Archived Articles

• Earth Change News
• Pole Shift Research
• Other Topics
• All Titles

Introduction

 

What do we think about time? About lost civilizations? What is nature? What is space? What are We? What is our relationship to greater humanity?

It's clear that we exist in a world that we don't understand in the least.

Morton Blumenthal, Mr. 900 in the Edgar Cayce readings, was told to study P.D. Ouspensky's book, Tertium Organum, to understand better the nature of time. Later, in a question that Blumenthal asked Cayce with reference to lectures that he planned to give in Virginia Beach, one finds the following. (Mr. Blumenthal is asking the questions.)

(Q) The hardest task, as was said by many who preceded me (and of course are greater than I {Blumenthal}), is to put these great fundamental principles in simple terms to people who seek not a lecture along ethical lines, but some scientific relationship of their own being, to religious convictions in which they are already convinced.
(A) None is convinced in that science or religious convictions are one. The first lesson for SIX MONTHS should be ONE - One - One - ONE; Oneness of God, oneness of man's relation, oneness of force, oneness of time, oneness of purpose, ONENESS in every effort - Oneness - Oneness!

 

(Q) That's the hardest principle for the physical layman to grasp, particularly - as Ouspensky points out - TIME. That's the stickler.
(A) Time, in every one and in each illustration that may be applied; and be sure many of these carry as much humor as they do that of the shadow, that the Oneness is shown in these illustrations.

 

 Years later, Ouspensky's student, Dr. Maurice Nicoll undertook to write the book, Living Time (Vincent Stuart, 1953). Here is a valuable section from that book. It starts with our concept of time and progresses through concepts of space, and then on to the fourth-dimensional concept of space-time. (Words in red font have been added by THC.)

 

We mark off a space of time according to the number of changes of Nature comprised in it. Their number for us, however, depends upon our subjective celerity of apprehension, that is to say, upon our congenital scale of time (Du Prel, Philosophy of Mysticism). If our congenital scale of time were different the form of the world would necessarily change. If a thousand years became as one day to us, the surface of the earth might seem in continual wave-like motion which, with our ordinary celerity of time, would be the experience of earthquakes divided by long intervals.

Ouspensky emphasises again and again in his writings on higher dimensions (see particularly Chap. X, A New Model of the Universe) that we do not see a simple uniform world. In some cases we see the time-lengths of objects. He says that our present moment includes the time-lengths (life-times) of electrons, for which reason we see solid matter. The minute particles that constitute matter reach our consciousness `only through their time dimensions, the fourth, the fifth and the sixth; in other words, they reach it only by virtue of their motion and the repetition of their motion. We see the lives of electrons, continually repeated. An electron is not in our three-dimensional world.

Du Prel says that if the process of nature were quickened, with a corresponding change in our measure of time, we should be unaware of the fact and would be unable to believe that our lives were either longer or shorter than they are now. But the quickness of Nature and our congenital measure of time must really be one and the same thing. I mean that it is our measure of time that makes Nature appear as she does to us. What she is to herself is another matter. Processes that take centuries, in our experience, may be merely moments in her life.

Plato spoke of the reversal of time. The reversibility of the temporal order has often been considered. One mathematician has suggested that the movement from past to present, as we know it, has some connection with the quantity of the past in relation to the quantity of the future. If the value of these quantities were different we might know an entirely different movement of time (Weyl).

What would this signify? It is interesting to consider what it would mean. Plato connected the Golden Age with the backward movement of passing-time. If time went backward our entire lives would be different, as well as the meaning of events. For example, no one could kill another person. What for us is the carnage of war would be the raising of the dead. We would live in a world in which physical violence would be impossible. Bullets would spring out of the bodies of the dead and travel accurately into the barrels of distant rifles. Another science would explain it as action at a distance--some kind of magnetic effect whereas it would be a world-line traversed in a new way.

Men would be born out of earth, fire, and water -- the drowned, the burned, the buried. The sea would give up its dead. Quite another causality would exist. Everything would be related in a new temporal order of cause and effect. All the material of our lives as we know them, with all the chains of cause and effect that we connect with them and invent, would be transformed into an entirely new story.

