May 2006 - Posts

Mirrors and Reflections: Part Two
There are no accidents. There are no chance meetings. There is no kismet. Everyone you draw into your life you draw to be either a mirror or a reflection. That we so rarely pay attention to these reflections and mirrors explains why we are so unfamiliar with ourselves. Our attention is most often on the other individual and so we don’t get the information we attempt to provide ourselves through the interaction. Generally we pay more attention to those we are intimate with than we do to the person we accidentally bump into on the street. Our friends and lovers don’t reflect more, but we do pay more attention to them, which offers the opportunity to view the reflection more clearly.

Many times we don’t pay attention to the mirror action of another individual because we are not ready to see ourselves. In keeping our attention on the other individual we block the creation of a relationship with ourselves. We typically believe it takes a minimum of two to create a relationship and so we rarely think about having a relationship with ourselves. How do we interact with ourselves? After all, relationship is all about interaction. But… all that we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch is created by each individual. We do not interact with any other individual as an expression of Essence (Soul). The other individual as Essence merely offers its energy for you to do with as you please. It is our beliefs that tell us we interact with things outside ourselves and that friends, pets, possessions, etc., are not elements of us. THEY ARE.
What we directly interact with is our translation of an energy projection. The translation is done through our individual perceptions and from the “Blueprints” we receive from the energy projected to us. WE INTERACT WITH OUR PERCEPTION! So, when we engage a relationship with another individual we will create what we expect based on the influences of our beliefs. All of us create interpretations and translations of this swirling, moving energy.

We all experience the ups and downs of a relationship. For many it starts out well, and a few years later we’re beating ourselves up for being so blind to the “real” person we thought we loved. The problem, however, is not the other person or the relationship. It’s not them, them, them!! It’s us, us, us!! In those moments that we experience conflict with our loved ones (or anyone for that matter) we must turn our attention to ourselves and ask: What am I experiencing in this moment? What are my communications to me in this moment? What are my emotions trying to communicate to me? Emotions are NEVER reactions. Emotions are ALWAYS communications. They identify precisely what we are communicating to ourselves in the moment. Emotion only appears to be a reaction because our attention is generally outside ourselves and we therefore tune into the objective experience or action first. Remember, the objective experience or action is a translation that arises simultaneously with an inner subjective state.

The Forgotten Self – as per design – had paid attention outwardly and then only afterwards does The Forgotten Self turn its attention back to Self. This is what makes it seem as though emotion is a reaction. But, there has been a change in the blueprint whereby we are altering all of our reality. The rules by which we play our little game are changing, and the primary change lies in our remembering how we create. The veil of forgetfulness is being lifted. The objective world is abstract and changes constantly. What is important is our perception, which projects an ever-changing objective world. We may create hundreds of objective images to portray a single subjective state, and this is where our creativity lies. It is what keeps us from becoming bored with our game.

Let’s say you and your partner are in a heated conflict over the boundaries placed on your teenage son. (the illusion is that you direct your children) Not including your son, there are two realities at work here; the one you create and the one your partner creates. You are both in The Forgotten Self mode, which means: 1) You are not in cooperation. 2) You are not accepting either you, your partner or your son. 3) You are not paying attention to you. 4) You are in defense mode protecting your belief. 5) You are in automatic response mode (you hold your belief as absolute). Each of you feels threatened in the difference of opinion your partner displays.

The deeper reality is that you and your partner (all of us actually) are not different. You may each display different choices and behaviors, but you are both consciousness and consciousness is a unity. Elias has this to say about it: “within this time framework, in this shift in consciousness, you are offering yourselves the opportunity to widen your awareness and become accepting of all other individuals’ expressions, recognizing that they are also yours, for they shall not be within your reality if you are not choosing these expressions also.”

The more we create a discounting and a lack of acceptance of ourselves, the more we project that outward. The more we project it outward, the more we will draw people and events to us to reflect that. The way we begin to interrupt this pattern is to simply notice that we are engaging it in the moment. Catch yourself as your emotional signal rises and remind yourself that you are interacting with your own perception. Notice that you are creating conflict and are therefore fighting with yourself. What are you fighting with within yourself? Often it is an issue of acceptance. Doing this will be a challenge, for in our moments of familiarity and passion we are unpracticed at paying attention to ourselves. We have been turning the signals of our emotions (sad, mad, glad, etc) into weapons against ourselves.

The following example is taken verbatim from session 800 of the Elias Transcripts:
“Hypothetically shall we say, two individuals may be engaging conversation. One individual may be expressing in a manner that is perceived by the other individual as irritating, initially. Therefore, the second individual is expressing an emotion of irritation. What is being acknowledged and received is the signal; the message is being ignored. The ringing of the phone is being acknowledged, but the receiver has not been engaged. Therefore, the signal of the emotion, which is what you term to be the feeling, continues and builds.

