Sunday, January 14, 2001
ďConsciousness and EssenceĒ
ďBecoming Aware of BlinkingĒ
ďThe Concept of No SeparationĒ
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Joe (Holden).
Elias arrives at 11:09 AM. (Arrival time is 25 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good morning!
JOE: Good morning! (Pause) Elias, Iím in a rather abstract mood here, so....
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha!
JOE: (Laughing) ...which you probably already know! But if you donít mind, I would like to have a general discussion about essence and reality creation.
ELIAS: Very well. Choose your direction.
JOE: Well, itís probably going to be scattered, so bear with me here.
ELIAS: Very well.
JOE: Iím trying to discern exactly how encompassing an individual essence creation is, relative, say, to other essences, and this is what Iíve kind of gleaned from the information from different sources.
When you say that we create all of our reality, I take that literally, that every tree, every blade of grass, every car that passes, every animal that comes into sight we create individually as our creation. What Iím not sure about is, if Iím sitting on a post and a friend of mine is sitting on another post and weíre watching a car go by, we both see the same car, or at least I think we see the same car, or something very similar to the same car. We both agree that yes, the car is blue; yes, itís a certain model. But there are actually two cars that weíre looking at. Iím looking at the car that Iím creating, and my friend is looking at the car that heís creating.
What I donít understand and have no comprehension of whatsoever is, at what level does this agreement come about, that these two things are created each individually by each essence, but yet exactly the same? (Elias chuckles) Deep subject, huh?
ELIAS: Let me express to you, Holden, this is a confusion that most individuals within your physical dimension hold objectively, for you are associating in familiar terms, and those familiar terms are expressed in segments or separation.
This is the manner in which you have created this physical dimension. This is the blueprint for this physical dimension, to be separating and to be segmenting all expressions, all things in your reality, and all of your associations. Therefore, as you turn your attention to questions concerning consciousness and essence, you also associate in the familiar, what is known to you. This is how you filter information.
In this, as you begin to turn your attention to concepts such as consciousness or essence, and the concept of being all and creating all as consciousness and as essence, the concept of all-inclusiveness and no separation does not quite fit into what is known objectively by you within your physical experience of this physical dimension.
Now; in viewing an example such as what you have presented, of two individuals in the same space arrangement and same time framework viewing their environment, and the same action of the same physical matter which is being created Ė your vehicle which may be passing by, so to speak Ė your automatic association and what is known to you objectively is to be viewing and assessing that situation as an agreement, as you have stated, and as two separate actions and two separate creations.
Now; how you move yourself into reconciliation with this association of the lack of separation, but also simultaneously continuing to incorporate some expression of separation ... which you are, for as you view yourself in what you have expressed as creating all of your reality and creating all of the expressions of it, but also creating an association that the other individual is engaging the same action, therefore is creating another reality of their own....
JOE: But is that the case?
ELIAS: This is what I am expressing to you. This is the identification of your automatic association.
In this, in attempting to reconcile the lack of separation and the automatic incorporation of separation Ė which you are, in a manner of speaking, grappling with simultaneously Ė you create an association that there exists a third reality, of which you express to yourself that both individuals are in agreement or creating an agreement to simultaneously view that expression of the third reality, and your explanation to yourself is that you filter your viewing of that third reality through your individual perceptions.
Now; this is the basis of the confusion and the lack of objective understanding of reality in its essence, so to speak. For in actuality, there is no third reality, first of all. There is no official reality, in those terms. Therefore, there is also no agreement that is necessarily being created between yourself and the other individual to be viewing the same experience or the same objects.
Now; this moves your attention and your curiosity in the direction of your question. What is actually being created, and what are the mechanics of that creation, and how is that expressed in terms of no separation?
In response to that questioning, I say to you, in the lack of separation of consciousness, the expression of essence is merely a distinction of aspects of consciousness that are expressed through the identification of personality tones and directions of attention. In this, each distinction of essence is a personality tone and a collective of attentions in certain directions.
