It might be the case that in the 'next dimension', the one into which we pass after our deaths, there are none of the sciences we know in this dimension – for example no biology, no physics, no chemistry or mathematics. Those sciences apply to our physical dimension and allow us to describe systematically what we observe here. Why would they apply elsewhere?
There may be none of the materials that make up our universe, none of the elements listed in The Periodic Table. No elements and no chemistry or physics means no water hence no ocean, no freezing hence no snow. I'll return to those later.
Many think of 'God' as the creator of all things. I prefer the word 'source'. It avoids the baggage associated with the word 'God'. In my book 'God' isn't the same as source. Source is exactly that – the source of all things. I can't define the source but it's often described as creative energy and that will do for now.
The source is pure, creative energy whatever that means in practice. It is eternal, unchanging, invariable. It is the source of every spirit that animates a living thing, emerging as particles of the source in a never-ending flow of individuated creator energy. At the same time, other particles are continually returning after their long odyssey, each re-merging with the source. A cycle of emergence, progression and eventual return.
The source is eternal – it has always existed and will always exist. I'd guess most of us can't visualise what eternity means in practical terms, even if we can manage to mentally grasp the concept. We think and speak about past, present and future but those notions just help us describe sequences of events in our everyday lives. It's said that time doesn't apply outside of the physical dimension(s) and for me that makes sense. I'm less comfortable, though, without the concept of sequence; for example an effect occurring before its cause. This leads on to ideas about 'real'.
Take a look in a favourite dictionary. What are the definitions of 'real'? I'm guessing it talks about day-to-day issues but when we talk about what's real in spiritual terms we are probably thinking about our lives in this dimension compared to lives in other dimensions. Which life is 'real' and which is illusory? How do you know? While recently considering these points I was shown the following. First a simple circle and later an oval shape, an ellipse. Both of them two-dimensional, easy to drawn on a scrap of paper. Using a circle, the source and the physical dimension were shown at opposite ends of any diameter. Later it felt more appropriate to show them at opposite ends of an imaginary line joining the farthest points of an ellipse. I don't think either shape was any better than the other!
If a point at one end of the line represents the location of the source - eternal and unchanging - then at the other end is the physical dimension, unimaginably old if not exactly eternal. Changes there are governed by the scientific laws applying in that dimension. In any other dimension between those points – going in either direction round the periphery – changes can be brought about, to a lesser or greater degree, by the action of the imagination, or thoughts, of the individuals living in them.
One implication seemed to be that only the source and the physical are 'real', the former unable to be changed by the action of imagination or thoughts; the latter created by imagination and thoughts but unable to be changed later after its creation in such a way; only its scientific laws can bring about subsequent change. That would mean that all the dimensions encountered after leaving the source and before reaching the physical could be considered as 'not real' because they are malleable or changeable to thought. And all the dimensions experienced after leaving the physical, and before re-merging with the source, are also 'not real', again being malleable or changeable.
Can that really be the case when so many discarnates have declared they live in a world that's as solid and real to them as ours is to us? Might the many states of being – dimensions – between source and physical be real and solid too? How does science affect such consideration?
As suggested earlier, we know about only the sciences of the physical dimension(s) and those scientific laws may not apply elsewhere. Perhaps there are no equivalents in other dimensions? We don't understand anything about the mechanisms involved in creating or changing the environment of the various etheric worlds, locally or 'globally'.
The elements that make up the materials found in the physical may not be found elsewhere. We live in a world where water is hugely important. It supports most forms of life in some way. Water is made up of two elements chemically combined. It could be claimed that in the etheric dimensions there are no elements hence there is no water. No water means no oceans, no evaporation from oceans means no clouds hence no weather, no rain, no water cycle, no living creatures or plant life dependent on all of them. And without water there can be no snow. But what if the elements we know about actually can be found in the many so-called afterlife dimensions? Governed by scientific laws that are simply different from those found in the physical? With different laws operating, perhaps something-like-snow might be created when something-like-water is something-like-frozen in something-like-high-altitude clouds conditions? Perhaps there are analogues in the etheric of all the processes that create the conditions we know in the physical? With oceans, seas, mountains, plants and trees etc. at least as abundant there as here, their existence governed by scientific laws local to that dimension
.Perhaps in the next dimension(s) conditions are no more 'real' or solid than they are here, with life in the physical not illusory at all but simply experienced differently? Maybe in the etheric our heightened perception of very different environments leads some to report that life there is 'real' whereas that in the physical is illusory? Is that all there is to that particular argument?
Whatever the true nature of reality it appears that in the next dimension (at least) its inhabitants can affect their environment. It may only be a localised effect until an individual's spiritual stature has evolved to the point where a bigger effect can be achieved. Someone recently passed over might wish to create a familiar-looking home and garden for example. Whether that would be a 'bricks and mortar' structure made by manipulating solid materials to create a near-permanent structure I can't figure. Or whether the effect would be ephemeral, lasting only as long as the individual's thoughts/imagination held the effect in existence. Potentially there is an opportunity to even hand-craft materials but I have yet to hear such a theory confirmed. Larger-scale objects such as mountains and seas may be examples of a number of naturally-occurring environments, similar to those found in the physical and just as slowly changing.
BUT if the suggestions in the last few paragraphs are wrong then perhaps both small-scale and large-scale effects are not as solid or 'real' as we imagine? Might it be that illusions of large-scale, shared environments, meant for communal enjoyment, were created by the collective imaginations of spiritually evolved entities? Mountains covered in snow. Oceans vast and wide. Forests thick with all manner of trees. Deserts filled with amazing cactuses. Those attracted by such environments might 'tune in' to the frequencies of the illusions and experience them just as if they were solid objects. Smaller-scale changes brought about by our individual thoughts/imagination might help us acclimatise to the conditions of the etheric world. None of them made from solid materials but all the outcome of thought/imagination acting in a way we can barely guess at.
