|
It
never ceases to amaze me how, even in a comparatively short time, but
in the close confines and enclosed community of a small ship such as a
destroyer, individuals and personalities can be indelibly imprinted in
one's memory, and how easily they can be brought to mind. It never ceases
to amaze me how, by a single word injected - and I mean 'injected' - into
my mind, these and others can be brought to such vivid memory. It does
not have to be an actual word. From the world of the 'twitchers' - the
birdwatchers - comes the word 'jizz'. The jizz of a bird - the essentials
of shape, flight, call and colour that are imprinted on the mind of the
experienced birdwatcher - is all that is required to alert the watcher
to the presence of the bird. People have jizzes, and the 'flash'
across one's mind of the jizz, as of a bird momentarily seen, can bring
the person totally into mental view, together with many well remembered
details. On numerous occasions when this has happened I am left wondering
whether the person was actually present in spirit, or whether the memory
has been used to develop another mind-trawl, aimed at uncovering yet more
information about each of us.
Have no doubt; all of one's five senses can be activated in the
creation of the essence of a person, location or event. The jizz of someone
can be created in minute and exquisite detail, even to the quirks of speech
and accent. Likewise, all of one's emotions can be stimulated and used
to console, recall or provoke. When, at the outset of my own experiences,
and I went through a major spiritual awakening, I was subjected to a rigorously
searching catechism in my mind, and emerged feeling as if I had been skinned,
so vulnerable and exposed had I become. I had not questioned the right
of this particular numinous presence to probe and expose every facet of
my life as it was then, and in years past. I was reminded of these events
recently when I watched a television programme about the experiences of
individuals who had been declared clinically dead, and yet were resuscitated.
No mention was made of anything 'spiritual', but the programme achieved
its aim, which was to explore the continued function of the mind while
the brain was effectively dead and not functioning.
Several of those who had had the near death events, described what has
become a common feature of these experiences, namely the encounters with
the spirits of deceased family and friends and the mind-to-mind communication
with them. Especially did they comment on their encounter with a 'luminous
presence', and the way in which every aspect of the life that they had
lived was scrutinised, not with judgement and possible reprimand, but
with open minded love and understanding. Following their return and ultimate
recovery, all reported a significant change in their way of life and a
total loss of fear of ultimate death. I did not have a near death event
when I had my own spiritual catechism, but the result has been
similar in my own understanding of life and death, and in the purpose
of my own remaining life.
The continuation of memory through and beyond the actual process of dying
is a concept that can lead to much speculation and controversy. Someone
whom I know very well had three brothers - twins, A and B, and the third,
C. One summer when the twins were about ten years old, all three were
swimming in a creek near the local small docks. Suddenly, a sluice was
opened to fill one of the locks, and C was sucked down. A went to the
rescue of his brother, ensured his safety, but drowned himself. When B
was in his early twenties, he emigrated, eventually married and had children.
One of the children subsequently drowned in a swimming pool in circumstances
for which there was no explanation. Another, a boy, as he was growing,
would ask about "My other mother, the one with red hair". The
mother of the three brothers, A, B and C, and my friend had striking red
hair - no one else.
Reading that, some will accept 'reincarnation', others, 'transmigration
of souls'. Unfortunately, there is never consensus about exactly what
such terms mean. For myself, I, as usual, adopt the simplest explanation,
such as that A, in spirit, attached himself to B, his twin, and subsequently
to one or other of B's children. I have not the slightest concept of how
such would happen in practice, but it is an explanation subscribed to
by many and from numerous different philosophies. Any 'spiritual' explanation
flies in the face of those who, with dogged determination, are resolved
to 'rationalise', and who will proffer alternatives that, when fully analysed,
are much more far-fetched than the simple spiritual concept.
There is a genre of radio and television programmes frequently presented
in Britain where the inexplicable experiences of individuals or groups
are examined. The greater part of the programme is devoted to interviews
with the people involved, and with reconstructions of actual events. In
the majority of cases, the explanation that would be accepted by many
is that, in some unfathomable way, there has been 'spiritual' involvement.
However, part of the programme is inevitably given over to a psychiatrist
or psychologist, whose rôle, again inevitably, is to offer a 'rational',
'scientific' explanation of the phenomena, and to pooh-pooh the concept
that, not even in the remotest way, could there have been anything
of a spiritual nature involved.
