I did finally receive the digital scans of the period newspaper I'd been waiting for, and I've been going through 556 double pages as fast as I can. I don't know if this would be anyone else's experience, but I find that I become immersed in that world of the 1830's, as though it was current; and when I break away from it, it's like emerging from a dream. I don't know whether that's because I've subconsciously awakened my 19th-century self, or it's more like becoming immersed in a film at the theatre.
I am finding very little of my past-life writing so far, and none of Abby's; but what I am finding, fits perfectly with the scenario I had extracted for the couple during these years. During the period I am studying, now, Mathew is trying to make something of himself in the world, in order to prove himself worthy to marry Abby. We know from historical sources that he attempted to partner in several mercantile businesses, probably with wealthier friends who could front the money, and failed, partly due to his naivete (being raised a Quaker farmer, and being naive even by their standards); but from his later history, and from autobiographical elements in one short story I believe he wrote years later, I think he also finds himself in a newspaper office, or working for a publisher. By the looks of four* of the pieces I've discovered, he may be in New York during part of this time, working for a paper called the New York Transcript, and may also submitting to the Knickerbocker Magazine there in NY. Again, there is nothing of Abby's poetry; I had already tentatively concluded that she rarely if ever wrote for publication, but rather that her work was sometimes submitted by (and sometimes stolen by) others.
I won't present any of my findings until I complete the research. But I wanted to comment, briefly, on the History Channel's "Intersteller Bean Show." They finally got around to my own area of expertise, calling the topic "Resurrection." I won't drag this out. They first presented the top-of-the-line NDE account of Pamela Reynolds, who was clinically dead on the operating table during brain surgery for some hours, as I recall, and who nonetheless had a stunning NDE; but it is where they took it that astounded me. Do you know what these people's conclusion was, regarding NDE's? That the ancient Egyptians--no doubt taught by aliens--mummified their dead as a way of preserving their DNA, so that they could be physically resurrected.
Oh, for an analogy!--this is sort of like when a child gets an expensive Christmas present, and, ignoring the present, plays with the box.
What strikes me about this, is how strong a hold Materialism has on even the brightest minds. They have briefly touched on Pamela's experience; and then not long afterwards, they are showing horrific faces of mummies, and the pinnacle of their aspirations is to bring one of these back to life again. For what? To give TEDx talks for some years, appear briefly on the PBS Newshour, and then die again?
Hopefully, you see my point. Materialism, with its underlying assumptions, is like a philosophical vacuum drain which sucks even the brightest minds down into absurd conclusions.
I have a lot of work to do--I'm only on double page number 228. I'll have to incorporate the new discoveries into my book, and then I may summarize a bit of it for this blog.
Oh. It isn't that reincarnation has been known in previous societies which had a more advanced understanding of the spiritual origins of the universe; nor that sages have taught it. It's that aliens taught it to us--you know, physical aliens. "God" is really the gods--and the gods is the old word for aliens--and they came, not from higher spiritual planes of existence (metaphorically depicted as the sky), but literally from the sky. And the sign of their advancement was not that they understood reincarnation, but their advanced technology.
Who created the aliens, is a topic they don't get into.
Something else they don't get into, is more difficult to explain. Everything in the manfested, physical world reflects--however fully or incompletely--God's attributes, including beauty. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but there is also a deeper standard--just as morality may be relative to cultures, but there is a deeper moral compass. Aliens, as depicted, look like half-bugs, half human; or, half-reptiles, half human. In other words, monstrosities. There is no beauty or what one might call intuitive sense in it, because the authors of all this have lost the internal compass for beauty. (Likewise so much of what passes as "art" in modern, materialistic culture.) Bugs are a lower life-form; they can have beauty of a kind, and ugliness of a kind, co-existing. But humans have reached perfection of form. If they have the elements of a cat, a bear, a hawk, or some other animal, it is as a small degree of emphasis, only. But if you want to create a monster, aesthetically, combine human and animal features equally. The writers of these shows persist in quoting that "Man was made in the image of God," and then reducing "God" to "gods," and then equating "gods" with "aliens." They conclude, aliens made man, via genetic alteration, in their own image. But then they depict aliens as grey little spindly things with huge bug eyes. They are flat-out contradicting themselves, because humans are intrinsically beautiful in form, whereas the aliens are monstrosities--and very, very unlike humans.
Meanwhile, angels are depicted as being beautiful for a reason. The world that Pamela Reynolds glimpsed was beautiful; and not only was it not characterized by advanced technology, it has little use for technology, at all.
Aliens are not beautiful by the standards of the inner compass. Even by the standards of science, why would they have huge eyes like that? Are they adapted for life underground? But if they have advanced technology, don't they have artificial lighting? You see the problems. But I don't have time to go into it. The point is, they are flaunting spiritual common sense without even realizing they are doing so.
Perhaps I should look at it the way you look at a little kid playing with fire trucks. Who's to say he won't someday actually grow up to be a fireman, and drive a real one?
The answer to all this is in the song by the Free Design, which I've opened this page with. Or, the quote by Inayat Khan which may be found on my home page.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*Actually, two at the time I wrote the first draft of this Update; then I had found two more as I was proofreading, but since finalizing it, I found still more. So my interpretation of that story, that it was autobiographical for working in a newspaper office, appears to have been correct. The story was set in Boston, but the description of the worldly staff he had to work with would actually fit even better for New York City.
P.S. On an entirely different subject, poking around old newspapers can get pretty interesting. I've found something like four or five articles describing sightings of the "sea serpent," which one can take with as large a grain of salt as one wishes; but here is a description of a water bed, from 1835:
Music opening this page: "The Symbols Ring" by The Free Design, from the album, "There Is A Song"