choice, although it is a more difficult element to be affecting of, for you hold very strong belief systems in these areas.
In the area of physical ailments, the mass belief systems are extremely strong and the individual belief systems are equally as strong. They are continuously reinforced, not only by the self, not only by the thought process, but also by your own creations in reinforcement, your experiences, which also is linked to the belief systems of duplicity. But also, these elements are continuously reinforced within your societies in the manner that you have created them. Therefore, these situations are more difficult for your alteration.
The second element which has been created in this particular situation is linked also to belief systems and issues held which have created shrines which have been efficiently placed very neatly into Regional Area 2 for their only partial viewing at the discretion of the individual, and in this manner this is also affecting of objective physical viewing. It is a mirror action. “I wish not to be viewing these shrines that I have created. I shall very neatly insert them into Regional Area 2. I may remove them at will and decorate them more and reinsert them into Regional Area 2, where I may not view if I am not choosing. And I shall also create a situation with my physical viewing, my physical sense of sight, that shall be reminding me that I have inserted these shrines into Regional Area 2, lest I forget to be pulling these shrines out once again and continuing my decoration of them.”
Therefore, there is held two very strong situations in this area; one being the viewing and dismantling of these shrines, which are created by very strongly-held issues within the self that are chosen not to be addressed to but continue to be reinforced and built upon – quite ornately, I must add – and also, the element of choosing physical aspects of genetics in entering into this focus, that this may be also reinforcing of the situation of the shrines not viewed.
FORREST: Is there a symmetry between the scope of the issues in question and the scope of the timing of the genetics?
ELIAS: At times, but not always. In entering into a focus, the entering focus, the entering element of essence which creates the focus, chooses all of the genetic encoding that may be beneficial to their pool of probabilities within that particular focus. All is accounted for within the entering.
Therefore, at times the focus may be creating of this genetic encoding, recognizing within simultaneous time the choice of certain probabilities which shall in your linear time appear futurely. In this situation, you are correct; but in other situations, the entering focus may choose to be accepting of many elements of genetic encoding in conjunction and compliance with the familial lineage, but also choose not to be enacting or enabling any of these aspects of the encoding throughout the entirety of the focus; or in other situations may be choosing a similar action and subsequently altering the genetic encoding and eliminating that element of lineage, and in a sense reversing the very elements of encoding that were chosen in entering the focus. Therefore, there is much more freedom in the creating than is viewed.
FORREST: This is an aside, my own question. Would you view it that with some of these situations, not speaking of this one in particular anymore, that the genetic encoding gets enacted retroactively from the present moment backwards in time as a symbol of the scope of the issue which is realized in the present? Do you understand my question?
ELIAS: Absolutely. You are ALWAYS creating within the present.
FORREST: Including the symbols of the genetic code backwards in the past?
FORREST: And images of their memories?
FORREST: Moving on to Daryl’s next question, he asks, “Is my essence name Ashye?” A-H-S-H-E-E is his phonetic spelling. “My family is Sumafi and my alignment Tumold.” I guess he’s just asking for verification here.
ELIAS: Essence name, Ashra; A-S-H-R-A-H. Essence family, correct; Sumafi. Alignment within this focus, correct; Tumold. You may also be expressing that this also appears as a common creation within the alignment – not within the held essence family of Tumold but within the alignment of a focus to Tumold – that individuals create difficulties within visionary areas.
Vic’s note: I’m noticing some differences in Elias’ delivery and speech as I’m transcribing this session. For example, in the word “areas” above, he holds out the “s” sound -- areasss. Strange.
FORREST: Daryl’s third question is, “Who or what is Jonathan, my non-physical friend?”
ELIAS: This is a reality. This is not another essence. This is another aspect of his own essence; a non-physical aspect, not a focus. Individuals within physical focus view very limitedly in the direction of essence. They view that the essence, in choosing to be experiencing aspects of physical focus, is IN physical focus. Therefore, within the thought process: “If I am an essence and I am choosing the experience of physical focus, the entirety of my essence is simultaneously enacting physical focuses within this dimension and other dimensions also.” Incorrect. This is MUCH oversimplified and very limiting. Essence is incomprehensible to the individual focus, for it is infinitely vast and occupies non-physical and physical areas of consciousness simultaneously. It is NOT possible for an essence to be entirely physically-focused, even within the numberless physical focuses available. An essence may be occupying ALL – which there are no number of – physical focuses, and also hold aspects which are non-physically focused.
