The Science of Peace


Advanced scientific concepts

Part 2 - The infinite stage - 
The 144-element Glossary structure.

It was said earlier that the Glossary of the textbook represents a major group of structures all by itself, which altogether create the Glossary Structure. The Glossary contains all the elements required to scientifically create that structure. There are none extra, or any lacking. In fact, the Glossary that we find in the textbook is not so much a Glossary for the textbook. Rather, it is the Glossary of the 144-element group of the pedagogical structure that may be termed the "crowning ultimate," that "rises to a mental monument, a superstructure high above the work of men's hands, even the outcome of their hearts, giving to the material a spiritual significance..."*208

Briefly, the Glossary that we find in the Christian Science textbook by Mary Baker Eddy contains a list of terms that are in most cases defined right in the Glossary itself. A number of these terms carry a double definition. Most of these dual definitions are separated from each other into separate sentences. This process yields 147 definitions. The metaphor in Revelation 21:17 for the city foursquare, however, speaks of a 144-element structure. This metaphor is confirmed in the last painting in Mary Baker Eddy's illustrated poem, Christ and Christmas, in the compound image of the crown. The crown gives us two major dimensions. 

It contains 9 jewels in the frontal view and 16 jewels in the total view, the global view. This metaphor points to a 144-element universal platform (9x16=144) made up of 16 elements wit 9 parts each, with represent in the small the entire foursquare structure (four horizontal concepts and four vertical concepts). 



The 9-part form is also metaphorically illustrated in Christ and Christmas as two concentric squares woven into the carpet (faintly apparent in the below pictures) with an angel standing in the center of it.

Five types of dual definitions

Since the dimensions of the metaphor and that of the recognized number of definitions don't match, the existence of an ontological paradox is indicated, meaning that the discovered process of recognizing dual definitions is evidently incomplete, since it yields the wrong result according to the metaphor. The paradox becomes resolved when one becomes aware that Mary Baker Eddy presented us with 5 different types of dual definitions that all tell a unique story and unfold with unique requirements, which in turn refine the discovered rules for recognizing dual definitions, and thereby the number of them. 

As an example of how the total number of definitions is affected, one might consider the case of the 'compound' definition that unites apparently separated aspects of a definition into a single concept, like the compound name 'Christ Jesus,' which needs to be kept together for a certain perception to be realized. Mary Baker Eddy did not define the term "Christ Jesus" in the Glossary, but she did define the term "Christ" and the term "Jesus." If one were to create a definition for the term Christ Jesus, one would have to include both definitions in separate sentences, the one for the Christ and the one for Jesus. And they would both have to be understood together for a correct recognition of the status of the man Jesus. That's the nature of a compound definition. Mary Baker Eddy provided two definitions of this type in the Glossary.

The process of recognizing compound definitions reduces the total number of separate definitions. In the end, the resulting total adds up to 144, exactly as is spelled out in Revelation 21:17 and in the metaphors in Christ and Christmas.

The compound definition is a central aspect in divine Science that evidently needed to be represented in the pedagogical structure. Christ Jesus placed his very identity on it. He referred to himself both as the Son of God and the son of man. His compound name reflects his duality, the unity of the human and the divine. This coincidence is one that must be kept together for his identity to be correctly recognized. In the same manner does Mary Baker Eddy refer to MAN as a "compound idea" that incorporates all the multiple, but distinct aspects of the dimension of man. Mary Baker Eddy defined MAN as the "compound idea" of God, Spirit, "including all right ideas."

Correspondingly, Mary Baker Eddy gives us two examples in the Glossary that illustrate this concept of the compound definition. She gives us two compound definitions where the distinct aspects of the definition are both a constituent part of a single definition. The compound type is found in the definition for Burial, and Euphrates.

The principle of compound definition is further extended into the sphere of the dual definition where one of the compound elements becomes attached to both aspect of the duality that raises the dual definition into a compound dual definition. Only one case of this type exists in the Glossary as if this case was singled out as of universal importance. The case is that of the definition for the term, SON. It contains three elements.

The son of God, the Messiah or Christ.
The son of man, the offspring of the flesh.
"Son of a year."

