12/4/25
It's a never-ending process—the more I look at the evidence, the more I see. Today, I noticed one more, which clinches my interpretation of what was originally Abby's reference to Vedanta in one of Marley's speeches. It's a one-word revision that changes everything. I'm not going to revise my book a third time, and spend yet another $300 to re-order copies. But if anybody ever questions my interpretation, at that point, I'll have the answer. What do you think—should I explain what I'm talking about? Does anybody who reads this blog, care? All I know is that 10 people, somewhere, get around to reading some of these entries over a period of two weeks or so.

Check out this paragraph from Dickens' published book:

"Oh! captive, bound, and double-ironed," cried the phantom, "not to know, that ages of incessant labour by immortal creatures, for this earth must pass into eternity before the good of which it is susceptible is all developed. Not to know that any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness. Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life's opportunity misused! Yet such was I! Oh! such was I!"

I used to recite this passage, more or less accurately, from memory with great dramatic flair, when I was a kid. Go figure. Anyway, note in particular, the phrase "by immortal creatures." What does that suggest, to you? Ghosts, right? Helper ghosts, who happen to be immortal. But Dickens has reversed the meaning. Here is the original paragraph, as I recovered it from underneath Dickens' redaction marks:

"Oh! [earthly] [nature?] bound [in] [double] iron[s], [ed] "not to know that [true] [is?] labour [for] by immortal [spirits] [on] this earth, [???] must [come] (and go?) pass [away?] [before] (erased and replaced) [mankind] [of?] the [hidden?] good [and] [purblind] of which it is susceptible is all developed—not to know that any [spirit('s)] [human] [nature?] working kindly in [his] little sphere, whatever it may be, [will] (erased and replaced) find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness—[and] not to know that [ages of] no space [can atone] of regret [wi?] [the?] [????] [answer?] [????] [but?] [short] Life{'s} [neglected?] [and] misused!—Yet such was I!" Oh! Such was I [I myself!]" [And] [none/more?]

Note the corresponding original wording. It's "for immortal spirits on this earth."

Now, I had already caught that "spirits" had been changed to "creatures." You see, the "immortal spirits" on this earth are the human beings, who have immortal souls. These are not the ghosts, i.e., "creatures." But today I noticed something else which clinches it. Dickens has replaced "for" with "by," and he has made the "creatures" labor for the human beings. But if it was originally "for," you can't say that anybody is labouring "for" the ghosts! If anybody is being labored "for," it's the human beings--and we learn, here, that those human beings are immortal.

Now, you have a choice. You can interpret this to mean that mankind, as a whole, is laboring to improve itself over vast expanses of time. Or, you can take it the way Abby secretly meant it, that each human being, over a vast number of incarnations, is laboring to improve him- or herself, perhaps being assisted in their development.

That's Vedanta—and this isn't the only place it appeared in the original manuscript, before Dickens deliberately stripped it out.

I'll be launching a Facebook ad campaign tomorrow, to run through Christmas. I continue to use every ethical method I can think of to promote this book; and I'm not entirely hampered by lack of funds, as I have been in the past, thanks to a friend's substantial donation.

So far, nothing seems to help. I ran my week-long daily series of YouTube "shorts," and they garnered some views (one, over a thousand), but it didn't translate to sales, hits on my website, questions, comments, or much else except some "likes." The problem is that YouTube's algorithm stops making a video available just about the time it's starting to gain traction. AI explains to me that my video is being judged against millions of others released during the same time-period, and you simply can't compete; so after an initial trial, even if you've gotten over a thousand views in three days, they stop offering it in people's feeds.

I've still only made the one sale. This is not unusual for authors who are self-publishing print-on-demand books. I understand that there are 11,000 new books being published every day. But not every one of those books contains the kind of world-class discovery I'm announcing—and proving. Nobody else has the full transcription of Dickens' handwritten manuscript, so far as I'm aware (it's in my Appendix). In fact, I doubt that five of all the books published in 2025 have a discovery of this magnitude.

The problem is that the ignorant are simply incredulous, while those in a position to give me a leg-up are either resentful, or terrified. None dare speak up. So while I should be selling this book hand-over-fist, it just sits there like everybody else's print-on-demand book.

Is that sustainable? God only knows.

Here are the URL's for my video shorts series:

https://youtube.com/shorts/T42WOx9dwPQ?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/XgPREQumP-o?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/nUxkWTbYb-c?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/MS55UkgLOTU?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/Y3wCJvbnYu4?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/Momcipnhrp8?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/zV3ANUKnbAI?feature=share

Best regards,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.