Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atlantis


stevemagegod

Recommended Posts

Honestly, do you people have something wrong with your reading skills? Atlantis is simply one language's word for the place. It's called linguistics. For instance, in English, this is the United States I'm sitting in right now; in French, it is called États-Unis.

ok rephrasing my question

what mention of atlantis myhtology is there in hindu texts?

got that correct?

if you are trying to kumarikandam...it wont do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be under the misapprehension that these accounts were false. You trust the foolish Western terms like "underworld" to greatly. There is no such thing as an "underworld". Indeed, the Egyptian accounts referenced there being dead in Amentet ("Amenti", as you call it)--did not the Atlantean empire fall and become extinct? You seem not to have noticed my repeated notes that Atlantis is South America. And even if your conjecture that Aztlan was in the southern United States were correct, Atlantis' territory was said to have extended into that area. The children of Atlas are described in Plato's writings as well--and in the same context as in the Critias or Timaeus. Granted Philo Judaeus was subsequent to Plato's time--my point was to confirm that there are indeed extra-Platonic sources of information on Atlantis. And indeed, many of them are more recent than Plato--but then, there are many which predate Plato as well.

You seem to be under the impression that you're a competent researcher. Obviously you're not.

Atlantis as an island power originates with Plato and all similar descriptions of same are subsequent to his. The Ancient Egyptians clearly designate Amenti as the underworld, if you don't like it I'd suggest taking it up with them. The military apparatus that Plato describes is of a Bronze Age nature which is many thousands of years AFTER Plato's claimed timeframe for Atlantis. Also of note, Plato specifically claims that Atlantis lies "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar, which is a rather specific geographical location, as well as claiming its destruction by submergence led to the area around the Straits becoming an "impassable barrier of mud". Again, pretty specific where Plato locates it.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand what Atala really was/is. And the fact that the Aztec Atlan is south of North America coincides rather neatly with my initial statement that Atlantis was/is South America, does it not?

LOL, 'coincides rather neatly'??

Aztlan was a tiny area somewhere in the south-west of the USA. How far is that away from South America? That's much like saying Scotland is close to Italy.

The area from where the Aztecs originated, according to the 19th century map made by Tanner (inside the red frame):

tanner_00.jpg

About "Atala": I think a "The_Spartan" could tell you lots more about it; he is from India and actually studied the original texts, not the twisted fringe versions we non-Indians have to read.

+++

EDIT:

Sorry, I see The Spartan already did. I think it's best to just ask him for the necessary info instead of pretending you already know.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be under the misapprehension that these accounts were false. You trust the foolish Western terms like "underworld" to greatly. There is no such thing as an "underworld". Indeed, the Egyptian accounts referenced there being dead in Amentet ("Amenti", as you call it)--did not the Atlantean empire fall and become extinct? You seem not to have noticed my repeated notes that Atlantis is South America. And even if your conjecture that Aztlan was in the southern United States were correct, Atlantis' territory was said to have extended into that area. The children of Atlas are described in Plato's writings as well--and in the same context as in the Critias or Timaeus. Granted Philo Judaeus was subsequent to Plato's time--my point was to confirm that there are indeed extra-Platonic sources of information on Atlantis. And indeed, many of them are more recent than Plato--but then, there are many which predate Plato as well.

You seem to have missed or ignored my own response to you in my recent Post 1238, where I also addressed the issue of imntt. I prefer to spell it out as Imentet, you prefer Amentet, and I suppose either is fine. We don't know how the word was originally pronounced, anyway. We make due with its consonantal skeleton, but there is no questioning its meaning: like I said in Post 1238, a straight translation is "West" and an allegorical translation is "land of the dead." The Egyptians left no doubt about this. Living and breathing people did not come from or go to Imentet, they did not visit it or seek to find it: only deities, demons, and the souls of the deceased lived there. In their own religious writings the Egyptians were crystal clear on this.

You claim there is no such thing as "underworld" and that it is a "Western term," and yet by the Egyptians' own descriptions the land of the dead was literally under this world: it was subterranean. A common word for cemetery in their language, among numerous other terms, was rA-sTAw, often spelled as Rostau. This word literally means "place of ramps," referring to the descending ramp down which sarcophagi, coffins, and other large objects would've been dragged into the burial chambers of tombs. Necropoli would've been littered with filled-in ramps. Through time rA-sTAw came to mean "cemetery" in a general sense. It's overriding connotation was going down, going below. And in many instances caves were thought to be entrances to the underworld, which is why most burial chambers of tombs were equated to entrances to the underworld: they were manmade caves, manmade entrances.

