I woke up this morning with the overriding feeling of frustration, that I can prove amazing things but nobody will believe me. Had I told that psychologist what I was really there for, yesterday (see yesterday's entry), I would have been lucky if he didn't call the police. Even if I told him I have a master's degree in counseling (which he probably wouldn't have believed, either).
I can, of course, prove that I have an M.S. in Counseling and Human Systems from Florida State University, graduated 1981. But do you think I would have had the opportunity to prove it?
Here's the thing--I am easily discoverable. My work is out there, and the internet being what it is, and synchronicity being what it is, and since there are no accidents, my work can be discovered at any moment by that human being who has the ability to take it seriously. If that doesn't happen, and I believe there is purpose to the universe, I have to conclude that it isn't time, or there is some other reason why it should not happen.
So hitting this impasse, I began thinking about my past life vs. my current one. Many of the core issues are the same, including this one. Mathew was deeply ambivalent about fame. He avoided it at all costs, for various reasons; and yet, he knew he was a genius, and he wanted to be recognized as such. His attitude was, "I shouldn't have to toot my own horn, people should recognize the quality of my work and seek me out." But they never did, except perhaps for one or two "bores," or fans, who didn't really understand his work but who pestered him, as fans will do. He had spent his entire lifetime writing anonymously; and yet, he didn't want to see his legacy disappear upon his death. So much so, I think, that he incarnated as myself to straighten out the mess. Because, as I've written before, he realized, too late, that it had been a mistake. Writing anonymously made it too easy for other people to steal his work; and when a spiritually ignorant person claims and gets fame for stealing the work of a spiritually aware person, people are fooled and confused. It would be like a greasy spoon diner stealing the food from a gourmet restaurant. Now the public eats at the greasy spoon--whole families go there. But the cook at the greasy spoon also serves his own food, and going on reputation, the public thinks that this, also, must be fine cuisine. And the children start getting sick.
That's just one restaurant--but suppose it is world-wide? You can see the harm that is done. And there is something more subtle--it disrespects the very idea of a chef. A real chef (I would guess) is a fine tradition, a master of the craft. When cooks like this fellow are falsely honored as a chef, then it pulls down what it means to be a chef--the entire tradition. Until that tradition becomes meaningless.
Just so with people like Poe claiming "The Raven," and Dickens claiming "A Christmas Carol."
So Mathew realized that he should not have written anonymously. If he was doing dangerous undercover work for the cause of Abolition, he should either have died a martyr, or stopped writing. He should have told them, "I can't do this undercover work, because I'm an author and I have to sign my work." Or, he should have signed everything until they came to get him, or his family. He should not have allowed other writers to claim his work without immediately putting up a public protest.
Now, I have the almost impossible job of exposing these thefts. I've found that I can solve the cold cases, with a great deal of difficult detective work, but I can't get anyone to seriously look at the evidence. Either the claimant has been all but forgotten; or else he or she is now so famous, that nobody believes me. Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, the future Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Margaret Fuller, all claimed Mathew's work and became famous thereby. And I can prove it.
The point people are missing--because they have not read my books, and hence haven't learned who Mathew was--is that each additional claim does not, actually, make it less and less plausible. Each one actually makes it more plausible, once you understand that Mathew was, himself, a literary genius. And this can be proven to any reasonable person, because I have his work digitized. Unfortunately, no reasonable persons have been showing up. Only people who think they are being reasonable.
But that wasn't what I wanted to write about this morning. Another difference between myself and Mathew, is that he was attempting to ferret out the truth of life by identifying geniuses, both historical and current. Being a genius himself, he was always on the lookout for a genius in any particular field, and especially in his own field of literature. We won't try to define a "genius," now. Personally, I believe a "genius" always has a "muse," which is to say, all genius is channeled (i.e., inspired).
