Session 1262


“Avoiding Terms of Duplicity”
“The Wrong Birthday, and a Choice to Not Dis-Engage”
“Elias’ Definitions of ‘Movement’ and ‘Direction’”

Saturday, January 31, 2003 (Private)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Bill (Zit)

Elias arrives at 11:40 AM. (Arrival time is 26 seconds.)

ELIAS: Good day!

BILL: Hello, Elias! It’s nice to meet you. (Elias chuckles) I’ve been reading your information for the past several months and I just find it wonderful. It’s good to be here. I have several questions for you.

ELIAS: Very well!

BILL: The first one is that about five years ago I was awakened from a dream with a loud voice saying the name “Zacharias” to me. It’s had quite an impact on me, that name, over the past several years. I’m wondering if you could give me some information regarding that name or whether it’s my essence name. Do have any information on what that might be?

ELIAS: Not essence name, focus name. It is another focus of yourself, one that incorporates many of your preferences as essence.

BILL: I’m also curious whether I have interpreted correctly my essence family. I think I’m Sumafi with an alignment with Sumari and my orientation is common. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Quite, yes.

BILL: Now, some other personal questions; I’d like to start with this one.

I believe I understand the principal of acceptance and non-judgment. The question, I guess, is best put by an example. Most people would consider genocide as being wrong today because of, I suppose, our belief in duplicity and separation. Now, in accepting the belief in duplicity, I still hold an opinion about genocide. Yet it’s difficult for me in talking with people — let’s say we should discuss the issue of genocide — not using the terms that are so common with duplicity.

How do I relate my opinion without using the terms that so reinforce our views on duplicity, like if we’re talking about genocide? It’s really difficult to say, “Well, it just is,” when someone holds so strongly to that belief. Can you give me some insight on how I might do that, talk to people about non-judgment, about genocide or child murder or any kind of murder?

ELIAS: Offer to myself, what is your direction or your motivation, so to speak?

BILL: The direction when I’m engaged in conversations regarding duplicity?

ELIAS: Correct.

BILL: Well, I guess part of my direction — that’s something I want to ask you about, because I’m not clear on the term “direction,” but maybe I can get it clear as I talk to you — my direction is hopefully to impart acceptance and how I believe to others. At least that’s what I assume my direction is.

ELIAS: For what reason?

BILL: Because this information has helped me so much that I just feel it would be helpful to them also. A lot of my communications now are an effort to help others sort of acquire... Not that their beliefs are wrong, but in the acceptance of beliefs. But those words good, bad, right, wrong are just such a part of the culture it’s hard to talk without using them.

ELIAS: I am understanding. First of all, let me express to you, it is significant to examine your motivation, for it is unnecessary to instruct other individuals.

Now; there is quite a difference between offering information in association with the motivation of instructing and sharing. You may be engaging interaction with other individuals and you may be sharing information that you have offered to yourself and sharing your experience and your preferences and your opinions without attempting to offer instruction to another individual. You shall know this difference in your examination of yourself, for in one expression there is no expectation of an outcome and in the other there is.

BILL: As you were talking to me, I was getting a picture of having them not judge me for my opinion. So it’s a sort of a fear and a lack of acceptance of...

ELIAS: Self, yes.

Now; you offer the example of this subject matter of genocide. You may be offering your opinion and expressing your preference in association with that subject matter and not necessarily incorporating the terminology of better or worse or good or bad or right or wrong, but merely expressing your belief in relation to the subject matter, acknowledging that what your expression of preference may be may be different from another individual’s and that you may not necessarily agree with another individual’s perception of the subject matter; but this is not an expression of whether you view your preference to be better or worse or theirs to be better or worse, or that yours is right and theirs is not, or vice versa.

BILL: Well, in my opinion — let me express what my opinion of genocide is — is that somehow we shouldn’t be doing it. I mean, it’s not something that I would do. So I hold the opinion it’s something we shouldn’t do, and yet I really think in myself that I’m not judgmental towards the people who do engage in it, even if I wouldn’t do it myself. Is that what you mean by opinion?

ELIAS: This is significant, for this is the recognition of YOUR preferences. Your preferences are your expressions of what you do and do not do.

BILL: Personally.

