Updates

Again, as with the previous update, not a lot to report, but probably as a result of the radio interview (see previous Update), there was a flurry of interest in "In Another Life" from various points overseas. I sold copies to New Zealand, Malaysia, England, Greece and Hong Kong. There was some interest expressed in licensing portions of it, or showing it to groups, or making it available for rental. I don't know whether these things will come to pass or not; sometimes the real importance is that in 50 years, someone's great-grandchild will discover it in a box in the attic. You never know. My licensing agreement with Films Media Group still allows me to sell retail copies overseas at $25.00 each, and I now have PAL format as an option, though I understand most new DVD players overseas can play both.

I have written in previous Updates my speculation that I could have been Matthew Franklin Whittier, younger brother of poet John Greenleaf Whittier, in the 1800's. I believe I have also mentioned my gut feeling that as Matthew, I sent Charles Dickens a treatment, plot idea, or story outline from which he fashioned "A Christmas Carol." In a little bit of internet research, I learned that Dickens wrote that story as a "potboiler", to raise quick money to pay off debts, and didn't take it seriously as great literature (in fact, he is said to have begun writing it in October 1943, and to have finished it in November). Any scholars out there correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the only one of Dickens' works which seems to contain references to metaphysics and the occult, meaning, accurate metaphysics; though Dickens called it a "ghost story" in the longer title, and doesn't seem to have taken the metaphysics seriously himself. It contains, as any serious student of metaphysics will know, somewhat veiled references to karma, earthbound spirits, the life review, and the experience of "turning". My gut tells me that as Matthew I had studied metaphysics (as we know that many of the Romantic writers had, including Matthew's brother John Greenleaf). And that while Matthew became publicly known only for a series of satirical letters to the editor written under a pseudonym, I feel that he also wrote serious works and got them published through, and in the name of, more established authors like Sarah Orne Jewett. It was through the recognition of that name that I first got on the scent of this possible past-life match in the first place, and finally located it through the help of my friend Jeff Keene, who has a knack for synchronicity.

More recently, on the internet, I came across a reference to a letter, written by Charles Dickens, to Matthew. It was in the third volume of the Pilgrim Edition of Dickens' published letters, and I got a copy through interlibrary loan. The reference is tantalizing, but entirely consistent. There is no letter, per se. It says that the only part in Dickens' hand was "Yours faithfully, Charles Dickens" at the end; and that it was "acknowledging a letter." This means, I would assume, it was a canned response--and the only one I saw in that volume of letters. One sends a canned response acknowledging a manuscript with a cover letter. One generally does not send a canned response acknowledging just a letter, per se.* So this dovetails very nicely with my gut feeling. It also echoes what I suspect has happened on at least one or two occasions when I've sent people copies of "In Another Life"--being given the brush-off, but then, not having been taken seriously, in effect inspiring them to create slicker, watered-down versions that are more acceptable to the public.

If my speculation is correct, and I admit this seems implausible, Dickens filed that manuscript away with a hundred other such unsolicited manuscripts he received. Then, when he was in debt, he fished it out and hurriedly created a "potboiler" out of it, patronizingly seeing it as a "ghost story" that might appeal to the ignorant masses. And he still was able to infuse it with his typical message of social responsibility. "Tiny Tim" would have been all his, as would some of the more flowery language. But the metaphysics, the plot, the Bob Cratchit character (loosely autobiographical for Matthew), the Fezziwig character, and the romantic parting scene, were, I feel, Matthew's. The purpose was not to exalt (or create) Christmas; Christmas was a backdrop symbolizing rebirth or conversion. My/Matthew's intent was to forcefully recreate the experience of conversion, as though, in a literary work, he could pass on what he, himself, had experienced over the previous few lifetimes. Because Matthew was still in the "paying back" phase from a conversion a few lifetimes back.

Matthew's pattern was very, very similar to my own pattern. Even the tendency to try to force people to grow spiritually was there. There is more than a hint of attitude in this website, as there was in Matthew's satirical "Ethan Spike" letters (though I have tried to temper mine more than he did). "In Another Life" is this life's "A Christmas Carol"; and it has the same strengths, the same weaknesses, and a similar potency.

