posted March 26, 2004 10:31 AM         

The truth is Atlantis may be end up being found in the Pacific Ocean, South of China. Honestly it makes a lot more sense than you realize. China has been an advanced civilization for thousands upon thousands of years. It makes sense for Atlantis to be there because our ancestors would have been able to expand where we think are far East and far West.

In fact if this find is true it may be discovered that perhaps we never originated from Africa at all. We may not even be directly linked to the Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals like we think we are. Perhaps they were separate creatures who just died off all together. It's true that if we find Atlantis it will in fact change the world.

Our ancestors may have in fact been aliens in search for a planet to live on. The features of our ancestors may have actually been asian and quite similar to the way we are now, but as we expanded and cut off all connections, that is when our features began to change.

Here is where I found this information, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
http://www.atlan.org/

-StarLover

posted October 08, 2004 04:52 PM         

"The basis of the occultist approach is that there are sources of information not limited by time and space. Rudolf Steiner, an outstanding occultist as well as one of the foremost scholars in Europe, pointed out that history can tell us very little concerning humanity in prehistoric times. Even geology and archaeology are limited by the physical evidence that remains. Those who have the capacity for clairvoyant perception of the spiritual world can report on event to which historians have no access. The skeptics would say that all this material was the product of overactive imaginations, yet these ideas have captured the interest of many scholars, and are not simply a popular fad. Steiner admits that spiritual seeing is not infallible; its vision may be inexact, distorted, or even the reverse of the actual case. But Steiner felt that peopel who have achieved a certain level of spirituality will receive consistent information. The question our book tries to answer is whether Cayce's material was simply imagination, or whether he tapped some source that allowed him to see a record of past events.
What did the Cayce readings have to say about the occultists? Cayce himself was not a member of any of these groups, and was not familiar with their doctrines; but some of his followers were. In the first discourse on the general topic of Atlantis, the readins said, "As we recognize, there has been considerable given respecting such a lost continent by those such as the writer of Two Planets, or Atlantis - or Poseidia and Lemuria - that has been pulblished through some of the Theosophical literature. As to whether this information is true or not, depends upon the credence individuals give to this class of information" (no.364-1, February 3, 1932).
Thus Cayce acknolwedge some of the popular occultist books, such as the book A Dweller on Two Planets, but warned his listeners that they should be careful about which occult material they took seriously."

"A Theosophist listening to Cayce might at first have thought his material to be just another expansion on the basic Theosophist story. Yet, beyond use of some of the same terms, the Cayce story bears little resemblance to the occultist story. A small amount of occult material did appear to be incorporated in the Cayce material. Whether this was because they were both tapping the same source, or because Cayce was picking up material from his audience, we have no way of knowing. The occultists, however, were the first to mention high technology, such as flying machines, in conjunction with Atlantis. Cayce later followed this theme in many life readings. Likewise, the occultists were the first to refer to multiple destructions of Atlantis, although Cayce disagreed with the dates and the number of destructions.
On the other hand, Cayce speaks of Lemuria, but only in passing; he speaks of the other Root Races not at all. There is no sign of the seven subraces of Atlantis. Cayce uses the term "Root Race," but to refer to five entirely human stocks in different parts of the world. As the Theosophists used current scientific terms to convey their concepts, Cayce used Theosophical terms for his listeners."

"In most cases, details on the migrations are scattered through the life readings; but on general reading inquired into the origin and developtments o fthe Mayan civilization. The following extract from this reading is quoted because of its connection with Atlantis and the specific date.

