the Elias forum: Explore the transcript archive.










Thursday, February 22, 2001

<  Session 784 (Private/Phone)  >

“Essence and Suffering”

“Redefining Emotion”

“The Abstractness of Objective Imagery”

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Joseph (Dainel).

Elias arrives at 10:07 AM. (Arrival time is 18 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good morning!

JOSEPH: Good morning, Elias! No lies today! I’m sure you got my joke, though I wonder about the rest of the world!

ELIAS: Ha ha ha ha! And what shall we be discussing this day?

JOSEPH: Well, first of all, you tell us one of the hardest things for us to accept is that we create our reality, all of it. Actually I felt that I was getting very close to it when I was reading Seth, before I encountered what you have been telling us.

Two things pushed me back, and the main thing is that you tell us that the essence has no emotions. The second one is the way you explain or define “focus.” I started feeling that essence is being mean to us humans by giving us suffering for the experience, for essence’s experience. Since essence doesn’t feel, how can essence give a damn about our suffering?

Remember, too, that most of mankind does not know how this suffering is being created and cannot deal with it. I can verify that by my experiences before I heard of Seth or Elias. George and I talked about this, and George says that many people ask if one can create suffering if one is the creator. Why would anyone create that for themselves or for another?

Yes, Elias, I heard all the things you’ve told us: one does it for the experience, for the purity of experience, etcetera. All mankind strives to be happy, but the main thing is what I started off with saying, that essence seems to not give a fuck from insensitivity and that essence does not give us a map. Now you help us to chart a way through experience but try to justify essence. Okay, express Elias.

ELIAS: I may express to you that you are correct in your assessment that you are examining whether you actually create all of your reality in its entirety or not, for in this line of questioning you are expressing a distinction between yourself and that which you identify as essence, being a separate entity from yourself which creates expressions within your reality that are not your choice, and therefore creates a situation in which you become victim to this entity which you identify as essence; or consciousness itself, in your assessment, seems to be wreaking havoc within your physical dimension by inserting what you identify as pain and suffering for an experience, and incorporating you as the pawns of this expression of experience.

In this, you have clearly expressed that there are aspects of your reality that you are not creating, but that some other expression of consciousness or another entity is creating at your expense.

JOSEPH: Well, thank you Elias. Let’s go on to another matter here.

Thursday evening I started crying – that’s a week ago – and then continued. Whatever’s been affecting me has gotten out of hand. Is it the trauma of the shift? Do you want to tell me what’s going on, or should I give you the impressions that brought this on?

ELIAS: First express to me your impressions.

JOSEPH: Well, Thursday night, or Thursday during the day, I was practicing my piano, and I stopped to make a note to ask you why I haven’t gotten focuses of certain people who have figured so prominently in my life. Moments after this I recalled my impression, gotten months ago, of being Meriwether Lewis. From there I started to feel that my mother is William Clark, and my dad is just one of the hands who gave more trouble than the rest. My friend Warren is Sacagawea, who was merely allowed to accompany her husband as an interpreter but whose support of the events now rings down in history. The party met up with some Shoshone in Montana led by Sacagawea’s long lost brother Cameahwait, who gave vital help. Cameahwait feels like my brother Bob. Jefferson, who sent the expedition, feels like my friend Jim F.

With all these impressions, I now have focuses with practically everyone I’ve been closely involved with this time around, this present focus. I think that my very last impression in this lineup – and actually it wasn’t, though – came Saturday noon while eating my lunch at work. I thought I heard you tell me that the interpreter Toussaint Charbonneau, Sacagawea’s husband, was also a focus of Dainel.

After you confirm or correct me, please tell me why recalling Sacagawea’s part caused me such major trauma, tears that won’t be held back. My impression of the explanation is that Charbonneau lost his delicate, incomparable, irreplaceable bird-woman when she was a mere 26, and he could not be consoled. Is that what’s bleeding through and causing Niagara Falls from my eyes?

Incidentally, this kind of ties in with an earlier focus of mine where I’m lost, the one we discussed. So the very latest impression, I think, was that I shot my oldest brother, a priest, who was a doctor or medicine man at this time. Please give me details just where we had contact and how much.

I also got a feeling that quite a few of the members of the Lewis and Clark expedition had focuses in the seminary I attended in East Troy during my high school years. I’m going to let you express for a while, Elias.

ELIAS: Very well. I may express to you first of all, some of your impressions of these individuals within that focus are correct, and some are not precisely the individuals that you identify in this particular focus.