But every genius has it a little wrong. Every genius's presentation is mixed with a little error--or, perhaps, one significant error, like Achilles' heel. Mathew tried to collect geniuses, and to patch together a deep philosophy of life through this synthesis. But what happens when you do that, is you inevitably get their errors along with their wisdom.
This was brought to mind when I was just this morning reading the comments below a William Buhlman interview. William is the OBE guru. I took his CD course myself, when I had the idea to get out of my body to visit with Abby in the astral world. I don't respond very well to guided imagery, and 95% of his method is guided imagery. I did have one brief lucid dream, in which I was flying perhaps 50-60 feet above the ocean at night. I called out to Abby, she didn't come, and I woke up. She told me that even if I get out of my body, my vibration is so low compared to where she is, that I won't be able to see her any better than I can in my physical body. So that was that.
But these comments, by people who had studied what you might call the "new physics," were interesting. It seemed to me they had a bunch of things right, and one or two things off, depending on what sources they were drawing upon. One person had the idea that there are dimensions, and that we create our reality in front of us in extremely rapid cycles, sort of like the way a television works--so fast, that it creates the illusion of a continual reality. (This I have read, from Buddhist meditators.) But then came this idea of parallel worlds, that if you strongly want to do something, and you can't, you create another alternate world in which it will be happening. I think that's off. I don't believe that there is a parallel universe in which people are buying my e-books like crazy, and I am being invited every day to speak at another convention.
So if you take 100 such sources, and attempt to fit together a philosophy from all of them, you end up with mistakes--you end up confused. Your head starts to spin, and your intuition shuts down, because it doesn't connect with a deeper knowing. It's in your head; and your head is starting to spin, and to ache.
I incarnated, in this life, with this toxicity, and I was at the mercy of it as a child. I remember being taken to a restaurant which had pithy philosophical sayings hanging all over the place, from ceiling, and on the walls, as I vaguely remember it. Imagining that I could understand everything, I felt overwhelmed trying to synthesize all these sayings. It was a very unpleasant experience. But I was reliving Mathew's life without knowing it.
Finally, all this reached a crisis. At about age 15, I tried to create my own unified field theory in psychology (unknown to anyone else), and I basically tied myself in knots. At about 19, I gave it all up and started afresh, like the phoenix. And it was then I began my search for spiritual reality, including having a non-denominational conversion experience. I got side-tracked into a drug phase, because of people like Ram Dass inferring that the drug experience was a legitimate mystical experience. But I got out of that after a bad acid trip, and about six months later had begun following my Guru, Meher Baba.
What I did, was to put every other teachings aside, and dive deeply into the teachings of three Realized beings--Meher Baba, Sri Ramakrishna, and Rumi. And, I read the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna's disciples, chiefly Swami Vivekananda. I avoided everything and everybody else; and that way, I avoided their toxicity, as well. Because I was getting it from the horse's mouth, now. If you get the touchstone, everything opens. You don't need to study every lesser teacher's take on everything. You sit at the feet of the one who knows, the one who teaches directly from Gnosis, and you have everything all the others tried to understand.
That doesn't mean I know everything--rather, it means I'm grounded.
You want to hear something that fascinated me? It's worth a brief digression. When I was around 14, I became obsessed with a philosophical conundrum, which goes as follows: suppose you take something and cut it in half, and you keep on doing this. Will you ever reach nothing? Or can you go on infinitely cutting the thing in half, and yet always have something left over?
Today, I would say that if you define the thing as something you can cut in half, then you have something left over, by definition. If you don't, you don't. Or else, I would say, with the yahoos, "How about them Patriots?"
But what's fascinating, is that Mathew, also made a mention of this same philosophical problem. In his usual off-hand way, he made it sound as though it had merely piqued his interest. But I know him--I know it had really bothered him. I should show you the passage in black-and-white, but it's a tough one to search for. I might be able to find it if I mentioned it in my book...
