₦airaland Forum

Mad_Max:
Your humility is disarming, Buzzzzzzz. Darwin isn't here, and neither is the Evolution Oracle, so anything anyone says is just their opinion and nothing more.

What's the point you're making, Justcool? Adaptation is not evolution, and so. . .?? What's your line of thought?
And why do you believe evolution necessarily means a change of species? If humans adapted to external changes over a period of time, that somehow translates them into a new, non-human species or something? We'll just get embroiled in semantics again over the word 'species', because you might be referring to some of the staggering physical changes to a species over time that gives it a different appearance and new gadgetry from its ancestors. But this doesn't apply to all species. Bacteria still look the same, because for millions of years there's been few threats to their survival they needed to adapt to.

We share 90% of, is it our genetic make-up?, with our simian ape friends in the forest, but we aren't tagged the same 'species'. There seems to be a staggering biological similarity and inter-relatedness among living things on the planet. A common ancestor may give rise to diverse biological offsprings that look dissimilar down the line from responses to different factors, from different adaptations, much like we look nothing like the Chinese, and they look nothing like occidentals. Diifferences among some animals may be even more startling than that, though they share the same ancestry. The tags we give to animals ('species'/class/kingdom/human/ animal/ mammal/,etc) have more to do with the human necessity to put things in boxes and categories than any real biological differences among many of these 'species'.

@madmax
Point taken and thank you. I have my reservations but further arguments will get us no where. However, I acknowledge and respect your views.

Buzzzzzzzz:
Ah. My two cents quickly again.

@Justcool. I do not think tanning is adaptation per se. It is just reaction. White folks get tanned in their part of the world. Even black people get tanned. It is just skin burning and has nothing to do with melanin production or withdrawal.

Tanning is adaptation. This is all I will say to you. There is no need for long arguments, we live in the age of information.

Buzzzzzzzz:
Also you seem to have an idea that evolution must involve physical changes as in limbs and organs etc but this, I think, is incorrect. Evolution may simply be a permanent change in behaviour.

Again, you seem to believe that ALL members of a specie evolve exactly the same way. I do not think so. I think perhaps certain group might develop a different way to adapt or ultimately evolve from another group. This is why we have different breeds of basically the same specie.

The above is yours, you did not get that from my posts. You draw such conclusions from my posts beats me. If you can quote where I said or suggested the above, it will help us a lot; for then I will further explain what I meant.

Buzzzzzzzz:
Lastly you said something about traits not being imprinted in the genes. I also think this is incorrect because adaptation and ultimately evolution can only proceed through experience and this experience can only be passed on to offspring by the genes. What I think happens is that, when an unfavourable change occurs, be it in the form of a new predator or climate change or a new parasite or pathogen, a small code is made by the suffering creature and possibly with a way to tackle the problem. This code is recessive and when new offspring emerge they are not affected by the code. Later they experience the same things themselves and they add information to this code. This process continues for millions of years till the code is robust enough for it to come to fore and a change takes place in the organism. This is just my own theory though.

I never said that all traits are not imprinted in the genes. Once again I wonder how you draw these conclusions from my posts. Their is a type of adaptation called 'Acclimation' which only involves acquired traits that do not involve the genes and hence not passed down to the offspring.

Buzzzzzzzz:
So in conclusion, Justcool, I agree with the crux of your argument but not the way you make your point.

Point taken and thank you; but do I have to apologise for you not liking the way I make my point?

Buzzzzzzzz:
P.S. Everything I've said is my personal conjecture and I do not know anything for sure

Thanks for your honesty. I, personally, do not consider myself an authority in biological evolution. But it will help if we back our arguments by researches and discoveries done by authorities. We live in the age of information.

Thanks

Mad_Max:
I don't get your case, justcool. What's the point you're making? Adaptation is near-inseparable from evolution, and the question of their being the 'same thing' isn't one that should even have risen. It's like asking if a 'car' and the 'wheels of a car' are the same thing, since two words don't mean the same thing in auto-mechanics.

My point is simply that 'adaptation' and 'evolution' are not exactly the same, just like the wheels of a car is not the same with the car. I pointed this out because if you use instances where organism adapted to their environments as proofs of evolution, you argument will fall apart when your opponent points out to you that by adaptation the organisms have not changed species.
While, using adaptation as example of how organisms evolve is not a bad idea, but it is always necessary to point out that adaptation is not evolution itself but can lead to it.
I have seen religionists wallow in joy when they succeed in proving that adaptation does not lead to a new specie. Once this point is made, they think they have discredited the whole theory of evolution; what they don't realise is that adaptation is not necessarily evolution.
Also such labelling gives people the wrong impression of evolution. A lot of people have the wrong impresion of evolution, they think that it is something that happens within a lifetime like adaptation. Somebody once said that the reason why the wild life population is decreasing while the human life population is growing could be that the wild life is evolving into humans.

KAG:
If your case was that adaptation is a part of evolution - inseparable and often sharing the same processes as speciation - then yes, I suppose your case has been made.

You can say that adaptation is a part of evolution, just like a single step is a part of journey but not the same thing as the journey. "Insepareble," is not the right choice of words, because not all adaptations lead to evolution. An adaptation that does not involve the genes will not lead to evolution.
An example of such adaptation is "Acclimation" which only involves acquired traits and not the genes. Such adaptation can be temporal, yet it is still adaptation because it is a response to a change in the environment, in such cases when the environment returns to normal, the organism loses the acquired traits.

I will give an example, a whiteman living in Nigeria gets a tanned skin. This tanning of his skin is adaptation but not evolution. It has not affected his genes, and when he returns to Europe he loses the tan. And also, he cannot pass on this acquired trait(tanned skin) to his offsprigs because it has not affected his genes.

The type of adaptation that leads to evolution comes from transmited genetic variations which is preserved by natural selection. An amphibian, for example would not return back to being a fish just because it returned back to the water. This is because evolution has taken place; but a whiteman will quickly lose his tan on returning back to Europe, this is because no evolution has taken place.

Another difference is that evolution deals with a entire population over a larger period of time. It is impossible for an organism to evolve within a life time. Actually it is impossible for a single organism to evolve. A single organism can only adapt; and adaptation can take place in one lifetime.

Remember my analogy in my earlier post where I compared the relationship between adaptation and evolution to the relationship between a minute and a century.

KAG:
If I were to be asked that in a science exam, my answer would be:

There is a tangible difference only if the adaptation experienced by or within the species does not involve a change in the allele frequency of the population in question.

Thank you, and I rest my case.

Buzzzzzzzz:
I'm a reader here but I refrain from posting lest my throat be cut. I just need to drop my two cents quick.

Fact is a proven theory or simply a discovered fact. Laws are processes based on facts. Laws say that if this and this happens, this will occur. A law is not a fact or vice versa but laws are based on facts. Theories are processes based on some facts and educated guesses and conjecture. The reason why science is reluctant to label and box anything as fact and law any more is not because they aren't facts and laws but because they are facts and laws only under certain conditions. We cannot project all the possible conditions there can be and we thus box these facts and laws with a clause. The anomalous expansion of water. Superconductivity. The 'Special' theory of relativity. Absolute temperature. And a host of other similar things are good examples.

I have no probelm with the above, infact it is a good summery.

I think we have exhausted the issue of 'facts,' 'laws,' and 'theories.' I have nothing more to add to that.

@KAD
Evolution and Adaptation are not the same thing. There are no synonyms in science, each term has a different meaning.
In order not to make a long post, let me just ask you a question: If you asked in a science exam,

Is there any difference between evolution and adaptation?

What would your answer be. Please let me know.

Mad_Max:
Mantraa. So true. Kunle said he hasn't been shown a species evolving, but the thing is he's witnessed evolution and not known it. Many of us have. When we're innoculated against, say, smallpox, we aren't given a magic potion that kills the organism causing the disease. We're given the organism itself. It's introduced into our body, and our bodies evolve the necessary defences against it.

Microbes survived undisturbed and unchanged for billions of years. Until we discovered them recently. So we manufacture what kills them, antibiotics and other drugs. Now faced with a threat, these organisms start evolving a defence,until, after a while, we have a species of the organism immune to the threat, and which continues to thrive. We grab a few, put them under a microscope, study their defences, and come up with something stronger to kill them. They start evolving a defence again, and on and on.By the time this has gone on for a while, the organism would be begin to look and be very different from its original, undisturbed, un-evolved ancestors.The HIV virus is notorious for its slipperiness and ability to evolve a myriad of forms and defences, and they haven't figure out how to overcome that and kill the thing. They keep coming up with stronger and stronger antibiotics because these organisms evolve a defence against the threat in their environment, and start thriving again. Sometimes we get lucky and eradicate them all before they can evolve a defence. There are microbes that no longer exist in large parts of the world.

madmax my friend, what you described above is only adaptation and not evolution. A lot of people, including scientists, confuse adaptation with evolution.

What is the difference then?

Evolution deals with change of a species from one species to another, over a very long period of time. While adaptation is only a refinement of a species to better cope with the demands of its environment.

As long as the species remain the same species, evolution is out of the question; it is rather adaptation. No matter how much defense a bacteria develops against penicillin and antibodies, as long as it remains a bacteria, it has not scientifically speaking, evolved.

Some people use the word 'evolve' to mean 'develop', ie rather than saying that HIV developed resistance to AZT, they say that HIV evolved resistance to AZT. In a laymans terms, this is correct. But strictly speaking and in scientific terms, the word 'evolved' used in place of develop is not the theory of evolution.

Although it has been theorised that evolution is as a result of accumulated adaptations over millions of years; but is it still wrong to refer to adaptation as evolution.

