The Elias Material - phasing related

[Gandalf]

I agree, but a lot of people don't realise that channelings come through a fog of distortion  and people often take them as undisputed fact.

It's more difficult because the channeling individual may have no idea what part is genuine and what part comes from their own mind or mind of others in the room. We all have our own beliefs.

The problem is obvious when Elias describes how the 'Elias' that we hear at our end is actually an amalgamation of the 'real' Elias and the channeling subject - for the duration of the communication, 'elias' is in effect a new being, made up of the two personalities.

No wonder ideas, concepts and theories get mixed up! Channeling will always suffer from these limitations, which is why i guess the best approach is Monroe's or Frank's: i.e. go there yourself and experience it directly... easier said than done though for most of us!

[Ben K]

Ah Elias!

I got heavily into seth and elias about time i started visiting astral pulse, when frank was still around. Id be glad to answer any questions as i've come to learn quite alot from him, and treasure his teachings. All of it is perfectly valid in my experience and it also matches quite well with what frank did and alot of the stuff monroe came across. He also says some interesting stuff about monroe and his levels that relates to franks model as well, here it is.


JENNY: We came from the Monroe Institute and we were - how do you say this? - exploring other levels of consciousness or whatever they call that, feeling other energy, feeling myself in different vibrations. I don't know what to call it.

ELIAS: Allowing yourself to explore other areas of yourself. These are not levels.

JENNY: Why do they call them levels?

ELIAS: These are expressions of your beliefs.

I may express to you, within the expressions of religious beliefs - of which your creation of metaphysics in this time framework is merely a new religion, a new persona of religious beliefs - in this, within the aspects of religious beliefs, it is expressed that there are levels of movement, higher and higher levels of achievement, of attainment, of movement. There are hierarchies.

JENNY: And higher energies and lower energies. What is that about?

ELIAS: There are no higher energies and lower energies. You ARE consciousness.

JENNY: I was thinking when I was at the Monroe Institute that none of that made sense, but somehow everything ... it's like I said, I'm rebellious about everything. It's just this part of me that is like, this doesn't...

ELIAS: Allow yourself the recognition that these are merely the expressions of beliefs. This is not to say that the concepts are not valid or that the movements are not valid, for they are. Information is communicated, and this is not necessarily invalid. All of your reality is intertwined with beliefs. The movement of this shift is merely to RECOGNIZE these beliefs, not to eliminate them, not to perpetuate them by expressing that they are good and bad, or that they are right or wrong.

JENNY: We still function under a belief system, and that's okay.

ELIAS: Correct.

JENNY: Because I used to think, "Oh, this belief system is programming me; I just wish I could take it away."

ELIAS: No. The point is to be recognizing and accepting that these are expressions of your reality in this physical dimension and (deliberately) not to allow the automatic response to them to dictate your choices.

Anyway im just stopping by at Astral Pulse and saw a thread on elias, had to chirp in. his stuff is great. 

PS- gandalf alot of the information that comes out of a channel is related to their own beliefs, as well as the type of energy exchange that is happening. I think that in a light trance, where the channeler is still somewhat conscious, there is a much greater distortion level than say, how elias does it with mary ennis, which is a deep trance. it allows him to bypass alot and is a much more efficient method of getting information across...albeit a little tougher on the physical body of the channeler. another "essence personality" that does this deep-trance style channeling is Kris and i believe Ramtha as well. Theres tons of em out there and they are all valid in their own way

[Ben K]

PSS- about the animal thing. its very complicated because you have to be familiar with the terminology that elias uses and you have to know what hes talking about when he says emotion.hes not talking about it strictly in terms of feelings, as in you feel happy or sad. his terminology of "emotion" is very different than what we have collectively come to believe about emotion. Animals possess FEELINGS, but they do not possess emotions. They can be happy and sad, but that is not an emotion in the elias terminology. Emotion is much deeper. If anyone cares to read here is a great digest with some stuff on emotion:

http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/sexuality_emotion.html

[Selski]

Hi Ben K

Thanks for posting the Jenny/Elias conversation - that was really interesting.

I love the fact that it's ok to function under a belief system - kind of a relief for me.  I've been so reluctant to believe in anything, thinking that I might be being "had" in some way.

I was coming to the same conclusions myself anyway, but it's nice to hear it from someone else as well.

Cheers! 

Sarah

[Ben K]

hey selski

yes, that was quite a relief for me to find out as well. i had been practicing LDing and OBE work for awhile when i came across elias and i was unknowingly allowing all these various beliefs to affect me, and as elias says, BELIEFS CREATE REALITY. Then i found out how beliefs work, that they are more like TOOLs for CREATING reality than they are GUIDELINES on how reality ALREADY IS. When you look at it from that perspective suddenly you stop becoming victim and you can allow yourself to create your reality (physical AND non-physical) EXACTLY how you want it to be. You put yourself in the pilots seat!

