My scans of the 1833-1837 Dover "Enquirer" still haven't arrived, so I'm at loose ends. I've been thinking about writing another entry for an hour this morning--sitting on the second-floor deck, listening to the bird calls... Am I writing out of compulsion, or to relieve boredom? Or is there something I wish to address, which might be helpful (if not to promote my book, perhaps helpful to anyone who reads this)?
There is a topic which keeps coming up, but I'm hesitant to tackle it. This is one of those things that if people don't know, you can't tell them; and if they already know, there is no point in telling them. But it does follow from what I've been discussing, lately, so I'll give it a try. Worse comes to worse, I won't publish it and you'll never know I tried.
What do reincarnation, and ancient civilizations, have in common? Aside, that is, from both being fringe topics? They both point to cyclical time; one in the micro, and one in the macro.
Materialism--identification with the physical as the basis for reality--is an illusion. At best, I could say it is a stage. The conception of linear time--progress--acquisition--goes with materialism. I (the body) get better and better (progress) and I acquire more and more (acquisition). Then I die, and that's that. Perhaps my children carry on; perhaps, having become famous, my legacy lives on.
All this is an illusion. The same goes with the macro level, with civilizations. And if it were admitted that the rubble on Mars suggests it has all been done before; or if it were admitted that reincarnation is real; then the illusion is shattered. There are a lot of people who are heavily invested in this illusion, and a lot of societies and their governments which are heavily invested in this illusion.
Now, that was the first topic I wanted to touch on. Truth is, I think I've said it succinctly, and while a book could be extruded from this simple statement, I think you can extrapolate it out as well as I can. Think of how Western society perceived the environment before the advent of the science of ecology. We had two schools--the people who thought of Nature as God's signature on earth; and the people who just saw seemingly limitless resources to exploit. As near as I can tell, all the big tycoons got where they did by simply raping Nature on a massive scale. In other words, they were bigger assholes than anyone else, willing to do what no spiritually sane person would ever dream of doing. This is the basis for our great civilization--it was born from rape.
Ecology comes along, and suddenly everything is cycles. Everything is interconnected. Oddly enough, God is absent. It seems to me that atheism is a huge problem behind so many social ills--but atheism is paired off against religion. That's a profound mistake; because atheism is really paired off against spirituality.
Now, I am looking at my own personal case, as revealed in my study of my relatively-recent past life as Mathew Franklin Whittier in the 19th century. This is hard to express. I look at myself, age 63, presumably at the height of my powers in this life; and I look at Mathew, at the height of his powers. There is relatively little difference. If I were seated across from Mathew in the parlor, we would have a lively discussion, and I would be hard-pressed to gainsay him in an argument. But I have certain advantages; I have learned certain things. There are perhaps three or four key areas in which my understanding has been advanced.
And those gems did not come cheap. We are talking a lifetime of struggle and suffering to learn those simple things.
In-between Mathew at his height, and myself at my height, lies a very confused childhood (and, perhaps, a very confused lifetime I haven't been able to historically verify). It wasn't easy to claw my way back to where I was in the 19th century--gems in hand. So this case (as would every case) provides a window into the cyclical process.
This dynamic was known, and is now known, by some people. It will not be news, for example, to a good psychic astrologer. But such people are completely marginalized by science, today. I have always felt intuitively that I need to stay away from astrology, even though a psychic friend, giving me an impromptu astrological reading, once told me that later in life, I would develop an interest in it. I feel as though I need to discover these principles afresh, for myself--that by putting on someone else's lenses, as it were, I will be missing crucial insights. I don't want to learn the language of astrology, because glasses are also blinders, in other words. There are distortions in astrology, and limitations, and I am not meant to be hampered by them.
So now I may add, to the list of people I have offended, and who refuse to read anything more that I have to say, the astrologers!
One odd thing I've noticed--from colleagues, to acquaintances, to close friends--disagree with them once, and you've lost them.
I think that if I have to pretend to agree with people in order to keep them, I'd just as soon lose them.*
So what are those lessons that Mathew learned? That's personal...I'm not sure I want to just casually list something so personal to an audience who cannot respect what I say enough to spend $12.00 and 3-4 weeks of their life reading my study. But the one that comes to mind is the urge for reform. I wrote about this when I was Mathew, as well. Let me see if I can find it--I seem to have this entire massive study at my mental fingertips, like people who have memorized the Bible. So I know right where to look. Mathew is speaking, here, of a friend who is even more of a passionate social reformer than himself; but any time Mathew praises or describes a person, he puts quite a bit of himself in it. So here, he is also speaking to himself:
The longer De Wolfe may live, the stronger will be his conviction that it is a decidedly up-hill business to be engaged in a reform of any kind, from the fact that the community, as a whole, have no sympathy for the reformer. This is evident from the fact that when the community moves, the reform will work itself. But the man who has the moral courage to battle for right, regardless of what the neighbors will say, is, in our opinion, deserving the highest of praise, and if he do n't get it while living, he is sure to be toasted by posterity, which is something at all events.
So here Mathew is dealing with this same conundrum--you can't just sit by without trying to help, but they will ignore you until they learn for themselves. And perhaps once they do, in hindsight, they may appreciate your efforts.