Adaptation is a fact and not a theory; it is observable everyday and every creature does it. It does not necessarily validate the theory of evolution because by adaptation within a life time does not yield an entirely different specie.

One thing one has to keep in mind when talking about evolution is reproduction. Species are not usually able to mate with the species that they evolved from, ie fishes cannot mate with amphibians from which they evolved. Usually, if mating(reproduction) is still possible then a complete evolution have not taken place.

This is also why it is wrong to say that the white man(Europeans) evolved from the black man(Africans). There is no evolutionary difference between a whiteman and a blackman; the difference we see is only as a result of adaptation. The white man is adapted to the European environment, while the blackman is adapted to the African environment. They both belong to the same specie -- humans, and hence can successfully mate or reproduce. No human, however, can mate(reproduce) with primates because they are of different species.

The relation between evolution and adaptation is compereable to the relationship between a minute and a century. A minute represents adaptation, while a century represents evolution. You cannot say that since Mr 'A' has been living for two minutes, therefore he will definitely live a century. Mr 'A' may die after five minutes. Therefore you cannot say for sure that a particular creature is evolving into a different creature just because it adapted to a few changes in its environment.

It is imposible to observe 'evolution' in one life time. Its like trying to observe a century in one day. This is part of the reason why evolution remains a theory, and may forever remain a theory; I have pointed this out in my earlier posts.

The creature in question may be an 'end product,' not a transitional species. In millions of years to come, the creature may remain what it is, only that it more adapted to its environment(ie more refined). Believe it or not, some creatures have been on earth long enough to have evolved into a different creature, but they remained the same creature.

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?   

  In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01

Dear madmax,
The above is from PBS. Please give me any article written by an authority which discribs 'scientific theory' as facts. Simply stated, theories offer a possible explanation to facts; the theories themselves are not necessarily facts. They may or may not be facts; but once proven to be facts, they cease to be theories.

I will give an example: The death of Sani Abacha is a fact. The notion that he was killed by Viagra is a 'theory.' This is a theory that explains why he died; but as long as this theory has not been proven wrong or correct, it remains a theory. If however, one finds an irrefutable evidence that Abacha was killed by Viagra, then notion that he was killed by Viagra becomes a fact and no longer a theory. From this fact a law may manifest. The law maybe that "whoever takes 1000mg of Viagra will die witten 10 minutes."
This law cannever be falsified, no matter howmany times you try it it will always be true. You see how theories and laws work. Theories a educated hypothesis based on facts, they offer an explanation; while laws predict the behavior of obiects to mathematical acuracy, and therfore are facts.

The above(about Abacha) is just an illustration, don't take it literally. I am not suggesting that Viagra killed Abacha; I dont know what killed him.

Theories are not hypothesis the major difference is that hypotesis have not been undergone extensive testing. Hypothesis are just plausible explanations which have not been tested. If there were not facts backing the theory of evolution(ie if there were no fosills found that show gradual change), and if scientits have not tried to disprove the idea of evolution, then the idea of evolution would have been just a hypothesis.

I will give another example: Fossils have been discovered which can be arranged to portray a gradual transition one specie to another. This is a fact.
The idea that species evolve(the theory of evolution) is a theory based on the aforementioned fact(fossils). This will remain a theory it is proven, ie until species are observed evolving from another species. Due to the gradual nature of evolution, this may never be possible, ie it may never be possible for scientists to observe creatures evolve. Here I am talking of complete evolution like the evolution of amphibians from fishes; I am not talking about adaptation. 

Although evolution is very likely, it makes sense, it is supported by facts, and I personally believe in it, it is still, scientifically speaking, a theory. As long as their are still some missing links, it remains a theory. When all the ins and outs of evolution have been discovered and known by scientists, then evolution will no longer remain a theory; laws may emerge from it. Ie a law may emerge which states that "Under certain given conditions(Lets call this condition 'A'), and within a definet period of time(lets say 'Z' number of centuries) a perticuler creature(lets say a fish) will evlove into another creature(lets say an anphibian). With the theory, the way it is today, no one can decifer 'A' and 'Z' acurately. Nobody can make an acurate prediction bassed on the theory as it is today. Otherwise, scientisits would have known by now, with certainty what creatures will look like in one million years to come.

But is we are dealing with a 'law' then such prdictions would be possible. Ie scientists can predict the speed and position of an object in motion even in one one million years time, provided that certain conditions remain the same.

However, dear madmax, I do enjoy some of your intelligent inputs, and I don't want this issue of 'theory' and 'law' to deviate us from some of the issues that you raised in this thread. Once time presents itself, I will like to us to deal with the issue of cruelty and wastefulness of evolution which you pointed out.

mantraa:
From wikipedia

"Scientific laws
Main article: Scientific law

[b]There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. [/b]All theories and laws of science are discovered and adjusted, refined and improved as more knowledge is discovered. Just because something is called a law does not mean that it is 100% correct.

Ha !!!Ha Ha!!! I laugh at the bold part above!! I actually had to pause from my work to reply to this!
You cannot say that there is no certainty in science; it depends on what branch of science that you are talking about. In mathematics there is absolute certainty!!!!!.

The law of addition for example: 1+2=3 is absolutely exact. The answer is an absolute 3 and nothing else as long as you remain in the same base.

Theories are never proven correct even in mathematics. The thesis that people write during their PHD are theories, but not laws. If you say that all scientific theories are facts, then every scientific thesis written by a PHD holder is a fact!!!!

An example is the 'Theory of multiple intelligence,' by Dr Gardener of Howard university. He proposed this theory in 1972 and up till now scientists are still trying to prove it correct or disprove it. Once a theory is proven correct, it ceases to be a theory, and a 'Theorem'(in mathematics) or a 'Law' might arise from it.


I have to return to work, before I get fired.

thehomer:
Your feeling about my desire for a believers vs atheists battle is simply not true. I am more interested in getting across the reasons behind the theory of evolution than in debating whether or not anyone should believe in a God. That would not be useful on this particular thread.

I think you should also research into the difference between scientific theory and scientific law. Like I said before, in science, theories do not get promoted to laws. And like I've also pointed out, they serve different purposes. And are also quite distinct from a hypothesis.

Saying a theory cannot be proven correct indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of scientific theories. As a sort of generalization, a theory is meant to explain not just an occurrence but reasons behind it by connecting previously acquired facts, experiments etc. It can be falsified by evidence. But until such evidence is available, the theory continues to be valid.
A scientific law describes observed phenomena within some parameters and is usually mathematical.
As such, theories are more comprehensive than laws.

In science, there are no 100% proofs since, there isn't 100% knowledge.

Have a nice day at work.

mantraa:
From wikipedia

"Scientific laws
Main article: Scientific law

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."


There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. All theories and laws of science are discovered and adjusted, refined and improved as more knowledge is discovered. Just because something is called a law does not mean that it is 100% correct.

Since we are delving deeper into the issue, let me clarify a misconception that might have arisen from my statement that 'some theories may become laws'. This is a general statement; actually the law is contained within the theory. The only difference between a theory and a law is that the law predicts the behavior of an object to the exact mathematical accuracy based on a theory. Thus if a theory is found to be a fact, then a law arises from it which can never be falsified. The theory offers an explanation of the behavior; the law predicts the behavior. Therefore a law arises from a proven theory.

In science theories are never proven. If a theory is proven, then it will be used to predict the behavior, ie a law arises out of it.

In science there is nothing like a proven theory.

Give me articles written by authorities, and not wikepedia. Some articles in wikipedia are just bogus, any body can write an article for wikipedia. My uncle wrote one.

How I wish I have time to further clarify these things. I will give further clarifications once I get off work.

@Deepsight
I have always respected you but reading your submissions on this thread has taken my respect for you to a higher level. You should consider a carrier in science; the way your mind works you will make a brilliant scientist. You definition of 'facts' and 'theories' is very correct; facts cannever be found false, if this is done then they were never facts in the first place. Science is not literature where one word could mean many things; every scientific term has a specific meaning which may differ from the lay man's meaning.

@Madmax
You made very brilliant points too, but your make a big mistake when you try to offer scientific theories as facts. In science 'theories' are never proven to be correct; once a theory is proven to be correct it becomes a law. Facts or scientific laws will never be found lacking or false, if this is done then the issue in question was never a fact and will automatically demoted to a theory.

There is a difference between scientific law and scientific theory. The Newtons law of motion are laws; Einsteins theory of relativity is only a theory and not a law. 

@thehommer,
You still don't get it, and I have a felling that you want to get into 'believers verse atheists' battle. Its a pity that I dont have time now to answer you very well, but as soon as I have time I will answer you in detail. Research more on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. While some theories will always remain theories; some theories may become laws if they are proven to be correct, because technically speaking in science a theory cannever be proven correct.

@all
I will return with a detailed answer to thehomer, at the moment I have to rush to work.

@thehomer

thehomer:
On earth, a specie either keeps surviving and reproducing or it become extinct.
So could you please clarify what you mean by "end product"? Because to me "end product" implies all currently extant organisms not just humans.

By 'end product' I mean the goal of a process. A man building a car goes through the process of designing, collecting materials, planning, building and etc. The end product of this process is the car. Once this end product is achieved, the process of maintaining and refining the car commences; thus the process of building gives way to the process of maintenance.

Creatures on earth today are 'end products'; their evolution continues to refine them but not evolve them into another creature altogether; this has nothing to do with extinction. Billions of years after today, the fishes will always remain fishes, and humans will still remain humans and not have evolved into a different creature. Thus humans are an 'end product' in the journey of evolution and not just a stage in the journey. Stages in the journey of evolution are transitional species which evolve into a different specie over time or get extinct.