Ben

[Gandalf]

Have any of you found any part of the elias material that goes into detail on the various regions of consciousness in the same way as Monroe/Frank et al?

I did read the sections of Elias's 'region 1 to 4 model', which pretty much tallies with Frank's system and in turn Monroe's, but I noticed Elias doesnt really spend much time describing the environments of these areas in the same detail as Frank or Monroe; I think mainly because Elias is trying to get across the big picture as it were.

However it would be nice if he provided some detail of specific regions and their workings, just so as to provide a comparison.

[Gandalf]

Hi Ben,

Interesting piece there about Elias and his comments about Monroe, although i disagree with Jenny talking about how she didn't like the Monroe Institute's talk of levels and heirarchies. Actually Monroe, like Elias, also does not accept the concept of heirarchies. The levels are simply labels used to define certain areas of consciousness. Monroe was quite clear about this, as is the institute imo.

Anyway, I re-read some of Elias' info on the 4 regions and they do conform quite well to Frank's description, and in turn Monroe's, although as I said, he doesn't really go into specific detail on the environments, as does Frank or Monroe, as Elias seems to be more concerned with the broader scope.

One thing that seems clear to me is that Focus 3 or 'Region 3' is *way broader* than many people may have realised until now.

Frank was more concerned with the 'transition aspect' of F3, which is important although he mentioned that there were other elements that make up the region too, although he didn't know too much about them. Elias very much expands on this.

Also, Frank's description of people in F3 describes them very much like ourselves and the environments very earth like, in fact *more earth like than earth* as he says... a kind of hyper reality.

However Elias goes on to talk about people in F3 transition engaging and becoming aware of their other selves (focuses), but clearly this must be happening at a point beyond Frank's upper F3 (F27) level, as these people he found in F3 were still very much like ourselves on earth, ie with one main focus.

What comes across to me is that Frank's and Monroe's description of F3/f27 is in reality only the early stages of F3/transition.... eventually there comes a point where you must come into full realisation of all your other focuses and this in turn prepares you for the eventual primary focus switch to F4.

Actually, I think Frank may have hit on this already, as interestingly, in his discussions about F3 and F4, he said that he had come across people who were 'kind of half in F4 and half out of it so to speak'; To me this state sounds like an even 'higher' state of F3 and possibly the state of multi-dimensional awareness that elias talks about via F3 transition (although i don't like the term 'higher' - but you know what I mean).

This means that the whole F3/F23-F27 environments that Monroe and Frank talk about, are only the tip of the iceberg of F3 and indeed the whole 'transition process'.

I also like Elias's description of how there were also those resident in R3 who, instead of being engaged in transition, have decided to become specialised in communicating and engaging with those in F1/R1. I guess this covers all the mediums and their non-physical colleagues, and perhaps related to this area, all those who engage in 'retrieval work', as this involves those who have entered into difficulty on their immediate transfer from F1 to F3.

[Novice]

Gandalf-
Yeah, I had read that as well. I was a bit disappointed that he wouldn't give anything other than a cursory mention of F4 -- although his rationale made sense -- we wouldn't be able to comprehend it as we are now.

But, yes, most everything else he mentions synchs with my own experiences/views at present. Very interesting stuff...   

[Ben K]

some cool info on F4-

http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/RA4.html

[Old Dood]

some cool info on F4-

http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/RA4.html

Come on....Can someone give the 'Cliff Notes' on all of that?
My head hurts...

[Ben K]

Come on....Can someone give the 'Cliff Notes' on all of that? Cheesy
My head hurts...

dont say he didnt warn ya!

I was a bit disappointed that he wouldn't give anything other than a cursory mention of F4 -- although his rationale made sense -- we wouldn't be able to comprehend it as we are now.

 

[Novice]

That was excellent Ben K. I had searched around for info on that and somehow missed that page (feeling rather dumb now).   

It's amazing. That explaination/description entirely consistent with my own beliefs/experiences at present.  Very cool stuff! 

[Gandalf]

That is amazing stuff and thanks Ben your your exhaustive PM on the matter of F3 also.

Concerning F3, we seem to be coming to the conclusion that all of Monroe's F23-F27 or Frank's F3, may only be the very early stages of the whole R3/Transition area stage. Hardly scratching the surface even, although Monroe's/Frank's work does has the added advantage of coming from people who have actually experienced these areas for themselves, rather than just listening to a lecture on the matter from a communicated source.

However, the communicated sources such as Seth and Elias are providing much needed expansion on what we have already discovered and help to put them into some context.

Elias's description  of F4/R4 is excellent!