Now; once again I shall deviate slightly into an association of your physical creation within your individual manifestations in this physical dimension, for as I have expressed previously many times, what you create in this physical manifestation, even to what you perceive to be its tiniest detail, is an actual reflection of all that is in consciousness.
I have expressed previously, this is a highly unique and intricate physical dimension, for it does incorporate a precise and intricate reflection of consciousness as being all that is in a physical translation, which creates an ultimate expression of diversity and complexness in this physical dimension.
Now; in this, you may look to your physical body expression and consciousness, and as you look to the expression in physical matter, the physical translation of energy in this manifestation, you may allow yourself to view a reflection of essence and therefore of consciousness.
For as you create a physical body, you express many, many actions and functions and directions and expressions within that physical form all simultaneous[ly], and in all of the movement and functions and expressions of this physical form, in one respect they appear to be specifically functioning independently of each other, but simultaneously in harmony and cooperation, and in a type of expression that is so very intricate that they may not be separated from each other as the expression of the whole of the individual.
Are you following thus far?
ELIAS: You may not separate, in your physical expression, your emotional communication and expression from actual physical interaction also. As you create one, it interplays with another.
You may not remove certain aspects of yourself and be you. All that is expressed in your physical manifestation of you are all components of you, and in the removal of any of those components of you, you are no longer completely expressed as you.
In this, you are creating a physical reflection of consciousness, that all of the aspects of consciousness are all components of one beingness. Therefore....
JOE: One what?
ELIAS: One beingness. Therefore, returning to your example of the two individuals viewing this event of a passing vehicle, in physical terms, you are one aspect of attention and the other individual is also one aspect of attention, and therefore you are each creating the entirety of your experience and your reality.
Therefore, in a manner of speaking, you are creating the entirety of the environment that you occupy. You are creating the other individual to be an element in that environment. You are creating the vehicle. You are creating its movement. In like manner....
JOE: So I would also be creating the clouds that pass by, the trees in the distance?
ELIAS: Yes. In like manner, the other focus of attention, the other individual, is creating the same action. All that is within their perception, they are creating, including you.
Now; what becomes confusing in this association in physical terms is your automatic association with separation and viewing that you are two separate entities, and how you reconcile this within your thought process is to express that you must be creating an agreement with this other individual to be viewing the same physical expressions, and therefore, in that agreement, your identification and definition of this situation is that you create a collaboration, so to speak, or an agreement that you shall view the same posts, the same trees, the same clouds, the same vehicle which passes by.
JOE: Yes. It would seem to me, at least from this viewpoint, that there would have to be a consensus in order for us to both experience basically the same reality, even though weíre creating the same thing.
ELIAS: And this is the familiar direction of association, for this incorporates the expression of separation.
Now; I may express to you, in actuality there is no necessity for agreement, for in actuality there is no separation. You ARE the other individual, and the other individual is you.
JOE: But then how could we experience the same thing, but yet differently through different perspectives?
ELIAS: For you are viewing through different attentions.
In the actual expression of no separation, and the recognition that there are different directions of attention but that there is no separation, there is no need for what you identify as collaboration. It is an automatic expression, and it is known and accepted automatically that you shall view the same experience or physical manifestation, for the most part, for it is merely one physical creation that is being expressed. The differences or the diversity of the experience in that creation is expressed through the different directions of attention.
Now; you provide yourselves with evidence of that which I am speaking of, even individually within your own individual, singular, so to speak, experiences. You may incorporate a particular direction of attention within yourself in an experience, and you shall perceive it in one manner which shall create a specific, particular experience in that moment. You may also create the same experience again, and move your attention in a different direction, and your perception of the same experience shall be different.
JOE: So basically Ė how do I put this? Ė the basis for no separation versus individuality is simply the focus of attention.
ELIAS: Yes. This is what I have been expressing to many individuals concerning other focuses of their essence, and it applies also to the concept of essence and consciousness. They are not separated. There are not individual sections or separated entities of consciousness.