This is what I mean:

2. Does evolution proceed toward increasing complexity?   

  In the approximately 3.8 billion years since life originated on Earth, evolution has resulted in many complex organisms and structures. The human brain and stereoscopic eyes are just two examples. At the same time, simpler organisms like algae, bacteria, yeast, and fungi, which arose several billion years ago, not only persist but thrive. The presence of single-celled organisms alongside complex organisms like humans testifies to the fact that evolution within a given lineage does not necessarily advance toward increasing complexity. When more complex organs are advantageous, complex organs have arisen. Single-celled organisms, however, fill many roles, or niches, much better than any multicellular organism could, and so they remain in a relatively stable state of adaptation.
   Learn More
Is Intelligent Life Inevitable? 
   

  3. If fish became amphibians through the process of evolution, then why do fish still exist?   

  Fossil evidence clearly shows that amphibians descended from one group of ancient fishes whose thick, bony fins gradually evolved into limb-like appendages. Other species gave rise to the kinds of fish that inhabit oceans, lakes, and streams around the world today. Fish, like all living creatures, continue to evolve. This evolution is not toward a life on land, but instead toward successful use of the underwater environment. There are countless ecological opportunities under water, which is why fish still exist. When the earliest ancestors of modern amphibians left the water, they found many new opportunities on land. As amphibians and other land creatures diversified, however, fewer and fewer opportunities existed for newcomers.
Learn More

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html#Q01

This fact(exsistence of end products) goes to prove that evolution is a guided process, a process used to achieve an aim and not just a process that goes on by chance.


Thanks

@thehomer

Before we go deeper please read the following webpage. The webpage contains basic scientific information on evolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/


In science a Theory is never proven correct. A theory is open to changes and can be changed as more discoveries are made. Once a theory can be proven correct, proven to mathematical exactitude and cannever be proven wrong, such theory becomes a scientific law. Theories are just educated hypotheses.

The theory of evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Evolution deals with change of time, it deals with an entire population and not individual. In reality the theory does not offer the origin of life, neither does it deal with origin. It only deals with evolution(changes over a period of time) of organism. Evolution is simply a process. Creationism deals with the origin of life and not just man's life.

The theory of evolution does not deal with wheather life was created or not; neither does it deal with wheather there is a God or not. It does not disprove the existence of God neither does it disprove that man was created.

It all boils down to what one understand by 'created.' Things are created through a process.

People should stop using what they don't understand as a weapon. Wherever you see one using the theory of evolution to oppose creationism, there you see one who does not understand evolution . And also, those who use creationism and the Genesis story to discredit evolution simply do not understand creationism and the Genesis story.

Thanks

@thehomer
Your post shows gross misunderstanding of my entire post. You have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about.
If you had just pointed out the things that you don't agree with and had asked me to further clarify my points, I would gladly have done so; but rather, you appear as if you just want to ague. I do not wish to be dragged into round-and-round arguments that lack objectivity; neither will I ever allow myself to be dragged into 'believers versus non-believers' battle.
Re-read my post and try to understand it; it might help you to find out the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. and also find out the meaning of the expression 'end product.' The expression 'end product,' has nothing to do with extinction of a specie.

Thanks

Deep Sight:
This is another case.

You make it appear as though the physical body by itself is a separate being from the spirit and that it has its separate thought mechanism.

The physical body is completely separate from the Spirit, they belong to different species of creation. Yes the spirit and the physical body have different mechanism of expression.

Before I proceed, lets define what we mean "thoughts": By "thoughts" we mean that which is produced during brain activity. I know the word "thought" can mean different things; Here is exactly what I mean by "thoughts"  According to dictionary:

1.the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2.a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect ones thoughts.
3.the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
11.the intellectual activity or the ideas, opinions, etc., characteristic of a particular place, class, or time: Greek thought.

Thus by thinking I mean mental activity, or that which is generated through brain activity. By "Brain" I mean the physical organ in our heads though which we think.

I repeat each body --spiritual, animistic, ethereal, and physical-- has it mechanism of expressing or processing the volition which results from the spirit; or the impressions which comes from the outside.

Deep Sight:
I would have thought that the brain is A TOOL used by the spirit to apprehend the world around it.

For this reason my perception is that promptings come from the spirit and the brain is merely a tool for rationalizing existence in the physical world thereon

Yes the brain is a tool, even the whole physical body is a tool that is animated by the soul with its spiritual core. But this does not mean that everything that body does is directly controlled by the spiritual core. The physical body is a living tool and not just a dead tool like hammer. An airplane is a tool which man uses for transportation, but this does not mean that every movement of the airplane is contriled by man. The pilot can fall asleep in mid air or he can even leave the controls, the airplane will not stop on that account, it will continue moving. Only that it may now head towards distruction. The airplane represents the physical body; the movement of the airplane represents the intellect(thoughts production); while the pilot represents the spirit. Without the pilot the airplane cannot start moving by itself. But when the pilots fuels it and turns on the engine and accelerates, he gives the airplane the power to move. He has too keep alert and steer the airplane to the desired direction. But if he falls asleep the airplane will continue moving. Thus the human spirit which wears the body can fall asleep or become too indolent to control the intellect which will not stop producing thoughts on that account.

I will give another example, Imagine a ancient soldier riding a chariot which is pulled by a house. The horse is the soldiers tool. The soldier makes an impression on the house letting it know which direction to go; then the horse carries out the order by moving towards the direction. If the house is not well trained, it becomes a bad tool which will refuse to carry out the soldier's orders.  Here the horse represents the physical body while the soldier represents the spirit.

The spirit's volition makes an impression on the animisct, this impression of this voltion is sent to the brain through the ethereal body and astral. The back brain picks up this impression and sends it to the frontal brain(intelect) which is left to think out a way to bring about this volition in the physical ream.

The frontal brain receives impressions from both the back brain and the senses. What it receives from the senses(IE the eyes) it sends to the back brain which then transform it and send to the spirit via the astral, ethereal and animistic body.

It happened that mankind has made use of their frontal brain so much that it has grown out of proportion to the back brain. The working of the two brains are no longer as it should. Thus the frontal brain is now out of control and the back brain can no longer catch up with it. The impressions from the outside no longer reaches the spirit, and the promptings from the spirit is no longer recognised by the frontal brain, and thus no longer headed.

You now see why Christ said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

I will give you an example to illustrate how the spirit and brain work:

A human spirit gets filled with the volition help sick people; this volition arises inside the spirit and makes and impression on the back brain via the subtler cloaks, like I already explained. Once this impression reaches the frontal brain, it is left to the frontal brain(intelect) to decide how to implement this volition in the physical world. Thus this man may decide to go to school and become a doctor. He learns biology, calculus and etc; he becomes a doctor and starts to help sick people.

When he passes on(When the physical falls away--Death), he leaves everything he learnt(Calculus and etc) with his brain. All the intelectual learnings(Calculus and etc) will disintegrate along with his brian because they are gross material knowledge; intelect and thoughts, although refined still belong to gross matter. However this volition to help people is still in the spirit and has developed even more, due to this man working with sick people the spirit has learnt kindness and love. By having implented this volition in the physical realm, the spirit has sown seed which will grow, rippen and drops fruits on the spirit. By struggling to implement this volition, the volition grow strong in the spirit and bore many fuits. Thus what the spirit gained from being a doctor is love, kindness, patience and compassion for the sick. These are the impressions that can find thier way to the spirit not calculus and biology.

If this particular spirit reincarnates, he will exhibit love and compassion which he learnt from being a doctor but he will not know anything about calculus and biology, because he is now equipped with a new physical body and a new brain. Thus when he was thinking or memorising for his exams or when he is cracking his brain trying to solve calculus, it was not the spirit that was directly thinking or memorising calculus, rather it is the brain propelled by the spirit's volition to be a doctor and help people.

I another example: A man is filled with spiritual volition to worship God. This impression made by this volition, propels the frontal brain to decide that he goes to church and join the service. On his way to church the man sees a scantly dressed woman. This impression from the outside reaches the frontal brain and lust arises in this man. Now this man stands in-between these two compulsions. One from his spirit telling to go to church, the order from his senses telling him to chase after the woman. Due to the fact that he has become a slave to his instrument(his physical body), he negelects the promting of his spirit and chases after the woman.

Once again you see why, " the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

Much like the soldier riding a horse; if the horse(the soldier's tool for transport) is not well trained, and if the connection through which the soldier controls the horse is weak or distorted. In the middle of an important journey, the horse may see a pool of water and decide to stop and take a drink. Since the soldier is too indolent to control the unruly horse and the reins though which he controls the horse is distorted, the journey may never be made. Thus the soldier becomes a slave of his tool.

Dear deepsight, this is very easy to understand, just pay attention to your thoughts. You will hear your senses speaking through your intelect, and at the same time your will perceive your spirit speaking to you through your conscience.

The intelect is given to man so that man will be able to anchor his volition in the physical world. Success of a kind can only be achieved by the same kind. Thus the spirit cannot achieve success on the physical world directly, because spirit and physical are different species. The spirit needs the brain which is physical to achieve physical success.

You have to keep in mind that your physical body is alive, although animated by the power of your spirit. As a living thing it responds to stimulus from the outside, and it also receives stimulus from the soul. When you are hungry, automatically thoughts of food will fill your head; it is not your spirit that is hungry and the thoughts are induced by your hunger not by the impression of your spirit.