FORREST: Let me try to see if I understand what you’re saying here. In the mathematics of Greg Cantor, you’re saying that the infinity of essence is of a higher order than the infinity of physical reality.
FORREST: Within that language.
ELIAS: Yes. Therefore, this individual engages another aspect of his own tone, his own essence, which is non-physical and may be offering information and allowing this individual to access information which may appear to be more removed than may be objectively accessed through another physical focus.
FORREST: Okay. Daryl’s fourth question is, “Am I really in contact with you when I think I am?”
FORREST: Okay. Why don’t we take a brief break and then we’ll continue, so that Michael gets a rest.
ELIAS: Ah, Ellius! Now you shall be calling our breaks? (Grinning)
FORREST: I don’t know! You set up the protocol ... I set up the protocol! It has to happen somewhere! (Laughing)
ELIAS: Very well! If you are wishing of a break ...
FORREST: I’m not necessarily wishing. I’m just making a suggestion!
ELIAS: ... it is acceptable, although I reserve this action for the most part to myself. (Pause) Acceptable. We shall break.
FORREST: Thank you.
ELIAS: You are welcome. I shall return momentarily.
BREAK 12:03 PM.
FORREST: With questions as before? (Elias nods) Okay. George writes, “I’ve been doing some automatic typing over the past year. Most of the information I find quite good and relevant. I was wondering what area of myself, my consciousness, I’m tapping into with this process?” (Twelve-second pause)
ELIAS: This is a communication with essence, allowing for information to be presented in like manner to the situation of tapping a world view. (Pause)
FORREST: Okay, George’s next question: “During this process of auto-typing, I’ve become aware of a future self – Yaglin.” Spelled Y-A-G-L-I-N. “Again, I’m curious as to whether this is creative imagination or actual awareness, or is there a difference?”
ELIAS: Actual awareness, in conjunction with this tapping into other areas of essence which encompass the world view of the focus and also other aspects of essence; other focuses, past and future. Yae-lin is the pronunciation, if you are so choosing to be communicating this.
FORREST: The spelling is correct?
ELIAS: Correct, although it is not pronounced in the manner that it is spelled.
FORREST: Okay. George writes, “I have been tapping into the world views of a few people. Am I actually tapping into a world view? What exactly is a world view in your perspective?”
ELIAS: The tapping in this situation is partial as to what has already occurred, but I am acknowledging of the partial accessing of world views in this situation.
A world view is the overall perspective of an individual focus, the general and specific philosophy of each focus of essence, which in energy is deposited into an area of consciousness which may be accessed by any essence and any focus of essence at any given moment.
FORREST: The persistency of a world view is a function of the imminency of time, the here and now across the board?
ELIAS: Time is a relative term. Therefore, within that context presented of your statement, yes, for all is held within the now.
Time as you perceive it is relative to physical dimensions. Therefore, it may be perceived as an element, as a thing, so to speak, in the same manner that a symbol is a representation but also is an element that holds its own integrity within itself. Within the subject of a world view in relation to time, it is held within the continuous now, therefore allowing for its accessing within any given moment.
FORREST: How about with respect to its evolution? The world view develops with the focus?
ELIAS: This also is a question relative to time. Within the perception of the focus which holds its attention within the element of time, there is an aspect of relevance, but only to the perception of the focus which holds its attention within the aspect of time. In actuality, the world view is simultaneous and encompasses the totality of the focus’ experience, perception and philosophy of the particular focus. It also is a development of the objective psychological make-up of that particular focus. Therefore, all that is within the make-up of a particular focus is encompassed by the energy which is the world view, and this may be accessed by any essence and also by any focus.
A world view is not only accessible to the focuses that are focused within that particular dimension. It is slightly more difficult for you within this dimension or for another focus within another dimension to access across the veils of dimensions those world views which are deposited by particular focuses within particular dimensions, but it is possible to be accessing, although this be another subject altogether.
FORREST: I’m returning to George’s questions. He says, “I get much satisfaction and a feeling of joy after helping someone realize or recognize something about themselves that they hadn’t noticed or realized before; that is, to become more aware of who they are. Would this be value fulfillment for me, as it sure feels like it!”