ELIAS: Correct — what YOU align with, what YOU express or what you do not express — but also recognizing that these are YOUR preferences, your opinions, that they are not absolutes, and that an individual who incorporates a different perception and a different preference is not wrong as they are not in agreement with you, and that neither of you is expressing a right or a wrong action. You are expressing different actions, different preferences, different perceptions and expressing, many times, different beliefs.

You incorporate all of the same beliefs but not all of those beliefs are expressed. As I have expressed many times, within the belief systems there are countless beliefs associated with each belief system. You all incorporate ALL of the beliefs systems and all of the beliefs contained within them — but you express a few.

BILL: I think I understand that. I’ll listen to it again later.

I’m a runner. Is my desire to do better, to run faster, is that an indication of a lack of acceptance of self in the present? I don’t think it is.

ELIAS: No.

BILL: Or else I’ll be kind of stagnant. I don’t hold myself as being bad because I don’t run fast in the moment. So I can wish to do better and not hold myself in lack of acceptance in the present?

ELIAS: Correct, although you may alter your terminology to not be reinforcing some beliefs that do automatically discount you. Rather than expressing to yourself that you incorporate a desire to accomplish better, perhaps you may entertain the expression of challenge — not that you are not generating a “better” action, for this also implies that there is some element lacking — but that you challenge yourself to be accomplishing and to continue to accomplish in relation to the further challenges that you present to yourself.

BILL: I like that. That’s very good!

Another personal question I have is I am a writer, as you may know, and I’ve published one of my books myself but the others have not been published. I prefer to have them published by someone else because I don’t like doing all the work involved with publishing them myself. The books are good. I’ve been patient and I also trust that they will be published. My question is do you see anything that I’m doing that tends to block the probability of this happening? (Pause)

ELIAS: Not much, in your terms, although you may incorporate more of an expression of patience, for you do express at times an impatience. Be remembering, patience is not waiting. It is allowing, and impatience is a lack of allowance.

BILL: I have had some interesting things that happened to me. I went nearly 46, 47 years in my life with my birthday being March 9, 1945. Something happened in my life where I had to write to New Jersey to get my birth certificate because my mother didn’t have it. Low and behold, it comes back that I was born March 3! My mother couldn’t believe it. She’s a good Catholic lady and she’s supposed to know when her firstborn child — supposedly I’m her firstborn child — is born. It remains a puzzle to me what happened there. Do you have any insight on that birthday change? I mean, it’s like six days. I’ve gone a whole life thinking I’m one thing and another happening after 40 some-odd years of living.

ELIAS: And your impression?

BILL: At first I thought that I’m a probable self, that I had split somewhere as a probable self. But everybody else in my reality kept thinking it was March 9. That was my initial impression. I couldn’t quite make out other than that as a possibility.

One thing did happen, though, and this was my next question. I think it was in the late ‘70s, coming back from a relay run in Provincetown. I had been drinking heavily on the way back and took an exit off the highway. It’s a pretty sharp turn exit and I was in a van. I felt the van tipping over, and in that moment I thought I was dead. I mean, I could just feel it happening. I could feel the thing tipping over. The next thing I know I get up off the floorboards, and the van’s sitting on the median divider and I’m totally fine. It’s always stuck in my head; I couldn’t believe that I was alive. Once I got involved with the wonderful information you’re providing, I thought maybe I did die and a probable self was created. Are these two things linked, maybe?

ELIAS: I shall express to you an explanation of the first event, of which your actual birth was what has been recorded, physical birth. Your actual choice of you to be, in a manner of speaking, entering that physical manifestation was not for almost one week. What was recognized was your choice to be in the manifestation. I have offered explanation of this type of action previously, not in association with any particular individual, but in general information in regard to essences and choices.

Essences choose to be manifesting focuses but may not necessarily, in a manner of speaking, enter that physical manifestation prior to the physical birth or even at the moment of the physical birth. They create the physical manifestation and the body consciousness, but the subjective and objective awareness, that is you as essence, is not necessarily associated with that body consciousness in the same time framework of the gestation period or the birth. On rare occasions, some essences choose not to be entering the physical manifestation for up to two years.