The spirit is always right; the intuitive perception can never be wrong, the spirit knows the will of God because the spirit is actually a part bearer of this will. If all the thoughts that our brain produce are from the prompting of our spirits, then men will never make any mistake. Mistake only arise when (1)There is distortion(overcutivation of the intellect-- the frontal brain no longer receives impressions from the spirit because of the deformity of the co-operation of the two brains), (2) Indolence of the spirit (The spirit is too lazy to make its volition known, and the intelect dominates). (3) Propensity(the spirit indulging in a particular vibration too much, has become a slave to the vibration)

Deep Sight:
Spirits have thoughts. Even God has thoughts.

If by thoughts" we mean the intelect, or the activity of the physical brain, then it is impossible for spirits without physical bodies to have thoughts as much as it is impossible for God to have thoughts.

If by "thoughts" you mean the ability to decide, to analyse and to perceive impressions from the outside, then disembodied spirits have "thoughts" But it is wrong to call these "thoughts," by thoughts we mean here is activity of the physical brain.

Deep Sight:
am at odds that you seek to state that the thoughts that a living man has are altogether a different thing from the thoughts of a disembodied spirit. In this regard let me very carefully say that the brain, in my view, is a mechanism for processing thoughts in the physical - and not necessarily the origin of the thoughts. The thoughts are intangible perceptions of the spirit.

I never stated that "the thoughts that a living man has are altogether a different thing from the thoughts of a disembodied spirit."
The spirit makes decisions which I call volitions. Volitions take form in the ethereal plane, animated by animistic substance. However for this volition to be carried out the physical world, it makes an impression in the brain like I explained. As the brain (weighs) thinks on how to accomplish this in the physical world, thoughts arises from the brain; these thoughts have forms(phantoms) too and operate in the planes of fine gross matter.

If the spirit is not wearing a physical body then thought forms(phantoms) will not arise; only the forms of volition would arise.

Thought forms can also arise without the promting of the spiritual core. The brain can generate thoughts due to outside stimulation and the senses. Thought forms are magnetic, they can influence an idle brain to generate thoughts of like nature. Much like floating signals can interfair with an idle CCTV and cause it to produce a corresponding picture. This happens when the camera that feeds the CCTV is turned off, or if the signal that the camera sends is too weak. This is a good randering of what happens with the spirit and brian. When the spirit is asleep or too indolent, the brian is at the mercy of thoughts forms which float around the planes of fine gross matter. Thus a man in America may end up comiting a crime that was thought-out by a man in Nigeria. It is not all the thoughts and promtings that arises in your brain are from the promptings your spirit. The idle mind is the devil's workshop.

Deep Sight:
In this i urge you to consider carefully the nature of dreams. I doubt that the brain could contrive dreams in an unconscious state without any prompting. The very fact that thoughts and pictures float about within the brain is enough evidence of the activity of the spirit - the consciousness of the spirit - the vitality and life with which the spirit dwells within the physical - using the brain as a tool for the apprehension of these things in the physical.

The brain remains active during sleep. Scientists have done many researches on this. Due to excessive mental activity, the brain continues racing even during sleep; just like a car in high speed continues acceleration even when the driver has taken his foot away from the accelerator. This is one of the reasons why people don't remember the experiences they have in the beyond when the soul leaves the physical body and sojorns in the beyond as often happens during sleep. The continued activity of the frontal brain interfairs with the pictures sent from the soul which has projected out of the physcal body during sleep.

It is not always the prompting of the spiritaul core of man that causes him to dream. If you fall asleep with your TV or radio on, while you are asleep your brain will interpret the sound that comes form the radio or TV and send it to you as pictures; Thus you will dream of it. Events around you while you sleep can trigger your brain in to picturing the events, in other words make you dream. The brain is very sensitive, not only to the spiritual core of man. The brain is like an antenna; like all antenas it is very sensitive.

Also due to excessive intelectual activity, the brain activity which had gained momentun during the day cannot just stop being active when you fall asleep. Much like some modern electronics that store energy while functioning and even after turning them off, some of the process still continue for a while, ie the cooling system or fan may continue untill the electronic has cooled down. Scientific studies has shown that the brain remains active during sleep and even during unconsciousness.

Check out the article in this link:

http://psychology.about.com/od/statesofconsciousness/p/dream-theories.htm

I know that there are dreams which are prmptings from the spiritual core of man but not all of them. The condition of the brian plays big role in the transmition of these pictures from the soul. We can talk more about the brain later.

Deep Sight:
Let me put two questions to you. You state that the spirit has different cloaks (the Grail message states this). It supposedly has a fine ethereal cloak - which is still matter.

1.   Would you say that that material is of the same substance as the thoughts of a disembodied spirit?

2.   Is it possible that there is such a thing as a spiritual brain - given that the physical is only a reflection of the spiritual?

1. Yes, if by "disembodied spirits," you mean souls in the ethereal world.  A soul can live in an ethereal environment or plane created by himself, without even knowing that he created his environment. He can even see the god he created with his volition, he can his spiritual master and live for decades and even centuries without knowing that it is his intuition that creates and animates his environment. Actually there are many planes in the beyond created by spirits. Hell is one of them
This is a deep subject which we can discuss later.

2. Yes, each body has an organ for processing, apprehending, and receiving information. But I will not call them "brain."  Brain is the name given to the organ of the physical body used processing information. The physical is a reflection of the spiritual body; each body obey the same laws but the laws are adapted to the nature of the species.  I have said this already. An example: every body needs and takes in energy for sustenance. The physical obeys this law by ingesting food(physical matter which carries energy); the ethereal, animistic, and spiritual body do not ingest any substance into their mouths. Due to the nature of these species, they absorb energy directly from the living energy that flow in their planes.

Just as I will not call the organs of the spirit the name "brain," I will not ascribe "thinking" to what the spirit does. Such labelling will cause confusion; the ethereal body has ethereal organs, the spiritual body has spiritual organs. Each body obey the same laws of creation in a manner corresponding to the nature of thier species; or in the manner that the law minifests in thier realm. This is why I will not call any spiritual organ "brain," because the way the brain process information may be very different from the way the spiritual organ does. Just like the way the different bodies nourish themselves are different--one eats with the mouth; another aborbs energy straight from the plane.


Deepsight Thanks you so much. I appreciate the fact that you take time to read my long submissions.

Remain blessed.

Deepsight!!!!!
I love you men! You ask good questions, I like the way you think. Now follow me carefully and I will answer your questions.

Deep Sight:
Well this is a case.

Does God have energy? Certainly. God is the fountain of all energy.

If God has energy and energy cannot exist without mass, then God has mass - a property of matter.

This reasoning would lead you to classify God as matter.

That is clearly untenable.

Ha Ha Ha! I separated my post into two; the first one with everything, and the second one dealing with only the physical realm. Please don't confuse the two. What I stated about mass and energy is from my knowledge of science which deals only with the physical. You cannot directly apply physical laws to God who is far far far above the physical realm. Although the physical laws are a manifestation of Gods laws; the laws adapt the nature of the specie concerned. The way a particular law manifests in the physical world is not necessarily the way it does in the spiritritual realm. In order not make a long post I whish I can stop here but if this doesn't answer your question I will go further.

But let me give an example. There is law that manifests in the physical ream. This law states that everything that exist must go through the four processes of (1)birth, (2)ripeness, (3)over-ripeness and (4)decay. We can observe this law in everything physical, thus in the physical only the components parts are eternal, and continually go through the four stages that I described above. Even the whole physcal universe go through these stages as science has confirmed. Even planets, stars, our physical bodies and etc go through these stages.
But can one say that since God exist, He also goes through these four stages. No! Or can one say that the spiritual go through these four stages? No! With the Spiritual, it is a different species altogether.

Another example might suffice. One can say that every healthy and mature body every now and then feels the desire to eat and sometimes to have intimacy. This is a requirement for the sustenance of the healthy body. This is a normal biological need of the physical body; as long as by "body" we mean the physical, this law is correct. But you cannot say that since the spirits in paradise have bodies, they have to eat and have intimacy too. This is wrong for in the spiritual we dealing with a different species, and consequently the law of sustenance of the body manifest differently.

The physical body is a different species from the spiritual; fuelled by a different energy.

But the conclusion that you drew from by statement is not altogether misguided; it only lacks careful attention to detail. Now pay attention to the words in brackets and you will see facts that you missed.

"Does God have energy?(Yes but what type of energy) Certainly. God is the fountain of all energy.

If God has energy(Yes but what type of energy) and energy cannot exist without mass, then God has mass(Yes but What type of mass) - a property of matter( not all mass are physical, if we consider mass substance."
A better conclusion would be: If God has Divine unsubstantial energy, and energy cannot exist without mas, then God has Divine unsubstantial mass-- definitely not a property of matter, but rather a property of Divine unsubstantiality.

You forgot to keep in mind that the energy that physical can absorb is only a gradation of the Neutral Principle power; I explained this at first. Lets call this energy the physical energy. But God uses Divinity unsubstantiate and undiluted Neutral Principle power; and is the source the pure and undiluted Neutral Principle power. Thus lets call God's energy Divine unsubstantial energy; the first degration of it is Divine substantial energy which the Divine beings above creation use.

Thus physical energy cannot exist without physical substance which is called mass by scientists. By the same token Divine energy cannot exist without Divine substance. Therefore you don't expect a Divine being who uses Divine energy to have physical mass

You cannot mix them up my friend.

Now scientifically on matter.

Science defines matter as any thing that has inertia and occupies space. Some people substitute the word "inertia" with mass. Inertia is the resistance that objects offer to motion. If we put all these together we came safely say that matter (1) occupies a space, and (2) has mass or resists motion(Has inertia).