FORREST: “Do we operate and create within a framework that is provided for us, or do we create this framework as well?”
ELIAS: Hmm. The framework is not provided for [you]. This would be the same type of thought process as probabilities lying before you, and you choosing from this vast storehouse of probabilities which are already provided for and exist. This is incorrect.
The reality that you experience has not been provided for you. You are continually creating it within the moment. Probabilities do not lie before you. You are creating them within the moment.
FORREST: Projection of the past, projection of the future, out of the present?
ELIAS: Correct. (Pause)
FORREST: A person named Georgia writes, “Sometimes I’ll be thinking of something and trying to work it out, like acceptance of another’s belief systems and who and where they are, as well as acceptance of myself and who and where I am. Then the next day Elias is teaching on just that subject. This is awesome! I felt as if he was speaking to me on a personal level. My question is, was this coincidence or was there something greater at play here?”
ELIAS: There is no coincidence. I am aware of the movement within consciousness and the subjective activity which occurs, not only with the individuals that I engage directly and indirectly objectively, but of the movement within the entirety of this shift in consciousness. Therefore, there are no accidents and there are no coincidences, and I address to issues which are held not only individually, but also en masse.
Individuals lean in the direction of thought process that they individually are engaging certain situations and belief systems singularly, for you do not allow yourselves the communication within subjective movement. You also do not allow yourselves the remembrance or the freedom of less separation. You view yourselves as separate and singular, and therefore view your experiences and your thought processes and your imagery to be singular to yourselves. Therefore, you provide yourselves with an element of surprise as you view another individual expressing the same or similar experiences and thought processes and concerns and issues as yourself, viewing that you are singular and therefore your experiences are unique to you. They are not. You are all connected.
I address to issues as they move within waves of consciousness, and in this situation I offer information which seemingly is addressing to individuals; but in actuality, within the movements of waves of consciousness upon your planet, you move in harmony to each other, and your thought processes and experience hold many similarities within your time frameworks. This be the reason also that your transcription of these sessions holds importance, for the experiences and the thought processes and the issues being addressed to are not unique to small segments of individuals, nor are they limited to individuals in the each. They are waves of movement that not only do you experience within a given time framework, but individuals upon the other side of your globe are also experiencing and questioning.
I am attentive to the movement in consciousness and the concerns and questioning and conflict of all of these focuses within this dimension. My scope is not limited to this objective interactive forum. Therefore, it may be seeming that this is presented as coincidence, but these subjects are purposefully offered with intention of addressing to movement within specific time frameworks that they shall be the most affecting within.
FORREST: Do you account for the difference in phase within the time framework between the objective communication here in this forum and its dissimilation itself in waves into this objective reality?
ELIAS: Absolutely. Within the area of consciousness that I am focused, there is no linear time framework. Therefore, all is present. In this, in YOUR objective awareness within a linear time framework, the framework may appear to span what you term as a day, a week, a month, or more. The accessing of my attention to certain waves which occur within your reality is dependent upon the intensity of the wave, not the time framework which correlates to your time framework. As your time framework is involved in the different waves of energy which create thought processes and questionings and investigations within you, that energy is translated into the area of consciousness which I occupy as different intensities in vibration.
Therefore, within what you may consider one moment – although they are all one moment – one spark is brighter than another spark. One intensity of vibration is stronger than another. One rises, one recedes. All of the information is contained in this vibration of energy, which may be easily accessed and then addressed to. The translation occurs through many layers of consciousness and is objectively presented to you within this dimension within the precise time framework of its occurrence in your perceived time element. I address to the intensity.
FORREST: I understand. Georgia continues with her question: “Did I ponder this question because I got a preview of this lesson? Am I one of his students during my dreams, or do I have another teacher/teachers who are also teaching along the same curriculum?”
ELIAS: More individually and personally speaking, as opposed to the lack of coincidence and the waves which are addressed to, there is also held an awareness of the individuals. In this, within this area of consciousness that is occupied in attention by Elias, the attention is exceedingly diversified. The areas of attention which are held simultaneously in a manner of speaking would be incomprehensible to an individual focus, for I am not only aware of all of my own focuses and aspects and holding the remembrance within this, but also hold the ability to not merely be attentive to the waves of energy, but also to focus my attention precisely to each individual.