Okay, it's not exactly as I remembered it. I finally found it in an unsigned lecture series that Mathew reported on for many years, covering the Mercantile Library Association lyceum in Portland, Maine. This lecture was given by one Prof. Hopkins. Mathew doesn't indicate that the question continued to bother him--but I know it did. Here, he is quoting the professor's lecture at length, having taken it down in shorthand.
To see Mathew's spoof on scientific lectures, check out this letter from his character, "Ethan Spike," which appeared a couple years later in the Oct. 6, 1855 edition of the same paper, the Portland "Transcript."
So to return to the topic, one can still go off the beam following a Realized master. There are branches of the Meher Baba "movement" which are going seriously off the beam, as I speak. It has only been 50 years since his passing (the exact date is in two days), and already we are seeing the same effects as happened in the early Christian church. But speaking for myself, as said, I feel well-grounded now. I have traded Mathew's truly encyclopedic knowledge of literary geniuses and their works--which he labored continually to build up over a lifetime--for a deep immersion in the work of these three teachers. To be honest, I haven't read any of these sources on a regular basis in some years, though I am going back to them now that my past-life project is completed. But I have them in my blood.
That means I can give myself a passing acquaintance with Buhlman, for example, or any of these presenters I see on YouTube, and I can sift them out, both intuitively and intellectually. I don't have the fastest intellectual engine out there--it's adequate--but I have something else, a "compass," if you will. I can watch David Wilcock, and I can see how very bright he must be, and I can also see where he's making sense and where he's probably going into la-la land. I think he wants to be famous, and he doesn't mind a little wild speculation presented as fact, if it's sexy enough to get him media attention. Could be wrong. But I don't get pulled in.
Mathew also had this "truth compass," but he confused it with so many other people's ideas. In this incarnation, I got it working again.
You can watch presentations, now, of non-natural artifacts on Mars. Some of it could be like seeing shapes in clouds--but it can't all be explained that way. Some of the things seen in these photographs of the Martian landscape are clearly not rocks. I found one, myself. My truth-compass says that definitely, there was an ancient civilization on Mars; and the evidence that it was destroyed in one or more nuclear blasts, is compelling.
This is just an example. It simply adds to the evidence that civilization is cyclical, and very much older than science has guessed. Meher Baba said there have been many "earths," which is to say, planets where people could incarnate and have the experiences they have, here. He also talks about 8.4 million human incarnations before Realization. (And it amuses me when New Age figures assert that they have had eight lifetimes, or 12 lifetimes.) You can't have 8.4 million incarnations on this earth, as scientists currently understand it--but there are a few Realized spiritual masters on the planet, at any given time. So logically, they could not have incarnated solely on the earth, again, as scientists conceive it. I haven't run the numbers, but if an average lifetime is 25 years, and you multiply 25 times 8.4, you get 210 million years, which means that the Realized being on the planet, today, would have had to begin his human incarnations 210 million years ago. That's with no time allotted for the astral realm in-between lives. Say that is average 80 years, so that 80 times 8.4 is 672 million years, plus 210, gives us a grand total of 882 million years. And that doesn't say anything about his mineral, vegetable, and animal lifetimes before first incarnating as a human being. This probably didn't all occur on our earth.
Note also that if there have been human beings incarnating for millions of years, they were not created by aliens 11,500 years ago. Or, if they were, on this earth, they were re-created. Note also that people have found artifacts suggesting advanced technology, that are millions of years old, being embedded in ancient rock in such a way that they couldn't have been placed there during recorded history.
So I suppose that the cutting-edge theorists are gradually, gradually introducing ideas which will enable people to understand and accept Meher Baba's teachings in the future. Now, his teachings just seem too fantastical.
This is what I'm attempting to do with reincarnation, as well. Just this piece. Just prove reincarnation, so that the Western world doesn't balk at it. Everybody is making his or her contribution. But as I have Meher Baba's teachings at the back of me, as my primary reference source, my contribution will be less toxic with embedded errors. It is, therefore, more advanced. Not because I am so advanced, but because I was advanced enough to latch on to a pure source.