Inertia is actually inseparable from energy, ie you need energy to overcome inertia. Objects lose mass to lose inertia, and consequently mass and energy is inseparable.

Some scientists believe that you can't have energy exist without mass. Einstein also figured out that mass and energy are related, (E=mc2). Although there are things like photons which apparently do not have mas but yet posses energy,  but this is a different issue that will require a lot of explanation. I tired of long posts therefore I will not go into that now. All I can say now is that photons actually have mass.

But what is mass? Mass is actually a property of matter.

Now many scientists have come to terms that thoughts are energy; like all energy they have effect on their environment. Resarches on the effects of thoughts on water and plants are well known.

If thoughts are energy and energy cannot exist without mass; then thoughts have mass. So now thoughts have one of the major things that qualify matter. It remains the second thing:--Does it occupy a space. This is not easily scientifically proved; just like one cannot easily prove, scientifically that light does or does not occupy space.

We know about "wave particle duality" nature of light. So we cannot disqualify light as not being particle(matter); neither can we disqualify it as not being wave. It depends on wheather it is being observed or not.

Since both thoughts and light exhibit the same tendencies(they both can be proved to have mass and energy), "thoughts" should receive the same qualification that we give light. Therefore thoughts cannot be easily disqualified as non- matter.

I believe that in the future, as science progresses they will understand more about things light, and "thoughts." I believe that in the future science will get closer to astral matter and will conclusively labell thoughts as a type of matter, although not physical matter. Already scientists are working on being able to control equipments with thoughts. In the future there will be no need anymore for remote controls, one can turn on his TV or any electronic just by thinking about. You can send thoughts to your TV and turn it on. Already a lot of progress has been made on building artificial body parts (Legs, arms and etc) which can be contolled by thoughts, just like we move our arms by thinking about moving it.

Some scientists are already suspecting that there must be a different type of matter than the physical. Stuffs like "dark energy, anti-matter, and anti-particles," have not been proven as not being matter, and yet they are not physical matter. Some think that these phenomenons are effects of a different type of matter than the well known physical matter.

Here are some interesting articles on researches done on "thoughts":


http://www.som.org/2laws/universallaws/cause&effect.htm


http://covertress..com/2010/03/thoughts-matter.html


http://www.informiti.net/articledetail.php?artid=56945&catid=271


What I have written in this particular post is just my reflections, based on my limited knowledge of science, those who know more about science can better educate me if my science is wrong.

I will return soon with another post about the nature of "Thoughts" based on scientific researches.
I have to run now, I'm very buss today.
Thanks

Deep Sight:
I have a hard time accepting that thoughts are matter. Not even ethereal matter.

Okay, I will answer you questions in two parts. First, I will offer my perceptions based on the knowledge mediated in the Grail Message, and then I will also offer some scientific facts. I am doing it this way so that we don’t get confused by the term "matter." The scientific definition of "matter" is not necessarily exactly the same with the Grail Message definition. Matter is just a term that both science and the Grail message uses. I hope you get what I mean. Science only deals with the physical, which according to the Grail Message is only a type of matter.

In this particular post I will present matter in the light of the Grail Message. In my next post I will present matter in the light of science.

Deep Sight:
Can you define matter. Coarse, fine and ethereal.

"Matter" in the sense of the Grail Message are the substances which are found below the animistic sphere. The spheres of matter lie below the animistic sphere. There many spheres(parts) in creation; ranging from the highest to the lowest, there are: The Primordial Spiritual part, the Spiritual part, the Animistic part, and lastly the Material part or spheres of matter. These parts of creation are arranged from the lightest(most refined) to the lowest(densest), according to the law of Gravity.

By "parts" I do not mean planes; I am using the term "part" to describe many spheres and planes. To further clarify, the material part(spheres of matter) consists of two different species, which are Ethereal matter and Gross matter.

Ethereal matter is a lighter and a more refined specie of matter than Gross matter. Consequently the spheres of ethereal matter lie above the sphere of Gross matter.

Each sphere of matter can be divided into three major planes, generally speaking. Thus in the ethereal sphere, ranging from the finest(lightest) to the coarsest(heaviest), we have:  Fine ethereal plane, Medium ethereal plane, and coarsest ethereal plane.

Likewise in the sphere of Gross matter, ranging from the finest(lightest) to the coarsest(heaviest), we have:  Fine Gross material plane, Medium Gross material plane, and coarsest or heavy Gross material plane.

The plane Medium Gross matter or the plane Fine Gross matter is what people usually refer to astral planes.

The physical world, to which the earth belongs, is the coarsest or heavy Gross material plane.

One can also say that there are three types of Gross matter, (Fine gross matter, medium Gross matter, and coarse Gross matter). These types of Gross matter, owing to their weight forms the planes of Gross matter, according to the law of gravity and the law of attraction of homogeneous species. The same is applicable to Ethereal matter.


Everything in our physical universe, our physical bodies, the earth, the stars, the sun, everything that is usually and easily observable with the physical eyes are all Coarse Gross matter; they are all made of Coarse gross material substances. Even those too small that can only be observed through telescopes, magnifying glasses and lenses, -- viruses, atoms and etc -- are all Coarse Gross matter; they are all made of Coarse gross material substances.

Deep Sight:
What common denominator ranks them all as matter. If we can define that, perhaps we can get an understanding.

Good question! The common denominator that ranks all matter is "self immobility." Thus "inertia," if I may borrow the scientific term. All species of matter do not poses self mobility, they lack the ability to be mobile by themselves; thus they are lifeless and only functions as coverings(cloaks, bodies)

This is peculiar with matter. The Primordial spiritual, the Spiritual, and the animistic species posses self mobility. I.e. man has a spiritual core which animates it; the animal has a core of animistic substance which animates the animal. However the man, on earth, wears the ethereal and Gross material bodies only as coverings; so does the animal. There is no being or creature in creation that carries a material substance(Ethereal matter or Gross Matter) as the innermost core or the animating core. All mobile creatures or beings carry either Primordial spiritual substance, spiritual substance, or Animistic substance as their animating core. Matter(both ethereal and Gross) only serve as coverings.

The physical body is the outmost body a man wears on earth, it is a coarse gross material body, and it becomes lifeless as soon as the soul departs or detaches itself from it.

Matter is lifeless, it has to be permeated by the animistic and animated by the animistic or spiritual before it becomes alive.

Deep Sight:
I, for my part, (with grossly deficient knowledge) am disinclined to view a thought as any form of matter.

Thoughts which are produced by the brain, have forms and operate in the planes of Fine Gross matter. Thus thoughts are Fine Gross matter, they have forms and people can see them with their astral eyes.

The physical eye which is Coarse Gross matter only clearly see a specie homogeneous its specie. Thus the physical eyes only see the physical; but under some situations the physical eyes can see some condensed astral forms. This does not violet the law of homogeneous species, since both astral and physical still belong to Gross matter. Strictly speaking, Gross matter can only see Gross matter; but certain conditions permits the physical eye(coarsest Gross matter) to see condensed medium Gross matter(astral). Even in such cases, the seeing will not be as clear as if it was seeing the physical. The physical cannever see any type Ethereal matter; as that will violet the law of attraction of homegeneouse species.

Deep Sight:
Do disembodied spirits have thoughts? What material are such thoughts?

Since thoughts are produced by the brain which is a part of the physical body; disembodied sprits have no physical body therefore do not produce thoughts.

But they still make decisions; Spirits make decisions with a part of thier spirits, just like the phiscal body make decision(thinks) with its brian. The spirits makes decisions and have volitions. The forms resulting from spiritual volitions are more powerful than the forms resulting from thought volitions(brain activity). Spirits in the higher planes, do not need to think, they pecieve intuitively. Thinking is only needed in the plane of Coarsest Gross matter(physical); it ironic that it is this thinking that leads men astray. Thus thinking is of an inferior order, anybody who thinks he can grasp God in his thinking is fooling himself. Even while on earth, man should place his intuitive perception above his "thinking" or intellectual activity.

The Spiritual posses the ability to make use of the Neutral principle power in creation. Every decision of the spirit taps into this power and makes an impression on the animistic substance, which then gathers ethereal matter and creates a form corresponding to the nature of the volition. Thus forms of spiritual volition are very strong, they are really living things because their innermost core is animistic substance; they are animated by the animistic substances although they do not posses a will of their own, they only carry out the volition that produced them, ie a form created out of a desire for distry will only destroy, it can never do somthing other than destruction. To these belong demons, and also some benovalent beings, depending on the nature of the volition of the spirit.

The physical brain cannot tap into this Neutral principal power in the same way as the spiritual can, the physical brain can only make use of a gradation of this Neutral Principal Power and thus forms arising from thoughts are of inferior order. They are mare phantoms which operate in the planes of fine Gross matter.

This Neutral principal power is the power that sustains all. It comes only from God, and all creatures are dependant on it. As it descends into creation it splits into gradations. Of all the species in creation, the Primordial spiritual beings can make use of the highest gradation of this power; the spiritual makes use of a lower gradation of the same power; the animistic makes use of a more lower gradation; and finally, the material can only make use of the lowest gradation of this power.

Much like electric power that has to be split and stepped down in order to be feed to many appliances. Some appliances are powered by low energy or stepped-down electric energy, while others can handle a less stepped down energy.

This is why forms arising from spiritual volitions are far stronger than form arising from thought volitions. It also logically follows that forms of volitions of the Primodial spiritaul beings are stronger than forms of the volitions of spiritual.