In this, there is an interactive aspect with each individual which may be translated in a personal manner, a precisely-directed beam of attention which focuses intimately with each individual, also eliminating the concept of coincidence.
As to the other questioning, yes, it may be considered to be a student of this teacher, and also yes, there are more essences involved in this movement and this endeavor than merely this one. In this, the awareness is correct of any individual, and this individual also, that there is a perception held, an awareness held, that there is not merely one teacher, one essence non-physically focused, in communication with individuals focused in their attention within this dimension. There are many which operate, so to speak, from the same area of consciousness in the direction of teaching, to which I am also focused, and in cooperation there is an interaction which occurs subjectively which may be held in awareness objectively if allowing yourselves to open your consciousness to the subjective movement.
FORREST: Georgia asks for her essence name and families.
ELIAS: Essence name, Jacob.
FORREST: Can you spell that?
ELIAS: You know not how to spell Jacob?
FORREST: I’m not even going to touch these anymore! From now on, you spell every one! (Laughing)
ELIAS: J-A-C-O-B. Essence family, Ilda; alignment to this focus, Vold.
ELIAS: Vold. (Pronouncing it more clearly) Shall you be disappointing me, Ellius? Are you not aware of your essence families held in conjunction to this particular dimension? Tsk, tsk!
FORREST: You tease me!
ELIAS: I KNOW you are aware of these families.
FORREST: The level of my access objectively is in some respects very dissimilar and might otherwise be different, where you have claimed the right of spelling these names. It has been given to you.
ELIAS: Essence names are different from essence families. You hold the information of essence families. It is unnecessary for me to be repeatedly offering spelling of these.
FORREST: I know. I’m just asking for the spelling of the names.
FORREST: Moving along to ... I just didn’t hear you properly.
ELIAS: Very well.
FORREST: Moving along to questions from Linda. She asks, “Why do I have such a strong feeling of connection with a lifetime spent as a pony express rider in the 1800’s? I think I died in a fall and was fairly young. These thoughts and feelings have been with me since childhood. Am I even correct in the description of this lifetime?”
ELIAS: Correct. (Pause, as Forrest waits for more information, not knowing that this question was addressed in a previous session )
FORREST: Okay. “What essence family did my mother belong to? I feel that she was Sumari/Sumari. How are we connected? Have we spent many lifetimes together?”
ELIAS: (Chuckling for the first time in this session, and then an eighteen-second pause) I shall address to subsequent questioning first and express that Shikta may be accessing this information herself quite adequately in the same manner that she has accessed focuses of her own, and in this it is unnecessary for this essence of Elias to be offering detailed information of previous or future focuses that the individual holds the ability to access themselves. I shall offer affirmative that the parent and child have shared different relationships in other focuses which have been influencing of this focus, but she may be accessing this information through the channels which are available within physical focus to her. I shall not be offering so very much information in regard to other focuses any longer. I have spent much of your time framework offering information in this area and have repeatedly expressed that you all hold the ability to access this information yourselves, but you choose to allow Elias to be carrying. It is time -- underline – that you all are walking upon your own feet.
FORREST: In saying that, are you specifically asking myself or Michael to filter the questions coming through this ...
ELIAS: It is unnecessary. I hold the ability to address to all of these individuals myself.
ELIAS: As to essence family, this would be of Sumari aligned with Milumet. You may also express that I am not chastising. I am merely encouraging each individual to be accessing information for themselves, for this shall hold more significance and shall be more influencing of their individual realities than my mere offering of information. It is more significant that you all allow yourselves the ability to lead yourselves than to be following of me. This be the point of this shift in consciousness, and in this I express affection and also tremendous acknowledgment of the abilities that you hold. It is unnecessary for my offering, for you each hold tremendous creativity and abilities. You merely do not allow yourself the awareness of your greatness. (Pause)
FORREST: Proceeding with more questions? (Elias nods) Linda asks, “When my mother came out of her coma just before she died, she had intensely ice-blue eyes. I’ve been bothered by the fact that I don’t remember her eyes being this color. Since Elias’ eyes are intensely blue, I’m wondering if there was some sort of participation or connection with him just before she died. Why were her eyes so blue?”