'From time as counted in the present w would turn back to 10,600 years before the Prince of Peace came into the land of promise, and find a civilization being disturbed by corruption from within to such measures that the elements join in bringing devastation to a stiff-necked and adulterous people.
With the second and third upheavals in Atlantis, there were individuals who left those lands and came to this particular portion then visible.
But understand, the surface was quite different that which would b viewed in the present. For, rather than being a tropical area it was more of the temperate, and quite varied in the conditions and positions of the face of the areas themselves.
In following such a civilization as a historical presentation, it may be better understood by taking into consideration the activiites of an individual o rgroup-or their contributin to such a civilization. This of necessity, then, would not make for a complete historical fact, but rather the acitivites of an individual and the followers, or those that chose one of their own as leader.
Then, with the leavings of the civilization in Atlantis (in Poseidia, more specific), Iltar - with a group of followers that had been of the household of Atlan, the followers of teh worship of the One - with some ten individuals - left this land Poseidia, and came westward, entering what would now be a portion of Yucatan. And tehre began, with the activities of the peoples there, the development into a civilization that rose much in the same manner as that which had been in the Atlantean land. Others left the land later. Others had left earlier. There had been the upheavals also from the land of Mu, or Lemuria, and these had their part in the changing, or there was the injection of their tenets in the varied portions of the land - which was much greater in extent until the final upheaval of Atlantis, or the islands that were later upheaved, when much of the contour of the land in Central America and Mexico was changed to that similar in outline to that which maybe seen in the present. (no. 5750-1, November 12, 1933)'"

"The readings describe a geography totally unlike that of today:
'... that now known as the Southern portions of South America and the Arctic or North Arctic regions, while those in what is now [known] as Siberia - or that as of Hudson Bay - was rather in the region of the tropics ... (no. 364-4, February 16, 1932)
The extreme northern portions were then the souther portions, or the polar regions were then turned to where they occupied more of the tropical and semi-tropical regions ... the Nile entered into the Atlantic Ocean. What is now the Sahara was an inhabited land and very fertile. What is now the central portion of the country, or the Mississippi Basin, was then all in the ocean; only the plateau was existent, or the regions that are now portions of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona formed the greater part of what we know as the United States. That [land?] along the Atlantic [sea]board formed the outer portion then, or the lowlands of Atlantis. The Andean or the Pacific coast of South America occupied then the extreme western portion of Lemuria. (no. 364-13, A-6, November 17, 1932)'"

"Where exactly did Cayce say Atlantis was located, and is there any geological evidence that it was actually there?
'The position as the continent Atlantis occupied, is that as between the Gulf of Mexico on the one hand-and the Mediterranean on the other ... There are some protruding portions within this that must have at one time or another been a portion of this great continent. The British West Indies or the Bahamas, and a portion of same that may be seen in the present-if the gelogical survey would be made in some of these-especially, or notably, in Bimini and in the Gulf Stream throug h this vicinity, these may even yet be determined. (no. 364-3, February 16, 1932)
[Q-3.] How large was Atlantis during the time of Amilius [the first Atlantean]?
[A-3.] Comparison, that of Europe including Asia in Europe-not Asia, but Asia in Europe, see? This composed, as seen, in or after the first of the destructions, that which would be termed now-with the present position-the southernmost portion of the same-islands as created by those of the first (as man would call) volcanic or eruptive forces brought into play in the destruction of same.
[Q-4.] Was Atlantis one large continent, or a group of large islands?
[A-4.] Would it not be well to read that just given? Why confuse in the questionings? As has been given, what would be considered one large continent until the first eruptions brought those changes ... Then, with the breaking up, producing more of the nature of large islands ....(no. 364-6, February 17, 1932)'"

******

Anyway, it's a good book, I think, as is A Dweller on Two Planets and anything at all by Rudolf Steiner. My hands are feeling a tad fatigued, so please forgive my post for lacking the geological information that pertains to his readings.

posted October 08, 2004 05:01 PM         

Somebody say Steiner?

posted October 10, 2004 11:23 PM         

Anyways .... with all due respect to StarLover, if it ain't in the Atlantic it ain't Atlantis. Mu/Lemuria maybe - but not Atlantis. If the European and Mediterranean civilizations thought the fabled island was in the west and the Central and Southern American tribes thought it was in the East ... well then ...

What's your take on Cayce, Eleanor? I know how you feel about Steiner and you know I concur. I notice the different means of acquiring information - one thru channeling/mediumship and the other thru spiritual sight. I admit I have always looked on mediums with a suspicious eye, although I sense Cayce was above the norm. He lived such a moral and upright life, his goal always to serve, his belief in and love of God always at the forefront. I think because of this he would have been protected from many of the not-quite-so-pleasant influences many mediums seem to fall prey to.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this : A medium, by definition, is running clear water thru a filter. How clear the water remains is dependent upon the cleanliness of the filter. Edgar had a mostly clear filter. A rarity these days, huh?