That means Society isn't ready for what I'm presenting, yet. They are ready, in some cases, for Dr. Ian Stevenson; for Carol Bowman; and for others teaching in this field of reincarnation. But Dr. Stevenson's protege, Dr. Jim Tucker, wasn't ready for me. I was ready for him, inasmuch as I helped promote him by shooting a free, extended video interview with him in 2007 (which then went viral, sans attribution, as I did it anonymously). Dr. Tucker did credit me, where he presented it on his department's website. But he couldn't take my study seriously. I would guess that Chester Carlson, the man who originally funded Dr. Stevenson, might have. Because Carlson was involved with the Vedanta Society, founded in memory of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivikananda.
If you had me, Chester Carlson and Dr. Jim Tucker in the same room, and I presented my work, I think Carlson would be interested, whether Tucker took it seriously, or not. That is, if he didn't have a predisposition against Meher Baba, on the basis that Baba said he was the Avatar. The followers of Sri Ramakrishna fondly believed that he was the Avatar, and there is some confusion around that. Most people in the New Age community probably assume that anyone who claimed to be the Avatar, like Meher Baba, must be a fraud. Actually, he was the Avatar. As he humorously put it (to paraphrase), the one whose past is remembered, whose present is ignored and forgotten, and whose future advent is anticipated with great fervor and longing.
So there you have it. Always there is the ongoing search for truth, from one incarnation to another. Mathew let slip, in 1857, that he thought he was the reincarnation of a "Jewish high priest." Perhaps a psychic had told him so--certainly, he looked the part. A psychic once began the session asking me if I had any feeling of having been a rabbi (this was before I discovered Mathew), and added that I "had 'rabbi' all over me."
"In his reappearance" is typical of Mathew's code. "Mecanic Haul" is Mechanic's Hall, where, as Mathew mentioned in a private letter to his brother, he had recently given four Spiritualist sermons. "Aout" is the New England pronunciation of "out." ;-)
But I could show you dozens and dozens of Mathew's philosophical essays, and his published letters, demonstrating all of this. His fascination with geniuses; his extensive study of literature; and his own philosophical acumen. It means that I can objectively demonstrate how the search for truth proceeds from one incarnation to another. It's fine for such patterns to come up, remembered under hypnosis, in past-life therapy. And it certainly is impressive when long-time phobias and illnesses are cured, overnight, by this method. But I can show you around 1,500 of Mathew's published works, and I can compare them with my own mind, and my own writing. I can demonstrate the progression, and one could even quantify that comparison, if one was so-inclined (though it is better "grokked" intuitively).
My work is a rich field for mining, for those who will study the deeper mechanics of reincarnation, in the future. It is really a pity that the current leaders in the field either won't take my work seriously, or, perhaps, view it as competition. I recently wrote to Carol Bowman--with whom I have always been on at least reasonably good terms, since I interviewed her for my documentary in (I think it was) 1998--to give her the link to my recent interview. That was a few days ago and I haven't heard back. I would hope to at least have the courtesy of a reply if, perhaps, she is too busy to listen to the interview. But I fear she is now too important for me--just as Mathew's brother, John Greenleaf Whittier, became too important for him.
John Greenleaf Whittier's unofficial biographer, William Sloane Kennedy, said that Mathew's "Ethan Spike" satires are not worth the trouble of looking up. He casually added, in a disparaging tone, that Mathew was "also a versifier" (i.e., of sorts). Have you heard of John Greenleaf Whittier's most famous poem, "Snow-Bound"? And, have you heard of the poem, "The Raven"? As famous as it was, "Snow-Bound" is now all but forgotten--but every schoolboy has heard of "The Raven." That means that Mathew's poetry outlasted his famous brother's most famous poem--except that Poe stole it. He stole it for a few generations--but the truth will out, eventually, as it always does.
I don't know about you, but I think that's mildly interesting.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page, "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor," by Johann Sebastian Bach