I find myself in that conundrum, today--which means, the entire thing has come full circle. But is it only a circle; or is it a spiral? And if it is a spiral, am I creating anything new, or am I reclaiming what is already latent, within? It is like someone who tries to get back into his own house, to get at the treasure inside. He bangs at the front door, until he has bloodied his hands, and is taken to the hospital. After six months of agony, with his hands healed, he comes back to the house with a claw hammer. That doesn't work, and when a splinter hits him in the eye, he lands back in the hospital for another six months. Now, armed with a sledge hammer and goggles, he goes back for another try--and so-on. But all the while it is his own house, and his own treasure, which he is trying to reclaim.
All analogies fail, being analogies, but you can see that I am back at the front door, again. And it was a very, very tough six-month stint in the hospital, let me tell you. Again, if I am not mistaken, there may have been a relatively brief lifetime in-between, during which I was lost and groping my way.
You can see from the above quote, if you know that Mathew projected himself into these appraisals of others, that although he tried not to be concerned with his legacy, he certainly was. So much so, that he reincarnated to resurrect it. As I have stated many times in this blog, Mathew appears to have committed "legacy suicide"; and to have concluded, after he died, that it had been a mistake. So I am back, and I have reconstructed it. Now what?
Because, horror of horrors, nobody is interested in it. That's almost unbearable. But I really think it's too early. If everything I've taught, here, were to be accepted as reality, then the entire materialistic paradigm, with its linear time and its linear progress, would be fatally wounded. You could not embrace everything I've done, here, and hang on to that world view at the same time. One or the other has to go.
And on the macro level, I would say that the same is true for ancient civilizations. The ancient astronaut theorists try to salvage the situation, by attributing it to alien intervention. That goes to the Avataric paradigm, or influence from outside, and influence from above. Notice that all the ancient astronaut theorists appear to be atheists. I haven't taken a poll, but that seems to be the case. They are substituting aliens for God. Even Krishna, in their estimation, is an alien with advanced technology. This isn't just random goofiness (which half a half a scholar could poke a logical hole through)--there's a reason they assert something so asinine. Sorry, but really...
For all I know there actually has been alien contact. More likely, it's remnants of the previous civilization--kind of like Mathew Franklin Whittier's writing influencing me, today. There is a far greater influence from far greater beings than aliens, if you want to go to the "help from above" dynamic. To the extent that ET theorists are blocking this understanding, they are getting in the way, and I will call them on it.
But the Avataric paradigm isn't what I set about to discuss, this morning. If it is true, what the ancient Hindu sages told us, that the world cycles up and down through four basic "yugas," or stages, then the whole idea of the linear progress of mankind is a gigantic mistake--as is materialism, itself. That means that modern science is hobbling about on two severely faulty premises--materialism, and linear progress, or linear time. And that, in turn, goes to purpose. If life doesn't exist for linear progress, what is it here for? Perhaps, consciousness? Perhaps it is not survival, or progress, which drive the whole thing--perhaps it is consciousness? Consciousness of what is already latent, and inherent? (Just supposing.)
So when the rocks on Mars turn out to actually be a debris field, as the fringe theorists contend; and when ancient civilizations start showing up under the ice as the poles melt (just suppose); and when mainstream science finally says "uncle" and admits that the structures seen all over the globe could not possibly have been made by thousands of men with chisels--then linear time on the macro scale will be discredited.
The same goes for linear time on the individual level, when reincarnation is accepted as actual. Perhaps my study will be part of that conceptual revolution, and perhaps in hindsight my contribution will be appreciated in its proper place, and in due course; while letting my legacy take its natural course will be something I was able to improve on.
That was my ending...but on re-read, I want to add one more insight. Materialism, and the error of linear time, are locks on the treasure chest of a deeper understanding. Replace them with spirituality (or, "as above, so below"), coupled with cycles, and a great door is opened to our understanding--a door which will take us far beyond what we see of materialistic science and its gadgets, today. Because, Abby has explained to me, via thought-bursts, that everything is pulses. Pulses are cycles; but here, in her view, everything manifests in pulses. But these are not soulless, material pulses. These are pulses of spirit, of consciousness, of the yearning for Truth. Each pulse is an approximation of Truth. So, for example, sex is pulses of life energy seeking the truth of the archetype, Union; but it glances aside, not being perfect, and ends up creating another human being. Everything, she says, from the smallest to the largest, is manifesting in the same dynamic. Every pulse approximates the Truth, and glances off. This is true from physics to the psychology of relationships. Every relationship is a pulse, which tries to find the soul-mate, and fails, until the soul-mates find each other. Then, each lifetime together for those soul-mates is a pulse, which attempts to find the Truth of Union. They are driven apart when there is something yet not quite right in it, and pulled like magnets back together, when they apply what they have learned and try again.
When the entire universe is perceived in this way--and it must be head and heart, intellect and intuition, working together--because reality is spirit, and consciousness, not just dead matter--and it proceeds from God--then you have real science. This thing we call "science," which has taken a side-trip into materialism--which has become hijacked by materialism--is not the real science.
That's Abby hijacking my Update ;-).
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*"There are everywhere vulgar minds wich dont appreciate inteligence. Some of the Boston mootooal admiration society--would you bleve it?--dont seem to appreciate me in that character. Indeed, I dont think Boston ginrally is aware half the time when it entertains aingills, not that I would profanely class my umble self with hevingly bodies--far from it--but figgeratively speakin."--Mathew Franklin Whittier, writing in-character as "Ethan Spike," May 22, 1869, or almost 150 years ago.
Music opening this page: "All About You," by Eric Johnson, from the album, "Venus Isle"