« AnteriorContinuar »
proof demonstrated logically, or in any other way. There are a number of assertions and a number of denials, and many of these are claimed to be and are taken as proofs. There are also a number of "self-evident propositions" which are by no means self-evident. There is a great deal about “matter” and what is not in matter: there is also much about "reflection," though how there can be a reflection without something material in which the image can be reflected, is not clear.
“God is All” is emphatically insisted on. God is good and good is God; but the mere similarity of the words in the English language is taken as a proof that because God is all and God is good, therefore everything outside (if possible) God is evil and therefore evil or d'evil.” Then God is Mind; and everything which is not mind is transitory and devilish and is summed up in the self-contradictory phrase "Mortal Mind," accepted for the convenience of terminology. Indeed, in much of that which is asserted the confusion amounts to "terminological inexactitudes.” For if we were to devote volumes to verbal criticism one would find in this volume that "what is new is not true and what is true is not new.” God, Spirit, Truth, Soul Mind are one and the same. Man is the “reflection of Soul, but God is not “in” man. Everything that is not God is “Mortal Mind :" but as man is the “reflection” it is not clear what man is in relation to God or Soul. A reflection is not identical with what is reflected. Is man separate from God, since God is not in him?" or must man be identical with "Mortal Mind," since man admittedly is not God? The relation of man to God or Soul is, I think, very important, for the whole question turns on this.
As all else except God is “Mortal Mind” and its errors and mistakes, we are confronted with the gigantic illusion (Mahamaya) of Hindu philosophy stated in other terms. But Mrs. Eddy is not a dualist or non-dualist; she is Mrs. Eddy, and her revelation is the only one. She states clearly that all sciences, systems of philosophy, all other modes of thought are incorrect, if they disagree with what she states. It is not a question of the Logos, manifested or unmanifested, or of the veils of the unmanifested Parabrahm. The whole of the evolution of the Universe is denied in one breath. “Mortal Mind” covers it all in one gigantic illusion. This "Mortal Mind" is the body of man,-"Mortal mind and body are one" (p. 177), it is the basis of sickness or disease while being composed of sensationless matter. Disease is mental (p. 151, et seq) and through the action of “Mortal Mind” (p. 187) by way of selfishness (p. 205) and latent fear (p. 199) human beliefs (p. 124) spring up which are diseases. Consequently through cleansing the mind (p. 234) of error (p. 287) mortal mind disappears (p. 251 et seq) and healing (p. 146) takes place.
Such is the first “bribe” held out to those who come to the study of Christian Science. The student is told what Mind imparts to those
who follow it faithfully and (on p. 373) it is stated that "disease is more docile than iniquity" and sin is therefore more difficult to heal. Sin would seem, then, to be an inner "demonstration" of disease and to differ only in degree-a statement with which I am disposed to be in some measure in accord. The cure of disease and the possession of health are declared to depend on getting rid of "Mortal Mind," on the elevation of thought towards Mind, the assertion of the “Scientific Statement of Being" and the concentration on and devotion of every energy to study on the lines laid down for healing. This again is like the recitation of mantrams or the self hypnotization produced by phrases, just as much as by concentration on a bright mirror, or the behavior of the crowd who shouted “Great is Diana of the Ephesians” for the space of several hours.
But does Christian Science do what it pretends to do? Does it restore health? (Bribe No. I) Does it promote happiness? (Bribe No. 2) Does it bring wealth to its followers? (Bribe No. 3).
By what means soever it is accomplished a large number of its disciples have their health increased and some are made well of apparently incurable conditions: drunkards are enabled to resist their cravings: immoral members of human society are caused to lead a straight life. In individuals there is evidence of greater happiness and in families to which they belong there is evidence of lessened friction, except where they attempt to enforce their views of the meaning and conduct of life, for the missionary microbe is active and poisonous and its activity is enjoined by authority of Mrs. Eddy upon the faithful.