If you're looking for another term, there is always dwAt, usually spelled Duat. No translation is possible. It's typically rendered as "afterlife" or "underworld" or, in clumsier versions, even "heaven." While kings were often believed to ascend into the heavens, most mortals went below. This has nothing to do with Hell or other Judeo-Christian concepts, it was simply how the Egyptians envisioned the place they went when they died. And in point of fact, from the New Kingdom on even kings were believed to dwell in the underworld after they died.

Think before you speak. I try to maintain that for myself. If you want to try to engage me in a debate about ancient Egyptian culture or language, I welcome it. I can also assure you, as cormac has correctly stated, not only does Imentet have nothing to do with Atlantis, but there is nothing about the myth of Atlantis that can be found in Egyptian culture or tradition. It was Greek, through and through. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I welcome your attempt, but I assure you I'm prepared to argue the basic fact that nothing of Atlantis, under that or any other name, exists in pharaonic Egypt.

I am not as well versed in the ancient peoples of India. I leave that to people who are much better versed on the topic than I am. Probably the most educated on that score here at UM is The_Spartan, who you have met. In my opinion he's already disproved your claims about Atlantis connections with ancient Indic peoples. There is no realistic possibility that this resulted from some kind of cross-cultural transference because Plato wrote the story around the early fourth century BCE, and at that time the Greeks knew nothing meaningful about the peoples of India and the people of India knew nothing meaningful about the Greeks.

As for placing Atlantis in the Western Hemisphere, like I said earlier, such an idea is absurd on the face of it. No argument in favor of it survives even mild scrutiny. But if you feel otherwise, please state in detail where in Timaeus or Critias evidence for it can be found. These two tales of Plato's represent the origin of the Atlantis myth, so it is there to which you must turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timelines and cultural indicators. This date 1) Does not even coincide with Plato 2) Is roughly coincident with the Clovis culture (which, based upon current research, may have had an expression in northern Mexico, but not South America proper).

For an example of the cultural status somewhat earlier than this date, you may wish to study the research of Dillehay re: Monte Verde.

Please supply credible archaeological support for your specious claims.

.

If you're looking for archaeological support, look for that fabled City of Z in the Amazon. You might look at the bottom of Lake Titicaca also. Most of the culture hasn't been uncovered yet. For the record though, I don't believe in the so-called "Clovis" theorized by anthropologists. No offense intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timelines and cultural indicators. This date 1) Does not even coincide with Plato 2) Is roughly coincident with the Clovis culture (which, based upon current research, may have had an expression in northern Mexico, but not South America proper).

For an example of the cultural status somewhat earlier than this date, you may wish to study the research of Dillehay re: Monte Verde.

Please supply credible archaeological support for your specious claims.

.

If you're looking for archaeological support, look for that fabled City of Z in the Amazon. You might look at the bottom of Lake Titicaca also. Most of the culture hasn't been uncovered yet. For the record though, I don't believe in the so-called "Clovis" theorized by anthropologists. No offense intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok rephrasing my question

what mention of atlantis myhtology is there in hindu texts?

got that correct?

if you are trying to kumarikandam...it wont do.

Read them yourself. It's quite plain. I've listed a few sources you might check already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be under the impression that you're a competent researcher. Obviously you're not.

Atlantis as an island power originates with Plato and all similar descriptions of same are subsequent to his. The Ancient Egyptians clearly designate Amenti as the underworld, if you don't like it I'd suggest taking it up with them. The military apparatus that Plato describes is of a Bronze Age nature which is many thousands of years AFTER Plato's claimed timeframe for Atlantis. Also of note, Plato specifically claims that Atlantis lies "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar, which is a rather specific geographical location, as well as claiming its destruction by submergence led to the area around the Straits becoming an "impassable barrier of mud". Again, pretty specific where Plato locates it.

cormac

Your hasty designation of me as an "incompetent researcher" is quite unjustified and rude. Simply because I trust that the ancients were actually capable of recording accurate information? I feel sorry that you don't. They were wiser than we living today.