The physical body consciousness must be directed by the subjective awareness, but some essences at times choose to merely express a small expression of energy in subjective awareness to the physical body consciousness to be directing of it but not necessarily incorporating the full expression of essence in that manifestation as a focus of attention.

BILL: Well, I understand that we can enter the physical manifestation at various times — as you said, up to two years. But my problem is, in this country you need documentation. Like I was in the service, and you need documentation of birth, social security. All of this stuff was previously March 9. If I was actually physically born, the physical manifestation was physically born on March 3, where did all that documentation come from for March 9?

ELIAS: This is the wonderment of perception and how it creates an actual reality. (Smiling broadly)

BILL: (Laughs) I’m going to have to sit on that egg for a minute, because that’s a big deal.

ELIAS: And so perception is, in your terms, a very big deal.

BILL: So I created it?

ELIAS: Correct! Therefore, as I have stated previously, your perception creates your actual physical reality. All that is in within your physical reality is being created by your perception. And if your perception is engaged upon your date of March 9, this is what you have created.

BILL: This is just so cool stuff! (Elias laughs) The other thing, where I thought had died in the car. Did that happen or was that just a fear as it was going over?

ELIAS: No, this is a different action. In that moment, you did engage a choice.

Now; this is also significant, for many individuals inquire as to the choice of death, that it is a choice or is it a choice and shall you be objectively aware. And I have stated many times, at the moment of that choice, each individual is objectively aware of that choice.

In that moment, you were objectively aware that that was a potential choice. You chose not to be disengaging, but in that moment there is an awareness that you are quite capable of choosing and creating that action. It requires no thought; it is a knowing. You need not be expressing in thought to yourself, “I am choosing not to be disengaging.” You merely engaged the choice.

BILL: In a situation like that, Elias, where I choose not to disengage because it’s a choice — it sounds like a pretty big choice to me — is there a probable self that’s created that does disengage?

ELIAS: Yes.

BILL: Ah, so there’s another me who did leave at that time?

ELIAS: Yes.

BILL: But not this one.

ELIAS: Correct. Each time you engage what you term to be significant or large choices, in your terms, you generate a probable self.

BILL: Does the choice have to be conscious only at the exact moment? What I’m getting at is a friend told me a story once where he was in the Marines, and at that time they were doing a hearing test on him. He has a hearing loss and it would have gotten him out of the Marines, but he wanted to be in and he got a corpsman to give him a heads up at the tones, so he passed the hearing test.

My question is it didn’t appear to be a conscious choice of his to have himself pass the test. His life would have been so unbelievably different if he had not created that corpsman who gave him the passed test. So my question is can the choices be unconscious? I mean, he wasn’t thinking “I’m going to create this.”

ELIAS: I am understanding. Let me express to you, none of your choices are unconscious, but MANY of your choices are not associated with thought. Thought is a translating mechanism, and it is dependent upon where you are directing your attention. Many times you are not directing your attention to the mechanism of thought and are generating choices. In actuality, as much as you THINK that you are continuously thinking concerning all of your choices, much more of your actions are engaged in choices in which your attention is not directed to thought.

Even within what we are engaging in this present now, your attention moves to thought in the moments in which you are listening to myself. In the moments in which you are speaking, your attention is not engaged in thought. You are merely speaking. You are choosing an action that you are not paying attention to thought in relation to, for it is not necessary.

BILL: It’s really difficult to unhook from that thought thing! (Elias chuckles) It’s just an amazing thing. When I first read that thought is an interpreter and translator — wow, that’s like completely backwards from what I’ve been using my head for all this time. It’s going to take some time to get around to thinking differently about that.

ELIAS: It shall also offer you a much greater empowerment, for in continuing to concentrate your attention upon thought, you inefficiently attempt to create what you want through thinking, and this does not accomplish what you want.

BILL: I think I understand what you’re saying. I was telling Mary it’s like learning a new language. It’s unbelievable. Part of why I came here is to ask some questions about the language and the redefinition of terms so that I can understand them. I guess some of the stuff I have here is general. I’ll just get to some of those if it’s okay. I hate reading questions, but that’s the only way I’m going to remember to ask them.

ELIAS: Ha ha ha! Very well!