This power is called Neutral because one can use it for either good or bad. But every creature will give account for how he uses Gods energy

In order not to stray too much from the main topic of the thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-442544.0.html#msg6006754, I decided to open a new thread so that I can offer my perceptions on the questions that deepsight asked.

In the thread: "Can thoughts become matter?" I made wrote the following:

justcool:
Thoughts are matter, only that they are not physical matter(Coarsest Gross matter) Thoughts are fine gross matter, and thus finer and more refined than physical matter; this is why you cant see them with your physical eyes, but you can with your inner(astral and etherial) eyes.

And deepsight asked the following questions:

Deep Sight:
I have a hard time accepting that thoughts are matter. Not even ethereal matter.

Can you define matter. Coarse, fine and ethereal.

What common denominator ranks them all as matter. If we can define that, perhaps we can get an understanding.

I, for my part, (with grossly deficient knowledge) am disinclined to view a thought as any form of matter.

Do disembodied spirits have thoughts? What material are such thoughts?

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

Anonymous

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/watch_your_thoughts-they_become_your_words-watch/13673.html

Thoughts cannot just become matter because Thoughts a matter. Your question is like asking, "can a Nigerian become an African ?" A Nigerian cannot just become an African because a Nigerian is already an African. I hope you understand what I mean.

Thoughts are matter, only that they are not physical matter(Coarsest Gross matter) Thoughts are fine gross matter, and thus finer and more refined than physical matter; this is why you cant see them with your physical eyes, but you can with your inner(astral and etherial) eyes.

Every thought you send out takes on form, it attracts thoughts like nature, and it remains connected to you. And will eventually return back to you, either to  influence you directly or to influence your environment.

But do not play with thoughts; do not practice using thoughts to achieve selfish and materialist aims. And definitely do not practice occultism. Thoughts could become very powerful and can destroy you if you toy with them.

Just think simply and naturally. All you need to do is to keep the heart of your thoughts pure. Everything good that you need will result from keeping your thoughts pure- free from envy, lust, hate jealousy and etc.

mama-gee:
[color=deeppink]^^I give you a 5 star for your response.[/color]

@mama-gee
Thank you.

Romeo4real:
I am in absolute agreement with the views Just Cool has articulated here.
And just to add to what Mad Max said, I have myself observed a Tai Chi Master in Taiwan - Master Chen, physically move a fellow practitioner forcefully more that 15 feet without actually touching him. This happened in a in a training session. He did this by using/altering his Qi or Chi - the energy field that emanates from, and surrounds every object on Earth - Animate and Inanimate.
Master Chen is the most simple unassuming, humble, courteous man i have ever met. He is small, frail and actually looks weak. Though he has written several best sellers on Tai Chi, you would never know it looking at him. Contrast this to most our our Christian pastors and Faith Healers.

On James Rand and his foundation, his challenge is ridiculous. It is akin to asking the scientific community to prove Darwin's Evolution Theory and Einstein's Relativity Theory beyond all doubt. An impossibility. Let us see if there would be any takers of the million dollar prize.

@Romeo4real
Very good points you made in the above; and thanks for understanding my posts.

But on the issue of "supernatural," mazaje has made some good points too. But before going deeper, we all have to agree on exactly what we mean by "supernatural." Maybe both Romeo4real and mazaje would see each others point if we define what we mean by "supernatural," I have a feeling that both of you are approaching the word "supernatural" from two different perspectives. The word "supernatural" could mean different things; according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, "supernatural" has tow definitions:

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

If we go by definition 1, then these phenomenas(clairvoyance, visions, psychic abilities) can actually be said to be supernatural; because they are beyond the visible observable universe(the physcal world). Example: a person who is clairvoyant does to see with his physical eyes during his/her clairvoyant seeing; thus this is beyond the physical. But this does not go contrary to the laws of nature; neither does it transcend the laws of natural.

If we go by definition 2, we must keep in mind that it says "appear to transcend the laws of nature." Thus the supernatural appear to transcend the laws of nature but not that it actualy does. The supernatural does not really transcend the laws of nature; it appears so because the observer does not know the particular laws of nature involved in the phenomenon.
Example: A flying airplane is a supernatural thing to the ancient men; because he does not consider such possible, he does not know the laws of gravity, floatation, motion, and etc very well. However this feat "the flying airplane" does not transcend nature, it only appears so to the ancient men due to his ignorance of the particular laws involved. The modern man who knows such laws would not consider such a flying airplane supernatural.

If we are talking about the supernatural in the light of the above definitions, I believe mazaje would not have a problem with that. (Please correct me if I am wrong). But the problem is that when people talk about supernatural, they mean that which transcends or annuls the laws of nature. And I get mazaje's argument that such things do not actually transcend or annul the laws of nature; they only appear so because of our ignorance.

My perception is that there is nothing that can transcend or annul the laws of nature. The laws of nature cannot be broken, and it has never been broken. Those things that appear to defy nature are actually in fulfilment of the laws of nature; but to us it appears to defy nature because we have not fully understood the laws of nature. ie we don't yet know all that is possible within the laws.

I will give an example; a man(Mr Jones) may hear about gravity, and from what he knows, gravity is the law that attracts every object to the center of the earth. So if you throw something up, it must fall down. Although this definition of gravity is wrong and only very one sided, to this ignorant man it is correct because he observes it everyday. Thus he comes up with a saying: "Everything that goes up must come down." And he is convinced that this saying is the Truth, until he sees another man(Mr Bobby) who inflates a balloon with helium. Mr Bobby lets go of his helium-filled-balloon, but rather than falling to the ground, the balloon goes up and never comes down. Astonded, Mr. Jones would call this a deferment of gravity, he may even labell Mr Bobby a witch, a miracle worker, a man who can annul gravity or defy nature. Thus Mr Jones would call this phenomenon a supernatural act.
The Truth is that the act was not a deferment of gravity but rather an application of the law of gravity which Mr Jones does not know very well.

So actually there is nothing like "the supernatural," if by "the supernatural" one means something that is beyond the laws of nature or something that anulls the laws of nature. All physchic abilities are natural phoneme; the laws guiding these things are not known by the average man who discribs them as supernatural. Those that know how to perform these things knows how to apply or make use of laws that the average man does not know about. Therefore rather than annulling nature, they actually had to obey the laws of nature. Just like scientists painstakingly had to study and understand gravity before they can invent airplanes and rockets; to the average man it seems like scientists defy laws of nature, but the truth is that scientists actually obey nature.

These laws, including the laws of nature, are laws set down by God from the beginning; they have never changed and will never change. No man, however strong, talented or knowledgeable can annul them. But man can achieve great feats when he knows how to apply them.

In the case of magic, it only trickery; the magician tricks you into believing that he did something that he actually didn't do.

mazaje:
My take on this still remains, Why attribute something that so many people are doing to the supernatural?. . .What exactly is the supernatural?. . . .Magicians do "supernatural" things all the time that seems to break all natural laws, but when they explain their tricks, people laugh it off admit that they are very clever people. . . .Are there other natural laws that we haven't discovered yet?. . . .Disease, earthquakes and lightening were considered as supernatural events about 2000 years ago. . .An airplane flying from here to Nigeria would be considered a supernatural activity about 2000 years ago. . . .When men understood how to control things they sent themselves to the moon. . . .There are places in the human body where once you are touched you will loose your consciousness, some people know it and use it(I watched a documentary on it on the national geographic channel). . .If I see a man flying around I will not be quick to label it a supernatural event. . . .When most supernatural phenomenon are studied a natural explanation is found. Even if a natural explanation is found it does not mean that it is supernatural since it exists in the natural realm. . . .Who know, 200 years from now there might be new laws that will be added to what we now know as natural laws. . . .Just as i said the ability to create objects that can fly for hours in the sky will be considered a supernatural thing. . . .

@mazaje
Great points! But it depends on what you mean by "supernatural" as I have explained above.

Maybe because they have not really repented of their wrong doing. If one truly feels bad for hurting another he will not only be eager to apologize, he will seek an oppunity to apologise.

It all boils down to lack of love. One who truly loves another would not intentionally hurt him; and when he does so by mistake, he will heartily apologise.

One who is too proud to apologise for the wrong he/she did has no love in his/her heart.

@Curiousmind

Curiousmind:
The science of spiritual Automatic writing has been in existence for Milleniums and it is not a new age practice per say

"Modern psychic science," is just a collective term that I grouped all those practices into. By the term "Modern psychic science," I do not mean that such practices are new age. I know that such practices have been in existence for a long time.

Curiousmind:
The Grail message Teachings stoped on the soul plane. They Teach You that it is not possible to be one with Divinity

Eckankar Teachings stoped on the 12th plane, They Teach You to be co-worker with God

I am not here to compare Eckanker with Grail Message; I will never do such because their teachings are completely different.

The word "soul plane" does not exist in the Grail Message, the book never used that expression.

Comparing the planes of creation as taught by the Grail message with the planes of Eckanker will lead one to errors; because they both use the terminology "plane", what they refer to as a plane differs. What Eckanker describes as a plane may not necessarily be what the Grail Message discribes as a plane.

I will give you an example: Two people(Mr. Apple and Mr. Orange) goes to mars to explain to martians about the earth. Mr. Apple who has been all over the earth, teaches martians that there are 7 continents on the earth, thus 7 major lands. While Mr. Orange, who know only about Nigeria, teach the martians that there are 36 states on earth. Due to the fact that Mr Orange has not been to other parts of the earth, he considers Nigeria the whole earth, thus he asserts that there are 36 lands on earth. He considers the 36 states of Nigeria to be the whole earth. The martians may think that Mr. Orange knows more about the earth since he talks about 36 lands while Mr. Apple talks about 7 lands. But both men are using the terminology (land) to refer to two different things; one calls a state a land, while the other calls a continent land. So it will be wrong to directly compare them or judge their knowledge of the earth by the number of lands that is contained in their description of the earth. The truth is that Mr. Apple knows far more about the earth than Mr. Orange, and what Mr. Orange calls 36 lands does not even consituite one land in Mr. Apple's  teaching; but some martians may get caught-up in the terminolgy (Land) and think the Mr. Orange knows more because he talks about many lands.