One thing I will say from perusing Dickens' letters. I get the impression that this fellow did not have a metaphysical bone in his body. Someone tell me if I'm wrong about this, but I would say it's highly unlikely he knew enough real metaphysics to include references to things like earthbound spirits, karma, the life review, conversion, and devas or demi-gods. Whether it was Matthew or not; whether I was Matthew or not; it looks to me that Dickens clearly stole somebody's work to get himself out of debt, and that this unknown person was a serious student of metaphysics. Dickens was not the sort of person to become divinely inspired to write this in less than two months' time, complete with references to real metaphysical studies, such as you see with the movie "Ghost" (that writer, Bruce Joel Rubin, is a student of kundalini yoga). He did not take it seriously enough--and his motives were simply to raise money.

If, however, it was Matthew; and if I was Matthew; and if Matthew based the Cratchit character loosely on his own experience--that means that Dickens, the great man of social conscience, in effect screwed Bob Cratchit.** As a friend of mine who is not really convinced said, even if the past-life speculations are not true, this would still make a fascinating dissertation. But if it turns out to be historically correct, there is the nagging question--if I wasn't Matthew, how the heck would I have known it? When none of the world's great scholars who have studied Dickens, so far as I know, have ever suggested it?***

Oh, as an afterthought, a somewhat nervous afterthought, I realized I needed to compare the date of the letter with the date of the first publication of "A Christmas Carol". The letter was dated 22 months before "A Christmas Carol" was published. Dickens also toured the United States giving public readings in 1942. We know from John Greenleaf Whittier's letters that John Greenleaf attended one of these readings. There is no mention of Matthew having done so (Matthew was always short of funds, but he might have). In any case, this 22-month gap gives Dickens time to put Matthew's manuscript in a pile of other manuscripts and forget it; get desperate about his debts; go through the pile and find it; hurriedly write a story based loosely on Matthew's manuscript; and then for the publisher to print and release it.

Finally, from the many reincarnation cases I've studied, I believe that increased synchronicity, or unexplained coincidence, occurs between two lifetimes, or when one gets close to a past life. I saw this most clearly with Jeff Keene's case, but others have reported it, and at least one person has based her entire case on it. I would say it's one indication among many, one attribute of a genuine past-life case. I was born on Christmas; so it is possible this was a sign to myself, or a synchronicity.

None of this is proof at all. I am not convinced of any of it. I will, however, report, publicly for the record, what I feel and what I find as "data"--plausible, implausible, or whatever, against the day some real evidence may emerge. If it does, it will be a pretty strong case, because the likelihood of my knowing that this obscure writer sent this manuscript to Dickens is well beyond chance, unless I had a dim memory of it.

If anyone is interested in doing the research on this, it might be possible to track down a record of what Dickens received from Matthew, or what Matthew sent Dickens. If I try to do it, it spoils any veridical value--someone else would need to take over the research at this point and not tell me until it was done. I would then ideally need a past-life regression to try to dredge up any more specific facts, which could be compared against the research findings. I have no funds for any of this so all would have to be donated. If not, that's fine.