But is it right-in spite of these results? Is it according to the laws of the Universe? Little mischief would be done in repeating formula and in such processes, however comforting, even if they exceeded “Mesopotamia" as a word of power. The “Statement of Being” and other formulæ might be repeated backward and forwards and might "box the compass” every-which-way; but this would not prove anything. Abracadabra is a fabled word of power in Black Magic and it might be equally efficacious—the “Reversal of Testimony" (p. 120) is curiously suggestive—but it would not make Christian Science good or d'evil. The test of it all is in the motive, and with the final effect, not merely the immediate effect, on the true health, wealth or happiness of a human being. Does this Universe exist for the material benefit of man-and mortal mindor for the purposes of Soul? Are we so to pass through things temporal that we finally lose not things eternal? Or are we not?
In the first place the Christian Scientists affirm the "Statement of Being,” and deny everything else. They concentrate every energy on this and evoke the powers of the Soul in doing this—concentrate also on the negative aspect, which they deny, thereby devoting all their energies to the very thing which they deny. They call on Soul-Mind
Truth-&c. and why? Not that God may be manifest and His purposes fulfilled-but that they in their persons may be healthier, happier or more wealthy. They desire these possessions for themselves and desire the removal of inflictions. Is this a worthy motive with which to approach the divine treasure-house? Some among them will deny this. But let them recall their first contact with Christian Science, in the state in which they then were and ask themselves honestly "why did I adopt this line of study and follow it?" Then what answer will be given? For, truly, a bigger bribe was never laid before a suffering humanity. Not only is there the satisfaction of the religious element, but there is a further triple element of health, wealth and happinessand all of it proffered in the name of Jesus. They storm the divine treasure-house determined to wrest from it by violence all that they require or desire, regardless of the laws of the universe, insisting upon the reversal of these in order to fulfill their hopes for themselves and others. Is this right motive?
Christian Science asserts that all is perfect, (“Mortal Mind” covers the rest, so it now appears there is a remainder which is imperfect!) and denies any evolutionary law to God. By the mouth of Mrs. Eddy it would claim to know God's purpose and will, and to put a stop to all the unfoldment of Being. Let us take an example in the domain of force. The electric current exists and is manifested by the flow of the current between points of greater and lesser potential-called positive and negative. It is as if Christian Science, for no apparent reason, identified God with the positive aspect and denied the negative any existence, calling it evil. Whereas both are necessary to the manifestation of the electric force. One could understand the comparison of force-electric to God, as the noumenon behind them is related to the manifestation of the negative and positive phenomena. One can, in the light of metaphysics ancient and modern, understand that all material objects are illusions—that the personal man as he has developed himself, is an illusion, a temporary manifestation of his real Being, just as a suit of clothes is not the man who wears them. Indeed, it is the Soul behind, manifesting its character in the man, which we may regard as important in so far as its evolution and involution are a manifestation of the Divine. But why then are we to accept the Christian Science teaching of the unreality of all phenomena, of linking ourselves to Mind, Truth, Soul, Spirit and so on and concentrating all attention on it, giving our whole life to it, in order that we may have better health for a body which is "Mortal Mind” and therefore has no existence; in order to possess material wealth and obtain a happiness in conditions which are composed of illusory dreams? The evolution of the Universe must stand still on this line or become entirely selfish. Is this
right action? or right motive for action on the part of those who profess Christian Science?
But so far as I have been able to understand them, the professions are otherwise. After having been attracted by the triple bribe in one form or another for themselves, the missionary microbe comes in and infects them with the desire of sharing their joys with others on their own basis, mark, and on no other—of proving themselves right and of making others follow the "truth” which they themselves have accepted: also the glorification of their religion and its prophetess. Accordingly they set to work with fixed mind, and with the development of their power of concentration (a comparatively easy task with such a rigidly defined and concrete object), they hold their neighbors and families in as forceful a hypnotic grip of "Mortal Mind” as ever a Torquemada enforced on his word ad majorem Dei gloriam. But it is not truth for its own sake which guides the majority.