Now; as the message has not been received, the communication has not been recognized, and the signal continues. The individual begins responding to the signal.

Now; the signal has been identified as irritation. The response is to be projecting outward that energy in intensity.

Now; as the individual automatically responds to the signal and projects that energy outward, it is projected to the other individual, the first individual, and it is relayed once again back to the second individual. The second individual continues to NOT receive the message, the communication, and is merely paying attention to the signal.

The signal thusly becomes more intense, and the individual experiencing this unreceived message or communication and the continuation of the signal turns that signal into an expression of energy which is created in the form of a type of weapon, so to speak, to themselves, for they begin to block their own energy. They begin to discount themselves. They begin a lack of acceptance of self, devaluing their experience and their worth, and denying their choice, holding themselves in the position of merely continuing the signal.”


Elias goes on to say that one of the individuals in this example may stop the emotional signal, but because he/she didn’t receive the communication the signal will arise again, but in a different scenario. We constantly provide ourselves with communications to familiarize us with ourselves, but if we don’t pay attention, the same communication will be repeated over and over in infinitely creative ways. So, pay attention to the mirrors and reflections, for they are the movie screens upon which we project our individual communications.
Bill Marshall
Mirrors and Reflections: Part Two
There are no accidents. There are no chance meetings. There is no kismet. Everyone you draw into your life you draw to be either a mirror or a reflection. That we so rarely pay attention to these reflections and mirrors explains why we are so unfamiliar with ourselves. Our attention is most often on the other individual and so we don’t get the information we attempt to provide ourselves through the interaction. Generally we pay more attention to those we are intimate with than we do to the person we accidentally bump into on the street. Our friends and lovers don’t reflect more, but we do pay more attention to them, which offers the opportunity to view the reflection more clearly.

Many times we don’t pay attention to the mirror action of another individual because we are not ready to see ourselves. In keeping our attention on the other individual we block the creation of a relationship with ourselves. We typically believe it takes a minimum of two to create a relationship and so we rarely think about having a relationship with ourselves. How do we interact with ourselves? After all, relationship is all about interaction. But… all that we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch is created by each individual. We do not interact with any other individual as an expression of Essence (Soul). The other individual as Essence merely offers its energy for you to do with as you please. It is our beliefs that tell us we interact with things outside ourselves and that friends, pets, possessions, etc., are not elements of us. THEY ARE.
What we directly interact with is our translation of an energy projection. The translation is done through our individual perceptions and from the “Blueprints” we receive from the energy projected to us. WE INTERACT WITH OUR PERCEPTION! So, when we engage a relationship with another individual we will create what we expect based on the influences of our beliefs. All of us create interpretations and translations of this swirling, moving energy.

We all experience the ups and downs of a relationship. For many it starts out well, and a few years later we’re beating ourselves up for being so blind to the “real” person we thought we loved. The problem, however, is not the other person or the relationship. It’s not them, them, them!! It’s us, us, us!! In those moments that we experience conflict with our loved ones (or anyone for that matter) we must turn our attention to ourselves and ask: What am I experiencing in this moment? What are my communications to me in this moment? What are my emotions trying to communicate to me? Emotions are NEVER reactions. Emotions are ALWAYS communications. They identify precisely what we are communicating to ourselves in the moment. Emotion only appears to be a reaction because our attention is generally outside ourselves and we therefore tune into the objective experience or action first. Remember, the objective experience or action is a translation that arises simultaneously with an inner subjective state.

The Forgotten Self – as per design – had paid attention outwardly and then only afterwards does The Forgotten Self turn its attention back to Self. This is what makes it seem as though emotion is a reaction. But, there has been a change in the blueprint whereby we are altering all of our reality. The rules by which we play our little game are changing, and the primary change lies in our remembering how we create. The veil of forgetfulness is being lifted. The objective world is abstract and changes constantly. What is important is our perception, which projects an ever-changing objective world. We may create hundreds of objective images to portray a single subjective state, and this is where our creativity lies. It is what keeps us from becoming bored with our game.

Let’s say you and your partner are in a heated conflict over the boundaries placed on your teenage son. (the illusion is that you direct your children) Not including your son, there are two realities at work here; the one you create and the one your partner creates. You are both in The Forgotten Self mode, which means: 1) You are not in cooperation. 2) You are not accepting either you, your partner or your son. 3) You are not paying attention to you. 4) You are in defense mode protecting your belief. 5) You are in automatic response mode (you hold your belief as absolute). Each of you feels threatened in the difference of opinion your partner displays.