I may express to you that you do participate in that focus. I may also express to you that the individual that you identify as Sacagawea is not the individual that you associate with in this physical focus, although is an individual associated with this forum in this present time framework.

Let me express to you, you have allowed yourself to be exploring another focus that you participate in, but you have distracted yourself in attempting to identify other individuals that participate in that focus rather than allowing yourself to be receiving the message that you have offered to yourself through emotion.

Now; I shall express to you, as I have been expressing to other individuals recently, your emotional expressions are communications, and these communications are offered to you from the subjective awareness to the objective awareness.

In this, as incorporating the orientation of soft, your emotional communication is expressed in a manner which is identified by the objective awareness more quickly and many times what may be viewed as more obviously, for your subjective and objective awarenesses are expressed with less separation and veil between them within the objective recognition of the subjective awareness.

Now; in this, as you express an emotional communication, in like manner to other individuals holding other orientations you pay attention to the signal, which is the feeling or the outward expression of the emotion, but you are not necessarily receiving the communication which is incorporated in that emotion; therefore you begin engaging your thought process in an attempt to offer yourself an explanation of why you are expressing this emotion. But this question is familiar to you, and directs your attention automatically into distractions; therefore you attempt to be attaching an event to the emotion, for your automatic definition and association with emotion is that it is an expression of reaction, not a communication.

Therefore, as you attempt to be attaching an event to the emotion and defining the emotion as a reaction to the event, your attention is distracted, and subsequently you do not receive the message which is contained within the emotion.

Now; the message that is expressed in the emotion precisely identifies what you are creating in the moment. It recognizes the interplay of all of your associations, all of your beliefs that may be influencing of you in the moment and how those expressions are influencing of your perception, and therefore offers you a clear and precise identification of what you are actually creating in the moment.

But this is the challenge that you present yourself with, for you are unaccustomed to viewing emotion as a communication. You are quite familiar with the definition of emotion as a reaction. Emotion, I shall express once again, is NEVER a reaction. It is always a communication identifying what you are actually creating in any particular moment. This is, in a manner of speaking, a very exact avenue of communication that you offer to yourself through your subjective expression to allow you objectively the knowing and recognition of what you are individually associating with, what you are creating, how you are influencing your perception, and which direction your perception is moving in – which also relates to your initial question in your assessment of essence in relation to suffering within physical focus.

Now; in recognizing that emotion is a clear avenue of communication, you eliminate the expression of victim, for you allow yourself to recognize that there is in actuality no aspect of your reality that is hidden from you or thrust upon you. All that you create is what YOU create. All that you experience is what YOU experience and create.

In this, you have allowed yourself to be focusing your attention upon another focus in distracting yourself from the communication of your emotion in the moment, and as you have not received the message, the emotion continues to deliver the signal, and you display this action of sorrow and a physical exhibition of tearfulness.

Now; the communication is not concerning the other focus. This is objective imagery that you have created simultaneous to the emotion. You have not created the imagery first and reacted to it in an emotion; you have created them both simultaneously. Your attention has merely been focused upon the objective imagery, and therefore it appears to you that you have created an objective expression and you have reacted to it with an emotion. I am expressing to you quite definitely in this present now, this is incorrect. It is a mis-definition.

Now; in allowing yourself to recognize that this emotion is not a reaction, you may also recognize that the actual objective imagery that you have presented to yourself is abstract. It is merely a choice within the moment that may be associated in physical terms to be reflecting and expressing in harmony, in a physical exhibition, the same expression as the emotional communication.

In this, I express to you that the objective imagery is abstract, for within the moment you may choose myriads of expressions objectively to mirror or reflect what is being expressed subjectively; therefore the objective imagery is abstract, for it may be replaced with numberless types of imagery. It need not be absolutely associated with your connections, so to speak, with that particular physical focus. You may have chosen in the moment to be expressing an interaction with your creature, which you may have viewed in your physical terms to be upsetting, so to speak. You may have chosen in the moment to be expressing a particular type of music, which you may have incorporated as the reflection of the subjective communication. You may have, in that moment, chosen to be creating an interaction with another individual through your telephone, and present yourself with objective imagery that would be mirroring the same emotional communication.

Therefore, in actuality, the object of the physical objective imagery holds less significance than the expression of the emotional communication, for the emotional communication may be applied to many different types of objective imagery.