Indeed, it is incredibly specific the location Plato gives, and his description of Atlantis is remarkably detailed. South America is simply the only candidate which matches all criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your hasty designation of me as an "incompetent researcher" is quite unjustified and rude.

Nope, it's quite justified considering the lack of actual knowledge about the Egyptians and other peoples that you've exhibited so far. Plato claims the story originates with the Egyptians, yet in the 2500+ years of Dynastic Egypt before him there is no mention, whatsoever by the Egyptians, of any place that could remotely be misconstrued as Atlantis.

Simply because I trust that the ancients were actually capable of recording accurate information? I feel sorry that you don't.

I feel sorry that you're that gullible.

South America is simply the only candidate which matches all criteria.

South America doesn't match any criteris, other than being (south) west. That doesn't mean much.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have missed or ignored my own response to you in my recent Post 1238, where I also addressed the issue of imntt. I prefer to spell it out as Imentet, you prefer Amentet, and I suppose either is fine. We don't know how the word was originally pronounced, anyway. We make due with its consonantal skeleton, but there is no questioning its meaning: like I said in Post 1238, a straight translation is "West" and an allegorical translation is "land of the dead." The Egyptians left no doubt about this. Living and breathing people did not come from or go to Imentet, they did not visit it or seek to find it: only deities, demons, and the souls of the deceased lived there. In their own religious writings the Egyptians were crystal clear on this.

You claim there is no such thing as "underworld" and that it is a "Western term," and yet by the Egyptians' own descriptions the land of the dead was literally under this world: it was subterranean. A common word for cemetery in their language, among numerous other terms, was rA-sTAw, often spelled as Rostau. This word literally means "place of ramps," referring to the descending ramp down which sarcophagi, coffins, and other large objects would've been dragged into the burial chambers of tombs. Necropoli would've been littered with filled-in ramps. Through time rA-sTAw came to mean "cemetery" in a general sense. It's overriding connotation was going down, going below. And in many instances caves were thought to be entrances to the underworld, which is why most burial chambers of tombs were equated to entrances to the underworld: they were manmade caves, manmade entrances.

If you're looking for another term, there is always dwAt, usually spelled Duat. No translation is possible. It's typically rendered as "afterlife" or "underworld" or, in clumsier versions, even "heaven." While kings were often believed to ascend into the heavens, most mortals went below. This has nothing to do with Hell or other Judeo-Christian concepts, it was simply how the Egyptians envisioned the place they went when they died. And in point of fact, from the New Kingdom on even kings were believed to dwell in the underworld after they died.

Think before you speak. I try to maintain that for myself. If you want to try to engage me in a debate about ancient Egyptian culture or language, I welcome it. I can also assure you, as cormac has correctly stated, not only does Imentet have nothing to do with Atlantis, but there is nothing about the myth of Atlantis that can be found in Egyptian culture or tradition. It was Greek, through and through. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I welcome your attempt, but I assure you I'm prepared to argue the basic fact that nothing of Atlantis, under that or any other name, exists in pharaonic Egypt.

I am not as well versed in the ancient peoples of India. I leave that to people who are much better versed on the topic than I am. Probably the most educated on that score here at UM is The_Spartan, who you have met. In my opinion he's already disproved your claims about Atlantis connections with ancient Indic peoples. There is no realistic possibility that this resulted from some kind of cross-cultural transference because Plato wrote the story around the early fourth century BCE, and at that time the Greeks knew nothing meaningful about the peoples of India and the people of India knew nothing meaningful about the Greeks.

As for placing Atlantis in the Western Hemisphere, like I said earlier, such an idea is absurd on the face of it. No argument in favor of it survives even mild scrutiny. But if you feel otherwise, please state in detail where in Timaeus or Critias evidence for it can be found. These two tales of Plato's represent the origin of the Atlantis myth, so it is there to which you must turn.

