Yesterday, after having been accepted for an interview for June of next year, by a person whose spirituality I sense is genuine, I wrote to nine more radio hosts. It's too early to say whether I'll hear back. I wrote to the ones who seemed most advanced. I eschewed those who, to my perception, are playing at spirituality, not really understanding what it's all about.
I noted that one of them had recently interviewed Dr. Walter Semkiw, who has been quite successful in popularizing reincarnation--albeit discrediting it, among those who can distinguish sloppy research from the rigorous variety. He is convinced he is the reincarnation of President John Adams, and having met him personally, I tend to think he plausibly could be. He has a certain robust charisma about him, aside from a physical resemblance, which is a difficult trait to assume. However, it seems to me that he popularizes reincarnation precisely the way a politician gets elected.
By "sloppy," what I mean is, that where Semkiw concludes a case is a proven past-life match, is where I would just be starting to look for confirming evidence. I want to see statements of past-life impressions that the modern person recorded--and dated--which precede any possible exposure to, or knowledge of, the past-life personality. (Suddenly, it's getting a lot harder.) And, I want those impressions to be idiosyncratic (unique), specific, and as numerous as possible. Also, in my opinion, Semkiw's results are crippled by relying on the opinion of one psychic, whom I saw in action, and whom I don't think is genuine. The two psychics I used demonstrated their accuracy with a slew of historically verified "hits"--specific information they had no prior way of knowing (unless they were on the internet during the phone reading, which I'm satisfied they were not--and even that couldn't account for some of their results, because they picked up on information I didn't yet know, and hadn't posted).
I agree that Semkiw's theory about reincarnated people often displaying similar visages, traits and abilities is correct. It is true in my own case, as well. And while he may indeed have gotten lucky with some of his proposed matches, just matching up these things hardly constitutes proof, in my opinion. It's an indication, which says "This might be a good proposed case to investigate." I also don't agree with him that one soul can be simultaneously incarnated in two different bodies. I think that's a theory he adopted to "rescue" some of his matches, which otherwise would have been disproven. Had he not done that--had he not cooked up an implausible theory to save his results--these mistakes, where all of his indicators were giving him a false positive, would have driven him toward more precise and reliable methods. That's science.
Some of his cases are stronger than others--but many of the strong ones weren't his cases, originally. One, Jeff Keene, I first discovered (when Jeff contacted me), investigated, and presented, myself. Semkiw has yet to publicly credit me with that. I had a comparison picture of Jeff and his past-life personality on my website before Semkiw published such comparisons in his book, "Return of the Revolutionaries." Except that for some inexplicable reason, he turns their faces upside-down, as well as showing them right-side up. I suppose that is supposed to be more scientific, but I've never seen that it is particularly useful.
I deliberately included the information, in my inquiry letter, that I have strong circumstantial evidence that Mathew and Abby were the original authors of "A Christmas Carol," and that Mathew was the author of at least three works claimed by Edgar Allan Poe, including "The Raven." Like my reincarnation evidence, my evidence for these conclusions is far better than Semkiw's. No-doubt it sounds flakier. Here's the truth--I think most of the people exposed to Semkiw's work are suspending disbelief, and deep down, they don't actually care whether Semkiw was really President Adams; nor do they actually care whether he has proven the other cases. It's sort of a show, that's fun to believe for the duration. "Shows" like this are always more popular, including the ones on TV that scare you for an hour until the skeptic gets on there and brings you back to earth again, with his phony analysis. I think people get entertained by Semkiw's research, inasmuch as he really isn't proving reincarnation with it, so it's safe.
My research isn't safe, because I did my homework.
Ninety-eight percent of what you see out there, which has gotten the lauds and honors, is childish imitation. By definition, in a childish society, only childish imitations are popular. This sounds harsh, but what I want to emphasize is the percentage. I don't think I'm exaggerating, I think it falls out at just about 98%. That means that 98% of the radio show hosts are going to reject me, and I am looking for the 2% who will intuitively feel and recognize a genuine spiritual seeker, who has made some progress in his path, and has something worthwhile to share.
One of my first exposures to Eastern mysticism, when I was just out of high school, was the Bhagavad Gita. There, Krishna explains that all action creates karma, but that inaction also creates karma. The only way out is to act without attachment to the results. One does one's best, but leaves the results to God. I have never run across any better spiritual advice. So, that's what I'm doing with these query letters. If I come to the end of my life, and there is no way to preserve this work for the future, I want to be able to say I tried everything.
I did the radio circuit before, when I was promoting my documentary, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America." I never saw a single sale result from any of those interviews (including the first one, with Shirley Maclaine), no less increased interest from the public at large, or from (ostensible) colleagues. When I had my own Blogtalk radio show, "Metaphysical Explorations," many of these people would let me interview them, but they never expressed any interest in my own studies.