The deeper reality is that you and your partner (all of us actually) are not different. You may each display different choices and behaviors, but you are both consciousness and consciousness is a unity. Elias has this to say about it: “within this time framework, in this shift in consciousness, you are offering yourselves the opportunity to widen your awareness and become accepting of all other individuals’ expressions, recognizing that they are also yours, for they shall not be within your reality if you are not choosing these expressions also.”

The more we create a discounting and a lack of acceptance of ourselves, the more we project that outward. The more we project it outward, the more we will draw people and events to us to reflect that. The way we begin to interrupt this pattern is to simply notice that we are engaging it in the moment. Catch yourself as your emotional signal rises and remind yourself that you are interacting with your own perception. Notice that you are creating conflict and are therefore fighting with yourself. What are you fighting with within yourself? Often it is an issue of acceptance. Doing this will be a challenge, for in our moments of familiarity and passion we are unpracticed at paying attention to ourselves. We have been turning the signals of our emotions (sad, mad, glad, etc) into weapons against ourselves.

The following example is taken verbatim from session 800 of the Elias Transcripts:
“Hypothetically shall we say, two individuals may be engaging conversation. One individual may be expressing in a manner that is perceived by the other individual as irritating, initially. Therefore, the second individual is expressing an emotion of irritation. What is being acknowledged and received is the signal; the message is being ignored. The ringing of the phone is being acknowledged, but the receiver has not been engaged. Therefore, the signal of the emotion, which is what you term to be the feeling, continues and builds.

Now; as the message has not been received, the communication has not been recognized, and the signal continues. The individual begins responding to the signal.

Now; the signal has been identified as irritation. The response is to be projecting outward that energy in intensity.

Now; as the individual automatically responds to the signal and projects that energy outward, it is projected to the other individual, the first individual, and it is relayed once again back to the second individual. The second individual continues to NOT receive the message, the communication, and is merely paying attention to the signal.

The signal thusly becomes more intense, and the individual experiencing this unreceived message or communication and the continuation of the signal turns that signal into an expression of energy which is created in the form of a type of weapon, so to speak, to themselves, for they begin to block their own energy. They begin to discount themselves. They begin a lack of acceptance of self, devaluing their experience and their worth, and denying their choice, holding themselves in the position of merely continuing the signal.”


Elias goes on to say that one of the individuals in this example may stop the emotional signal, but because he/she didn’t receive the communication the signal will arise again, but in a different scenario. We constantly provide ourselves with communications to familiarize us with ourselves, but if we don’t pay attention, the same communication will be repeated over and over in infinitely creative ways. So, pay attention to the mirrors and reflections, for they are the movie screens upon which we project our individual communications.
Bill Marshall
Mirrors and Reflections

If each of us individually creates our own reality then Everything is either a reflection or a mirror action. Definition Alert! Definition Alert! When someone, something or some action is a mirror it is telling us that it/they are projecting the same energy you are projecting. If you are angry and the person you’re engaged with is angry then that person is a mirror for you and you are a mirror for them. Most of the time, however, what we interact with is a reflection. We present ourselves reflections to allow us to notice ourselves and how we respond. The problem is, we don’t notice because of our intense belief in cause and effect. Our attention is rarely on ourselves. In a reflection a person may be projecting anger to you, but you do not project anger back; you merely present yourself an opportunity to receive that energy and choose how you respond. If you respond automatically with anger it becomes a mirror action.

Ronnie is a pro-Bush right-winger and Bonnie is an anti-Bush left-winger. Now I know you’re going to assign good and bad labels to Ronnie and Bonnie depending upon your own preferences and opinions, but try to hold them at bay. This is called acceptance. Ronnie and Bonnie wind up sharing a table at Starbucks and begin a conversation about their political views. Unbeknownst to Ronnie, Bonnie has been reading my blogs and understands that her beliefs represent her truths, but they are not cosmic truths, and therefore are not absolutes. As their discussion progresses Ronnie’s blood pressure rises. Having not read my blogs (or any of the Seth and Elias material) he holds his beliefs as absolutes, and if Bonnie disagrees then she must be anti-American, anti-family and, of course, anti-values. His anger rises and he moves into competition mode trying to “win over” Bonnie to his point of view.

Bonnie, knowing her positions are not absolutes, is not trying to sway Ronnie. She merely shares her opinions and preferences and in so doing is in cooperation mode. Definition Alert! Definition Alert! As Elias put is: “cooperation is not teamwork! Cooperation is not what other individuals can do to acquiesce to you. Cooperation is what YOU can choose to allow yourself to continue your own direction and to continue with your own guidelines, uninterrupted by other individuals’ choices or expressions or behaviors, and not expecting other individuals to change what they express.”