It would be like that vision seen by Ezekiel of the valley of bones: `There was a noise, and behold, a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone and sinews and flesh came upon them ... and they lived and stood upon their feet.' Suppose a man died in the desert and passes into dust. Reverse time, and what must inevitably happen? Every particle of him must come together, even though his dust had been spread over the entire world. Pour a glass of water on the carpet: there is no process whereby it can be recovered. Reverse passing-time and every particle of water will arise from the floor and enter the glass. Nothing could be lost.

If we understand that Time is, we will realise that nothing can be lost.

It is this thought of the existence of Time itself, of its reality, of the fact that there is no time, that can begin to change the feeling of oneself in relationship to one's life.

As long as we believe that only the present moment of our life is actual and all else non- existent or lost `for ever', we are bound to have one particular kind of feeling of oneself. We can have no sense of the indestructible and living life.

 

Let us look at a form of analogy that has been used by many writers in descriptions of higher dimensions. Conceive a two dimensional world, a world limited to a surface. For such a world, our world of three dimensions would be higher space. Let us suppose this imaginary two-dimensional world to have a very small extension in the third dimension. A sheet of paper can represent it. A sheet of paper has length and breadth and, relatively, very little thickness, so that its extension in the third dimension is very small.

If a pencil is pushed vertically through the sheet, only a very thin slice or cross-section will actually lie in the thickness of the paper.

Imagine beings living in the sheet of paper, cognisant of nothing else but their paper world and what lies in it. They would know only the cross-section of the pencil, for this would be all the pencil that would lie in their world. All else would be invisible. They would not know anything about the rest of the pencil, because we are assuming that their relationship to the third dimension is limited only to the thickness of the paper.

In a somewhat similar way we can think of our relationship to the fourth dimension as one that is limited to the `thickness' of the fourth dimension we experience naturally-that is, to what for us human beings is the measure of time called 'present-moment'. The thickness of the paper is the measure of the third dimension for the paper- beings and only what lies within it, all cross-sections of any three-dimensional objects penetrating their world-can form part of their present-momented visible world.

The rest would be invisible, non-existent; not in their world, though in our world; not in their present moment, though certainly in our present moment.

So the pencil itself, as an integrated whole, would exist in the invisible world for them. But they could never conceive it as a pencil. Only a cross-section (which has no resemblance to an actual pencil) could exist in their visible world, and all the rest of it would be in their past or future.

If the pencil is slowly passing through their paper-world successive cross-sections of it appear to them. What has already appeared will pass out of their world, be no longer visible and seem to them to be in the past -- in the already-experienced. The part of the pencil that has not yet passed into their visible world will be in their future -- in the not-yet experienced.

To us, with our higher dimensional vision, all the parts of the pencil co-exist simultaneously -- its beginning and its end -- and it exists as a whole, a unity, having a form and function absolutely inconceivable to paper- beings.

Suppose we could descend into their paper-world and assume the conditions of their existence, learn their two-dimensional views and habits of thought, and explain to them that their world is only a limited expression of an infinitely larger and different world. What would they say?

With their `natural' minds they would never believe that the cross-section of the pencil was part of a much greater and more interesting reality -- a pencil. It would seem merely great nonsense. They would not believe in the reality of our world, in comparison to which the reality of their world would be relative.

Now the reader will see that our world would be outside their time and space, yet everything visible in their world would originate from another world invisible to them, namely our world.

At every point their views (based on their senses and on their visible world) would collide with our more-dimensional knowledge, and since the feeling of being right is at the bottom of most violence, we would probably find ourselves in danger if we tried to alter their point of view, which would be right for them but only relatively right for us. Their `truth' would not be commensurable with our `truth'.

If we are justified in making this analogy, then for us, living in a three-dimensional world, our perception of things may be nothing but a relatively real one. The present moment may only show us something comparable to a cross- section, or what I would prefer to call a certain minimum, of a vastly greater containing world, extended in dimensions hidden to our senses and existing in these directions which are unknown and inaccessible to us.