ELIAS: Participation. This is an objective expression offered in acknowledgment and encouragement for individuals physically objectively focused to recognize that movement is not singular and within your belief systems alone, but that there is helpfulness within consciousness and there is no separation. This imagery has been offered as confirmation, for comforting.
FORREST: She asks, “Can you tell me anything about where my mother is now? I’ve been dreaming about her and thinking about her a lot. Is she still around me? Is there something she’s trying to communicate to me?”
ELIAS: The individual focus has moved into the area of transition. Now; I shall explain.
Within the area of non-physical transition, communication in the manner that you expect and that you hold thought processes in and that you hold belief systems in does not occur, although energy deposits ARE remaining from the disengaged focus as they move into non-physical transition. In this, these energy deposits may be accessed, and within your own creation of your own imagery they may appear as visions and interactions and also dream encounters with the actual individual. In reality, what is occurring is an interaction with the energy deposit of that particular focus, which in your terms is left within physical focus.
For the duration of the time framework that any element of the physical body consciousness remains, there shall also remain physical energy deposits within your physical reality which may be accessed by the individuals holding close relation to that particular individual. This be the reason that individuals encounter interactions, visions, dream interactions with individuals that have disengaged physical focus. This also be the reason that this occurs less frequently, although not entirely non-frequently, but less frequently with individuals *that have disengaged* physical focus and have chosen as a method of discontinuing body consciousness cremation, although there is a continuation of some physical elements remaining. Therefore, this may be accessed also. It is merely less frequent, for the body consciousness is not as intactly remaining. This be a subject to itself for future referencing. (The *’s indicate an area of complete silence on the tape, but I was able to read Elias’ lips)
Within the area of transition, the actual focus enters into non-physical transition, and in this action there is not a direct interaction or communication between that particular focus and other areas of consciousness outside of the area of transition.
FORREST: You’re saying the area of transition is strongly-veiled?
ELIAS: Correct. Now; I may also express that another focus NOT occupying the area of transition of the same essence may intercede on behalf of the focus within transition and may also appear to be the actual focus, for within essence all of the information of any particular focus is available and may be recreated, offering the illusion that there is an interaction with the actual focus, and essentially within essence there is, but there is not.
FORREST: Just a brief, abstract aside. In describing or in your use of the term “in reality,” and then you describe the area of transition as strong veiling, no communication, and of energy deposits, is that structure or process of transition specific to this particular frame of reality, or is it general to all planes?
ELIAS: It is not general to ALL.
FORREST: Is it common?
ELIAS: Yes, within PHYSICAL realities. MOST physical realities hold an element of belief systems. Therefore, there is a necessity for the area of transition, but it is not inclusive to ALL physical realities, for there ARE certain physical realities which do NOT hold belief systems. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the action of transition. The action of transition is to be shedding of those physical belief systems and allowing for the movement into non-physical areas of consciousness which do not hold belief systems.
FORREST: Okay, moving on to Lisa. “I want to know what is going on with me and my romantic involvements. Do I even know the person that I will marry in this physical reality? Any insights into romance would be nice.”
ELIAS: (Laughing) Ah, we move into the area of soothsaying! You may express that my crystal ball is clouded presently and I am finding difficulty in my accessing of my fortune-telling abilities within this present moment and seem merely to hold the ability to be accessing probabilities, which are choices which are not set or static. Therefore, in the area of relationships and shall you find one, this be your choice is my answer.
As to the creation of relationships, I shall be suggesting that the individual look to self and access acceptance of self, and in this action shall draw to the desire which is projected in the area of relationship. I shall express to you, Ellius, you may be more adept at addressing to this individual within the value of your experiences and relationships than shall I, for I merely view probabilities, which there are many of. Within the most probable probability, the individual shall be accessing and creating of a relationship which is so desired.
ELIAS: Human love. First of all, yes, you enter into this action and experience as a choice. The subject of human love is complicated. It is a mirror action of knowing held within essence and within consciousness, but it is a translation into physical focus ... certain physical focuses. It is influenced by belief systems and it is an expression and action of emotion, which is a basic element of this particular physical dimension.
I have expressed that the two basic elements of this particular physical dimension are sexuality and emotion. You have created this reality for these experiences, for the exploration of these experiences. Therefore, human love relates to both of these basic elements of your reality and is intertwined with the exploration of both of these elements.