Bonnie accepts (non-judgment) Ronnie’s positions without changing her own or attempting to get Ronnie to see the “rightness” of her point of view. Ronnie is a reflection for Bonnie because she is not matching his projected anger. Since she is open and accepting of both herself and Ronnie, his energy is buffered and flows through easily. Bonnie configured Ronnie’s energy through her perception similarly to the way it was projected, but through her acceptance it felt nothing like it does in The Forgotten Self’s world. Bonnie drew Ronnie’s energy as an exercise to view how she takes it in. It was a reflection. Her attention remained on herself and Ronnie, and so no automatic response was triggered. In this case the automatic response might be anger and competition as we saw with Ronnie. Bonnie doesn’t see this as a mirror action because she has not engaged her automatic responses (automatic responses are without thought) and remains in cooperation with Ronnie.

But Ronnie is another story. His interaction with Bonnie is also a reflection, an opportunity to view his own responses. Ronnie, however is on autopilot. His truths are solidified as absolutes. You know the thinking: “The world would be a better place if everyone thought as I do.” He is so used to judging differences he cannot see Bonnie’s point of view as simply being another way of being.He views his truths as absolutes, which makes him non-accepting and eliminates choice.
Bill Marshall
To Create or to Co-Create, That is the Question.

To create or to co-create; that is the question. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? Shakespeare was on to something; or at least he was on the trail to something. By now you must be aware that I am making a case for creating ALL of your reality, which means you’re not a victim; there are no accidents, no coincidences, no invasions by mindless germs. If it happens to me I did it. If you hit me over the head with a 2x4, I did it. If I’m stung by a wasp, I did it. Me, me, me; not you, you, you. And it’s all done through our beliefs (not thought) and the projection of our perception.

Most of my life, however, was spent believing that I created some things, but not all things. If I wanted a can of refried beans I went to the store and bought some, but I certainly didn’t create the beans. If I chose to drive down a country road I knew it was my choice, but if a deer jumped into the road it was the deer’s idea, not mine. Stupid deer! If someone lifted my wallet and stole my identity it sure wasn’t my choice. Damn thief!! In a way I miss not blaming anyone or anything anymore. It’s a habit most of the human race has grown fond of. It sort of takes us off our own hook, ya know. At first glance it appears so much easier to cast a wide net of blame, but the problem lies in our need to cast the net over and over, ad infinitum. When we finally realize we do it all then maybe we’ll begin to spend some time figuring out how it is we do it. (read my blogs)

Many folks that are familiar with the reams of information about creating one’s own reality bandy the term “co-create” around as though someone or something else is helping each one of us create our individual realities. Each of us may participate in an event with another individual or in a mass event such as the 2005 Tsunami, but the actual physical creation is done individually. The co-creation goes back to my posts on agreements and choices. In an event as powerful as the Tsunami that rocked the lands bordering the Indian Ocean there was an agreement within consciousness (that’s all of us) to have the event take place. That’s it! We didn’t all pool our collective energies and raise an arc of darkness 1600 kilometers long called the Sunda Trench, where the Indo-Australian tectonic plate slowly slips beneath the Burma plate and create a Tsunami. We agreed to have one and then each individual created their own. There wasn’t one Tsunami that each individual perceived differently. It wasn’t a co-created Tsunami. It was an agreed upon Tsunami, but the creation of it was individual.

So, what we call co-creating is in actuality an agreement made in a different area of consciousness. It is not a pooled creation. It is a pooled agreement. When I look into the sky at night and see stars and planets and galaxies they are not co-created. I create them, just as you create yours. Consciousness is energy and is not a conglomeration of separate parts. It is a unity, but there are eddies within that unity. I, as an eddy, project my energy to you as an offering. You, also an eddy, through the projection of your perception configure my projected energy in any way you choose. Most often you configure it in the manner in which I projected it, which is why there is so often consensus on what we jointly experience. So, do we each create all of our reality? Yes. Is there co-creation? No, but there are infinite agreements.
Bill Marshall
Take a look at my book, The Forgotten Self US and UK
To Create or to Co-Create, That is the Question.

To create or to co-create; that is the question. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? Shakespeare was on to something; or at least he was on the trail to something. By now you must be aware that I am making a case for creating ALL of your reality, which means you’re not a victim; there are no accidents, no coincidences, no invasions by mindless germs. If it happens to me I did it. If you hit me over the head with a 2x4, I did it. If I’m stung by a wasp, I did it. Me, me, me; not you, you, you. And it’s all done through our beliefs (not thought) and the projection of our perception.