And as you create the objective imagery as the reflection in physical terms of the subjective movement, you automatically distract yourself in concern of the objective expression, viewing that to be a trigger and the expression which holds importance, and therefore your attention moves to the objective imagery and attempts within your thought process to be assessing the message, so to speak, through the objective imagery, which is movement of your thought process in which you define that your thoughts shall offer you the communication or the message, when in actuality your thoughts are a construct to be offering you an interpretation of the emotional message.

Your thoughts are not offering the message themselves, in themselves. Your thoughts are not an avenue of communication in themselves. This is not their design or their construct. Your thoughts are a function that you have created within this physical dimension to be interpreting and translating communication which is offered through emotion or through other avenues such as your senses, your impressions, your impulses, your intuition, and your physical creations that you display within your body consciousness. Are you understanding?

JOSEPH: Yes, I do understand fairly well. I think I’ll get a lot more out of it as I go over what you said. The main thing I want to end this particular discussion with is just a few more questions, specifics on for example, was Clark another focus of Dainel? Yes or no?

ELIAS: Do you participate in this focus? Yes.

JOSEPH: Okay. Was Toussaint Charbonneau another focus of Dainel also? Yes or no?


JOSEPH: Thank you. Okay, is Cameahwait, the Shoshone chief, is that a focus of the same essence as my brother Bob on the farm?


JOSEPH: Okay. Is ... so that’s where my mind went off constructing ... okay, I understand you now. Does Jim F’s essence also hold a focus as Thomas Jefferson? Are those two focuses of the same essence? Yes or no?


JOSEPH: Let’s see. Most important of all, are William Clark and my mother in this focus focuses of the same essence?

ELIAS: I may express to you, yes, BUT this is not the directing essence of that focus. This is an observing essence in that focus.

JOSEPH: I’ve heard of this thing. Have you talked about this previously?


JOSEPH: Okay, I’ll get it then, later. Is one of my oldest brothers a priest in ... was a focus of his involved in this as a doctor, a medicine man?

ELIAS: Not as a Native American.

JOSEPH: As a European immigrant that was a doctor?


JOSEPH: And was he part of the party, the expedition?

ELIAS: No, but associated with some of these individuals.

JOSEPH: It was before the expedition...


JOSEPH: ...or after the expedition?

ELIAS: Prior to.

JOSEPH: Okay, that’s enough. Were there focuses during the expedition who were also focuses in East Troy, where I was in the seminary?


JOSEPH: Okay. All right, I think my one last thing to ask about this is, it was recorded that Lewis was born August 18, 1774 in Charlottesville, Virginia. I took a crack at the time of his birth, 10:30 AM. Could you confirm or correct this information please?

ELIAS: I may express to you, this is not the actual identification of time, and you may continue with your impressions and allow yourself to be identifying the actual time framework.

JOSEPH: Okay. Thank you.

George wants to know what the time spread is for his 1414 focuses. When was the earliest in our linear time framework, and when will be the farthest in the future?

ELIAS: Very well. (Pause) Within your linear time framework, earliest being within 10th century BC.

JOSEPH: Where was that, please?

ELIAS: (Coyly) Ah! You may express that he may be investigating! Ha ha ha ha!

JOSEPH: Okay. The next, please?

ELIAS: What you identify as most future focus, within 28th century.

JOSEPH: Twenty-eighth? Two-eight, 28?

ELIAS: Yes, century.

JOSEPH: Thank you. Give me the same information about mine, please – the number of focuses, and earliest and latest.

ELIAS: First of all, express to me your impression as to your numbering of focuses. (Smiling)

JOSEPH: Sixty-three comes to mind.

ELIAS: I may express to you an acknowledgment, and alter this numbering to be also incorporating your zero, 630.

JOSEPH: Oh my gosh! Okay, so I have 630.

ELIAS: In this, I may express to you earliest time framework, 6th century BC, most future expression, 23rd century AD.

JOSEPH: Okay, thank you very much.

Elias, let’s go back just a second to the discussion about the Lewis and Clark expedition. Was any of my grief brought on because of Toussaint’s relationship with Sacagawea and what happened to her? Just yes or no.


JOSEPH: No. Was it entirely a creation here of imagery that I was presenting myself, and reacting to it?

ELIAS: Ah! I may express once again to you...

JOSEPH: No reaction to it, but...

ELIAS: Correct.

JOSEPH: But I can’t figure out why I would have caused ... why would this grief have come about?