But be recognizing that you associate through the blueprint of what is known in this physical dimension and reality. All that you present to yourself is filtered through what is known in objective terms in this physical reality, and this physical reality incorporates separation purposefully, and therefore you automatically associate in that known familiarity. Therefore, the concept of the lack of separation is unfamiliar to you, and presents to you in objective terms quite a challenge in your ability to be assimilating an understanding of that type of reality, or the concept of reality in those terms.
Now; this is also what I have expressed to you as the widening of your awareness and the incorporation of the remembrance.
The remembrance, as I have stated previously, is not memory. It is not the expression of recall or remembering previous experience, so to speak, or previous state of being, in a manner of speaking. The remembrance that I am expressing to you is the widening of your awareness objectively to the point that you incorporate a state of being which KNOWS the lack of separation.
JOE: It would seem to me, in just thinking about this, that we try to hold on to our individuality within this dimension as something totally and absolutely separate, whereas individuality in truth would be a focus of attention within a whole, and not something separated from, or in truth individual Ė and I donít know how to put this Ė and separated, so itís not. In fact, individuality within all that is means something completely and absolutely different from what this focus of attention would ... or within this dimension, the standard definition would be.
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct, in like manner to the lack of separation of yourself as a focus of attention and all of your focuses of essence in this physical dimension also.
Your natural association, your automatic association, is to separate and view yourself as one individual in one time framework in one space arrangement, and to view all of your other focuses of essence as being separate individuals in separate time frameworks in separate physical locations. You occupy this physical location of a particular continent, a particular country, a particular state, a particular town, a particular home, and in this, you associate a pinpointing of specific physical space arrangement and a singularity and individuality of yourself, and you reinforce this through the creation of one particular physical body expression, one focused intent attention, and the creation of physical imagery that you define as your specific environment.
In this, what you do not recognize is that all physical reality is expressed in the same space arrangement. Therefore, as you begin to allow yourself the recognition that although you may hold another focus of attention in what you define as France in another time framework, such as your 1800s within your linear time framework, you view that to be another individual in another physical location in another time framework, and therefore as separated from you. And if you are interacting with that other focus, your assessment or your definition of your interaction is that you shall be creating a physical projection of yourself to that time and space in which the other individual occupies, or that the other individual shall project themselves to physically be moving to your space and time framework.
In actuality, you are occupying no time and the same space arrangement. Figuratively speaking, you may view all of these focuses of attention as occupying one physical expression, one physical space arrangement, one physical body, and that the attentions are superimposed upon each other simultaneously.
Let me express to you, have you not Ė which I am aware that you have (chuckling) Ė incorporated the experience within your one focus of attention in which you allow yourself a moment to be facing yourself within your mirror, your looking glass, and in a particular moment, you view the reflection of yourself and you create a thought within yourself assessing that you do not appear to yourself the same as you are accustomed to or that you are familiar with, and that you may not objectively recognize what may be expressly different, but you know in your assessment that you physically appear different to yourself.
This is one focus of attention, and even within the one focus of attention, at times you view yourself quite differently. You translate this into quite objective, physical terms, and once again in what is known, and also you incorporate the influence of your beliefs.
You may express to yourself in a particular moment, ďI appear to myself to look older today than I am accustomed to,Ē or ďI appear to myself today, viewing myself in this mirror, to be younger than I am accustomed to viewing myself presently,Ē or ďI appear to myself to be viewing my reflection as brighter or heavier or darker or radiant.Ē
It matters not. The point is that even within one focus of attention, you offer yourselves the allowance to view yourselves in different expressions, and you question that only slightly, for you incorporate your beliefs, which shall automatically offer you what you term to be a rational explanation of what you are viewing, or you override what you are viewing through your thought process and create an explanation to yourself in terms of rationale.
In this, I may express to you, all of these other focuses are present within you in this one attention simultaneously, and you are present within all of them, and each attention creates its own individual perception of its location, of its environment, of its experience, of its interaction, of all of its reality. They are all present within you.