Most of my life, however, was spent believing that I created some things, but not all things. If I wanted a can of refried beans I went to the store and bought some, but I certainly didn’t create the beans. If I chose to drive down a country road I knew it was my choice, but if a deer jumped into the road it was the deer’s idea, not mine. Stupid deer! If someone lifted my wallet and stole my identity it sure wasn’t my choice. Damn thief!! In a way I miss not blaming anyone or anything anymore. It’s a habit most of the human race has grown fond of. It sort of takes us off our own hook, ya know. At first glance it appears so much easier to cast a wide net of blame, but the problem lies in our need to cast the net over and over, ad infinitum. When we finally realize we do it all then maybe we’ll begin to spend some time figuring out how it is we do it. (read my blogs)

Many folks that are familiar with the reams of information about creating one’s own reality bandy the term “co-create” around as though someone or something else is helping each one of us create our individual realities. Each of us may participate in an event with another individual or in a mass event such as the 2005 Tsunami, but the actual physical creation is done individually. The co-creation goes back to my posts on agreements and choices. In an event as powerful as the Tsunami that rocked the lands bordering the Indian Ocean there was an agreement within consciousness (that’s all of us) to have the event take place. That’s it! We didn’t all pool our collective energies and raise an arc of darkness 1600 kilometers long called the Sunda Trench, where the Indo-Australian tectonic plate slowly slips beneath the Burma plate and create a Tsunami. We agreed to have one and then each individual created their own. There wasn’t one Tsunami that each individual perceived differently. It wasn’t a co-created Tsunami. It was an agreed upon Tsunami, but the creation of it was individual.

So, what we call co-creating is in actuality an agreement made in a different area of consciousness. It is not a pooled creation. It is a pooled agreement. When I look into the sky at night and see stars and planets and galaxies they are not co-created. I create them, just as you create yours. Consciousness is energy and is not a conglomeration of separate parts. It is a unity, but there are eddies within that unity. I, as an eddy, project my energy to you as an offering. You, also an eddy, through the projection of your perception configure my projected energy in any way you choose. Most often you configure it in the manner in which I projected it, which is why there is so often consensus on what we jointly experience. So, do we each create all of our reality? Yes. Is there co-creation? No, but there are infinite agreements.
Bill Marshall
Take a look at my book, The Forgotten Self US and UK
Square Pegs In Round Holes

The Strange Case of Stigmata
Imagine, if you will, shopping at your favourite mall. You find a blouse you know will go perfectly with your new skirt. As you hand the sales clerk your credit card, holes begin forming in the palms of both hands and blood drips onto the glass countertop. This is the stuff of horror films, because it completely shatters our worldview. If it cannot be rationally explained it becomes one of those ‘little things’ that we choose to ignore. Our view of reality is not large enough to hold it. The phenomenon of stigmata cannot happen to us, because we don’t have the strong belief that would allow it to happen. It seems only to happen to those with strong religious beliefs, beliefs powerful enough to override the prevailing beliefs of the holder.

St. Francis of Assisi was the first to display the wounds of the crucifixion in his hands. Hundreds since then have also spontaneously displayed the wounds in various places in their hands and feet. This is an exceptionally well-documented phenomenon and is freely acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church. The interesting point about stigmata is that the holes form in the hands and not in the wrists. In all of the old paintings of the crucifixion from the eighth century on, the spikes are driven through Jesus' hands, although recent research indicates that this placement would not have held the body. Additionally, archaeologists have unearthed crucified bodies with the spikes driven through the wrists; the only location that could support the slumping weight of the body. Stigmata occurred in the hands because that is where St. Francis and others believed the spikes were driven. If stigmata were ‘God-given’ one would expect the wounds to appear in the wrists. Stigmata are less a miracle than it is a sudden manifestation of a powerful belief.

Gemma Galgani, an Italian stigmatic, had wounds that were an exact replica of her favourite crucifix. As with all stigmatics the open wounds never decayed or became infected. What becomes of our belief in the harmful effects of bacteria, or are we really only victims of our own beliefs? St. Veronica Giuliani, an 18th-century stigmatic, could open and close, on command, a large severe wound in her side at the same location the ancient artists depicted Jesus’ spear wound. Theresa Neumann, a renowned stigmatic, had blood flowing from her hand and foot wounds exactly as the blood would have flowed had she been nailed to a cross, that is, across the palms and not down the fingertips, and down the foot and over the toes. This occurred even when she was laying down, which meant her blood had to flow uphill. What happened to gravity? It is not as though these incidents have been falsely reported. They have been witnessed by thousands of people and documented by the Church. The evidence is piling up that these are not interventions by God, but rather manifestations of exceptionally strong beliefs; strong enough to overpower the prevailing belief. Could it be that Seth and Elias is right? Could it be that we create all of our reality based on our belief systems? If so, then we are at the point in our understanding where a baby takes its first step. We create, but we are doing it unconsciously. We need to begin to unearth all those beliefs that make us tick.