ELIAS: It is not caused by the imagery. You merely provide yourself with physical imagery that is a physical display, objectively, in reflection to offer yourself an objective association and offer to yourself a helpfulness in the interp...

JOSEPH: (Cutting him off) Elias, you say that emotion is a communication. What on earth is my essence communicating, or my subjective communicating, with such an outburst of grief? Because I don’t see ... there’s information that I acquired but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with all that grief. What would the communication be with all that emotion?

ELIAS: This is the challenge that you present to yourself, to be allowing yourself to pay attention and explore what your communication is.

In this, as you turn your attention to self, recognizing that you are not reacting or responding, you may inquire within yourself what you are expressing within self that is being communicated to you within this emotion.

Now; I may express to you quite definitely, this emotion is NOT a reaction. Therefore, it needs no event to be...

JOSEPH: It still doesn’t explain why I had all the emotion – or is there no such thing as an explanation? (Pause)

ELIAS: How shall there not be an explanation? Express to me.

JOSEPH: I’m about ready to give up on this. This just doesn’t make any sense to me! (Elias chuckles)

ELIAS: But I express to you once again, you hold a different definition for emotion, and in expressing to yourself this definition of emotion, it is quite unfamiliar to you.

JOSEPH: Okay, I think I’m understanding now, Elias. That does make sense to me.

Okay, let me go on. I connect George strongly with Savonarola. Is that one of George’s focuses? (Pause)


JOSEPH: Okay, I would like confirmation that George and I lived in Spain in a focus in which we were inquisitor and heretic, a focus that you’ve thrown in previously in a session with you. Would you confirm that please?


JOSEPH: Okay. Also, a thought came in my mind. I’m wondering if this was information ... if you can confirm this, that George has an unusual cluster of focuses around the time of Michelangelo, a very large number, a cluster, of focuses at that time?

ELIAS: Several; yes, you are correct.

JOSEPH: Okay. In reading Bull’s biography of Michelangelo, I felt as if Pope Adrian was one of George’s focuses.

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

JOSEPH: I was wondering if all of the focuses of Dainel are Gramada? The question arises because George told me that in Session 92 Michelangelo is identified as Sumafi. (1) You stated the family I belong to is Gramada, while in Session 297 you said all of the focuses of an essence belong to the same family. (2)

ELIAS: You are correct.

JOSEPH: Are all of the focuses of Dainel Gramada?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

JOSEPH: Okay, thank you.

ELIAS: Let me express to you that this once again is a confirmation of your impression that you participate in that particular individual focus, but this is not to say that you are directing of that focus. You are participating in that actual focus in similar capacity to what I have identified to you concerning the individual of your mother.

JOSEPH: She was participating, not directing?

ELIAS: Correct.


ELIAS: Therefore, the identification of the essence family of that particular focus is associated with the directing essence.

JOSEPH: Okay; all right. Well, that makes a lot of sense.

In our previous sessions I inquired about George’s pooch Emma, who disengaged. I’ve since gotten strong impressions that the creature’s leaning toward, or already manifested as, a kangaroo. After that, George had a conversation with you in which you told George that the energy of the dog had not been reconfigured. Do you want to comment on any of this?

ELIAS: I may express to you that your impression is correct that there is a potential for remanifestation in the form of the identified creature that you have expressed, although it has not been engaged as to this particular moment.

JOSEPH: Okay, that makes sense to me. One last thing I have to ask you about is, I had a tremendous experience with someone who’s named Arthur. I got to know him in July. First of all, identify – is he common? Is he Zuli and Vold?

ELIAS: Orientation, common – yes, you are correct. Essence family, Zuli – you are correct; alignment, Ilda.

JOSEPH: Ilda. I always thought Vold because of the tremendous changes in his life. Everything is changing all the time. Ilda doesn’t change like that does it?

ELIAS: Some individuals do express much movement in this type of action of alteration and change, which is not inconsistent with the qualities of this particular essence family.

JOSEPH: Okay. That’s fine; thank you.

Arthur and I lived together for two months, all of December and January, and it was a very traumatic experience for me, enjoyable and traumatic – everything. And I have yet to find my wallet or else get a new wallet because my money ... what I was wondering about was, since we create our reality, does that mean in effect that I stole my own money, both the flesh and blood creation, and the behavior of the drunk and the thief? What about the abuse the drunk Arthur and Terry caused me? I felt at the mercy of the alcohol, because communication with the person under its influence was just about impossible. Was I doing that to myself?

