Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00364)

Hi Mark and all!

>> Well, the way I see it - the ones who obtained their information
>> independently and are in agreement must be correct.  Would you disagree?
>
>I would note the agreement with fascination, but couldn't honestly
>conclude that the information was correct. However, I do find the whole
>subject extremely interesting. 

I'd be interested in exploring this premise a little further.  If two
people come up with identical information then I would think that either
1) their information was based on earthly reason and they came to the same
conclusion,  2) one received information from the other or  3) they are
both correct.  Is there another way?
>
>> I've heard the name 'keepers of the white stone' mentioned before by Cayce
>> in regards to Atlantis and I believe that there's a word in the Nahuatl
>> language that is 'uaxactun' which I believe can be translated to be 'lord
>> white stone'.  Have you ever followed up on any of these?
>
>No, I wasn't aware of either of these. What did Cayce have to say about
>the "keepers?'

It seems like he was referring to a much larger stone, but I imagine the
possibility exists that a symbolic smaller version might have been worn
around the neck.
I took the following quotes from and excellent source on EC and Atlantis:

http://www.wrldnet.net/~bluapple/atlwww.cgi/1

READING: 5037-2 

Entity was in Atlantis, a priestess and the keeper of the white stone or
that through which many of those peoples before the first destructions in
Atlantis kept their accord with the universal consciousness, through the
speaking to and through those activities. 

(Q) Describe in detail the entity's work with the White Stone, and present
urges from this. 
(A) This may be well implied from that indicated.  The entity as the high
priestess was the interpreter of the messages received through the
concentration of the group upon the stone from which the oracle spoke from
the realm of the saints (as would be termed today), or impressed upon those
of that period - the group -
the messages of hope, encouragement, endearment, and the necessity of
keeping the oneness of purpose. 
>
>> I don't know if I've been researching Atlantis for my own benefit.  I
>> already believe that it existed.  I am deeply troubled about an incorrect
>> (in my opinion) view of history for one thing and also when I see others
>> going to, what I consider to be, innaccurate sources for information.
>
>Even with hard physical evidence our understanding of history is always
>relative and incomplete. 

Archaeology will always be an incomplete science in my opinion and anyone
who bases their view of history solely upon this will always have a
distorted view.  I don't know why it bothers me so much; I think it has
something to do with the truth.

>How do you define "correctness" of view or "accurate" sources of
information, >especially with regard to deep history? 

I use the technique I previously mentioned - by comparison of information
from independent sources and searching for understanding.   I'm not sure
what your concept of 'deep' is...

>Historical studies all have their own fontiers of the unknown.
>They blend imperceptibly into the mythic. The older I get the more
>comfortable I am living with what is not known. 

Maybe I'm not old enough to accept this. :-)

>I'm not saying we
>shouldn't continually try to discover history, but realize that with
>each discovery come more questions and a shifting of the boundary of the
>known/unknown. History is a social construct.

I think correct history could be known.  It all 'boils down' to who we
believe or who we trust.   I've argued on another list with a Mayan
archaeologist who believes the esoteric knowledge that his people wrote but
not an esoteric knowledge obtained recently.  Didn't the information come
from the same source?
> 
>> I just unsubscribed from another mailing list last night and this is the
>> 'gist' of one of the postings on it:  "Then end of the world is coming and
>> nobody cares!"  Well, this person had chosen to accept one of Nostradamus'
>> quatrains literally (or someone's interpretation of it) about the end of
>> the world and was very agitated.  
>
>There are lots of people like that, especially now that the millenium is
>upon us. They are encountering their own fear. They are feeling
>alienated.

It seems to me that along with those who only trust science, there are
others, today, who will trust anybody who has a message from the 'other
side'.  It seems to me that this latter group is the most worried.
>
>> What does a person do?
>
>Loving kindness. Compassion. Wisdom.

I'll try. :-)

Gisele