I have said all I dare to you people. You are all clearly devotees of the scantily-evidenced theories which abound in Egyptology and the like--abject absurdities and fictions. Atlantis is/was not the least bit Greek--granted, naturally, Plato, Being Greek, and writing about it, brings it into the realm of Greece. Otherwise, it was an utterly foreign place. Its closest relation was with ancient India (the fictional "Indus Valley Civilization" anthropologists speak of is ridiculous), the base of the other great empire, that ruled by Rama. My uncle was in point of fact a respected Egyptologist--though one who acknowledged the idiocies and falsities present in modern Egyptology. Virtually no "underworlds" are present in the ancient texts (with very few exceptions)--this meaning that there are only a scarce few mentions of subterranean lands in the ancient writings. I indeed try strive to think hard before I speak--and I respect that you make an effort in that respect as well. It would benefit you all I think though to be less staunch and needlessly rigid with your theories--new information comes every day. Without doubt, in the near future, virtually everything you people are now defending as truth will wither away in light of new evidence. I and my school simply interpret the same evidence in a different, equally-valid way. I would ask you to be more open-minded and welcoming to new ideas; otherwise, alas, you will be intellectually abandoned. You are free, as you inevitably will, to reverse these statements to me. They are one of the principal methods by which I research--never remain fixated to one idea for too long: the next thing you learn may disprove it. I admit that my ideas about Atlantis may be incorrect--however I base them strictly upon the available evidence, and have not as of yet been introduced to any evidence which disproves my current theses. Again, I apologize for any tones of rudeness or disdain present in my recent discussions. Namaste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South America doesn't match any criteris, other than being (south) west. That doesn't mean much.

Am I the only person who got a chuckle out of that word? Probably. I'm the one with the twisted dirty mind after all... I'm so filled with lewdness. :w00t:

Okay, walking away now... :innocent::whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it's quite justified considering the lack of actual knowledge about the Egyptians and other peoples that you've exhibited so far. Plato claims the story originates with the Egyptians, yet in the 2500+ years of Dynastic Egypt before him there is no mention, whatsoever by the Egyptians, of any place that could remotely be misconstrued as Atlantis.

I feel sorry that you're that gullible.

South America doesn't match any criteris, other than being (south) west. That doesn't mean much.

cormac

Show that I'm gullible, if you please. Some evidence would be welcome here of such a claim. What you deem a "lack of knowledge" about the Egyptians I can kindly say is simply a type of knowledge you are clearly unfamiliar with. A type of knowledge based on the evidence provided by the Egyptians themselves.

South America matches, as I've said, every criteria for Atlantis. Take the time to read Plato's account and you'll see (that is, if you have any familiarity with South America).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who got a chuckle out of that word? Probably. I'm the one with the twisted dirty mind after all... I'm so filled with lewdness. :w00t:

Okay, walking away now... :innocent::whistle:

It was a typo, but yes, now we know where your mind is booNy. :lol:

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show that I'm gullible, if you please.

You've done well enough by claiming that Atlantis existed and that several ancient cultures mentioned it. So pretty much wrong from the start. You're entitled to be ignorant and we're entitled to show just how much. :yes:

BTW, I've read Timaeus and Critias more times than I care to count. Neither supports your claims

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a typo, but yes, now we know where your mind is booNy. :lol:

cormac

:lol:

You even designated it as being in the south... :rofl:

Okay, I'm really walking away now... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who got a chuckle out of that word? Probably. I'm the one with the twisted dirty mind after all... I'm so filled with lewdness. :w00t:

Okay, walking away now... :innocent::whistle:

lol... I didn't know cormac was engrish :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who got a chuckle out of that word? Probably. I'm the one with the twisted dirty mind after all... I'm so filled with lewdness. :w00t:

Okay, walking away now... :innocent::whistle:

OK, as a non-native English speaker, now I am curious - what did I just miss :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read them yourself. It's quite plain. I've listed a few sources you might check already.

what sources??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've done well enough by claiming that Atlantis existed and that several ancient cultures mentioned it. So pretty much wrong from the start. You're entitled to be ignorant and we're entitled to show just how much. :yes:

BTW, I've read Timaeus and Critias more times than I care to count. Neither supports your claims

cormac

You'll have to show that several ancient cultures didn't mention Atlantis, anywhere, first though, wouldn't you? To show that I'm "gullible", as you put it (though in this context I'm not sure how you expect that to have any meaning). You claim I'm ignorant as much as I could claim your ignorance. You don't prove anything by claiming the other person's ignorance. You do it by telling what you know and deliberating over the support for those claims. I have done the same as you for the Timaeus and Critias, and they are a primary source for my information about Atlantis--we seem to have two equally-valid interpretations. I do not wish to state that your claims are abjectly false, and likewise I would like it if you had better debate skills than merely claiming my ignorance or gullibility. You weren't there; I wasn't there. We can't know exactly what happened back then. But I for one prefer to read the accounts of people who knew more than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to show that several ancient cultures didn't mention Atlantis, anywhere, first though, wouldn't you?