JOE: Then, Elias, let me ask you this, and I think Iím following pretty close to what it is that youíre telling me here. It would seem to me that each individual focus of attentionís blueprint for experience, although there may be a lot of leeway one way or another, is pretty well set at the time of that attentionís incorporation into the experience reality. (Pause, and Elias takes a deep breath)
ELIAS: In one respect, yes, but let us be clear.
In this, what you set, so to speak, into motion is, in a manner of speaking, a particular frequency of blinking, which creates an actual focus of attention, and in that attention, as you set the attention to a particular frequency of blinking in and out, the attention of the blinking in becomes set as a direction of that attention, which creates an exclusion in paying attention to all of the other blinking in and out that you engage.
JOE: So each focus has a different sequence?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. There is a different sequence or a different frequency of blinking. All of consciousness creates different sequences or frequencies of blinking, which creates the attentions.
And in this, as the attention is established in certain attentions, such as some physical attentions Ė and I may express to you, some nonphysical attentions also Ė they are set into a motion and direction that allows for the exclusion of the other attentions, and this allows for that particular attention to create its own individual experience and direction, uninterrupted and without distraction.
JOE: Would this explain, then, probable selves?
ELIAS: In which manner?
JOE: Well, if the focus of attention would be a single frequency, but within that frequency ... and this is in my own terms too, in trying to understand this. If each focus was a frequency, within that frequency would be a myriad amount of sub-frequencies.
JOE: So a focus of attention, as basically the carrier frequency, could branch off and actually initiate a lot of sub-frequencies.
ELIAS: Correct. In this context, yes, you are correct, and this also may be applied to the explanation concerning all of the aspects of you, which are not necessarily expressed as probable selves, but all of the alternate selves of you in one focus.
JOE: So basically, the only limiting factor would be the frequency. Everything inherent with that, and the capabilities inherent in that frequency, could be expressed.
Now; in this, what you are moving yourselves into in this shift in consciousness, in part, is widening your objective awareness to allow yourselves the ability to be continuing to create a reality within this physical dimension in the expression of individuality and in the expression of the one focus of attention and its consistency of blinking, but also allowing yourself to incorporate the expression of expansion in turning that attention to be incorporating other blinking.
JOE: So basically, what Iím understanding here in objective terms ... let me see. Basically, there will be an overlap of frequencies in the same blink? (Pause)
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. Let me express to you, it is the noticing of the blinking itself that you are becoming more aware of, which incorporates many different actions occurring simultaneously, not merely the recognition of one action.
You incorporate this movement, this action of blinking, continuously. But your association with your reality is that there is no blinking, for it is uninterrupted and created in a flow in which you do not view your own action of blinking in and out and all that you are participating within. Therefore, in allowing yourself the recognition of the very action of blinking, you allow yourself to be recognizing that you are incorporating in actuality many attentions and many actions and directions all simultaneously.
Within your physical experience, it may be likened to a mundane experience of yourself choosing to be incorporating an action of engaging in this time framework your physical computer, and simultaneously you may be listening to your music. You may be also engaging an action of interaction with another individual. You may be incorporating the action of reading. You may incorporate many actions simultaneously and hold your attention in all of them. This is what you are moving into in relation to consciousness, in movement within this shift.
To this point within your physical manifestations throughout your history, so to speak, you have singularly focused your attention in the one frequency of blinking, and created an association with that one frequency of blinking....
JOE: That weíve expressed as a focus.
ELIAS: Correct, and in that, you view it as entirely uninterrupted, and you do not recognize that the action of the blinking is occurring, for there is no interruption....
JOE: So we view it simply as a singular thing.
JOE: When in fact, there is a tremendous multiplicity.
ELIAS: Yes, and you are beginning to allow yourselves an objective viewing, understanding, and allowance of participation with your attention in this action. The....
