I am going to continue to be "Johnny One-Note," here, for two reasons: firstly, I want each new Updates page to stand as an introduction for any new reader; and secondly, on the principle of not ignoring the "Elephant in the Room." In Mathew Franklin Whittier's day, the "Elephant" referred to the star attraction, and by inference, the biggest and best of any location or situation. Now, of course, the Elephant means that inconvenient truth which all agree to studiously ignore.
In this case, both meanings apply. I continue to make one more pass of the evidence chapters in my book, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own words." A couple of days ago, I went through my evidence that Mathew and his first wife, Abby, were the original co-authors of "A Christmas Carol"; just now, I finished reading my evidence that after Abby's death, Mathew was the true author of "The Raven." I don't just pull seemingly unrelated famous works out of the air, as required to bolster my megalomania, by the way.* I have felt I had some personal connection to both of these works since grade school; and I stated as much, as regards the "Carol," in this very blog in year 2006. That entry has been archived on Archive.org's "Wayback Machine," creating a public record I could not possibly have tampered with.
That I have proven my past-life match is, of course, the third and largest elephant.
Denial has always fasinated me. We are all brought up to believe that if you can prove something, Society will acknowledge it. But this is a lie. Prove something Society (and its gatekeepers) don't want to accept, and Society will not acknowledge it. Is that tantamount to it not existing, at all? Societal acknowledgement is even built into the formal scientific method--a theory is not considered validated, until the scientific community (a subset of Society) can replicate the results, and thus sign off on it.
But is that correct, actually? If one scientist gets results with a valid method, but nobody else can repeat his experiment succesfully, did he, nonetheless, prove his theory?
What, then, if other scientists could replicate his results, if they so-chose, but refuse to do so?
In short, if a scientific study "falls in the forest," and no-one hears it, did it actually exist?
I would say it did, especially if it was an "Elephant."
There is the truism, long repeated, that "the truth will out." If this is a real principle, and not simply wishful thinking, then this is our answer. However powerful societal denial is, for a generation, or for many generations, it is no match for truth. Truth is an attribute of God; denial is a manifestation of ignorance. My Guru, Meher Baba, went so far as to say "God alone exists." If God is Truth, then obviously, only truth exists. You can see the logic of that, can't you? By definition, only truth exists.
Therefore, as phenomenal existence plays out, reflecting the self-existent truth of God, then truth will have to out. It could be no other way.
The denier's rationale is irrelevant. You may come to the snap conclusion that I am self-deluded; you may even peg me as a fraud. Neither of those instant theories will hold up, if you honestly and courageously look into then, but people in denial don't investigate their conclusions very deeply, lest they be found wanting.
I am not a megalomaniac. I have been practising strict self-honesty since adopting it as a spiritual practice in my late teens. I have been rigorous in my study (the one you won't bother to read because you have already decided it would be a waste of your time). I am careful not to indulge in magical thinking--and where I catch myself making errors, or adopting false assumptions, I dutifully admit it.
In short, I have done the work. Reincarnation is proven (i.e., once again). I have proven it with a genuine past-life match, but with no more past-life memory than anyone else might typically have at their disposal. This opens the door to vast numbers of people someday proving their own matches. When you attend a gathering, and 10 people there have proven one of their own past lives--much as people delve into their family history, today--how are you going to cling to the social legitimacy of reincarnation denial?
But by that time, this early study--which reveals the true authors of both "A Christmas Carol" and "The Raven"--is going to be of special interest. A 19th-century writer who profoundly influenced his times, but was completely overlooked by mainstream historians, will be brought to light. These claims, which now cause people to snort in derision, will be the very elements that draw people irresistibly to my book.
The more I re-read these chapters of my book, the more I realize just how strong my evidence is. I'm not guessing anymore--I've clinched it. Whether that will actually help Society accept reincarnation, or merely be interesting to the people of the future who have already accepted it, we don't know. Perhaps this book will, indeed, only be a matter of preaching to the choir of the future, while today the Elephant continues to be studiously ignored.
How sad, and how poignant.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*Actually, they are deeply and intimately related, but you have to understand Mathew Franklin Whittier as an author and as a person, to see it.
Music opening this page, "You Look Like a Memory," by Fat City, from the album, "Reincarnation"