Paramahansa Yogananda, one of the first prominent yogis of India to come to the U.S. said, “whatever your powerful mind believes very intensely instantly comes to pass.” This is exactly what Seth says through Jane Roberts. We are enamoured by our own belief systems, and anything that resides outside the system is either a hoax or a miracle. St. Augustine said, “A miracle doesn't go against nature. It goes against what we believe of nature.” Put another way, Seth says, “Our beliefs about reality are not necessarily attributes of reality.”

Facts conform to our beliefs. It is not the other way around. As Meister Eckhard said, “God creates the whole world anew in each moment,” and in doing so it is no great trick to provide us with the evidence of every new belief that pops up. “But,” you say, “The evidence is there first and then we base our beliefs on the evidence.” Sorry, that’s small god stuff, not big God stuff. Big God has given us free will and as a belief (let’s call it a theory in this instance) occurs in the mind of just one scientist the evidence will be provided if the belief is strong enough. As more of us believe the theory, more evidence will appear. Stigmata and all other “miracles” can be understood in no other way.
Bill Marshall
Dewey, Louie and Control

The following example was derived from session 1404 of the Elias transcripts.
Louie is a control freak and so is his brother, Dewey. Their uncle Donald, who is a ducky kind of guy, has told them that despite appearances they are always in control. Louie has been feeling lately that he’d like to let go of his control issues as he suspects they are limiting him from creating what he wants. Realizing that Uncle Donald has been around the pond a few times he seeks his advice.

Uncle Donald questions Louie and finds that many times Louie wants to do what Dewey suggests, but he is so stuck in his attachment to control that he doesn’t do it because Dewy suggested it. Louie wants to feel connected to Dewy and to others, but the need to control blocks his desire. Uncle Donald has spoken to Louie before about this and reminds him that he has turned his belief in control into an absolute and has moved into incorporating that belief as a truth. Uncle Donald tells Louie that beliefs, in and of themselves, are not bad and that his truth – his belief in control – actually serves him well in many situations. Louie’s truths, not just the truth of control, have been chosen in alignment with his intent and value fulfillment and as such contain many of his preferences. Some of Louie’s expressions of control he will view as beneficial and some he will view as limiting.

Uncle Donald reminds Louie that certain behaviors of his, such as planning, being aware of his goals, organization and general movement throughout his day , Louie finds as beneficial and that he should not just try to shitcan (Uncle Donald is a colorful guy) the belief. Donald reinforces the idea that Louie’s beliefs, especially his truths, are not his enemy. He tells Louie it is not the belief itself (control) that creates his problem, but rather how he manipulates energy that is associated with this belief in control. Louie needs to pay attention to what his belief in control influences, like not implementing Dewey’s suggestion simply because Dewey suggested it. This would be a negative influence of the belief and as such Louie could choose differently in the moment it arises if he pays attention to himself.

Uncle Donald tells Louie that he does not create Dewey’s reality; but that he does create his own reality. In this, Louie has choices whenever he interacts, not only with Dewy, but with any other individual. Louie looks confused and so Uncle Donald tells him that Dewey projects his energy toward Louie, but since Louie creates his own reality he can do whatever he wants with Dewey’s projected energy. This includes reconfiguring Dewey’s energy in any way that aligns with Louie’s preferences. When Louie projects his attention to Dewey, who is projecting control, and Louie’s energy is also projected in control then Louie is setting up an expectation that he wants to control Dewey. This, Uncle Donald tells him, sets him up for disappointment for he does not create Dewey’s reality. Louie only creates his own reality. Louie’s only action is how he RECEIVES Dewey’s projected energy, for he cannot determine or control how Dewey will project. That is Dewey’s choice.

What IS Louie’s choice is how he receives Dewey’s projected energy. How he receives it will determine how Louie responds to Dewey. Louie tells his uncle that he experiences Dewey as trying to control or maneuver him, but he fights it because it is he who wants to control and maneuver Dewey. Uncle Donald asks Louie what he wants in the moment that Dewey is projecting his energy. Louie replies that he wants Dewey to stop being so bossy, but even more than that he wants a real interaction where they flow freely. Uncle Donald reminds Louie that it is he who creates his own reality and that it is he who has the choice to manipulate Dewey’s projected energy in any way he desires. This is his REAL control.

Uncle Donald then tells Louie that the way he can create a free flowing interaction with Dewey begins with a genuine appreciation of both himself and Dewey. Louie doesn’t have to appreciate what Dewey is projecting, for often he is projecting control, which Louie doesn’t like. Appreciation, Donald reminds Louie, is a component of Love, where each individual appreciates the reality of the other and that although their directions in life may be different they are both of Essence and as such are connected. On a more practical level Donald tells Louie that in the moment he begins to feel conflict with Dewey he should move his attention to notice just one thing that he appreciates about Dewey and himself. He should then express that appreciation, which will reconfigure the energy. The appreciation moves Louie’s attention and it alters his perception. Since perception projects our reality, then reality itself is altered.