The last element is presented by Mary Baker Eddy in quotes. She refers to that concept in an article called Bible Lessons where she points out that in Hebrew texts a (calendar) month is sometimes referred to as "son of a year." She adds, that when applied to man, the concept applies to both the material and the spiritual sense of man.*209 The end result gives us not a triple definition for the term man, but a compound dual definitions where the "son of a year" sense becomes a part of each element of the contrasting dual definition. (more will be presented about this later)

The final outcome is that the Glossary contains 144 definitions, for a dimension that actually matches Mary Baker Eddy's metaphor and also the biblical metaphor. The importance of the compound idea or compound definition is incorporated into the design of the crown in Christ and Christmas. The design reflects a compound idea that contains two dimensions united into one concept. The crown also reflects the universal dimension that Mary Baker Eddy has defined for the second highest row of pedagogical structure in which the painting with the crown is located. The 9x16 dimension enables a deep and wide universal uniformity throughout the pedagogical structure according to the pattern as shown  in Appendix S below. It provides for 9 definitions for each of the 16 elements, and it enables the 9 definitions in principle to reflect the idea of the four horizontal rows of the pedagogical structure and their characteristics, and the four vertical columns and their development flows. There remains only one definition left over in this substructure, which becomes the center of it all.

The resulting pattern reflects the pattern shown in the painting "Truth versus Error," in Christ and Christmas. The pattern is woven into the carpet with the woman standing in the middle of it, She represents divine Science unfolding as Christian Science. This pattern presented at the moral level, the third level down, is the foundation on which the further unfolding of divine Science rests in the Kingdom of Heaven, which defines the entire second row.

With the 144 dimension established, a brief note may be in order about the remaining three types of dual definitions that exist in the Glossary.

One type represents the principle of the vertically separated duality where a stark contrast, like night and day, exists between the defined duality. An example of this type is found in the definition for the term Zion. There exist 16 terms of this type in the Glossary. Eight of these have a stark contrast (Jerusalem, Rock, {Son}, Sword, Wine, Wind, Zeal, Zion) and eight have a lesser contrast (Believing, Benjamin, Children, Jacob, Lord, Tithe, Wilderness, Will)

Another type represents the principle of the horizontally separated duality where a term is defined with two different meanings that relate to the same cardinal point, but to different development streams. Three terms are defined in this manner in the Glossary (Adam, Ark, Church).

The remaining one of the five types incorporates the principle of the compound definition once more. This type presents a vertical duality, but one that is held together into a single sentence that incorporates both a higher and lower meaning in a single compound transitional concept (the definitions are: Evening, Earth, River, Temple). The utility for such a definition is not easily recognizable. It comes into view when one considers the major division that Mary Baker Eddy has indicated on the tablet in the lap of the woman in the rocking chair of the painting "Christmas Eve."  The above mentioned compound transitional terms serve the division that splits the moral domain, which Mary Baker Eddy has defined as transitional. Here the transitional compound definitions become important. They become the central elements in the moral domain in every development stream.

If one spits the lower three rows in half into an upper arena and a lower arena, with the central elements (the transitional elements) in the middle being shared between the two halves, one ends up with 56 definitions in the upper arena and 56 definitions in the lower arena (or 14 each per column) as shown in Appendix G3.

The two halves, the upper and the lower half, become a confrontational arena in which the moral domain is of central importance. The moral domain becomes both the gateway to the universal domain of the Christ and divine Science, and on the downward track the gateway to HELL on the fourth row. This down-track opens up when the moral platform looses its rooting in divine Principle.

Thus, we end up across the four columns with 56 definitions of light built on divine Principle, and 56 definitions of darkness reflecting a denial of divine Principle. The critical metaphor here, of 56. The metaphor is presented on the front cover of Christ and Christmas in the form of 56 rays of light surrounding a large star. This adds up to 7 rays of light applied two times in each single column, corresponding to the seven days of creation and the seven synonyms for God. They stand combined as one, and they are standing in contrast with their corresponding denial in the lower half of the confrontational division as areas of darkness (voids of reality). This double metaphor of seven is incorporated into the design of the crown. We find seven leaves surrounding the front-center jewel in the crown in Christ and Christmas. Also, every star in Christ and Christmas is a seven-pointed star. This feature has been carried forward into the modern design of the crown, which is a crown of five seven-pointed stars.