BILL: I’ve read a lot of Jung; I took sort of detour from Seth and read Jung and Campbell and a bunch of other people. It seems to have help me in this stuff. But it seems that we have to have opposites in this world. You say “good” but how do you know what good is without bad; how do you know up without down?

ELIAS: I am understanding.

BILL: Duality and duplicity. The duplicity’s different...

ELIAS: Correct.

BILL: ...I understand the difference. My question is, if acceptance of the belief system neutralizes the energy of it, will what we call duplicity, the ideas of good and evil, will that disappear when everyone accepts that belief system of duplicity?

ELIAS: No, for the belief system is not being eliminated.

BILL: It’s just accepting it.

ELIAS: Correct. Therefore, the expressions of the beliefs of the belief system continue to exist, but it is an intentional choice of what you express. You may continue to be expressing the belief system of duplicity and not incorporate judgment. This is associated with preference. You may continue to be generating those associations in relation to duplicity.

As I have stated, it is a belief system also and it is not being eliminated. This one belief system intertwines itself with all other belief systems and it shall continue to do so, for this is its natural function. But the judgment is eliminated.

BILL: That is interesting. Because it if went away, my next question was what becomes of drama? I mean, there’d be like no drama. This stuff is just so wild; it’s just so great!

ELIAS: Drama shall also be recognized as a choice — not necessarily as a negative but as an expression that generates excitement and intensity. And why shall you not incorporate excitement and intensity in your exploration?

BILL: I agree! (Both laugh) That would really be pretty boring if we sat there and contemplated our navels for all eternity! (Elias laughs loudly) That’s why it makes such beautiful sense as I get more and more into it. The idea that we’ve had of heaven just never made sense to me. I couldn’t understand it. It seemed that everything stopped. (Elias chuckles) I’ve sort of thought that since I was real little. This stuff coming into my life with Seth and you is just a great invitation of mine and I’m glad I’ve chosen to find you guys!

I have a question about dreams. I’ve been working my dreams for a while, and it’s been my understanding that in a dream everything symbolic of self.

ELIAS: Not necessarily. Some dream imagery is symbology. Some dream imagery is quite literal. Some dream imagery is not dream imagery at all, but actually an objective recognition of projections.

But much of your dream imagery IS symbolic, for it is generally an objective translation of the action that is occurring subjectively, and your objective awareness is extremely abstract. Therefore, you may be incorporating any action subjectively and the objective awareness may translate that, generating a harmonious action or expression of imagery. It incorporates tremendous diversity and abstractness. Therefore, one action that is generated subjectively may be translated in thousands of manners objectively.

BILL: Can we do the same things with our objective life that we do in interpreting dreams? If I look at an action that happened to me yesterday and I look at an action that happened to me in a dream, can I use the same kind of symbology to interpret those?

ELIAS: Yes, there is a relationship between the events.

BILL: I wondered about that, because I’ve been wanting to do that, pick something that’s curious in my life that actually happened in objective manifestation and treat it like I would treat a dream.

ELIAS: Correct, and remembering that objective imagery is abstract. Therefore, two expressions of objective imagery may appear initially to you rationally to have no relation to each other, but in relation to dream imagery, any imagery that you offer to yourself in any form is objective.

Therefore, knowing that your dream imagery is your objective translation of the subjective movement and knowing that the objective and subjective awarenesses are continuously in harmony with each other, you may incorporate your game of piecing together your expressions of imagery and discovering their similarities rather than their differences — which is, in actuality, an interesting game or exercise, for this may also be applied to many of your interactions with other individuals and allowing yourself to experiment in discovering similarities of differences.

BILL: That’s good. Thank you.

In relation to that, actually, I had a question about the events of 9/11 in terms of the imagery and the symbolism. I know you said we had presented to ourselves in real stark order our belief in duplicity and in victimhood, and I understand that. The question I have is in the targets that were chosen, one of which was the Trade Towers and the other the Pentagon, one representing money and wealth and finances and the other military action...

ELIAS: Protection.

BILL: Yes, I remember you saying that. So those targets, were those also chosen not because there were so many people there, but also because of their symbolic nature?

ELIAS: Yes, in association with the movement of this shift.

BILL: It wasn’t a comment necessarily on the military or on the way the world runs it economy? Nothing to do with that? It was mainly on duplicity and the shift and bringing to awareness those things?