JOE: So basically, I think in the past Ė and I might be wrong as to the number, but the idea is the same Ė I had 51 individual focuses of essence within this dimension. So each of those 51 focuses, although they are actually the same essence, they blink, say, in the first century or the 13th century or the 16th century, but they all occupy the same time space.
JOE: Itís just when the focus of attention is, say, within right now, in the year 2001, at a specific date, at a specific second in time, the attention of focus is there.
JOE: At another point ... and itís hard to incorporate this into non-time. But in the time framework, at another instant in time, at a point in time, Iím in the 13th century.
JOE: Or the 12th century or the 18th century or whatever.
JOE: But itís all exactly the same essence.
JOE: So thatís the way we incorporate this singularity of focus within this time framework.
JOE: Now, I still donít quite understand how we incorporate that ... and I think it has to come to, we interpret individuality as separate and apart from, when in truth, individuality, as far as essence goes, might be ... it is certainly not the way we understand individuality to be, but we would almost have to think of individuality completely differently, as not so much set apart from, but part of and still separate. I mean, itís a tough concept.
ELIAS: (Laughing) This is the reason that we speak in terms of attentions. Shall you place your attention in the direction of walking across your room, or your attention in listening to music, or your attention in interaction with another individual, and shall you express to yourself that you are separate individuals in each of those actions?
JOE: No. The separation I would see would be in my interaction with another individual.
ELIAS: And this is what I am expressing to you, that as consciousness, the other individual is you also, and you are them.
JOE: But the other individual is consciousness in its own singular attention.
ELIAS: Not singular. It is creating a singularity of attention, just as your attention may be singularly created in focusing in an action of reading a book or riding a horse or swimming within your water. You are creating different actions, and your attention is directed in those actions, but the actions are all being created by you.
JOE: Okay, then let me ask you this. If the actions are being created by me, who is actually ... who or what ... is it the singular action of attention who experiences the experience, or without an action of attention, can all of consciousness experience the experience?
ELIAS: Ah, interesting question! For in the nature of consciousness to be experiencing itself and its infinite creativity, it creates attentions to explore its beingness, and this is what you are and this is what you are doing, so to speak.
JOE: But on a singular level, I mean ... that would mean that Elias is Ė at least in my understanding, correct me here Ė that Elias is a singular attention.
JOE: That Holden is a singular attention, and Michael is a singular attention, and Shynla Ė all of them.
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, yes, and within that attention, there are MANY attentions.
JOE: Okay. Yes, exactly. But as a singular attention, I donít experience what, say, Elias experiences. I donít experience, or at least Iím not aware of the experience of Michael or Vicki or....
ELIAS: For the most part, objectively, you are correct. Although I shall also express to you, at times you DO allow yourself an objective awareness of the experience of what you view to be another individual.
JOE: Well, thatís true. When I think about it, thatís true. But the only thing that Iíve felt along those lines is simply a steadily developing empathic sense. Am I on the right track? Is that exactly what it is?
ELIAS: I may express to you, it may not necessarily be defined as a ďdevelopingĒ empathic sense, but that you are allowing yourself to be open to an awareness of that sense, and incorporating an allowance of experience.
Now; in this, these in actuality are merely avenues that allow you to explore and recognize more of you in objective terms.
JOE: More of me in what respect? As a singular focus of attention?
ELIAS: Both as a focus of attention and as all of consciousness.
JOE: So basically, and Iím saying a deeper level, but thatís not really a very good term, not in terms that weíre speaking of, since higher and lower, left and right, deeper or shallower donít really exist. I just have to use that in order to try to express within a vocabulary. But any experience that has ever been experienced by any part of consciousness, as a singular focus or whatever, is available to all of us at any time, if we allow ourselves the awareness of it.
JOE: Pretty potent stuff there, Elias!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! (Joe laughs) And creates a tremendous expression of availability for experience, does it not?
JOE: Yes, but it also brings ... are our belief systems actually the fibers that weave this veil of separation that we incorporate?