For if we touch the fourth dimension -- limiting ourselves only to this dimension of higher space -- in some such way as the paper-beings touch the third dimension, we must widen our conception of the `world', and feel that we do not really know our world. The senses show us a section or a minimum. But can we not suppose that mind potentially opens on what is beyond this minimum?

The paper-beings could only grasp the nature of our world by mind -- above the mind of sense. What we see, directly and without effort, would be for them a matter of difficult mental grasping, not through logical reason but by means of ideas which they did not naturally possess. Actually our sense would be their mind: we would see what they would have to understand. Idea for them would be fact for us. From this point of view, it is quite possible to think that what illuminates us suddenly as idea is a perception of an order of life above us -- an order of higher facts.

Now if the pencil passed right out of the paper-world, it would no longer exist to the paper-beings. They would speak of it as having passed into non-existence. They would say: `it was, once upon a time.' {Think here of Cayce reading 364-1: "Atlantis as a continent is a legendary tale."} It would be in their yesterday; to which, of course, they would not give any real quality of existence, just as we do not. But we would say still: `the pencil is' for we would see it in another place, in what would be higher space for them.

One point of the analogy is to show us what relative reality means. All that was real in their world of paper would be the higher realities of our world passing through it, immensely distorted. With their convincing visible environment, they would regard such a view as highly improbable. A cross-section of the pencil in their world would appear to subsist convincingly out of itself and to be explicable in terms of itself -- to be quite real as it appeared. If they sought to get to the root of the matter, they would study its minuter component parts or atoms and then they would feel they had exhausted the `reality' of the object.
{Think here of the only surviving Atlantean "record in the rocks" at Bimini, Bahamas, as an analogy.}

They would never seek a further explanation in an extension of that dimension (which for them would be passing time and present moment) out of which all movement, objects and events swarm into the range of their two-dimensional life. If the sharpened point of the pencil first entered their world and passed in, they would see a circle of lead slowly surrounding itself with a wooden coat. It would look like growth, arising from the point of lead. Growth in our world may be similar.

If we tried to convey another kind of knowledge to them, it could probably only be done by means of allegories, parables, or symbols.

I said earlier that all function in man is four-dimensional. Any intelligible process has aim or purpose, cause and effect contained in it, but the three can only constitute one whole in four dimensions. {This seems to be analogous to the Oneness recommended to Blumenthalin his reading above.} Any process such as breathing, digestion, etc., is in time as well as in space. Breathing is a cycle of inspiring and expiring, no part of which can be left out, otherwise it would be useless. The process, then, exists as a whole, if we think of it as four dimensional and can only be understood as wholes, as complete cycles, that with a certain end in view proceed by a linkage of cause and effect in time-order. Process itself cannot be seen by the microscope, save in cross-section. It has often been said that man is composed of levers not of wheels. Seen three-dimensionally in the present moment of time he is composed of levers. His bones are levers operated by muscles and there is no sign of any visible wheel in him. But four-dimensionally is he not full of wheels and is not his life itself full of returning cycles? {Such returning cycles are both recurrences -- where in the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky system repeating lives are meant -- as well as the reincarnations in the Cayce corpus of "past-lives" readings.}

The modern `functional' point of view, whether in physiology, biology, or psychology, is unconsciously four- dimensional, just as physics is avowedly so. The `world' the latter regards is not the three-dimensional world in which the separation between
objects is evident, but another world where relations can exist that are not seen in our sensory world.

For the addition of a dimension necessarily gives entirely new relations. What appears to be separated and unrelated in a space of fewer dimensions may be connected or related in a space of higher dimensions. For example, we know that the sides of a right-angle triangle are not related directly but that the squares on these sides have a relationship. Or consider a crude analogy: the prongs of a fork entering the two-dimensional world of paper-beings would seem to them entirely unrelated and separate -- as four points. They would see them, in their space, as having no connection with one another.