ELIAS: And also in association with the manner in which you generate exchange within your world, which is one element of this shift which is shifting, and your associations in mass beliefs with protection, which is symbolized by your military.

BILL: I understand. One of the things that you’ve said many times, as you know, is that it matters not, that good and bad are aspects in the belief system of duplicity. Before coming upon your wonderful information, I read a lot of Seth.

Seth said several times that it is a violation — and he used that word “violation” — to take a life. Now, does he mean that as a violation with essence but not here? You’re saying it doesn’t matter and that they’re aspects of belief systems, but he was relatively clear that he said it’s a violation to take a life. Could you reconcile those?

ELIAS: That is associated with your beliefs, mass beliefs. It is not associated with essence.

BILL: So that’s not some cosmic law?

ELIAS: No, for this is associated with mass beliefs within your physical reality. I may express to you, it may be considered a violation to be intrusive, but then again, it is not, for essences are not intrusive. Therefore, it is moot point.

But as to the taking of a life, so to speak, these are choices and both individuals engage the choice. As I have stated previously, you may intend to murder another individual. You may incorporate a firearm and you may aim that firearm at another individual’s head or at their heart and you may connect with your target. If the other individual chooses not to be disengaging at that time framework, they shall not. YOU cannot and do not create another individual’s choices or reality.

Therefore, regardless of your intention and regardless of your action, it is the choice of the other individual what they shall create. You incorporate your evidences within your world of documentation of what I speak.

BILL: That’s what I understood you to say. It made more sense than there is a cosmic rule about that. So the violation is within our own culture and our society?

ELIAS: Correct.

BILL: You’ve said that we may create thousands of types of objective expressions to offer ourselves information about one movement that we create.

ELIAS: Correct.

BILL: Especially if we’re not paying attention to it, correct?

ELIAS: Correct.

BILL: Now, my confusion is in the term “movement.” Is movement and direction different or the same? Maybe you could give a direction by what you mean by movement. Is movement what we create? Do you understand what I’m asking? I don’t understand the word “movement.”

ELIAS: Movement is merely action. Direction is a specific avenue of action with an intention.

BILL: And the movement is the action itself?

ELIAS: Yes.

BILL: Examples always seem to help me. If you could give an example of what the movement would be and where the direction is? You know what I’m saying? (Pause)

ELIAS: You may be creating movement in association with your beliefs, which generates actions.

Now; perhaps in your employment you may be generating movement within your day incorporating actions associated with your chosen employ.

Now; within the course, so to speak, of that day, the manner in which you present expressions to yourself and the manner in which you generate these actions may be specific, and this is associated with your direction, what you may be moving your attention to in association with your beliefs and your addressment to them or your examination of them, or in association with certain accomplishments that you wish to be expressing.

Example: You may be expressing movement in your day at your employ and you may be interactive with many different individuals.

Now; the manner in which you are interactive with the individuals is associated with your direction, and perhaps each individual that you encounter and you engage within that one day may present very similar expressions to you. Your direction is being established, in a manner of speaking — if you are paying attention — to present yourself with certain expressions allowing you to alter your perception in relation to them.

Let us say hypothetically that you may incorporate a trigger within yourself that each time an individual expresses interaction with you and is extremely friendly, your trigger may be an association automatically that the individual is expressing in a condescending manner.

Now; in this one day, you may be incorporating a direction to be examining that automatic response in association with that trigger. Therefore, throughout the course of your day you may present to yourself every individual that you interact with as being extremely friendly, and repeatedly you shall experience this automatic response of viewing them as being condescending.

But at some point within your day, perhaps you shall notice that this appears to you to be quite coincidental that every individual is expressing in this similar manner. This shall motivate you to objectively question what you are presenting to yourself, which also spurs you to objectively view not merely your response but the belief that influences that response. This is your intention and therefore this is your direction in the movement of the doing. Are you understanding?

BILL: I think I am. I’ll need to sit with it and let it percolate for a while. I seem to learn better from having stuff in print, but I was getting pieces of it and it was making some sense as we went.

It also occurred to me that we’re getting low on time, and since Zacharias wasn’t my essence name, I wanted to ask you what it is. What is my essence name?