ELIAS: Not necessarily, although I may express to you that they serve to reinforce it. For the veil of separation has been created, figuratively speaking, in your physical terms, through intention prior to the incorporation of belief systems. This is the design, the blueprint of this particular physical dimension, with the express purpose of creating a purity of experience in a particular direction. Each physical dimension is created to be allowing consciousness to explore its beingness in different manners, in different expressions of creativity.
JOE: Following along that line, it would almost seem like our term for infinite really just doesnít have any meaning whatsoever.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Quite! Your term for infinite and infinity continues to hold limitation! Ha ha ha ha!
JOE: (Laughing) Yes. Iím starting maybe to just get a glimpse of what that limitation is.
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha!
In this, I may express to you that within the design of physical association and what is known in physical terms, without the incorporation of this shift in consciousness and a widening of awareness, it is incomprehensible to your objective understanding to view the vastness and the genuine infiniteness of what you are as consciousness, and what consciousness is.
JOE: You know, I think I can get a glimmer, though. Thatís probably all thatís possible within physical focus.
ELIAS: I am not expressing that it is not possible within physical focus. I am expressing that without the incorporation of your shift in consciousness, it would be incomprehensible to you.
But as you are beginning to be recognizing, you ARE moving your awareness into an expression of wider, and in this shift in consciousness, you are beginning to allow yourselves movement into a slight objective understanding of this vastness and infiniteness, and....
JOE: I think your term of slight covers it, at least in my respect!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha! But this is not to say, my friend, that you shall not continue to expand your awareness and offer yourself more and more of an objective understanding of these concepts.
JOE: Oh, I understand what youíre saying. Iím not negating myself in any way. I mean, Iíve pretty much gotten past that, to the point where I just simply observe, or try to without judgment, and in doing that, Iíve been able to really be able to see things in much broader perspectives, along that line of thinking anyway.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) And so you shall continue!
JOE: Well, Elias, Iíll tell you what Ė itís fun! Sometimes I get into these ... I start thinking along what we would consider to be rather abstract lines of thought, and I like to follow them through, and I really appreciate being able to discuss them with you.
ELIAS: And I express to you, my friend, that this is the point. You are offering yourself information, and that information provides you with knowledge, and that is the expression of becoming familiar with you and with your reality and what you create and how you create it. This is the point. (Chuckling)
JOE: Yes, indeed. Am I a final focus?
ELIAS: And express to me what your impression is!
JOE: Actually, my impression of ... oh, whether I am a final focus or not, along the lines that a final focus has been explained?
JOE: I think probably I am.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) Now acknowledge yourself that you are correct.
JOE: Okay. Itís not that I really think it makes a whole lot of difference. Itís just simply a designation.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) And you are quite correct in this association also.
JOE: You know, I am really starting to be amazed, as an expression or as a mental feeling or however you want to put it. I am really, really starting to be amazed at the freedom that every individual focus actually has.
ELIAS: Quite! You express a tremendous ability for freedom, if you are allowing yourself that movement.
JOE: It also kind of brings a contentment, and with the contentment comes an even greater ability to be able to express yourself.
ELIAS: You are correct. This may be expressed in terms of ease and calm.
JOE: Yes, and in doing that, you stop blinding yourself to a lot of choices that you actually have, at least it seems to me anyway.
ELIAS: You are correct, and this is another action of this shift in consciousness, that you allow yourselves to be recognizing the tremendous expression of freedom that is available to you, that you incorporate a natural ability with.
JOE: Yes. It also ... I donít know how to say this. It doesnít really ... good and bad really donít have much of an impact anymore.
ELIAS: I may express to you, my friend, as you continue movement, you shall allow yourself to view that the associations of judgments in good and bad and right and wrong become more and more distantly expressed, in a manner of speaking, and less and less incorporated into how you express your reality.