This above is just an example to illustrate a point. I know that there martians do not exist.

One has to study both teachins very well and grasp them before he can make the judgement that you made in your post. Comparing them is like compering apples and oranges.

Thanks a lot.

MyJoe:
^^^
This was actually written to agree with and reinforce what you said about dreams, visions and clairvoyance not being reflective of spiritual maturity. No disagreements there. The only thing I expressed disagreement with in that post was your assertion that Everyone has these experiences.

Your last post has greatly expounded on this and made some things clearer. Thanks again.

@MyJoe

Thanks a lot. Please forgive me for misunderstanding your post.

Remain blessed

@Myjoe

MyJoe:
I would think so. I suspect that someone who grew up in an environment where such things are not nurtured, or, like in my case, actively discouraged, would not have such endowments or would lose them due to disuse for the reason of his environment whatever spiritual maturity or endowments he may have been born with.

I don't really get what you meant in the above. The above is your reply to my assertion that "Dreams, visions and clairvoyance have nothing to do with spiritual maturity."
I suspect that you misunderstood me so let me clarify myself. The fact the someone is endowed with the gift of clairvoyance, visions, dreams and etc does not mean that that person is matured spiritually. Spiritual maturity expresses itself in the actions of the individual. A spiritual matured person will be filled love for God and all creatures of God, such a person will not lie, cheat or still. However, such a person may or may not be endowed with the gift of clairvoyance.
There are also people endowed with this gift and people who have learnt to be clairvoyant through occult training, yet in their actions you could see that they are far from spiritual maturity, ie they lack love. Some even use these abilities to do evil; back home in Nigerian, during secondary school days, I know a guy who wants learn astral travel so that he can pry on girls without being seen.
Only when the gifted person has attained some level of spiritual maturity can the clairvoyance become a blessing, thus a gift.
I can go on and on but let me stop here for now.

MyJoe:
I do not believe this. In fact, I think you are off the mark. Everyone has ordinary dreams, but not everyone has the kind of dreams we are talking about hereabout.

Everyone at least once in their life times must have had such experiences; but the problem is that sometimes the experience is so natural that the person considers it as an ordinary occurrence.
Some people have experiences of the beyond during their sleep, that they don't even remember when they wake up.
Consider the story that m_nwankwo told about a woman seeing her dead husband (my grandmother had a similar experience). Such seeing still belongs to clairvoyance, and if the person she saw was not her husband, she may never have learnt that the person she was already dead.
I will tell you a story that my Russian supervisor once told me. One time before she left Russia, during winter She went skiing on a remote town in Russia; and she got lost in a forest. Exhausted after hours of trying to find her way out of the forest, she sat down and awaited her death as the cold air sent chills up her spine; the winter that year was very severe. At the point of her hopelessness, a unknown man approached her and lead her out of the forest, back to her hotel. She was too thankfull and exhausted to ask the man for his contact information.
She considered this experience nothing extraordinary, until years later she went back to the town to ski again, this time she lodged in a different hotel. On getting inside the lobby of the hotel, she saw the picture of the man who had saved her years ago. She inquired on the whereabouts of the man so that she could reward him for saving her. To her greatest suprise they told her the man died five years ago, which was two years before he saved her. So the man was already dead when she saw him, yet she considered it normal; had she not returned to that town and lodged in that particuler hotel, she may never have known that the man that saved her was dead; she would have believed that she had never been clairvoyant. She was certain it was the same man that had lead her out of the forest; the cloths he wore were the same cloths he wore on the picture.

This is an experience the shock my Supervisor to very depth of her soul; because prior to that, she was an atheist who didn't even believe in after life, nither did she believe in clairvoyance and etc. This experience does mean that the woman was spiritually matured, she didn't even believe in God at the time she had this experience.

You probably have had experiences which you considered ordinary without knowing that what you saw was with your ethereal or astral eyes. Do you know that some of your dreams you don't even consciously remember when you are awake. Sometimes the promptings that you have along the day or your insights in some things are as a result of your experiencing during your sleep. Some times during sleep the soul leaves the physical body and continue its experiencing; but sometimes when you wake up you wont consciously remember your experiences. This is also why its unnecessary and wrong to employ occult training to learn to soul travel. All these things will come to you naturally when you are ready for them; and in naturalness lies the greatest protection from harm. Occult trainings will not afford you such protection, and it happens that some occultists suffer harms and attacks on their ethereal body without suspecting it.

Also there are so many children who are claivoyant, they see many things that adults do not see; but they dont even know that adults do not see these things. I know I was very clairvoyant as a child. It is due to the ignorance of this that some primitive tribes label some children as wicthes, some go as far as killing such children. There is nothing so extraodinary in seeing the beyond(Etherial and astral), eveybody living on earth, has an etherial and an astral body, and somtimes the etherial eyes or the astral eyes open and the individual behold the etheial or astral. This has nothing to do with spiritual maturity; although sometimes peoples eyes could be opened as a gift from above so that they could see something in the beyond. examples: some people who met Jesus, their etherial eyes were opened for a while so that they could see Jesus's bright etherial body and consequently believe in Jesus. Some were so gifted(called ones) that even thier spiritual eyes opened and they saw the cross radiating from Jesus, as well as the dove above him; and they bore witness to these signs which are infallable signs of a son of God.

Also expereinces(shocks and desperation) can also cause the etherial or astral eyes to open, such as the case of my supervisor.  Also the condition of ones physical body can also play a role claivoyance and phychic abilities. Mediums, for example have the type of blood radiations that allows souls in the beyond to manifeast through them. And usually people's bood radiations of people change during old age, permiting them to gradually pecieve the beyond as they approach nearer to death. But some people, even at young ages posses the type of blood radiation that allows them to pecieve the beyond more than the average person. This is why occultisits go on a special diet and use some herbs or incents in the training to be clairvoyant. These diets, incents and herbs, once injested affect the blood radiations. In one native american indian tribe, a man seeking to see a vision must wonder in the wilderness for days without food, at the point of exhaustion he usually see a vision; it's easy to undertand why this happens. The wondering in the wilderness without food affects the physical body in such a way that the blood radiation changes, rendering the individual sensitive to virabtions in the beyond. Fasting and meditation can also render the same effect. Also this is why certain deits have great effects on the schizophranic. Clairvoyance and mediumship have a lot to do with the blood radiation; since it is the blood radiation that binds the soul to the physical body, when altered, it can also unbind the soul. This also happens naturaly during sleep, the bilogical process slowdown and the radiation of the blood changes. All these things have very little to do with spiritual maturity; anybody can through occult training render his blood radiations as such, this usually involves slowing down the bilogical process and weakening the physical body.

I can go on and on and on but inorder not to stray too much from the point I better stop here.

MyJoe:
Thanks for your insightful perspectives.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the fact that you read my post. And also, thanks for a wonderful thread.

agi-tuedor:
Reading through this thread is the best thing I have done today. It was most inspiring. The last posters really delved into a subject that was confusing to me prior to now. I have attended seminars on soul travel and honestly, the claims really made me doubt myself, just imagine that some claim to have chatted with Jesus on the inner planes, who instructed them not to follow popular conventions concerning himself but pointed to a higher master (which happens to be their earthly leader) for further instructions.
The dexterity and logic of the posters really made me understand the illusory nature of these experiences. The laws of nature is all we need.
It also reminded me of a biblical verse (I don't know where exactly), "wisdom is the principal thing and in all your getting get understanding". Thanks and keep the good work.

@agi-tuedor
Thanks for your contribution. You are a genuine seeker and an honest person. The spirit within you(your real self) is very much alive.

Remain blessed

Curiousmind:
@Justcool
SPIRITUAL AUTOMATIC WRITING :- Is a concept by which spirits Dictate or Take the hand of a Prophet to write messages, letters, Books etc

@Curiousmind
Thanks for your definition. I have heard of such practices; they all belong to modern psychic sciences.

Although I have never practiced them, I am very familiar with most of such practices; and I do not recommend it to any body. Such pastimes could be very dangerous and could lead one astray. Perhaps in another time, we can examine all such practices and also examine the dangers that could result from them. You can open another thread and we can discuss each of such practices exhaustively.

Thanks

m_nwankwo:
Hi Justcool. Thanks for your comments. You misunderstood me. Uncovering simply means opening of the ethereal body. It does not as you seem to understand it mean a separation of the physical body from the ethereal body. Thus, your explanation above is in accord with what uncovering means in the sense I used it.  I do not seee uncovering as a wrong choice of word for it is my experience that the ethereal body can slide in and out of the physical body . I also do know that the ethereal body can be expanded and contracted. Stay blessed.

Hi m_nwankwo. Thanks a lot. I hope you do not mind that I pointed out what I misunderstood; no disrespect was intended. 

Curiousmind:
@Justcool, Spiritual unfoldment comes with knowing (Personal Experiences) not depending on any Holy Book because this Books are primary stage of spiritual unfoldment. These Authors (prophets) wrote these Books from their own Conviction via Divine Inspiration. @Justcool, Have You heard about Automatic Writing?