But I was thinking about my claim regarding Edgar Allan Poe's plagiarism of my past-life poetry. It's the truth, for all that it looks absurd and delusional. So since the truth will always out, the eventual shock-wave this creates (as well as Dickens' plagiarism), is going to be all the more powerful for the denial, now. The more it is denied now, in other words, the more powerful the manifestation when people realize they've been unfairly dismissive. I mean on the societal level, but of course this will presumably happen for each denier in his or her life review. Oh, to be a fly on the astral wall! But that is never permitted. The Poe and Dickens experts who dismissed me as a nutcase, will have to realize that the real author of these works actually approached them, and they sent him back out into the rain. (Fortunately, it may be that you can't kick yourself in your astral body--or if you can, it heals right up again.)
Every day I try to key in one or two of Mathew's asterisk-signed reviews for the 1845 New York "Tribune." The one I keyed in this morning is a sort of a review of a reviewer, in this case, James Russell Lowell. Lowell was not a very original guy, though he was wealthy, well-connected, and well-educated. You may recall the rhyme:
And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod.
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God.
Lowell got famous imitating Mathew's "Ethan Spike" character with his own character, Hosea Biglow. Mathew was writing "Spike" for the Boston "Chronotype" before Lowell launched "Biglow" in the Boston "Courier." Mathew then responded to "Biglow" in-character as "Spike." But Lowell is always given credit, while Mathew's work is merely a footnote.
That was in mid-1846. Here, in Jan. 1845, Mathew is quite generous with Lowell's work, entitled "Conversations on Some of the Old Poets," but toward the end he offers some criticisms. I'd like to reproduce a couple of paragraphs, and these specifically bear on whether Mathew could have written "The Raven." That poem is especially noteworthy for its rhythm. The following is, simply, evidence that Mathew, a poet himself and the brother of world-class poet John Greenleaf Whittier, was quite aware of the nuances and the visceral effects of rhythm. Far more so than Poe was, because Poe's method of writing poetry was the "building-block" method, whereas Mathew understood that real poetry is always inspired and expressive of the poet's inner feelings--including the rhythm.
In what he says of metres, Mr. Lowell does not do justice to the poetic facts. The reasons he gives are inadequate. It is true, as he says, that the mind rises from prose into poetic measure quite naturlly, as from speech to song, when it has something to express above the level of the lower necessities of life. It is true that rhythm cannot more easily be disengaged from the poetic thought exprssed in it than the skin from the pulp of the grape. But this is not merely because it holds it together "in a compact and beautiful form." Metres themselves are actually something apart from the thought they are destined to convey. They are the music of that thought; its more or less perfect organization.
Madame de Stael was not wrong in receiving a high delight from the mere cadence of verses that she did not understand. As the same thought is expressed in all Gothic Cathedrals, but with pecular force in that at Cologne, so may the same thought be expressed with equal distinctness in two metres, but with more force in one than the other. Just so two faces may look on you with love and you may translate the meaning of either look--Love--but one will be full-fraught with soul, and will express the beauty of love, the other not. The charms of metres are subtle and more deeply grounded than the obvious meaning of the words; their analysis is not impossible, but it requires as clear a knowledge of the laws of harmony, i.e., of proportion, as delicate a sense of the subtle efficacy of thoughts, i.e. of spiritual gradation, as the analysis of what are more strictly styled musical compositions does; therefore while many men are too dully organized to feel their power, a larger proportion of those who can feel cannot render a reason. Let us put from us, once for all, the vulgar frivolity of assuming that that does not exist for which we cannot yet render a reason. Let us hear, with joyous hope, deep calling unto deep, where our steps may not yet venture.
On another note, last night I happened upon a Polish animation, on YouTube, about an elderly inventor of the film process. I don't know whether it was based on a true historical account, or not. I can provide the cut-and-paste URL for it, but for those of you reading this entry in the future, I don't know whether it will still be available. It is called "The Kinematograph" by Tomasz Baginski:
Now I am in a quandary, because if I explain why it struck me so forcefully, I will be spoiling the ending. It's an excellent film, and not long--if you know anything of Mathew's history with Abby, you will see exactly what I'm talking about.
I continue to be struck by the wild irony of not being believed, when you've achieved something extraordinary. But I think back to an image Abby flashed to me, once, by way of analogy. Someone has placed a large, uncut diamond on a play table in a kindergarten room, along with the marbles. The children rush in, and excitedly pick up this marble, or that one, holding them up for examination in the light, or comparing them with the ones their classmates have picked up. The rough diamond is seen by them as a mere rock, and ignored. Finally, one little girl thoughtfully holds it in her hand, wondering how it got there, and what it is. But now the teacher calls the class to come to order, and the diamond is placed gently onto the table, and forgotten.
That evening, the room, having been tidied up, is used for a meeting of the Mineralogy Society.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page: Theme from "Antiques Roadshow"