As Louie allows Dewey’s energy to approach, he holds it at a distance because he rejects it. He perceives Dewey’s energy as a command that requires him to respond in a certain manner. Louie therefore blocks the projected energy of Dewey and doesn’t allow himself to receive or RECONFIGURE the energy. To receive Dewey’s energy, Uncle Donald tells him, he must be open to it, or as Donald describes it, Louie must be exposed. Louie feels this would be a negative aspect of his truth or his belief in control. Exposure to Louie means giving up control. Donald corrects Louie by telling him that in order to receive energy he must be open to it or otherwise Louie creates a shield. Rather than becoming a window, Louie’s energy field becomes a shield. He can't reconfigure energy he is not open to receiving.

Individuals naturally repel any projected energy that acts as a command to do something they either want to do or don’t want to do, especially if control is one of their truths. This is because every individual knows in the deepest part of themselves that they absolutely Do direct their own actions. Conflict arises when an individual allows another to direct their choices. When this happens Louie reacts rather than evaluates. Uncle Donald gives Louie an example of how he would probably react to Dewey if Dewey suggested they go for a walk in the woods. “I can picture it now,” Donald says. There you would be, wanting to walk in the woods with Dewey, but saying to yourself, “I must be in control. I’m not going to allow Dewey to suggest anything that I want to do. If any suggesting is going to be made, it’s going to be made by me. I refuse to enjoy the woods with Dewey even though it causes me conflict not to do so.” Louie laughs because he knows Uncle Donald is right on the mark.

Even though Dewey offered the invitation in genuine affection, Louie didn’t take it in that way. There are other times that Dewey is being commanding, but not this time. Donald reminds Louie to be aware of his own energy and how Dewey’s energy is being projected. Is it genuine or is it commanding? The main indicator, however, is Louie’s own energy. If Louie notices twinges that trigger the onset of conflict, irritation or anxiety then these are the indicators that he is generating some expression within himself. It is this internal expression that Louie needs to evaluate. It is this evaluation that will provide Louie with the information necessary to determine what he is responding to within himself and also give him a clearer picture of the energy that Dewey projects. Louie’s freedom lies in his paying attention to himself, for it is always energy that he responds to, his own and Dewey’s.

Finally Uncle Donald reminds Louie that he is a young man of great passion and holds the capacity for connected interaction and affection. He tells Louie to drop his shield and to expose himself, for in his exposure lies his freedom. The exposure allows free expression, and in that open energy, which is projected outward, it will be recognized by others. They wish the same openness and freedom, and naturally draw themselves to those that express it.
Bill Marshall

P.S. I encourage you to take a look at my new book, The Forgotten Self. You can check it out in either the UK or the US.
Dewey, Louie and Control

The following example was derived from session 1404 of the Elias transcripts.
Louie is a control freak and so is his brother, Dewey. Their uncle Donald, who is a ducky kind of guy, has told them that despite appearances they are always in control. Louie has been feeling lately that he’d like to let go of his control issues as he suspects they are limiting him from creating what he wants. Realizing that Uncle Donald has been around the pond a few times he seeks his advice.

Uncle Donald questions Louie and finds that many times Louie wants to do what Dewey suggests, but he is so stuck in his attachment to control that he doesn’t do it because Dewy suggested it. Louie wants to feel connected to Dewy and to others, but the need to control blocks his desire. Uncle Donald has spoken to Louie before about this and reminds him that he has turned his belief in control into an absolute and has moved into incorporating that belief as a truth. Uncle Donald tells Louie that beliefs, in and of themselves, are not bad and that his truth – his belief in control – actually serves him well in many situations. Louie’s truths, not just the truth of control, have been chosen in alignment with his intent and value fulfillment and as such contain many of his preferences. Some of Louie’s expressions of control he will view as beneficial and some he will view as limiting.

Uncle Donald reminds Louie that certain behaviors of his, such as planning, being aware of his goals, organization and general movement throughout his day , Louie finds as beneficial and that he should not just try to shitcan (Uncle Donald is a colorful guy) the belief. Donald reinforces the idea that Louie’s beliefs, especially his truths, are not his enemy. He tells Louie it is not the belief itself (control) that creates his problem, but rather how he manipulates energy that is associated with this belief in control. Louie needs to pay attention to what his belief in control influences, like not implementing Dewey’s suggestion simply because Dewey suggested it. This would be a negative influence of the belief and as such Louie could choose differently in the moment it arises if he pays attention to himself.