As stated, it is a translation. Therefore, in relation to the truth of love – which there are many truths within consciousness, love being another truth – its translation into physical focus is far removed from the reality of this truth in consciousness and within essence, but it is a mirror action, just as your equipment. Your telephone is a mirror action of a known truth or element of consciousness, of communication and interaction. It is a very limited translation, but it is a mirror action. Your flying machines are a mirror action of projection within consciousness. They are very limited mirror actions, but they are reflections of what is known within consciousness and objectively expressed. In this same manner, human love is also a projection and a translation.
Now; this is not to say that within this translation it may not be transcended into a fuller understanding and experience within your physical dimension. It shall not be expressed in the entire fullness of essence or consciousness, but it may be transcended into a much more effective fullness within physical focus. This is requiring of an allowance of mergence in relationship, of the individuals to be opening fully to each other and allowing this mergence and not blocking. In this, the experience may be a hundredfold to the experience that is accepted within your officially accepted reality.
FORREST: Understood. Back to Vivien again for the last three questions. She writes, “I have an impression of myself as a woman named Miriam, like my essence name, I think watching a soldier about to kill my baby. I feel this may be from the biblical time of Herod and the killing of all babies.” I think that’s her question. I’m not sure. She’s probably asking for confirmation.
FORREST: Second: “Another impression of myself as a different woman named Miriam, running from door to door, the sign of the fish on the doors. My feeling was that I was calling early Christians to secret meetings; also the impression that I was an Essene and this was Jerusalem.”
ELIAS: Same focus, different time periods; one earlier, one later; within the same focus. This is the same individual of Miriam and the same experience; one being much younger, one being much older; same location, same focus.
FORREST: Okay. Which is which, within that period of time?
ELIAS: They are in their order.
FORREST: Okay. Third part: “I’m wondering whether we have known each other in different focuses too, Mary. Ever since I met you, I’ve this sort of maternal or sisterly feeling towards you. I don’t think it’s our connection as counterparts, though. A couple of dreams have been with me sort of carrying you in some way.”
ELIAS: There is strong connection held between Miriam and Michael, and also there are many focuses shared. This be the reason that Miriam may access energy of Michael so easily, and also empathically share experiences of Michael. I shall also offer that this be the reason that Miriam experiences such ease in receiving empathically elements of Michael’s experience within this energy exchange, and may offer helpfulness to Michael in the facilitation of this energy exchange in prevention of Michael’s body consciousness response, by acquisitioning this and experiencing this element in Michael’s stead.
The communication is held within body consciousness. This is made available by an accessing subjectively of another focus in which these individuals have manifest as physical twins; one beginning, splitting into two. Therefore, the body consciousness is recognized by both. It does not appear as a foreign element. It is accepted. This allows for the interaction and the acquisition of the body consciousness experience by Miriam, to be eliminating of this within Michael.
FORREST: So, let me see if I got you here. You’re saying that between Michael and Miriam, there are certain portions of their overall energetic signature which align with the body consciousness in such a way that the process of communication can be partially mediated at the body consciousness level by Miriam.
ELIAS: It is not overall. It is an accessing of another focus – which all of your focuses are occurring simultaneously – and within this other focus, these two individuals within essence are physical, identical, in your terms, twins; two focuses merging from one center. Therefore, the body consciousness is shared initially. (Demonstrating with hand gestures) As it splits, each consciousness of body consciousness continues to hold the information and memory of the merged. Therefore, there is an ability to access each other within body consciousness.
Miriam holds a focus, in THIS particular focus, in the ability of healing. Therefore, she also holds the ability to access this other focus and draw on its remembrance, and in that remembrance transfer that knowing into this focus, which allows for the re-mergence of the body consciousness in remembrance. In this action, Michael’s body consciousness does not view Miriam’s body consciousness or energy as foreign. Therefore, it is not rejected, in dissimilar manner to this energy exchange. In this action, Miriam holds the ability to pull the experience of the body consciousness empathically, assimilate this action and experience this action herself, eliminating the action within Michael.
FORREST: In other words, distributing the effect across two people instead of across one.
Vic’s note: Here, the tape ends abruptly at 1:45 PM. Forrest says that no questions for other folks were lost when the tape stopped, that he was asking a question for himself at this point in time, and that other questions received via computer during this time frame have been attended to in a future session.
© 1998 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.