JOE: But then too, I also think that I see how the idea of good and bad could lend itself to certain experiences, where without the idea of good and bad, those experiences would be ... actually, I donít think they would exist.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) Ah, but this is the challenge and the exploration that you are creating, the discovery of whether they shall exist or not. (Chuckling)
JOE: But that even takes things a little bit further along in this line of discussion Ė if they did or did not exist. You would have to experience or align with the belief system in order to find that out.
ELIAS: (Chuckling) In a manner of speaking, but not necessarily.
Be remembering, you are not eliminating your beliefs. You are merely moving yourselves into an expression of freedom in relation to those beliefs in which they are not automatically dictating to you how you shall be creating your reality, and therefore denying yourself your choices. You continue to incorporate your beliefs as a foundational element of this physical reality even within the action of this shift in consciousness, for it is a foundational aspect of this particular reality, and you have chosen to design this reality incorporating these belief systems.
JOE: Elias, let me ask you something. This seems even more abstract. For whatever reason, while Iím sitting here talking to you, I kind of visualize a comfortable parlor with two big stuffed chairs in it, and two old friends sitting around talking with each other about abstract concepts. Do you have anything to do with that?
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha ha! (Joe laughs) [This is] an association that you are allowing yourself an impression of in relation to a familiar experience in physical expression which is created in other focuses of attention of these two essences. Yes, you are correct.
JOE: Okay. I think I understand pretty much what youíre saying about the belief systems of good and bad. Iím at least getting to the point where I can look at an action of another individual, where that action was strictly based on their belief systems, and I can understand that. I set myself apart from it and I understand it, but I donít necessarily align with it. It may seem like a little thing, but itís certainly different from where I was, say, years ago.
ELIAS: I am understanding of what you are expressing. Let me express to you, Holden, you have created an actual different reality.
JOE: Okay, explain that. (Laughing)
ELIAS: (Chuckling) You have turned your perception. You have offered yourself information and assimilated that information and turned your perception, and in turning your perception, you create an actual difference in your reality.
Therefore, it is not merely that you are associating with your reality differently, for this implies that the reality remains a constant. It is not that you are merely creating different associations with this perceived constant as reality, but rather that you have incorporated movement and a different direction of your perception, which creates an actual different reality.
JOE: Okay, I can understand that. Iíll mull it over a little bit further, but Iím pretty sure Iím on the same track and wavelength. (They both laugh) I have one more question for you, Elias, and I think we have time here with Mary.
These energy centers, these chakras, which I was going to explore with you further today but I got off on this tangent of mine, does the central focus and all of the probable focuses rely on the same energy centers, or do each of the probable or alternate selves have their own energy centers?
ELIAS: Each probable self incorporates its own energy centers. Each alternate self incorporates the same energy centers as you recognize.
JOE: Okay, so the same energy centers that I have would also be affective of all alternate selves, but probable selves are actually almost Ė I donít know if this is the right term Ė a fragmentation that have their own energy centers.
ELIAS: Figuratively speaking, yes, although they are not fragmented.
ELIAS: I am understanding of your meaning in your terminology.
JOE: Okay. I know what Iím trying to say, but trying to come up with the right vocabulary sometimes is a little tough.
ELIAS: (Laughing) Ah, the limitations of physical language!
JOE: Yes, indeed. (Elias chuckles) And I think even a mastery of it, even a total mastery of it, would be totally limiting too.
ELIAS: You are correct. (Chuckling)
JOE: Well, Elias, as always, old friend, itís been nice talking to you.
ELIAS: And to you also, my friend, and we shall continue in our discussions and your exploration of energy centers and all other subjects of your fascination! (Joe laughs) Ha ha!
JOE: Thatís a pretty wide-ranging order!
ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha! I express to you a tremendous affection, my friend, and anticipate our next encounter. (Chuckling)
JOE: Until the next time we sit in our stuffed chairs in the lounge!
ELIAS: Ah, yes! (Chuckling) To you in great affection, au revoir.
JOE: And you also.
Elias departs at 12:34 PM.
© 2001 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.