@Curiousmind. Thanks a lot. You are right, spiritual unfoldment comes from experiencing; one can also experience a book. There a many ways through which a man experiences spiritually but occult training and practices are the wrong and unnatural way to go.

Before I answer your second question, I need to understand what you mean by Automatic Writing.' Please define Automatic writing for me.

Thanks and remain blessed.

m_nwankwo:
Jesus appeared to his followers to show them that the spirit survives physical death and that life continues beyond the physical. Jesus mediated the power that opened the ethereal bodies of his followers permitting them to experience consciously the ethereal world with the organs of the ethereal body. Thus they were able to see, hear, torch and feel the risen messiah. Just like you can clearly recognize physical things with physical organs, so is it that you can recognize and experience ethereal things with ethereal organs. Even today, if your ethereal organs are opened, you can see and interact with people who have died and yet your friends or family will not see anything. I have been permitted to have several experiences of such and so do others irrespective of there religious persuasions. In all cultures, there are authentic stories of a wife seeing the departed husband and think it is the physical husband only to informed that the husband died in a car crash at around 10.00AM in the morning and yet the wife saw the husband by 5.00pm the same day. What she has seen is the husband in an ethereal body but believes that it is the husband in flesh and blood. The realization that what she saw is the departed husband dawns on her when the husband coffin is brought back with a death certificate showing that the husband died at 10.00am in the morning. But since Jesus is a son of God, his ethereal body unlike that of human beings is animated by the unsubstantiate divine essence that is God, thus the ethereal body of Jesus is very luminous. It was the ethereal body of Jesus that was uncovered during the transfiguration. I got to stop here for now. As always stay blessed.

@m_nwankwo
With all due respect. I don't understand with you mean by "the ethereal body of Jesus that was uncovered during the transfiguration." My perception of the transfiguration differs from yours. Please let me know if I misunderstood what you wrote.

I believe that what happened during transfiguration was that the disciples ethereal eyes and ears were opened for a while and with their ethereal eyes they saw Jesus in His ethereal body.

It is my perception that Jesus did not exit his physical body during transfiguration, the disciples saw His ethereal body with their ethereal eyes because the ethereal eyes can only perceive the ethereal. Jesus's physical body could not obscure their vision of his ethereal because they were seeing with their ethereal eyes which can see through the physical.

I think that "uncovered" is the wrong choice of words, because the ethereal body is not actually covered by the physical; being of different species they could only slide next to each other or into each other like lenses of the telescope. One does not need to shed his physical body for his ethereal body to be seen. Looking at a man who is still physicaly alive on earth, one can see all the bodies that the man wears; it all depends on the eyes with which you are seeing. Thus if you are seeing with the physical eyes, you will see his physical body; if you are seeing with the ethereal eyes you will see the ethereal body; if you are seeing with the animistic body's eyes you will see the animistic. Basically speaking, the physical perceives only the gross matter, the ethereal perceives only ethereal matter while the animistic body perceives only the animistic substances. This is a result of the working of the law of homogeneous species; each specie can only pecieve the same specie. At best a specie can only pecieve half a step below and above its specie. But a man will never be able to clearly see ethereal with his physical eyes and vice-verse. Nature allows no intermingling of species.

It was due to the fact that the disciples saw with their ethereal eyes, that they(the disciples) could see the helpers who stood next to Jesus; these helpers had no physical bodies but had ethereal bodies as their outermost bodies. The disciples thought that the helpers were Moses and Elijah.

When the physical sight of the disciples returned, they could no longer see with their ethereal eyes, and consequently could no longer see the ethereal helpers and Jesus's very bright ethereal body. One cannot see with both ethereal and physical eyes at the same time. So when the disciples sight returned back to the physical, they could only see the physcal body of Jesus and they thought that Jesus had transfigured back to normal. But the ethereal body of Jesus remained bright, and surrounded by helpers, only that the disciples could no longer see them.

Even today, occasionally people's ethereal or astral eyes open for a while and they behold the ethereal body of another person who is living. This is another form of clairvoyance that is also worthy to be mentioned. I will give an example: I man takes his wife to a seer and the seer looks at the woman and exclaims that the woman is a mamaid. People would wonder how that was possible, and some people will simply say that the seer is lying. But actually the seer who has the gift or the ability to see with his ethereal eyes looked at the woman with his ethereal sight and saw the degenerated ethereal body of the woman. This woman's ethereal body had lost its human form and had degenerated to the form of a mamaid.

The ethereal body is always a reflection of the inner state of the individual. Thus one who constantly indulges in evil will have a dark ethereal body which can degenerate to the extent of losing its human form and taking on an animal or ugly form depending on the nature of the evil that the individual indulges with.

By the same token, good people have bright and beautiful ethereal bodies bearing the human form. Jesus's ethereal body was very bright and radiant as the Divine unsubtantiate core of Jesus glowed through it. Like m_nwankwo had already said.

Thanks and remain blessed.

All these talks about dreams, visions, clairvoyance, and reincarnation are good if one seeks to find the Truth about these matters; but here I sense curiosity in some posters. Curiosity and seeking to experience these things just out of curiosity is very dangerous and can lead one away from the Truth. Dreams, visions and clairvoyance have nothing to do with spiritual maturity. Everybody have dreams and most people, at least once in their earth lives have had a vision or have been clairvoyant, but this does not mean that they are spiritually mature. Training to expereince these things through occult practices is very dangerous and very weakening to the physical body; and once achieved, one cannot see anything on a higher level than his/her level of spiritual maturity.

Some people endanger their physical bodies at the cost of being able to see the beyond or perform astral travel and etc. But the beyond which they see is only their ethereal or astral environment and not anything worthy. Actually to some, it is better that they don’t see their ethereal environment. I will give an example: An inwardly impure man is surrounded by an impure ethereal environment, an environment that corressponds to his spritual state; being on earth and in the physical body makes it easier for him to become purer because one earth good and evil dwell side by side, by association with purer people on earth, he may change his ways and by emulating the purer people, he may soon also achieve some level of purity, and consequently his ethereal environment will change. But if he retires into himself and start practicing clairvoyance, modern psychic science and etc, he may succeed in opening the door that had hitherto protected him from his vile ethereal environment. And he will indulge in these practices, hearing and perceiving an ethereal environment that is at the same level with him, an environment that does not offer him an opportunity to become purer because in such environment only homogeneous spirits of the same impurity dwell. In so doing, this man forsakes this great gift of being on earth, and retires back to the ethereal; at the end when he dies, he finds out that he had not learnt the lessons he came to the earth to lean. Thus he had wasted his life on earth.

An inwardly mature spirit knows that being on earth is a great gift; he utilizes his energy in learning the lessons life on earth offers. It is not maturity to be able to perform astral travel or to be able to see or perceive ethereal things or astral things while neglecting your ability to live physically. It is like a child in primary one, who puts a hole on the wall of his classroom so that he can peep and see the next class -- class two. It happens that when this child (who while in class one boast of his knowledge of class two) finds himself promoted to class two, he will not be able to catch up with class two lessons because he neglected to learn the lessons of class one which is prerequisite for understanding the lessons of class two. Thus when people boast of their ability to travel in the astral, visit the astral planes, see visions, clairvoyance and etc, they are only revealing how inwardly immature they are. The procedures for learning to do these things weaken the physical body.

Occasionally and without occult training, one is allowed to see or perceive the beyond, in such cases it is a gift from above. But going through occult trainings to achieve these feats is very wrong. Also, occasionally, people are shown visions as a gift from above; but rather than inwardly and quietly reflecting on it to fully understand why the vision was given to them, they begin to toot their own horns. They begin to brag and tell people how clairvoyant they are. Such people cause unnecessary worries and make false predictions because their visions which were peculiarly fashioned for them, were not even understood by them in the first place. Ernest seekers keep personal visions to themselves and completely understand the visions; only when instructed to reveal the visions to people do they reveal it.  This should be the case all sorts of divination -- astrology, clairvoyance, visions, and prophecy. People who are too eager to tell others about their dreams, visions and psychic abilities are actually irresponsible enthusiasts who desire personal recognition. It is understandable that such people are not inwardly mature, thus their visions not really of any importance, they are only revelations of their ethereal or astral environment, an environment or a plane that may actually be lower than the earth. Any wonder why their predictions often fail. Some of the times what they see is actually forms, events, and environment created by their thoughts forms. This why their visions are always in accord with their religious and personal beliefs.

Some people argue that they need such occultic practices to know the beyond so that when they pass on they would not be strangers in the beyond. But this argument shows lack of understanding of the laws of creation which allows no gaps. Nature allows no gaps, towards the end of ones life, in old age (The phlegmatic stage of physical existence); the physical body's radiations changes and gradually he will be able to perceive the beyond; so that when he passes on he will not find himself in a strange environment. Ie in old age, towards the end of one's life, he/she will gradually beging to see the beyong; so that when he dies he finds himself in an enviroment that he/she has already became familier with during his/her old age on earth. This is how it is willed by the laws of God; but unfornatley so many people are denied of this gradual transition due to early death.

Thus in the laws of God lie everything that man needs, everything that he will ever need has been provided for. He only needs to walk calmly, neither with delay nor with hast; without any occult training or hurry to experience the beyond.

Every moment on earth is more important than any artificial experiencing of the beyond. There is nothing in the beyond (astral, and ethereal planes) so stupendous that one should hurry towards it; the same laws that guide the physical world guides the beyond. Actually there is no distinction between this world and the beyond.

Grasp life on earth with jubilant hands; experience the earth while on earth. The time for the beyond will come one day, when your physical body falls away, then the beyond will be all yours to experience.