The dimension of five, evidently representing the five types of unique dual definitions in the Glossary, appears to have been extremely important to Mary Baker Eddy as we find the factor five prominently incorporated into the design of the crown, both in Christ and Christmas, and in the modern design that emphasized the factor five, with which she identified her books. In Christ and Christmas the factor five is represented by the 5 carriers for jewels in the frontal view. And it is represented once more by the jewel on either side of the crown that is surrounded by five leaves.

The crown from Christ and Christmas was utilized by Mary Baker Eddy until app. 1902 in the design of her seal, the cross and crown seal that identified her books. When the seal was simplified by her she retained the dimension of five and made it more prominently apparent.

What Mary Baker Eddy's underlying reasons might have been for focusing on the factor five in the design of the crown will never be known. However, one aspect is certain that without the recognition of the 5 types of dual definitions existing in the Glossary, the 144 element Glossary structure could not have been created that is indicated in the design of the crown itself. The crown presents 9 jewels in its frontal view; three major jewels at the right, left, and center, interspersed with two groups of three jewels. When the same crown is seen in the global view it contains 16 jewels; four major jewels interspersed by four groups of three. With the factors nine and sixteen thereby combined in the design of the crown (9x16=144) the dimension of it in metaphor agrees directly with the dimension mentioned in Revelation 21:17.

The idea that the factor 5 in design of the crown relates to the five types of dual definitions in the Glossary is further emphasized by the fact that the focus on the factor 5 didn't vary from the first image of the crown that appeared in 1893 in Christ and Christmas (the book of the metaphors for her pedagogical structure). Rather than being dropped, this original factor became emphasized around 1902 in the new design of the cross and crown seal.

It appears to me that with the five-star crown in the seal, which Mary Baker Eddy placed on her books, she is saying to society pay attention! This is what I stand for! This is where you can find the essence of what I have created. You will know that you have reached it when the metaphor of 5 becomes profoundly meaningful to you.

Mary Baker Eddy also appears to have added the warning, if you take an element out of this chain of discovery you will never find me, and loose whatever sense of me you may have. All of this makes the five types of dual definitions rather important.

(Type 1) - The horizontally separated duality

In some cases of dual definitions the duality is such that the dual aspects are 'horizontally' separated. In these cases the defined term has been presented with two different meanings, by which the same term applies to different flows of development or regression, and applies there at the same level, or in the same general domain in human thinking, but in different contexts.

This type of rather unique dual definitions is distinguished from other dual definitions in that this type do not present a contrast.  The horizontal dual definition is given as two distinct statements separated into two paragraphs. In order to set this horizontal duality apart from the compound dual definition where the duality cannot be separated, Mary Baker Eddy separated the horizontal duality not only into two sentences, but also into two separate paragraphs to indicate that we are dealing with distinct development concepts here.

The Glossary contains three terms that have been given this type of definition.  The three terms so defined, are: ADAM, ARK, and Church.

If one looks closely at the definitions it becomes apparent that this type of dual definition has its two parts pertain to two different columns, but on the same level.  In these cases their representation on the matrix is horizontally separated.  This means that both aspects pertain to the same cardinal point, or level of thought, but are found in different columns where they are involved with different flows of development.

The case of ADAM.

Let us look at the two examples of horizontal dual definition.  The first is for the term ADAM.  The definition of the name ADAM is large.  It is divided into two paragraphs.  The first paragraph is a single sentence that presents twenty six separate aspects of corporeal mortal belief associated with the name, Adam.  This part presents a comprehensive denial of the spiritual nature of man.  The second paragraph is likewise made up of a single sentence.  It presents a comprehensive denial of God as infinite Spirit, and of God's reflection in man.  Two totally separate themes are presented in these two definitions for the name Adam.  They represent distinct aspects that are clearly separated; but the separation is on the same level.  One definition defines ADAM as a lie about the identity of man. The other defines ADAM as a lie about the identity of God.  Both definitions define a lie. Thus they are on the same level.

The definition for the term Adam presents a denial of the nature of man in the first part of that definition, followed by a statement which presents a denial of the nature of God in the second part of the definition. Both denials are a part of the Adam concept.

There is a clean duality presented in this case. The duality is not only presented in two separate sentences, but is also presented in two separate paragraphs. In other words, we deal with two different contexts here, in which the Adamic mythology bears upon humanity's perception of itself, and its relationship to God or universal divine Principle.