And what happens if the filter and the water are unclean?

posted October 11, 2004 10:43 AM         

Don't you just love Ireland? I am a firm believer in the inherent magic of both Ireland and Britain. I don't mean that in a silly, Hallmarky, New Agey sort of way. The legends (I will not call them myths!) surrounding early migrations into Ireland contain a nugget or two of truth, I imagine. The beautiful and wise Tuatha de Danaan and the dreaded Fir Bolg in particular seem to speak of something other. Immigrants from Atlantis maybe?
I'll bring up Steiner again for Eleanore - Rudy said that mass migrations of people always meant something. Something spiritual beyond the obvious reasons. Look into the migrations of a certain and time and place and we can learn much.

posted October 12, 2004 01:48 AM         

Edgar Cayce. I must admit, I really really like him. I also noticed the difference between he and Steiner as far as how they accessed information. I don't think Cayce was a regular kind of medium. I dunno', I always imagine mediums trying to access a departed person's personality or something of that sort. Cayce tuned in to the Akashic records, something Steiner also did. But Cayce followed his gift naturally whereas Steiner subdued his "sight" early on and then worked on accessing it again consciously and at will. He described the process as a kind of reverse Kundalini process ... most people allow it to flow up from the base chakra and thus endure each center's lesson with the shortcomings of our 3rd dimensional beings. He chose to awaken his centers starting at the crown and thus believed to be purifying each center from a divine point first. Obviously, he explains it far more eloquently and precisely than that.
I guess I love Steiner for taking a nice step towards scientific understanding of the esoteric by approaching it mentally and I love Cayce for just following his heart regardless of whether he or anybody else could explain or understand it. The accuracy of their "sight" speaks for itself.
Have you read There is a River by Thomas Sugrue? That was the book that made me go from liking Cayce to truly admiring him. Contrary to popular belief, he was psychic awake as well, though not in the same trancelike state where he could access the records but he could still see auras and the like.
I agree with you about the state of the water and the filter. It's funny, you know, but whenever my friends and I have discussed anything "out of the ordinary" we've always, since I can remember, referred to our minds as having a filter that basically changes how much it allows in and when and how.
You reminded me of Cayce's mother with that comment, you know?
"... It's the people who are actually the tools of the Devil who never worry about whether they are wrong or right. They're sure they are right .... So long as you are right, son, they [the readings] will be right. The Devil cannot speak through a righteous man."
Of course, being me, I don't read the "Devil" to be Satan necessarily, but rather the dirt that could contaminate the water or the filter.
I missed you, too, sis.
Eleanore

posted October 12, 2004 03:34 PM         

One esoteric theory not accepted by any scientists, but still quite interesting, is that, since all time happens at once, we are dealing not with the memory of past destruction of a major advanced society located somewhere east of Europe and west of Asia, we are dealing instead with the precognitive knowledge of that destruction (i.e. North America). Plato, thought he didn't know it, was discussing someone's vision of the future, not a past occurance.

posted October 13, 2004 09:54 AM         

Ahhh, Tink, you must visit Ireland. It's been described as magical so many times and I can only echo the sentiment. I'm hoping to return for a visit next year, and some day I hope to own a beautiful place of my own on the west coast.

A story? Standing on the edge of the Cliffs of Moher, watching the sunset over the Atlantic with a man I love was one of the most sublime moments of my life. I'm getting a little misty thinking about Ireland right now, Tink.

Here are some photos (not mine!) of the Cliffs, for anyone not familiar with them. http://www.danheller.com/moher-cliffs.html

One of the funniest moments was in Monk's Pub in Ballyvaughn, a lovely little fresh seafood restaurant by the bay. We were enjoying a lovely dinner, accompanied by that delicious Irish brown bread, when the radio station started playing Irish country music! No kidding. "Okie from Muskogee" or whatever the song is, in an Irish pub.