Previous entry, I shared my new evidence that, as I had felt and suspected for some time, in my past life as Mathew Franklin Whittier, I actually was undercover in the South for a time, as an Abolitionist. Mathew kept himself very well hidden--so much so, that nobody except myself, at this point, realizes just how much work he did. What you see, if you try to look him up, is the barest tip of the iceberg. And this is the modus operandi of the past--to keep under cover. In centuries past, those who didn't could end up burned at the stake; somewhat more recently, you could just get blacklisted. Though an Abolitionist in the South could get tarred and feathered.
It seems to me there has been a fundamental change, in this age of the internet and mass communications. The information is readily-accessible. But there is such a glut of information, that the pearl is lost in a sea of marbles. The good information is thus hidden in plain sight.
The burden is then on the seeker of knowledge. The one with no discernment will just keep on gathering marbles; or will become disgusted, and leave off altogether. Only the person with the burning desire to know, who will neither be turned away from his quest or fooled, will keep pushing the marbles aside until he finds the pearls.
For years, I have been stressing discernment, and attempting to teach it. In education, this is called trying to teach students to think for themselves--but it goes deeper than that. Discernment is not merely intellectual. It is smelling Truth, recognize Truth intuitively, against one's own inner gauge. If you are asleep to your inner gauge, your inner compass, how are you going to recognize it outside yourself, when you encounter it?
This is like having a "pearl Geiger counter." I don't know how to give people that. This is why, over the years, I have tried to shift my focus away from proving anything to cynics, and toward becoming a beacon for those who are deeply and sincerely seeking. Of course, I'm no spiritual teacher. I can't give you God, or spirituality. I can give you a clear, sane, accurate understanding of reincarnation.
I know what all this looks like. It's not my fault that when I delved into my past life, I found that, contrary to appearances, he was a man of accomplishments. If you don't think I'm of much account, today, then of course you won't believe that I could have been of much account in this previous life. But then, how would you know? You would expect to see fame, lauds and honors. But Mathew Franklin Whittier was beyond trying to win the popularity contest. He was about trying to help enlighten and assuage society.
He sabatoged his own legacy--he committed legacy suicide. And it was a mistake. I realize that, now. It was necessary for him to set it straight. When you deliberately cover yourself, hide your light under a bushel so as to avoid the temptations of fame, you rob people of the opportunity to admire what you stand for. Worse yet, you allow lesser lights to claim your work as their own. And this turns out to be a very dangerous business. Because people open themselves to the other works, and to the example, of the thief. Based on your writings, they let the thief into their homes and into their hearts. They admire a person not worthy of admiration, in other words, based on his having claimed your own work.
So Charles Dickens is admired as the man who had the spiritual acumen to write "A Christmas Carol"; and Edgar Allan Poe is admired as the man with the genius to have written "The Raven." But neither were the real authors, according to my research. Abby Poyen Whittier, Mathew's first wife, wrote the original version of "A Christmas Carol," with Mathew either collaborating, or editing after the fact. Mathew wrote "The Raven" after she died. Mathew was not a perfect person, but he had those traits which one admires in those works. Abby was not perfect, either, but she was an exemplary, unsung genius who is quite worthy of admiration as the real author of the "Carol."
So the real author must be paired up with the work, in order for the admiration which attends it, to be directed to its proper source. Then it is up to the author to brush aside pride, to wear fame as lightly as possible. To hide, on the other hand, is to abnegate one's responsibility.
One can see this very clearly with sports heroes. Any sports hero knows that part of his responsibility, is to let young people look up to him. Not to feed his own ego, but to provide inspiration. If he allowed someone of lesser character to take credit--if he allowed the youth to believe that some other person was the athelete--and if they started to admire and emulate that person--how much damage would be done?
If you look closely at Charles Dickens' character, he was incapable of the spiritual power one finds in "A Christmas Carol," even though he modified it somewhat for popular consumption. He was a sensationalist writer of low morals. He rode to popularity on a pretense of being a social reformer, while actually pandering to the public's appetite for graphic tales of the seamy side of life. This is not my opinion--it's the opinion of psychic Andrew Jackson Davis, whom I quote in my book (I have paraphrased him, here). Because people imagined that Dickens had written "A Christmas Carol," he must be alright--and so they allowed the rest of his work into their hearts, and into their homes.* Same with Poe.
But that's not the whole story. Suppose that Mathew had never turned over Abby's manuscript to Dickens in Boston, in 1842, as he apparently did. Would Abby have ever become famous as the author of that story? What about "The Raven"--would Mathew Franklin Whittier have ever become famous as its author, if Poe had not claimed it (or, perhaps, if Mathew had not given it to him to do with as he wished)? I think not. That's because these men gained their fame by appealing to the lowest common denominator in addition to stealing the works of more spiritually advanced persons. They won the popularity contest with their own trash, in other words. And then they capped it off by stealing good work from real genuises.
I use the word "genius" here in a particular sense. A genius is one who channels work from the realms of genius, i.e., those realms in which what we call genius, is normal.
These people who win the popularity contest cannot do this. They can only recognize, and steal. Yogi Baba Hari Dass said, "Snakes know heart." This is the core of the mystery. Certain people of lower moral and spiritual development, still can recognize work that is channeled from the higher realms. Why this should be, I don't know. But they recognize it, they know its income-earning potential, and its potential for fame, and they steal it. They, however, have no compunctions about earning fame by appealing to the lowest common denominator. But they flash these stolen pearls to attract people who otherwise would have left them alone.
All of this is because of the abysmal ignorance of Society. Technological advancement is not the solution to this problem. In "A Christmas Carol," where you see the two symbolic children shown to Scrooge by the Ghost of Christmas Future, "Ignorance and Want," what Abby originally meant, here, was spiritual ignorance. Not educational ignorance. What she originally said, I believe, was that what one should really fear is spiritual ignorance; that next to it, material want is a relatively minor problem. Dickens couldn't see this, and so he made them nearly equal, i.e., educational ignorance and want, but admitted that maybe educational ignorance was a little bit more dangerous. That tip-of-the-hat by Dickens to Abby's teaching, is as much of it as got through.
Thus did Dickens water down this story, from the high plane that Abby had channeled it. But still, enough of it was retained to rock the world. If the original is ever found, I believe it will turn out to be far more like Bruce Joel Rubin's film, "Ghost," where all the metaphysics are genuine.**
I would love for people to know who Abby was. As Mathew, I was so privileged to have been her husband, even for five years.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*"A Christmas Carol" was not the only work Dickens plagiarized. I found evidence that he also plagiarized "David Copperfield" from another author, around the same time. Thus, several of the works that people judge Dickens by, may not have been his.
**As near as I can extrapolate the break-down, the preaching and the psychology was Abby; the jocular humor was Mathew; and the sensationalized sci-fi may have started with Mathew, to make it more appealing, and then have been further embellished to render it acceptable to a general audience, by Dickens. Where you see the "Ghost of Christmas Past" doing psychotherapy with Scrooge by taking him back to observe his past, this was originally Scrooge's spirit guides taking him out-of-body to view the akashic records. Where the ghosts lecture Scrooge, this was Abby's voice, and what they said, in her original, would have been true to occult science as regards earthbound spirits, karma, etc. Dickens, as a scoffer and a metaphysical ignoramus, would have been incapable of writing this--just as he was hopelessly incapable of duplicating it in subsequent Christmas seasons. I actually found an unsigned article by Mathew, reviewing one of Dickens' later Christmas attempts, tactfully saying as much.
Music opening this page: "Trademark" by Eric Johnson, from the album, "Ah Via Musicom"