We see people in our space as separate. But man is not in space but in humanity. But we see this `humanity' abstractly or sentimentally, not understanding that it may have continuity in higher dimensions, and exist as a whole, of which each of us is a cross-section or certain minimum.

All this means that according to the number of dimensions `reality' must alter. Discrepant views such as the wave- theory of light and the corpuscular theory have their origin in this. (See A New Model of the Universe, chap. X.) The language of continuous waves and the language of separate light quanta are entirely different, yet each is applicable in certain cases.

And Phylos, a presumed dweller in fourth-dimensional reality who speaks of such severe karmic penalties to America here at the end of the Age, seems trumped by a fifth dimensional or higher reality in the following exchange:

(Q) Is the book "A Dweller on Two Planets" by Phylos the Tibetan based on truth, especially in its forecast for the United States of pages 418 to 422? [GD's note: Pages different in later editions.]

(A) As viewed by an entity separated from the whole, yes. As TRUTH, that may be implied by one that looks only to the Lamb, to the Son as a leader, no. Choose thou.

 

---

 

The foregoing simple, yet precise explanation of four-dimensional reality has application to lost civilizations of which no traces can truly be found today.

---

Think of the Atlantean, Lemurian, and ancient Egyptian civilizations of the Cayce readings. Only scant traces of these can be perceived through influences passed on to more recent times. One thinks that these civilizations may never be found because they have disappeared into a different dimension of reality -- one of which we cannot know as we do in today's familiar three-dimensional world. Their former natures can be perceived to some degree, however, by those few individuals who can access the greater reality of the fourth, and higher dimensions, as Edgar Cayce and Phylos, together with Frederick Oliver his amanuensis, could do.

 

 

Now what's this? The same Edgar Cayce that could channel information from the fourth and higher dimensions communicated the following in 1933:

Before that we find the entity was in the Atlantean land, when there were the constructive forces as to the activities of the children of the Law of One, - in all of those influences during the periods when the land was being broken up.

We find the entity was as the leading influence for the considering of ways and means in which there would be the preserving of records, as well as ways, means and manners in which either the few or the numbers might be preserved from the destruction of the lands.

It would be well if this entity were to seek either of the three phases of the ways and means in which those records of the activities of individuals were preserved, - the one in the Atlantean land, that sank, which will rise and is rising again; another in the place of the records that leadeth from the Sphinx to the hall of records, in the Egyptian land; and another in the Aryan or Yucatan land, where the temple there is overshadowing same.

(2012-1; October 29, 1933)

At this point let's just assume that Cayce's source for this reading was apprehending the tip of the "Atlantean" pencil poking up in a new cycle from the fourth dimension into our three-dimensional world. Remember also that reading 1602-3 ((9/22/39) stated that this rising of Atlantis "would be a gradual, not a cataclysmic activity in the experience of the Earth in this period.

Meanwhile, we would like to know just when we might expect to see a risen Atlantis, here in our familiar three-dimensional world. Jonathan Eagle has taken a second look at a familiar reading and wonders if Atlantis might be "re-emerging" in the very near future. Here below is the story of his work.

 

---

Rethinking Reading 958- 3

On June 28, 1940, Edgar Cayce gave a life reading from his home in Virginia Beach for Miss 958, a 31-year-old secretary living in Texas. Although the request for the reading did not mention Earth changes, at one point when going over Miss 958's former incarnations, Edgar Cayce uttered the following well-known prediction shown in bold font below.

Before that the entity was in the Atlantean land during the period of the second breaking up, when the islands - or Poseida - became the main portion of the activities.

And those very experiences that brought destructive forces bring about the tendencies in the present for the extremes, and the hardships that have been and will be a part of the experience through this sojourn.

Not that these will always be material conditions, for they - too - will pass.

In that experience the entity was among the children of the Law of One who accepted and forsook much of those activities because of its close associations and companionships with one of the sons of Belial.

This brought consternation to the entity, and also those influences the application or use of which brought destruction to the land. And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine ('68 and '69); not so far away!

