I spent most of yesterday, and today, fine-tuning yesterday's entry--and, for better or worse, adding to it. Most of the time I am, in fact, writing for posterity these days. You know, people who eagerly read my books cover-to-digital-cover. Not people who dabble in my blog and don't even look at my books.
But today, I have one idea I want to deal with, for my contemporary audience, such as it is. This is so easy, it's hard.
When something has been fairly and logically proven to exist, you don't keep questioning it over and over, with each new piece of evidence. You don't start from scratch. You don't take that new bit of evidence, and say, "That doesn't prove the case." Because the case is already proven. The new bit of evidence doesn't have to prove the case. That's not its function.
The new bit of evidence builds on the case; it fills out, informs, and adds color to the case. It's a nuance, a clarification.
I know my past-life match, with 19th-century author Mathew Franklin Whittier, has long been proven. If anyone is honest, fair and rational, they couldn't read my books without coming to the same conclusion. People sense that, perhaps, and their safe response is to simply not the read the books. I think that's an interesting solution--people call that "sticking your head in the sand."
That's the person's prerogative. Anyone is free to stick his or her head in the stand. But I am not thereby obligated to pretend that each new piece of evidence is required to pass the "is it real or is it not real" test. I'm beyond that issue. I am interested in how the new piece of evidence explains something to us about how reincarnation works. I already know reincarnation is real; and I already know my case is genuine. I took eight years of continuous work to come to that conclusion.
Have you spent eight years of continuous work on anything? If so, would you prefer that people don't dismiss it, as though you didn't do it at all?
Cynics like to pounce on things. Any little thing which will confirm their disbelief. But this isn't rational. They are not pursuing the truth of the matter, thereby. They are shoring up their defenses. It has nothing to do with truth; and it certainly has nothing to do with respecting truth.
This is why I write for posterity. If I had a respectful audience, they would first and foremost study my books carefully with an open mind. They'd set aside Facebook, or whatever is taking their time, and they'd settle in with what I've written. They'd immerse themselves in it, and they'd come out the other side convinced that it has to be a genuine case.
Then they'd begin thinking about the evidence. What, actually, does it tell us about how reincarnation works? What does it tell me about myself; what does it tell us about Society; what does it tell me about my loved ones, and my relationships with them? What does it tell me about what everybody on the planet is going through, and struggling with?
But first you have to get past this barrier of cynicism, which short-circuits all of this.
I think the children who are coming in to this planet, will already have gone beyond this point in past lives. They will automatically understand, after giving it a fair chance, that I have a genuine past-life case. Once that's out of the way, they will evaluate and perceive each new piece of evidence that I present, in that context, rather than challenging each new piece of evidence and insisting that it bear the entire weight of proof, individually.
It isn't fair to insist that each piece of evidence bear the entire weight of proof individually. Nothing exists in isolation, like that, and evidence doesn't exist in isolation, either. Evidence exists as a tapestry, an interconnected whole. You can't read two or three blog entries, and get that gestalt. You have to immerse yourself in my study, top to bottom, beginning to end. And once you get to the point you are convinced that it's a real case--and that probably won't take you very long--you have to start seeing how each piece of evidence connects with the whole.
Usually, I find myself repeating words, and I have to go back and find synonyms to fix it. This seems to be a bad writing habit of mine. I haven't noticed it in Mathew's writing, but then, he probably edited his work to correct this problem, as well. Here, however, I'm trying to express the same one concept, from a dozen angles.
I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. I'm asking them to come out of denial when faced with actual proof.
I offered some--by no means all I have, but some of my stronger pieces of evidence--last entry. If my readers were fair, and rational, I should sell five or six copies over the next couple of days. But it won't happen.
I can tell you, this won't be because I haven't proven my case, and reincarnation, as a genuine phenomenon, along with it. It won't be because my books are dull. It won't be because I'm in la-la land, because obviously, I don't fit the profile.
I was looking casually at someone's blog earlier today. It's fine. But mine is in a whole different league. I'll tell you who can write like I do, in his chosen area of interest--political comedian Lee Camp. It takes someone like that to write as I have been writing, every day or every other day, for months and years together.
I may be radical in my thinking, but I'm intelligent, well-organized, coherent, and I know my stuff. Again, I just don't fit the profile of someone in a delusional state. Be honest, now. You know it, I know it.
Well, I'm writing for your children, or your brother's children, or your sister's children; and their children. To them, this will be obvious. They will be eager to pursue these questions--the questions that arise when the issue of whether reincarnation is a genuine phenomenon has been successfully dealt with and set aside. They will want to know how it works, how it affects individuals, how it affects relationships, how it affects society. They will study my case carefully, for insights; and they will research their own cases. And the field will finally move forward.
Perhaps Abby and I will be watching from the astral realm when that happens. I must say, it will be a vindication, for me.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page: "Battle We Have Won," by Eric Johnson,
from the album, "Venus Isle"