“A. It is the free will, and its losing itself in its relationship to God.
“Q. The third problem has to do with the fall of man. Should this be described as something which was inevitable in the destiny of souls? Or something which God did not desire, but which He did not prevent once He had given free will . . . ?
“A. He did not prevent, once having given free will. For He made the individual entities or souls in the beginning . . . the beginnings of sin, of course, were in (the souls’) seeking experiences of themselves outside of the plan, or the way in which God had expressed them. Thus it was the individual, see?
“Having given free will, then—and even though having foreknowledge, even though being omnipotent and omnipresent—it is only when the soul that is a portion of God chooses, that God knows the end thereof.
“Q. The fourth problem concerns man’s tenancy on earth. Was it originally intended that souls remain out of earthly forms, and were the races originated as a necessity resulting from error?
“A. The earth and its manifestations were only the expression of God, and not necessarily as a place of tenancy for the souls of man—until man was created . . . to meet the needs of existing conditions . . .
“Q. The sixth problem concerns interplanetary and inter-system dwelling between earthly lives. It was given through this source that the entity . . . went to the system of Arcturus, and then returned to earth. Does this indicate a usual or an unusual step in soul evolution?
“A. As indicated, or has been indicated in other sources besides this, respecting this very problem—Arcturus is what may be called the centre of this universe; (the system) through which individuals pass, and at which period there comes the choice of the individual as to whether it is to return to complete (evolution) there; . . . that is, in this planetary system, our sun and its planetary system . . . or to pass on to others. This was an unusual step—and yet a usual one.
“Q. The seventh problem concerns implications from the sixth problem. Is it necessary to finish the solar cycle before going to other systems?
“A. Necessary to finish the solar cycle . . . .
“Q. Must the solar cycle be finished on earth, or can it be completed on another planet; or does each planet have a cycle of its own which must be finished?
“A. If it is begun on earth, it must be finished on the earth. The solar system of which the earth is a part is only a portion of the whole. For as indicated in the number of the planets about the earth, they are of one and the same . . . and they are relative to one another . . . .
“Q. Are heredity, environment and will equal factors in aiding or retarding the entity’s development?
“A. Will is the greater factor, for it may overcome any or all of the others—provided that will is made one with the pattern, see? For no influence of heredity, environment or whatnot surpasses the will, else why would that pattern have been shown in which the individual soul—no matter how far astray it may have gone—may enter with Him into the Holy of Holies?
“Q. The ninth problem concerns the proper symbol or simile for the Master, the Christ. Should Jesus be described as the Soul who first went through the cycle of earthly lives to attain perfection, including perfection in the planetary lives also?
“A. He should be. This is as the man, see?
“Q. Should this be described as a voluntary mission by One who was already perfect and returned to God, having accomplished His Oneness in other planes and systems?
“A. Correct.”
(5749-14)
“The worlds were created and are still in creation—in this heterogeneous mass which is called the outer sphere; or those portions to which man looks up in space. The mists are gathering . . . of what is this the beginning? In this same beginning, so began the earth’s sphere . . .”
(900-340)
3
The Rise and Fall of Atlantis?
Ever since Plato wrote his startling account of a sunken continent, men have debated the reality of its existence. Indeed, no historical subject has produced more controversy and been of such persistent duration. Long since lost in antiquity, here is a land and a people about which history officially knows nothing. In spite of Plato’s story and some 25,000 volumes subsequently written on the subject, only the bravest of modern scholars give any credence to the Atlantean theory.
The first recorded mention of such a land is in Plato’s Timaeus, written in the fifth century before Christ. Here the great philosopher describes a conversation between certain Egyptian priests and Solon, an Athenian statesman of the seventh century B.C. The priests represented Atlantis as a great island larger than Asia Minor and Libya combined, lying just beyond the Straits of Gibraltar. It had been a powerful kingdom 9,000 years before the birth of Solon, in 638 B.C., and its invading hordes had overrun the lands that bordered the Mediterranean.
Only Athens itself had successfully withstood the Atlantean invasions. Finally, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants, earthquakes and the sea overwhelmed Atlantis, and it disappeared into the ocean. In the unfinished Critias, Plato adds a history of the ideal commonwealth of Atlantis—the political Utopia of another age.
Pliny, the Roman naturalist, also discusses it in his Natural History, a sort of encyclopedia written in the first century A.D. Early Arabian geographers place Atlantis on their maps. Medieval writers accepted it as true history, and their beliefs were substantiated by numerous traditions of ancient islands in the eastern seas, which offered various points of resemblance to Atlantis. Some of these sunken islands were marked on maps as late as the sixteenth century A.D.
There are traditions of a great flood among almost all races of ancient peoples, indicating a common origin and a widespread acceptance of the legend. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the subject of Atlantis was still seriously debated and its credibility admitted by such men as Voltaire, Montaigne, and Buffon. Francis Bacon, in his allegory, The New Atlantis, published in 1627, presents it as a symbolic Utopia established on scientific principles: a high cultivation of natural science and the arts.
Many attempts have since been made to rationalize the story of Atlantis, the best perhaps being Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, by Ignatius Donnelly. The land has variously been identified with America, the Scandinavian countries, the Canary Islands, and Palestine—but usually with the main body of it lying in the North Atlantic.
Perhaps its most prominent defender of modern times was Edward H. Thompson, archaeologist and American Consul for twenty-four years to Yucatan, Mexico. He died in 1935, still convinced that the mysterious tribe of Mayan Indians of Central America was originally from Atlantis. A few others have held to this view despite the ridicule of the conservative element of science.
Scholars have long tended to regard the whole story as invention, since no contemporary written records have been found. Little credence is given to the early accounts, the legends or the theory, although the latter does answer many otherwise unanswered questions. Plato, Pliny, and Bacon are not known as writers of pointless fiction, and the story as a myth would appear to be grossly out of place in serious philosophic and historic works. Why they should now be accused of fabricating their accounts, except partially in the case of Bacon, is as regrettable as it is unrealistic and unlikely.
Geologists have discovered that the coastline of western Europe at one time extended farther in the direction of America than it does now and that its submergence must have taken place long before history was recorded. There are known mountain ranges, ravines,