Now the prediction in bold indicates something about the magnitude of former Atlantis that we may expect to come up, or rise again. It is going to be very large. Not only will it include Poseidia, the last large island of Atlantis to sink, but apparently other portions of that former island continent as well.

To most people who encountered this reading's prediction before 1968, it probably meant that whatever was to rise out of the Atlantic Ocean was going to be on the order of an Australian-sized chunk of real estate. They most probably thought that the new landmass would break the surface, in whole or in part, although the reading doesn't necessarily say that. The wording of the reading seemed to be saying that it was going to start (but perhaps not finish) a movement towards the surface. However, it seems fair to assume that the movement indicated would be substantial enough to register to humanity at large that a significant upward displacement of the sea floor of the Atlantic Ocean had occurred.

But 1969 came and went with no discernible tectonic shift up, down, or sideways of any sea-floor crustal mass, large or small, anywhere in the Atlantic. To some overly-eager individuals, however, all was not lost. Two enterprising explorers, while flying to Bimini from Miami, sighted a remarkably straight stretch of rectilinearly-fractured beachrock blocks in very shallow water off of the northwest coast of Bimini. These linearly arranged stones, which look very "man-emplaced" at first sight, were eventually dubbed the "Bimini Road." Because of its seemingly anthropomorphic characteristics, and because Cayce's source had associated Bimini with Atlantis in other readings, the Bimini Road was heralded in various quarters as a validation of the 958-3 prophecy.

The arguments surrounding the validity of the Bimini Road have generated contentious debates over the intervening years. Most of the debate started in the early 1970's when geologist W. Harrison published a paper titled, "Atlantis Undiscovered," in Nature Magazine. Other geologists agreed that the the submerged "road" site off of North Bimini in the Gulf Stream was nothing more than natural beach rock. Then new explorers followed who said that the features couldn't be natural beach rock because they had found evidence of tool marks, and signs that human engineering had been done on the limestone blocks of the "roadway."

Over the last decade or so the tempo of debate increased as groups sponsored by the Association For Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.), an Edgar Cayce legacy organization, leveled charges that Harrison and other geologists had really not done what they said they had done, but instead where perpetrating a "hoax" by publishing claims that the Bimini Road was natural. Recent proponents of the Bimini "road" hypothesis have tried to discredit each fact Harrison and his geologist successors printed in their papers. A snapshot of the contentions of the Bimini Road protagonists can be found in THC's review of "Edgar Cayce's Atlantis." THC's conclusion is that the Bimini Road beach-rock formation has nothing whatsoever to do with Atlantis or the Poseidia of Cayce reading 985-3.

Reviewing THC's Earlier Analysis of Reading 958-3

In our book, Earth's Catastrophic Past and Future, we stated that the much quoted fragment in reading 958-3 was one of two readings considered to have weak predictive value. In other words, Hutton and Eagle considered the prediction to be a failure.

On page 526 in the Reliability and Truth section of THC's book the situation was explained this way:

The prediction that Poseidia would rise again in 1968 and 1969 did not come about, at least in terms of its rising above the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. It may, however, have begun to rise in those years, as intimated in reading 2012-1 given in September of 1939 nine months prior to 958-3. Reading 2012-1 states that there were records of activities of individuals on Atlantis that were preserved in “the Atlantean land that sank [and which] will rise and is rising again … .

The analysis then went on to say that one possible way to explain these two reading fragments would be to hypothesize that the historical records mentioned in 2012-1 started coming up first, to be followed by some portion of Poseidia thirty years later.

However, if Atlantis started coming up, nobody has been able to tell. Only a "confirmed report" of a one-mile rise in the floor of the north Atlantic, 576 miles north of the Azores was mentioned by geologist Christian O'Brien in Chapter 18 of his book, The Shining Ones. This rising was supposedly found during the repair of a trans-Atlantic cable. We mentioned this event on page 261 of our book as evidence for possible sudden uplift of the sea-floor there.