ELIAS: Essence name, Zit, Z-I-T (zeet).

BILL: Z-I-T, like zit! (Laughs) You understand?

ELIAS: Ah! (Laughing)

BILL: All right, that’s nice. I like that.

I wanted to ask you about emotions. Up until reading your information, I thought sadness, joy, anger, fear, these were the emotions. What you’re saying is that they are the signals of an emotion, that emotions are communications. My confusion is then, what is the emotion? Is the emotion the actual creation in front of me, what I’m creating? If the feelings are the signals, I’m not clear on what the emotions are.

ELIAS: The emotion is the communication, that communication which identifies to you what you are actually generating inwardly in the moment.

BILL: So let’s say at the birth of my daughter I experienced joy, joy being...?

ELIAS: A validation. The signal is the joy, the feeling. The communication is a validation of yourself, an acknowledgment within yourself of genuine appreciation. This is your communication. This is what you are generating in this moment.

BILL: Appreciation of myself and not of my daughter?

ELIAS: Of yourself without separation; therefore, of ALL of your world.

BILL: That’s good. The other thing you said is that signals — the joy, fear, sadness — are signals that we’re not paying attention. Am I correct, that we’re not paying attention to the communication? I think that you just answered my question, in that if I’m feeling joy you’re saying... Because I paid no attention to the fact that I was validating myself.

ELIAS: Correct, and many times in those emotions that you view to be positive, you are not paying attention to the identification of the communication nor do you concern yourself with it.

The significance of paying attention to the communications is that you dislike signals that you associate as negative and you wish them to be disappearing. In allowing yourself to recognize what the communication is, you cease forcing energy and attempting to push away the signal, and the signal stops, for you receive the communication.

What you actually do for the most part now in moments in which you offer yourself what you term to be a negative symbol is to automatically attempt to eliminate it, and this is a generation of forcing energy, which merely continues the signal.

BILL: Or if it’s joy or pleasure, continuing it.

ELIAS: Correct.

BILL: I’d like to continue it because I’m not paying attention to what it’s telling me?

ELIAS: Correct. Which, if you are noticing, you create the same action in reverse of each other, for the negative emotion, the negative signal, you wish to eliminate and it continues, for you are not listening to the message. The positive signal you wish to continue and it dissipates for the same reason, for you are not receiving.

BILL: I’ll tell you, we must be experiencing some natural time here because this hour is zipping right by! (Elias chuckles) I’d like to slow it down. I have a lot of questions; I’ve got a million things. Let me get to maybe a couple more personal things.

My daughter, who is now 17 years old, at the age of 3 became what we call a selective mute. She stopped talking to everyone in her life except maybe her immediate family. It was traumatic for all of us and created some tremendous changes in our lives. I can see the impact on me and I can see the impact on my wife. I’m curious what my daughter Jessie did it for, in terms of her own stuff. Do you have any insight as to... Unless she did it just for us, because it really transformed us in a lot of positive ways.

ELIAS: This is partially the motivation but not all. Within that individual, this choice has been expressed to allow other manners of communication more fully, and more objectively recognized.

BILL: Within herself?

ELIAS: Yes, to be recognizing the communication through energy, which is much more accurate than language.

BILL: It’s interesting, because there was a time when she was real little she would see things, sparkles in her room and energy and stuff. And at that time “oh, it’s nothing, you’re just having a dream.” It was shortly after that she stopped talking. That’s very interesting.

And our natural time’s over, Elias. I think I’ll try and continue it (Elias laughs) after Mary comes back. But I thank you very much. It’s been wonderful talking to you, and I thank you.

ELIAS: You are very welcome, my friend. I shall be anticipating our next meeting!

BILL: Me too, thanks!

ELIAS: And your term for this day is appreciation.

BILL: Ah! I do appreciate it, thank you. And I appreciate myself.

ELIAS: Yes! Very well, my friend. I offer to you tremendous affection...

BILL: Thank you, I hold that for you, too.

ELIAS: ...and great encouragement in your movement AND your direction!

BILL: Thanks. (Both laugh) Toodles! See you later!

ELIAS: In fondness, au revoir.

BILL: Au revoir.

Elias departs at 12:41 PM.