Nevertheless, one must ask oneself: Can one separate that duality into two separate, independent statements? I recognize that this is not only possible, but is also imperative.

Obviously, the Adamic belief structure, as it relates to man's loss of his humanity, is fully countered by the Christ, defined in the Glossary, as:

"Christ. The divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error."

This deals with one part of the Adamic myth. Obviously the Adamic denial of God's reflection in man is an incarnate error. Still, there is another process involved in dealing with Adam's denial, which is the Adamic denial God directly, a denial of the existence of Truth and universal Principle. This involves quite a different form of denial. Therefore, I must necessarily consider the term twice in the overall Glossary matrix structure, mustn't I?

The case of ARK.

The other horizontally separated dual definition that we find in the Glossary, is for the term: ARK.  The following is the definition for ARK, presented ny Mary Baker Eddy in two separate paragraphs.


.1.  "Safety; the idea, or reflection, of Truth, proved to be as immortal as its Principle; the understanding of Spirit, destroying belief in matter."

.2.  "God and man coexistent and eternal; Science showing that the spiritual realities of all things are created by Him and exist forever.  The ark indicates temptation overcome and followed by exaltation."

Here, too, the definitions present the same level of thought while they present different aspects that pertain to different functions on that level.  In their application to the matrix, the two definitions are again horizontally separated.  One of the definitions pertains more suitably to the first half of the matrix, possibly to the first column where individual concerns are the focus of attention where man finds his individual identity in unity with God.  Here, safety is an issue.  In the fourth column, however, we are dealing with the advanced, infinite aspects of reality where the focus is on man's foundation in God - here the second definition appears to apply where the concern for safety is addressed in the absolute sense.

The case of CHURCH

We are dealing with two different concepts of CHURCH here, respective to the context in which it is found.


.1. The structure of Truth and Love; whatever rests upon and proceeds from divine Principle.

.2. The Church is that institution, which affords proof of its utility and is found elevating the race, rousing the dormant understanding from material beliefs to the apprehension of spiritual ideas and the demonstration of divine Science, thereby casting out devils, or error, and healing the sick.

There is a unique need for these kinds of 'horizontal' or 'lateral' dual definitions. It has been stated earlier that Mary Baker Eddy has divided the entire foursquare matrix into two halves, a right half and a left half. The horizontally separated dual definition, therefore, serves to define aspects of the same concept in the context of a lateral duality in the form of two diverse forms of a concept standing side by side.

Horizontally, each half is made up of groups of two. The groups at the same level represents a  pair of two related concepts, identical in the level of the concept, but different in terms of their part in the scientific and spiritual development in the structure. The horizontal duality of Church, Adam, and Ark can be regarded in this context to being related to such horizontal pairs

(Type 2) - The vertical separated duality

The most common type of dual definition that we find in the Glossary is that which presents a contrast.  One definition presents the spiritual context of a term, and the other the corresponding erroneous concept.  Each part of the definition, therefore, has its own place on the matrix where each part is always vertically separated from the other.  Often the two pairs represent extreme opposites.  One could call this a contrasting type of dual definition, or a vertically separated dual definition.

Contrasting dual definitions are vertically separated when applied to the matrix according to their applicability to either the spiritual or divine context, or to moral or the material domain.  The two separate definitions that the Glossary provides in cases of such dual definitions, stand in contrast to each other.  They define a concept from two totally opposite standpoints.  If we look at these definitions, we will find that they emphasize a diversity of thought in specific areas in which the diversity is seldom recognized to exist, or is seldom correctly understood.

We find an example of this contrasting dual definition, in the definition for the term, Zion.

"Zion. Spiritual foundation and superstructure; inspiration; spiritual strength. Emptiness; unfaithfulness; desolation."

Here, we have the duality again separated into two different sentences. We also find a stark contrast between two definitions of the same concept. One defines the spiritual sense of the concept of Zion, and the other the material sense of the same concept. Each of these distinct concepts must therefore be represented uniquely by itself in the Glossary matrix structure.