There may be none of the materials that make up our universe, none of the elements listed in The Periodic Table. No elements and no chemistry or physics means no water hence no ocean, no freezing hence no snow. I'll return to those later.
Many think of 'God' as the creator of all things. I prefer the word 'source'. It avoids the baggage associated with the word 'God'. In my book 'God' isn't the same as source. Source is exactly that – the source of all things. I can't define the source but it's often described as creative energy and that will do for now.
The source is pure, creative energy whatever that means in practice. It is eternal, unchanging, invariable. It is the source of every spirit that animates a living thing, emerging as particles of the source in a never-ending flow of individuated creator energy. At the same time, other particles are continually returning after their long odyssey, each re-merging with the source. A cycle of emergence, progression and eventual return.
The source is eternal – it has always existed and will always exist. I'd guess most of us can't visualise what eternity means in practical terms, even if we can manage to mentally grasp the concept. We think and speak about past, present and future but those notions just help us describe sequences of events in our everyday lives. It's said that time doesn't apply outside of the physical dimension(s) and for me that makes sense. I'm less comfortable, though, without the concept of sequence; for example an effect occurring before its cause. This leads on to ideas about 'real'.
Take a look in a favourite dictionary. What are the definitions of 'real'? I'm guessing it talks about day-to-day issues but when we talk about what's real in spiritual terms we are probably thinking about our lives in this dimension compared to lives in other dimensions. Which life is 'real' and which is illusory? How do you know? While recently considering these points I was shown the following. First a simple circle and later an oval shape, an ellipse. Both of them two-dimensional, easy to drawn on a scrap of paper. Using a circle, the source and the physical dimension were shown at opposite ends of any diameter. Later it felt more appropriate to show them at opposite ends of an imaginary line joining the farthest points of an ellipse. I don't think either shape was any better than the other!
If a point at one end of the line represents the location of the source - eternal and unchanging - then at the other end is the physical dimension, unimaginably old if not exactly eternal. Changes there are governed by the scientific laws applying in that dimension. In any other dimension between those points – going in either direction round the periphery – changes can be brought about, to a lesser or greater degree, by the action of the imagination, or thoughts, of the individuals living in them.
One implication seemed to be that only the source and the physical are 'real', the former unable to be changed by the action of imagination or thoughts; the latter created by imagination and thoughts but unable to be changed later after its creation in such a way; only its scientific laws can bring about subsequent change. That would mean that all the dimensions encountered after leaving the source and before reaching the physical could be considered as 'not real' because they are malleable or changeable to thought. And all the dimensions experienced after leaving the physical, and before re-merging with the source, are also 'not real', again being malleable or changeable.
Can that really be the case when so many discarnates have declared they live in a world that's as solid and real to them as ours is to us? Might the many states of being – dimensions – between source and physical be real and solid too? How does science affect such consideration?
As suggested earlier, we know about only the sciences of the physical dimension(s) and those scientific laws may not apply elsewhere. Perhaps there are no equivalents in other dimensions? We don't understand anything about the mechanisms involved in creating or changing the environment of the various etheric worlds, locally or 'globally'.
The elements that make up the materials found in the physical may not be found elsewhere. We live in a world where water is hugely important. It supports most forms of life in some way. Water is made up of two elements chemically combined. It could be claimed that in the etheric dimensions there are no elements hence there is no water. No water means no oceans, no evaporation from oceans means no clouds hence no weather, no rain, no water cycle, no living creatures or plant life dependent on all of them. And without water there can be no snow. But what if the elements we know about actually can be found in the many so-called afterlife dimensions? Governed by scientific laws that are simply different from those found in the physical? With different laws operating, perhaps something-like-snow might be created when something-like-water is something-like-frozen in something-like-high-altitude clouds conditions? Perhaps there are analogues in the etheric of all the processes that create the conditions we know in the physical? With oceans, seas, mountains, plants and trees etc. at least as abundant there as here, their existence governed by scientific laws local to that dimension
.Perhaps in the next dimension(s) conditions are no more 'real' or solid than they are here, with life in the physical not illusory at all but simply experienced differently? Maybe in the etheric our heightened perception of very different environments leads some to report that life there is 'real' whereas that in the physical is illusory? Is that all there is to that particular argument?
Whatever the true nature of reality it appears that in the next dimension (at least) its inhabitants can affect their environment. It may only be a localised effect until an individual's spiritual stature has evolved to the point where a bigger effect can be achieved. Someone recently passed over might wish to create a familiar-looking home and garden for example. Whether that would be a 'bricks and mortar' structure made by manipulating solid materials to create a near-permanent structure I can't figure. Or whether the effect would be ephemeral, lasting only as long as the individual's thoughts/imagination held the effect in existence. Potentially there is an opportunity to even hand-craft materials but I have yet to hear such a theory confirmed. Larger-scale objects such as mountains and seas may be examples of a number of naturally-occurring environments, similar to those found in the physical and just as slowly changing.
BUT if the suggestions in the last few paragraphs are wrong then perhaps both small-scale and large-scale effects are not as solid or 'real' as we imagine? Might it be that illusions of large-scale, shared environments, meant for communal enjoyment, were created by the collective imaginations of spiritually evolved entities? Mountains covered in snow. Oceans vast and wide. Forests thick with all manner of trees. Deserts filled with amazing cactuses. Those attracted by such environments might 'tune in' to the frequencies of the illusions and experience them just as if they were solid objects. Smaller-scale changes brought about by our individual thoughts/imagination might help us acclimatise to the conditions of the etheric world. None of them made from solid materials but all the outcome of thought/imagination acting in a way we can barely guess at.
