At one time it was thought that the world was created in 4004 BC. This was following a literal reading of the early books of the Old Testament by a 17th century Irish archbishop called James Ussher though he was not alone in giving such a recent date. Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton apparently also thought in similar terms. This seems absurd to us nowadays as scientific investigation has shown the world to be much earlier in its origin but I have to say that in my mind 6,000 years is nothing and I can't imagine how anyone ever thought like that. They didn't in India where the age of the Earth has long been envisaged in millions of years with Days and Nights of Brahma (periods of cosmic manifestation and dissolution) alternating ceaselessly. This is a much more realistic scenario.
Modern science estimates the world to be about 4.5 billion years old with life in the form of microscopic organisms first appearing about 3.7 billion years ago. Early types of humans entered the scene around 2 million years ago with homo sapiens originating about 300,000 years ago. This is the current official timeline but is always subject to change as new discoveries are made and old ones reassessed. The first civilisations are thought to have emerged a mere 5,500 years ago in Mesopotamia following the development of agriculture.
I believe that last date will one day seem as ridiculous as we now think of Archbishop Ussher's date for the creation of the world. Granted, a slow development may reach a tipping point at which it suddenly accelerates, but still the length of one timeframe, that for the development of man, compared to the rapidity of the other, development of culture, should at the very least raise questions. Is modern civilisation really the first there has been on the Earth, given the vast periods involved? Or are there other possibilities concerning the life of human beings on this planet?
The author Graham Hancock has a recent series on Netflix in which he explores the idea that a great civilisation was destroyed at the end of the last Ice Age when fragments of a comet from the Taurid meteor shower hit the Earth causing massive floods that swept away all traces of that culture. It is thought to have been a seafaring, therefore coastal, civilisation, and as sea levels are supposed to have risen nearly 200 feet since the time of the presumed impact 12,800 years ago, this fact would explain the absence of any remains that could bear witness to its presence. Nevertheless, myths and tradition from all over the world speak of a global devastation by flood and the destruction of an advanced civilisation. Plato's story of Atlantis is known by everyone and, curiously enough, the date he gives coincides with the date of the presumed comet strike and the rising of sea levels. Hancock is actually only one of many people who have speculated on this subject but he has done his research and presents a good case for the open-minded which, unfortunately, is not the scientific community.
Occult tradition knows all about ancient civilisations and it speaks of not just one but several. Because these originate at different times in the Earth's evolution when consciousness is not the same as it is today, and even the material environment is different, they are not all the same type as ours. Atlantis, or the civilisation that we call Atlantis today, had technology but it was a very different sort to ours, some of it being indistinguishable to what we would think of as magic. In some ways their capabilities would be greater than ours, in others less. What seems to be the pattern though with all these civilisations is that they rise and fall, progressing to an advanced level of sophistication and then succumbing to hubris though it may be that even their genetic quality deteriorates too as ours is said to be doing since the Industrial Revolution which was a two-edged sword in that it allowed for the survival of individuals with maladaptive mutations who then go on to have children themselves. This is an emotional subject but if one looks at it logically and without judgement the facts and the consequences of those facts are clear. Abundance, a comfortable, safe and secure life, will allow for the survival and prospering of individuals who would have previously died because they were not sufficiently fit for the environment. The basic human stock will slowly deteriorate. No one can do anything about this unless one resorts to unacceptable, rightly unacceptable, actions but it helps explain why advanced societies tend to self-destruct. In a way their achievements work against them. But there is also the fact that as human beings carve out a comfortable world for themselves with wealth and power and a surfeit of pleasure to be had they lose connections to the gods, the spiritual realm, and this leads to their downfall. All the traditions speak of the flood having come about because of human arrogance and wickedness. The inevitable comparisons with the world today and the state of our civilisation, materially and technologically advanced but spiritually impoverished, must be made. Indeed, it may be that we are rediscovering this idea of destroyed ancient civilisations now as a warning.
Hancock draws attention to the stories of many societies from all around the world relating how their cultures were started off by mysterious visitors, usually from beyond the seas, who gave primitive peoples the foundation stones of civilisation, agriculture, arts and crafts, architectural skills, astronomy and so on. These were often regarded as gods but it may be that they were survivors from the destroyed civilisations trying to sow seeds for a rebirth. At that time it is probable that primitive hunter gatherers coexisted with the advanced civilisation for there is no reason other than ideological prejudice to assume that all human groups progressed at an equal pace or were equally developed. The civilised society may have been more vulnerable to environmental catastrophe as, apart from existing in areas now submerged, they would have been less familiar with a hand to mouth existence than the hunter gatherers who could have adapted much more readily to the new circumstances.
Given the long time homo sapiens has been around, even by current estimation (it may, of course, be even longer than presently recognised), it seems very reasonable to think there have been previous civilisations that have vanished, witness to their presence being obscured by earth changes. And, in fact, that is just what myth and legend tell us. The present cycle is just that, a cycle in the ongoing evolution of the Earth, and each cycle starts afresh though with some input from the past as the survivors of the putative Atlantis are said to have kickstarted civilisations in Egypt, South and Central America and even (I would maintain) Great Britain. We have forgotten so much about our past and who we are. We have forgotten our earthly history and we have also forgotten our spiritual history. The fact that many different sources are currently trying to remind us of both of these indicates to me that there is a concerted effort to get us to wake up. Obscuring the past may once have had a purpose as it enabled us to get on with building a new present but that time is over and it is now time for humanity to rediscover its earthly and spiritual heritage. This is all the more urgent as there are several signs that what happened before with Atlantis may happen again to us. We are a civilisation that has forgotten the gods and lost its sense of reality. It is widely accepted (though publicly ignored) that we are facing economic and cultural collapse but it may be that other factors may also play their part in determining the future as they did at the end of the last Ice Age.