ELIAS: Yes. Now; this also moves in relation to what we have been discussing this morning, in offering you objective imagery which also reflects your subjective movement and your communication to yourself through emotion.

Now; let me express to you, this experience reflects the emotional communication that you have offered to yourself, once again, recently. You have also offered yourself emotional communications within that experience of relationship, and once again as you were not receiving the message, you have continued to offer yourself the signal.

Allow yourself to recognize that the feeling, so to speak, of the emotion is symbolically similar to knocking upon a door or your telephone ringing; and as you are not engaging the telephone and incorporating the receiver or opening the door, the telephone continues to express the ringing signal, the door continues to express the knocking. It may discontinue temporarily as you choose not to be paying attention, but in situations in which the message holds significance and importance to you, you shall continue to express the signal repeatedly, and this also, my friend, offers you a clear example of the abstractness of the objective imagery. The signal that you are providing to yourself and the message is the same. It has remained constant. The imagery that you present to yourself...

JOSEPH: So in other words, different relationships?

ELIAS: Correct. You offer yourself different expressions of imagery objectively, but the message remains constant.

JOSEPH: Elias, can you please take just a minute or two – we’re almost out of time – just to tell me what is this message I keep on getting all the time, which you liken to the knocking on the door and the ringing of the telephone? I can’t figure that out.

ELIAS: (Firmly) You are expressing to yourself an attempt to be paying attention to yourself in how you create an expression of being a victim to yourself, and this is reflected in outside imagery; and in this, you are becoming weary of this continued creation. Therefore, in widening your individual awareness, you are beginning movement into allowing yourself to pay attention to your own communications and your own creation, which begins inwardly and is expressed in reflection outwardly.

Therefore, you continue to express the signal to yourself, that you may allow yourself to pay attention to how you are in each moment denying your own choices and therefore expressing the role of the victim, not in relation to other focuses or other individuals or situations or circumstances, but in relation to yourself, for you are denying your ability to be expressing your own choices and therefore assuming the role of the victim, which thusly you express also in objective imagery.

JOSEPH: Okay. I am understanding that, Elias. Thank you very much for that. Real quick, can you please tell me what is the essence name of a famous contemporary composer? Shall I express who I’m talking about? (Pause)


JOSEPH: Franz Schubert. (Pause)

ELIAS: Essence name, Mierra (me AIR ah).

JOSEPH: Spell it please?


JOSEPH: Thank you.

I’ve got an image of a string of men tied together by a chain, with Arthur and me next to each other, and we’re in Macedonia. Can you confirm or correct that please – ancient Macedonia?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

JOSEPH: Okay. Were we prisoners or slaves, or what were we, please?

ELIAS: In a manner of speaking, prisoner and slave are synonymous in this situation. This would be the identification of the role that you express in that focus.

JOSEPH: Okay, thank you. Well, Elias, the time is way past, so I’m going to have to say goodbye. Hope I can talk to you again tomorrow.

ELIAS: Very well, my friend. I express encouragement to you. You are offering yourself new avenues of exploration concerning your own communication to yourself, and allowing yourself a new opening to understanding of how you create your individual reality and what you are creating within your reality, which I may express to you may be quite encouraging within your focus, for this movement shall present to you new freedom and an expression of choice in much more fullness than you have previously experienced. Therefore, I offer my energy to you also in tremendous encouragement.

JOSEPH: Elias, is Bernie, my friend next door, Zuli and Milumet?

ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.

JOSEPH: Okay, thank you.

ELIAS: You are welcome.

JOSEPH: We will be talking again, hopefully soon.

ELIAS: Very well, my friend. To you, in tremendous affection, au revoir.

JOSEPH: Au revoir! (Elias smiles)

Elias departs at 11:01 AM.


(1) This refers to a Game entry from Session 92, 05/05/96:

VICKI: Sumafi, artists, Michelangelo.

ELIAS: Very good! One point. Much attention to detail, and little distortion.

(2) Here is the excerpt referred to from Session 297, 07/14/98:

TOM: Okay, so would all focuses be of the same family, such as myself with Tumold? Or can you enter different focuses with a different family?

ELIAS: The possibility of being, belonging to, another family within another focus is within existence, although I may express to you that as all of your focuses are simultaneous, you align with different families within each focus, but you do hold one family that you are belonging to within a particular physical dimension.

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

© 2001 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.