You're the one making the claim and at UM if you make the claim then it's up to you to show valid evidence to support it. So far all you've shown is a willingness to believe it's true and some writers from 2000+ years ago mentioning it or claiming it's true. That's not evidence, it's not even second hand information. It's no better than a story. As to the question of gullibility, yes, you're gullible. Someone that far back mentioned Atlantis and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Many of us have read Timaeus and Critias and have knowledge of the cultures and timelines relevant to the discussion and NONE of your claims are substantiated. At all. As to my debating skills, I've long given up caring about the opinion of wilfully ignorant people such as yourself who don't have any facts but have an apparent problem separating fact from fiction. I'm sure there's a more appropriate area at UM for fiction, but it isn't here.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one making the claim and at UM if you make the claim then it's up to you to show valid evidence to support it. So far all you've shown is a willingness to believe it's true and some writers from 2000+ years ago mentioning it or claiming it's true. That's not evidence, it's not even second hand information. It's no better than a story. As to the question of gullibility, yes, you're gullible. Someone that far back mentioned Atlantis and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Many of us have read Timaeus and Critias and have knowledge of the cultures and timelines relevant to the discussion and NONE of your claims are substantiated. At all. As to my debating skills, I've long given up caring about the opinion of wilfully ignorant people such as yourself who don't have any facts but have an apparent problem separating fact from fiction. I'm sure there's a more appropriate area at UM for fiction, but it isn't here.

cormac

All I have to say is that you certainly have a talent for separating fact from fiction. Are you going to tell me that George Washington was fictional too? Or Gandhi? Or Einstein? I haven't met them. And why should I believe the crazy things they said? Your penchant for believing that ancient people who almost always gave accurate information in their records were all liars. You may or may not be correct. Just as I may or may not be correct. But I have just as much reason to believe they were telling the truth as you have to believe they were lying. Your talent for needlessly discounting the accounts of the ancients is shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one making the claim and at UM if you make the claim then it's up to you to show valid evidence to support it. So far all you've shown is a willingness to believe it's true and some writers from 2000+ years ago mentioning it or claiming it's true. That's not evidence, it's not even second hand information. It's no better than a story. As to the question of gullibility, yes, you're gullible. Someone that far back mentioned Atlantis and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Many of us have read Timaeus and Critias and have knowledge of the cultures and timelines relevant to the discussion and NONE of your claims are substantiated. At all. As to my debating skills, I've long given up caring about the opinion of wilfully ignorant people such as yourself who don't have any facts but have an apparent problem separating fact from fiction. I'm sure there's a more appropriate area at UM for fiction, but it isn't here.

cormac

And indeed, there is more than merely textual evidence. When they describe a location, and that location can be found: that is evidence of their accuracy. As for my alleged lack of "facts", I admit willingly that I have few to none. Just as YOU have few to none. "Facts" are an essentially invalid concept. What is "fact" today will be "fiction" tomorrow. As for true facts (such as the precise geographical features of a continent), they cannot be denied. And I have matching data in this field, in regards to Atlantis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And indeed, there is more than merely textual evidence. When they describe a location, and that location can be found: that is evidence of their accuracy. As for my alleged lack of "facts", I admit willingly that I have few to none. Just as YOU have few to none. "Facts" are an essentially invalid concept. What is "fact" today will be "fiction" tomorrow. As for true facts (such as the precise geographical features of a continent), they cannot be denied. And I have matching data in this field, in regards to Atlantis.

Atlantis is described in Plato's Dialogues - so where is it.... not a pot shot in the dark of saying South America..... but unquestionable proof that its there. You say if its described it can be found, well it is described and described well, but not found.... see the flaw in your logic, I remember hearing people in south Africa have been told stories from their ancestors about 100m long snakes and mountains that touched the sky in South Africa, neither of witch exists. So without proof all you have are tall stories and your opinion.

I would love to believe that its Atlantis is more than just a story, but i must admit that my feeling is Plato uses it like a fable (same way Jesus did in the bible with other fables) to get his point across.

Thanks all

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of the most useful are the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana--as I said previously.

I doubt it, else I would have found them. Now can you tell me what exactly you interpret as Atlantis in there? Or do I have to smoke a joint first to "get it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.