Since the probability that any submerged sea-floor has come up in the Atlantic is so small, we speculated that the information that was coming through Cayce was "wavered," probably by the thoughts of one or both of the people sitting-in on the reading. These were Mr. 470 and Mrs. 1100. We also suggested that the interjection of "Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine ('68 and '69); not so far away!", was due to some question that one or both of the attendees had in their minds at the time the reading was being given.

A Second Look At Reading 958-3

After noticing a curious arithmetic situation regarding reading 958-3's dates for the rising of Atlantis, Eagle realized that a different interpretation of the words of the prediction could be made. Looking first at the reading fragment itself, he realized that there certainly was a "truth-wavering" influence involved with the reading, and that it was plainly visible right there in the reading fragment itself. Indeed, it has been there from the time the reading was typed up by Gladys Davis, the stenographer who took dictation for the reading on that day in June 1940. In fact, the source of the wavering of the truth spoken by Cayce may have come from none other than Gladys herself.

Before going any further it should be said that the previous statement must not be taken as an aspersion on Gladys, her stenographic ability, or to her dedication faithfully to transcribe Edgar Cayce's words. Gladys's dedication and professionalism was one of the key reasons that the readings even exist today. What is being said here is that Gladys, in the course of her duties, added something to the reading in an effort to bring clarification. On hindsight, however, that clarification might better have been left out.

It was customary for Gladys, after taking dictation in shorthand, to type up the reading in English, and then make copies for the client and the A.R.E.'s records. During that process she would sometimes insert short comments or questions into the text if something wasn't clear, or didn't make sense to her with the wording of the transcript she had just transcribed. She did exactly that with this reading by inserting "('68 and '69)" in the sentence. But this was NOT what the reading's source said through Cayce's vocal apparatus. It was, in fact, only what Gladys thought the source meant after the reading was over.

Unfortunately, Gladys' addition to the sentence has been given equal weight with the reading's original text, ever since the reading was given almost 70 years ago. That parenthetical phrase was not in Gladys' shorthand notes when she put down her pad and pen at the conclusion of the reading. Unfortunately, people have taken the insertion "('68 and '69)" as "reading's speak." This has limited researchers from investigating other possible interpretations. Gladys' insertion of (68 and 69) into the reading, well after the reading had concluded, has caused virtually everyone to think only of two specific years (1968 and 1969) as being the dates intended for the rising of Poseidia and other portions of Atlantis.

That, however, is not necessarily so. What was actually uttered by Cayce during the reading was most probably just:

Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine; not so far away!

With Gladys' added note excised, it is much easier to see that there is another possible interpretation to this phrase. While it could have meant that Poseidia would rise in 1968 and 1969 (two years in which clearly nothing arose in the Atlantic or the Bahamas), it could also have meant that it would rise in 68 and 69 months from 1940, the year in which the reading was given. We know today that the sea- floor did not rise in 68 and 69 months following June 1940. But what about in 68 and 69 years following?

It is possible that Gladys missed the word "years" while taking dictation, but it is probably just as likely that the word "years" was omitted by sleeping Cayce. Either way, by adding 68 years to the year the reading was given, 1940, we can speculate that Poseidia and other portions of Atlantis will rise in 2008 and 2009; that is, during this year and next.

Prophecy Reborn?

With the possibility that there might be an entirely different time frame for the prophecy, Eagle decided to look more closely at the critique of the reading in our book (p. 526). With the 1968-69 date out of contention, the major possible wavering factor that is left is that of the presence of the husband and wife attendees (Mr. 470 and Mrs. 1100). Were they somehow responsible for the interjection of the Atlantis-rising prediction in the reading? Who were these people? Were they curiosity seekers, or were they somehow related to Miss 958, and sort of sitting-in on her reading as proxies? And did their presence during the reading cause a "wavering" of the information channeled by Cayce? Exploring the life-readings histories of the visitors at Miss 958's reading sheds important light on the question.

Edgar Cayce's Life Readings For Mr. and Mrs. Dillman