8 comments:
The video link below addresses the scientific aspects and to some extent the mythology of the great flood events. It is a rather large and deep rabbit hole, but I find it more convincing than the random comet idea. Happy New Year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zfMyzXqfI&list=PLHSoxioQtwZfY2ISsNBzJ-aOZ3APVS8br
I wonder if the same physical processes that occur both now and in the past have somehow been slowing down so that the past might've actually occurred much faster than it looks.
All these billions of years might then be an incorrect inference, based on a faulty assumption of stability.
I mean what were we doing while we waited for God to shape the Earth over billions of years?
Thanks for the link, Craig. I'll look at it later.
You are right, ben, that there is no reason to assume time always flows at the same rate. In fact I would say that the different material and spiritual conditions of the past means that it didn't. As for what we were doing, for long stretches we would be existing on the spiritual plane where time is definitely of a different nature to here but even in material terms consciousness evolves slowly. Billions of years is only a relative concept anyway. To a galaxy it may be like a lifetime to us whereas to a mayfly it would be beyond inconceivable
I'm very open to the idea of ultra-ancient civilizations - and to huge revisions to the (brief, changing) current consensus.
As ben mentions, there is also the very deep problem that there is no reality without consciousness, and consciousness is always bound-up with reality. Consciousness cannot be separated from reality - there is no 'thing in itself' that is prior to consciousness. (This is (for me, convincingly) argued in Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom.)
When consciousness changes, so does reality.
This means that the present scientific perspective (which tries to eliminate consciousness altogether from its hypotheses) is certain to be wrong.
This is gone-into very thoroughly by Barfield in Worlds Apart, and I cannot fault his argument.
I certainly agree that past civilizations will have had a technology much more akin to 'magic', indeed, I think that the evidence is overwhelming that this was the case in Ancient Egypt. Their works must have had advanced technology, yet there is zero evidence of anything we would recognize as advanced technology - but instead the civilization was ruled (very effectively) for millennia by priest who were explicitly magicians.
My best guess is that, during that (now lost) era of human consciousness, magic was a learnable and reliable way of influencing the world - so long as this was in accordance with divine will; and the priests presumably learned, through disciplined training and initiation, how to bring their minds into harmony with the divine will.
As human consciousness developed, magic declined in power and reliability; and is now pretty much only effective on human psychology.
As you know, I do not push the cyclical theory very far, because I believe that the changes to consciousness are linear, so civilizations do not repeat, and the dominant causes have changed.
In particular, I think past civilizations declined passively and through errors - whereas now the decline is ultimately driven by a purposive destructive impulse among its leaders and rulers.
Regarding my use of the word cycle, Bruce, I don't say these just repeat themselves as, like you, I see history proceeding in a linear direction and both the physical and spiritual environments, i.e. both matter and consciousness, changing . But in the context of that ongoing trajectory I think there are cycles of development. Perhaps the image to use is that of a spiral.
I agree w/ Ben that the scientific processes of today may have not been the same as in the past. In fact, Einstein's theory of relativity seems to confirm that time doesn't run the same way in all places. There is a strong case that God created a 4.5 billion yr. old universe in six 24 hour day periods. https://sixdayscience.com/
I believe that Adamic civilization came to Earth around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago after the Fall. Perhaps earlier civilizations of angels or gods were around prior to man's arrival. I have no idea how long man lived in Eden prior to that. Consciousness and nature itself were probably quite different in the antediluvian period. It seems that our "magical" abilities declined as we became more alienated from God. Interesting, I just posted on New World Island about the paranormal and how consciousness may alter reality itself on some level.
They say plastic takes hundreds of years to break down and is not biodegradable. But toys I left in my parents' back yard when I moved out 15 years ago are clearly breaking down already, some hardly anything is left of them. Some plastic garden pots I bought broke down after 5-10 years and just shattered when I tried to move them. So plastic takes about 10-50 years to break down depending on its thickness. Official Science is lies..
@gary - I really wish that what you describe was the 'reality'...here's the problem:
Your plastic toys may certainly have broken down to the point that you could no longer 'see' any part of them - unfortunately, they definitely did 'not' break all the way down into their 'natural' components...
...all of that plastic (and every bit of plastic ever created) has merely broken down to the point of becoming such teeny-tiny pieces of plastics that they are able to 'seem' practically invisible and in fact are so microscopic that they can 'evaporate up' with the water that forms clouds and cause plastic polluted rain.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even-mountains
The link below is to an article which gives a thorough overview of the ecological harm which accumulates thru the breakdown of plastics into micro-plastics:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/28/how-nanoplastics-enter-the-human-body/
While it is true that "Official Science" can often be "lies" - We must not make the mistake of believing something to be a lie simply because the truth has 'broken down' into pieces 'too small for our eyes to see'...
Post a Comment