|
The above definition, of course, is not absolute in itself. The final definition in consciousness depends on the individual's interpretation of these terms. These terms pose momentous questions. What really constitutes Mind, Life, Love, etc.? In order to pry out of consciousness answers to these questions, and similar types of questions, Mary Baker Eddy has refrained from providing a completely detailed presentation of her structure for scientific development. Which means that the answers must be sought within the dynamics of living, of discovering, of reasoning, and of probing for the truth. This may also be the reason why Mary Baker Eddy had chosen a biblical text that refers to something called the Key of David, as a heading for the most major part of her outline. The answers that consciousness needs to find in order to achieve a phase shift into the higher dimension, of Spirit, had to be found individually in life. This, at least, is how the biblical David had progressed. David's path was not without trials and failures, but it was marked by strong pioneering achievements in coming to terms with the realm of infinite Spirit.
Instead of providing a completely finished work, Mary Baker Eddy presented a framework of an idea that invites the individual to create the structure anew that she had merely outlined, to build it up in individual consciousness out of the spiritual strengths of the individual's own resources. She didn't say, to humanity: Here it is. Repeat after me, I will teach you what to do next, and what you need to know. Instead of doing this, she set up a foundation that serves as a stage and framework for discovery, for asking questions, for finding answers out of one's own resources. How else could she have done it without violating the fundamental idea of the "fourth dimension, of Spirit," in which mankind is recognized as complete? She had a paradox to resolve, because she couldn't teach what cannot be taught, while the advanced perception she had gained needed to be brought to light universally as soon as this would become possible in practical terms.
One must realize, that had she presented her structure fully complete, it wouldn't have been a development structure, but be a denial of the dynamics of development. She would have set up a hierarchical structure pointing downwards, which is an entropic structure in a developmental sense. It would be a structure where the energy of thought begins at a high point and diminishes as the teaching forces certain concepts down onto the grass roots level of humanity. With this kind of teaching, she would have destroyed the very church she had devoted so much of her efforts towards, building it up for the healing of the sick and the advancement of the nations.
The moment that an external authority becomes someone's guru instead of 'divine' science that underlies all discovery, at that moment an entropic system is set in motion that trails out into dust. When such a thing happens, spiritual unfolding comes to a halt as it has in modern times throughout humanity. Humanity is taught, guided, and instructed in a top down entropic fashion. It is mentally manipulated by most of its schools, by most of its newspapers, by books, movies, magazines, television, even the Internet. The entire world is set up in this entropic fashion with the U.N. assuming ever greater amounts of top-down elitist control over the nations in an authoritarian role. The outcome of an entropic system, naturally, is impotence. The nation's cease to function intelligently.
A constitutional democratic setup, on the other hand, relies on the strength at the grass roots level, and on universal individual responsibility to maintain this strength and to enhance it. On this platform the strength of the human being reflects itself in the strength of the corresponding policy platform. Here, the development is not entropic, but is infinite in nature.
Next Page
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -
||
|