Without going into the details of any of the programmes that I have seen,
one salient fact emerges, namely that these specialists in one or other
form of mind medicine, claim a universal expertise in all matters scientific
and practical. Thus in one programme the psychiatrist became an instant
expert in house fires and the potential for the creation of an explosion
of such precision that it could propel a child through a window without
it suffering any harm. In another, the psychologist had never driven a
tractor, yet knew exactly how a runaway tractor would behave as it trundled
down a slope, positive that it would be deviated randomly by grass tussocks,
sufficient to avoid running over groups of picnickers, and to pass safely
by. These are but trite and inconsequential examples, but they serve to
illustrate the wider and exceedingly dangerous premise - namely that a
specialist in one particular and narrow field of medicine can be accepted
without question as being an expert in a whole range of unrelated specialities.
A gross example of such 'global' expertise has just been exposed in the
High Court, and in the media. The case concerned a woman who had been
given two life sentences for the murder of two of her infants. The most
telling evidence against her came from a renowned paediatrician, who kept
repeating that the odds against two cot deaths occurring in one family
were 73,000,000:1. As well as his claims of knowledge as a statistician,
this man also, by virtue of his comments, claimed expertise as a toxicologist,
in a branch of human psychology and in an area of law. He was not trained
in any of these specialities; yet, by weight of his demeanour and presence,
he was able to influence a jury against the power of all the other evidence.
In another era, before the abolition of the death penalty, it is possible
that the woman would have been hanged before the evidence that saved her
came to light. Fortunately, the woman was released on appeal.
With increasing frequency over the last several years we have seen instances
of individuals who, having been wrongly convicted of murder, have been
released after spending as long as twenty-five years in prison. Again,
had they lived in earlier times, they would undoubtedly have been hanged
many years ago. By a combination of deceit, inadequate defence or the
superior forensic skills of the prosecution team that can overwhelm a
jury, many innocent individuals have gone to the gallows. Every prosecutor
in years gone by wanted to be a Sir Bernard Spillsbury, by whom every
jury seems to have been mesmerised, and whose aim in life appeared to
be to obtain a conviction, irrespective of the justice of the prosecution
case.
Another renowned prosecutor, and later judge, was Christmas Humphries,
one of the leaders of the expansion of Buddhism in Britain. I once heard
a broadcast interview in which he described his life in the law courts.
He explained at length that he chose to be a prosecutor rather than defence
lawyer, because he did not want to use his skills to obtain the acquittal
of someone who was palpably guilty. However, through the interview, there
came an almost arrogant certainty in his ability as a prosecutor. There
was no apparent recognition of the fact that his forensic skills may have
resulted in the innocent being hanged. I recorded the broadcast - My
Brother in the Dock - principally because I wanted to hear in his
own words how he came to espouse Buddhism. I listened to my tape a number
of times, and each time I became more aware of his 'self-certainty', almost
to the point of disliking the man.
Some time after I began to hear voices, and could distinguish the various
'levels' from which my communications appeared to come, and by the use
of certain key words from the tape, I began to comprehend that I was being
led to an understanding of a significant concept that I had never ever
addressed in my thoughts. I was not 'told' in the sense that I received
'verbalisation' in my mind, but rather I was presented with a totality
- a full and instant appreciation of what was being conveyed - the real
meaning of which is this:
Acknowledging,
as one must at some time, that the 'essence' of a person continues after
the death of the physical body, one must also acknowledge that memory,
character and intent survive intact and are absorbed into a general spiritual
state from which it can continue to function intelligently. In the context
within which I am writing, the continuity of function assumes a living
human mind that is capable of being influenced. Without a broad acceptance
of this, what is to me, fact, much of what I am writing will disappear
into the minds of a certain category of reader in a similar manner to
a river vanishing into the sands of a desert, and be totally lost. Which
would be most unfortunate, for continuously I experience the practical
expression of what I am, with acknowledged difficulty, trying to share.
Having, in their new found state of being, acquired a full realisation
of the effects of their actions while in life, many are shocked to realise
the extent to which their personal arrogance, professional tunnel vision
and other self-inflationary traits have had a damaging effect upon the
lives of those for whom it should have been their professional responsibility
to care. In the case of the legal prosecutor and judge that I am citing,
there may come a recognition that in his blind pursuit of the goal of
obtaining a conviction, he may have done so in ignorance of the fact that
evidence may have been fabricated, that vital evidence may have been withheld
from the defence, or that a defendant may have been 'stitched up' by the
police, and that he may have contributed himself to the execution of an
innocent person, or to the long-term incarceration of others.
The effect of this clarity of 'vision', my insight tells me, is a strong
desire to educate, inform and reform through the minds and responses of
receptive individuals. Even though reparation for the wrongs inflicted
upon individuals may not be achieved, - for how could one compensate someone
whose life had been drastically shortened in a most terrible way - by
helping to change a climate of thought and somehow being instrumental
in inspiring reformers, judicial arrogance and culpability may be lessened.
|