I do not say all, for there are in all communities some who seek truth for its own sake and ensue it. And such come at last into the light. But broadly speaking, the question of sin and its eradication by Christian Science is the method of suppression of its external manifestation, like suppressing the rash of scarlet fever.
Further, there is another source of difference. Christian Science finds things wrong as the result of the action of "Mortal Mind." It saves itself trouble and effort by calling them illusions and denying their existence. Professing a high ideal of duty in this mortal existence, is not such denial a neglect of duty in order to save themselves trouble, in the first place, and to obtain speedy results in the second place? We may be unable as yet to know the Reality behind phenomena. But because we dimly perceive that we do not manifest the Reality, need we therefore abandon the effort and deny the very existence of phenomena? Not their eternal existence, but their temporary existence in Time and Space as necessary factors of Evolution. The conditions of life in which we are acting are not especially good. Are we to run away from them to make them better? Because there is a fire in a college building, are the authorities to run away and save themselves to the neglect of the pupils committed to their charge? In a few words; we have duties peculiar to all states and stages of Consciousness and Being, and may not rightfully deny the temporary existence of a single one, but must work through and beyond all, evolving and being evolved. We may not slur over or drop a single link of the great chain of Being.
From the statement that it is more easy to eradicate disease than iniquity, and from other portions of “Science and Health,” one may justly conclude that there are degrees of error in "Mortal Mind." Diseases would seem to be taken as being the phenomena of iniquity or sin,
Both have their root in “Mortal Mind.” Obviously then
on these lines-get rid of “Mortal Mind.” (Note that you do not purify it-you simply deny its existence and so cover over all its fermentations within your mental sphere of action: again, this is the theory of suppression.) But beyond "Mortal Mind," God is All. How then did iniquity, "Mortal Mind” and the rest arise ?
Let us assume that there is no hiatus in the scheme. Have we as individuals the right selfishly, and for our own purposes, to demand and use the powers which are divine for the improvement of our personal possessions in health, wealth and happiness? May Cæsar justly demand of God "the things which are God's” for Cæsar's pleasure or relief? May he, even when he extends “self” to include "his” friends and all that is in a larger sense "his?" There is another serious danger. Let us grant the "fruitage”
"” obtained by these means. Let us say that disease is cured in its external manifestation, that wealth and happiness are obtained in place of poverty and misery: that all this is done by drawing on the powers of the Soul. What if this be only the suppression of the disease, or the causes of poverty and misery? Believing as I do, in the Immortality of Soul, I earnestly say that the last state of such human beings is worse than the first. They are more securely bound down by the chain of mortal error.
Let us grant that God is All; let us grant that personal man and "Mortal Mind” are one and that these are temporary conditions. Then our effort should be to attune ourselves, our Consciousness to the divine or Soul Consciousness-or real man-as we pass through things temporal, that they also may be attuned and obtain real existence and life. But because we have an ideal of life and thought, have we the right to run away from the duty we owe, to repair conditions we have created or allowed to spring up around us? If we do so we are cowardly sentinels at the gate of life, and for the sake of improving our own conditions we desert the soldiers we have brought to enlist in the battle of life. The units of thought or life of which mortal man or the body are compounded, also have their own forms of life and Consciousness: we train them (it may be mistakenly), but have we the right to desert them, as Christian Science would have us do, by denying their existence? Or are we to devote our energies (on the line enjoined by Christian Science) to getting rid of "Mortal Mind," because we desire to attain a heaven for ourselves, whether or not we attain health, wealth and happiness in this condition of existence? Is not either course selfish-selfish to so great an extent as to defeat the aim, however altruistic the professed motive? If there be the least taint of selfishness in the motive with which a man breaks through and steals the treasures of the kingdom of heaven, he will infallibly add to the intensity of "Mortal Mind" (whether he denies its existence or not, for his very