Uncle Donald tells Louie that he does not create Dewey’s reality; but that he does create his own reality. In this, Louie has choices whenever he interacts, not only with Dewy, but with any other individual. Louie looks confused and so Uncle Donald tells him that Dewey projects his energy toward Louie, but since Louie creates his own reality he can do whatever he wants with Dewey’s projected energy. This includes reconfiguring Dewey’s energy in any way that aligns with Louie’s preferences. When Louie projects his attention to Dewey, who is projecting control, and Louie’s energy is also projected in control then Louie is setting up an expectation that he wants to control Dewey. This, Uncle Donald tells him, sets him up for disappointment for he does not create Dewey’s reality. Louie only creates his own reality. Louie’s only action is how he RECEIVES Dewey’s projected energy, for he cannot determine or control how Dewey will project. That is Dewey’s choice.

What IS Louie’s choice is how he receives Dewey’s projected energy. How he receives it will determine how Louie responds to Dewey. Louie tells his uncle that he experiences Dewey as trying to control or maneuver him, but he fights it because it is he who wants to control and maneuver Dewey. Uncle Donald asks Louie what he wants in the moment that Dewey is projecting his energy. Louie replies that he wants Dewey to stop being so bossy, but even more than that he wants a real interaction where they flow freely. Uncle Donald reminds Louie that it is he who creates his own reality and that it is he who has the choice to manipulate Dewey’s projected energy in any way he desires. This is his REAL control.

Uncle Donald then tells Louie that the way he can create a free flowing interaction with Dewey begins with a genuine appreciation of both himself and Dewey. Louie doesn’t have to appreciate what Dewey is projecting, for often he is projecting control, which Louie doesn’t like. Appreciation, Donald reminds Louie, is a component of Love, where each individual appreciates the reality of the other and that although their directions in life may be different they are both of Essence and as such are connected. On a more practical level Donald tells Louie that in the moment he begins to feel conflict with Dewey he should move his attention to notice just one thing that he appreciates about Dewey and himself. He should then express that appreciation, which will reconfigure the energy. The appreciation moves Louie’s attention and it alters his perception. Since perception projects our reality, then reality itself is altered.

As Louie allows Dewey’s energy to approach, he holds it at a distance because he rejects it. He perceives Dewey’s energy as a command that requires him to respond in a certain manner. Louie therefore blocks the projected energy of Dewey and doesn’t allow himself to receive or RECONFIGURE the energy. To receive Dewey’s energy, Uncle Donald tells him, he must be open to it, or as Donald describes it, Louie must be exposed. Louie feels this would be a negative aspect of his truth or his belief in control. Exposure to Louie means giving up control. Donald corrects Louie by telling him that in order to receive energy he must be open to it or otherwise Louie creates a shield. Rather than becoming a window, Louie’s energy field becomes a shield. He can't reconfigure energy he is not open to receiving.

Individuals naturally repel any projected energy that acts as a command to do something they either want to do or don’t want to do, especially if control is one of their truths. This is because every individual knows in the deepest part of themselves that they absolutely Do direct their own actions. Conflict arises when an individual allows another to direct their choices. When this happens Louie reacts rather than evaluates. Uncle Donald gives Louie an example of how he would probably react to Dewey if Dewey suggested they go for a walk in the woods. “I can picture it now,” Donald says. There you would be, wanting to walk in the woods with Dewey, but saying to yourself, “I must be in control. I’m not going to allow Dewey to suggest anything that I want to do. If any suggesting is going to be made, it’s going to be made by me. I refuse to enjoy the woods with Dewey even though it causes me conflict not to do so.” Louie laughs because he knows Uncle Donald is right on the mark.

Even though Dewey offered the invitation in genuine affection, Louie didn’t take it in that way. There are other times that Dewey is being commanding, but not this time. Donald reminds Louie to be aware of his own energy and how Dewey’s energy is being projected. Is it genuine or is it commanding? The main indicator, however, is Louie’s own energy. If Louie notices twinges that trigger the onset of conflict, irritation or anxiety then these are the indicators that he is generating some expression within himself. It is this internal expression that Louie needs to evaluate. It is this evaluation that will provide Louie with the information necessary to determine what he is responding to within himself and also give him a clearer picture of the energy that Dewey projects. Louie’s freedom lies in his paying attention to himself, for it is always energy that he responds to, his own and Dewey’s.

Finally Uncle Donald reminds Louie that he is a young man of great passion and holds the capacity for connected interaction and affection. He tells Louie to drop his shield and to expose himself, for in his exposure lies his freedom. The exposure allows free expression, and in that open energy, which is projected outward, it will be recognized by others. They wish the same openness and freedom, and naturally draw themselves to those that express it.
Bill Marshall

P.S. I encourage you to take a look at my new book, The Forgotten Self. You can check it out in either the UK or the US.