Note 12/26/07: I think there is a kind of instinct that when someone says something that sounds too outlandish, people assume the speaker has gone off the deep end. I can imagine people thinking, "Too bad, he seemed so level-headed." From my point of view, I'm exploring something and sharing where it leads me. If you could slow your mind down in meditation and observe the "automatic rejection response" objectively, it would be something like the illustrations for the nerve pathway affected when your doctor strikes your knee with a hammer. Figuratively-speaking, the impulse goes to the spine and back to the knee--it never goes to the brain at all ;-). Which is to say, it does not involve logic. This is the main argument by materialistic philosophers--academicians trained in logic!--against reincarnation--"We all know (social validation) it can't possibly be true (paradigm threat), so therefore it isn't true." On the other hand, reincarnation advocates are often seen to indulge in imagination, and some of that imagination is ego-driven. So the only way through these two errors on either side is a sincere dedication to truth wherever it leads. I'm essentially offering myself as a guinea-pig with this proposed Whittier case. If, for example, I had checked the date of the letter against the publication of "A Christmas Carol" and found my theory was impossible, I might not have reported this at all, or, to make a teaching example of myself, I might have eaten some humble pie and reported it anyway as part of the "blog" function of the Updates page. Likewise if the letter Dickens wrote had turned out to say "Nice to see you at the reading, give my regards to your brother John Greenleaf". It so happens that it does appear to be a canned form acknowledgement that Dickens sent; and he did send it a plausible 22 months before "A Christmas Carol" came out. So I reported that. As for ego-driven motivation, if I have an ego motive in this it would be the frustration of being continually underestimated, which, having studied Matthew's history, I can safely say he felt as well. But I am not promoting myself as a reincarnation case (not all who do this have ego-driven motives, some are sincere, like Jeff Keene and Angela Grubbs). I'm just sharing it in my "blog" and establishing it publicly should it ever be proven. If it were proven, I doubt it would make the headlines anyway, people would simply ignore it until society is ready. When society is ready, most everyone will have a reincarnation case and they will be used as icebreakers at parties and it will be taken for granted like your cell phone.--SS

Note 3/7/08: I just, a few minutes ago, finished reading "The Nazarene" by Sholem Asch. My spiritual Master, Meher Baba, told his closest male disciple, Eruch Jessawala, to read this book, saying it was the closest to the way it actually was during the time of Jesus. The narration takes reincarnation and past-life memory as a plot premise, and I have heard that another follower of Meher Baba, who was said to have been psychic, said that it was based on "far memory" or past-life memory. In any case, my reaction is that this author, Sholem Asch, was doing what Matthew Whittier was trying to do with his manuscript (let us assume all of that for now), but my feeling is that he surpassed Matthew. "The Nazarene" is a disturbing read, but a very powerful one. One senses that we are not so far from the state of ancient Rome; and, in fact, the Messiah did come again, and once again, none but a few recognized Him. Just as Jesus came and went seemingly in defeat, not manifesting in a tangible (i.e., gawdy or political) way that the people hoped for; so, Meher Baba has come and gone without, seemingly, breaking his silence as he indicated he would, thereby disillusioning the wise and learned. For more on this, see my article on Meher Baba in the Articles page of this website. I should be clear that I don't know whether or not I was Matthew Whittier in a past life; and I also don't know whether or not "The Nazarene" was based on or inspired by past-life memory; but I'm certain that Meher Baba was the Christ of this age.

*It is also conceivable that Matthew had written a letter inquiring about possible employment and had gotten a canned response for that; I have a copy of a letter Matthew wrote to Thomas Chandler in 1837 asking about employment in Michigan; and in the third volume of Dickens' letters I saw a (personal) response to someone who had asked Dickens about employment. It's less likely that Matthew would have written Dickens overseas for that purpose, and less likely he would have gotten a canned response, since such inquiries were probably less common than unsolicited manuscripts from hopeful writers. Probably, that the canned response was even kept and noted in the cataloge was because of his brother, John Greenleaf's, literary fame.

**It also means that very often in history, if you look into it, you might be surprised at where things really come from.

***Probably the reason scholars haven't seen this glaring inconsistency of a non-metaphysical, popular writer rapidly dashing off a story with clear references to real metaphysics within a month or two, to raise money for debts, while lightly regarding it as a "ghost story", is because the scholars themselves had little understanding of, or respect for, metaphysics. Hence, they did not have the background to recognize that this story was anchored in real metaphysical principles, and that whatever popular appeal it might have had as a "ghost story," these principles were the hidden source of its power.

Music opening this page: "High Landrons," Eric Johnson (Ah Via Musicom album)
All I can say is, if you have a chance to see Eric in concert, don't pass it up...
sell the car and hitch to the concert if you have to.