By the way, I think it was Seth who first came up with the 4 framework model, although he only went into detail about F1 and F2. It was always assumed that Seth was coming from F4 and his piece on the 'mechanics of transition' in 'Seth Speaks' is assumed to take place in F3.

However Elias provides clarification on this matter and expands further.

I'm looking forward for more info from this source in the future... these communications are still ongoing i believe.

[recoverer]

Regarding Jesus Christ not getting crucified, consider how channeled sources have contradicted themselves on this matter.

Elias said: "I understand that he (Jesus) did not die in the crucifixion, but did he go to India after that? In reply, Elias claims that Jesus moved to Macedonia and died there at age 51, apparently of natural causes."

Jane Robert's Seth on the otherhand provides a completely different version. He claimed that a hoax took place and a mentally disturbed man was drugged and crucified in his place. Shortly after the supposed hoax, Jesus used his psychic powers to end his existence as a physical being.  Clearly this contradicts Elias' claim that Jesus lived until he was 51. It is also funny that Paul had to speak to Jesus's disciples in order to learn about Jesus' teachings, if Jesus could be found in Macedonia.

In her book about Jesus, Sylvia Browne claims that Jesus made a deal with Pilate, and the men who were assigned to crucify him were experts in anatomy, and resultantly were able to place stakes through his feet and hands so an artery wouldn't be damaged. This despite the fact that other people weren't crucified with stakes, and Grey's anatomy (the book, not the TV show) hadn't come out yet. They also supposedly placed a foot stool under his feet. Somehow, nobody noticed this. Later on, when nobody was around people close to Jesus (I can't remember who Sylvia named, Mary etc.) came to rescue Jesus from his tomb. If you read Sylvia's account, she basically makes Jesus sound like a wimp who wasn't brave enough to fulfill his divine destiny.

The lady who supposedly channels her deceased son Matthew, claims that Jesus was whipped rather than crucified, and lived for a number of years afterwards.

Why the contradictory stories?

And consider Seth's version.  He uses the Gospels to make his case.  Specific verses are referenced in Jane Robert's books. Seth claims that Peter denied Jesus three times, because somebody other than Jesus was taken prisoner. The problem is that there are verses where Jesus tells Peter that he would deny him three times. Why would Jesus tell him so if somebody other than Jesus is taken prisoner?

Seth also claims that Judas made the arrangements for a hoax crucifixion to take place. If this is the case, why did Jesus tell Judas that he would betray him? There are numerous verses within the gospels which show that Jesus was well aware that he would be crucified.

If somebody suggests that there might be errors in the Gospels, then why did Seth twist them in order to make his arguments?

When it comes to the man who was supposedly crucified in Jesus' place, wasn't there anybody around who knew what Jesus looked like, and would know that somebody other than Jesus was being crucified?

Wouldn't Jesus' disciples realize that Jesus was still with him when a drugged man was supposedly crucified in his place?

The way Seth spoke of the crucifixion and other things related to Jesus gives me the impression that he was looking to tarnish his reputation. For example, in the two Seth books I have, "Seth speaks" and "a nature of a personal reality," Seth referred to three of Jesus's most famous verses and completely despiritualized them.

For example when Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, Seth said that Jesus was just making a joke, because nobody loved their neighbor at the time. Consider the below verses from Matthew:

"5:43Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 5:44but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 5:45that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. 5:46For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 5:47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? 5:48Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

19:16And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. 19:18He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19:19Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 19:20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? 19:21Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 19:22But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.

22:34But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 22:35And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 22:36Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 22:37And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 22:38This is the great and first commandment. 22:39And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 22:40On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."

Does it sound like Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself? How about the other things he said? Thou shalt not commit murder, adultery, and should love God with all thy heart, mind and soul? Was he just making jokes? Or was he serious about those commandments, and just for the fun of it, inserted a joke about loving one's neighbor as one's self, even though he was asked what the most important commandments are?

I'm not writing what I write because I'm a fundamentalist. I went through a period where I had all kinds of doubts about Christ. Then one day I realized that I didn't really know, so I prayed and asked to find out. I have had a number of spiritual experiences (including an experience in a higher realm) and received spirit messages which told me that Jesus Christ did in fact live, is a key part of divine reality, and was crucified.

One series of symbolic visual messages was as follows: First I was shown a crucifix. I asked why. I was shown an image which is a bit complicated to explain, but basically said that "They killed him (Jesus), they put him on display, they spotted his reputation." Next I experienced myself press the high C note on my piano (not physically) which I understood to symbolically mean that he represents the highest consciousness there is. I've also received some other messages which showed that Jesus was crucified.

So what kind of shenanigans are sources such as Elias and Seth up to?

[Stookie]

recoverer - Interesting subject

What do you think about the Elias model of consciousness? Do you find any truth behind the different focuses of consciousness Elias talks about? And if so, how do you think those focuses relate with Christ and the crucifixion?