The following is a list of Glossary terms have a contrasting dual definition. There are 16 of them (four for each column). They are:


As I said earlier, eight of these represent a strong contrast, and eight a lesser contrast; which gives us two of each for every column. The eight terms that are presented with a stark-contrast in their dual definition are: Jerusalem, Rock, Son, Sword, Wine, Wind, Zeal, Zion; and the eight that are presented with a lesser-contrast dual definition are: Believing, Benjamin, Children, Jacob, Lord, Tithe, Wilderness, and Will.

The obvious question is; is there something unique about all of these terms?  One is tempted to answer: No.  Still, one may wonder why there are so many of them.  Here the exploration begins.  The answer soon emerges that these terms point to unique cases that need to be highlighted in thought.  Special attention needs to be drawn to them.  If this were not the case, every term in the Glossary would have been given a dual definition, for mortal perception always constructs materially oriented images which stand in contrast to spiritual ideas.

It stands to reason that Mary Baker Eddy had chosen each dual definition with great care.  Someone who has labored for two years over a single revision of the textbook isn't likely to approach such an important aspect as the outline for the "crowning ultimate" in a casual manner.  Neither should anyone else take a casual stand, who adopts the Glossary for constructing that structure for which the Glossary appears to have been created.  Thus the examination must be done with care.

There are certain rules apparent that Mary Baker Eddy has applied when presenting dual definitions.

Rule 1.  Each diverse aspect of the dual definition is presented as a complete concept in itself.

Rule 2.  Each aspect is presented as a single sentence (except type 5).  By this method, the diverse aspects are clearly separated from each other.

For the contrasting type of dual definitions the separating duality is strongly apparent and is usually given in the same paragraph.  Also, it is consistently evident why the duality is needed, for it highlights certain unique aspects that otherwise might not become apparent.  There is a certain beauty in this method of presenting important aspects.  It is like Mary Baker Eddy were saying: Look at this one here, have you ever thought about this concept in this and this manner?  Frequently, Mary Baker Eddy highlights a contrasting duality in cases where the spiritual aspect tends to be casually regarded, but has a profound impact when pursued in contrast to its opposite.  By the same method Mary Baker Eddy also highlights certain mortal concepts, and shows that they really belong into the court of infinite Spirit.

What do these dual definitions tell us, then?  What is their practical significance?  What they say to us, is: "Choose Ye!"  Their most obvious feature is that they represent a duality of viewpoints that people tend to be uncomfortable in dealing with.  Here, consciousness is urged to pursue a deep searching process of discovery.  Herein, also, lies their most important aspect.  Dual definitions are employed when there exists a diversity in general perception about an issue that should be obvious to anyone, but isn't.  This forces choices to be made in the most intelligent manner possible.

Let's look at the dual definition for BELIEVING, for instance.  The material facet of the religiously ingrained concept of believing cannot be shaken, much less reversed, unless the commonly regarded singularity of the concept of believing (as related to 'blind' belief) is eradicated.  Mary Baker Eddy gives us a dual definition for the subject.   One definition presents the concept of BELIEVING as pertaining to: "Mortal thoughts, illusion."  This definition sets the stage on which another aspect of believing can be accepted, which is a wholly spiritual one and which is rarely associated with the concept of believing.  This spiritual definition, however, raises the concept of believing onto the platform of divine Science where it represents: "Firmness and constancy; not a faltering nor a blind faith, but the perception of spiritual Truth."  Gone is the old theological concept of believing into something that one cannot possibly understand.  Indeed, the old concept of believing will rarely amount to anything more than "mortal thoughts," which by their very nature ARE illusions.

The utility of dual definitions lies in the fact that they raise the defined concept to spiritual heights.  Once the claims of divine Spirit become admitted, we have a chance for progress.  Even the most materially minded logical thinkers will admit that two opposite images of the same concept cannot represent Truth at the same time.  They will recognize that one must choose which concept one will allow to operate in one's life.  They will recognize that one of the definitions presents a false concept, which must be recognized as such.

(Type 3) - The indivisible duality, a compound definition.

A third group of dual definitions that can be recognized in the Glossary is that for which the duality cannot be logically separated into two independent parts without the loss of the meaning of the defined concept. In the cases where this applies the defined concept would become transformed into something quite different if the two aspects for a defined term are split apart and regarded in isolation.

In other words, we have an interdependent duality here that cannot be split apart, because two defined aspects support each other so that the duality that is presented creates a single concept for which both definitions are required to correctly define it. These definitions are recognized as dual definitions which combine diverse aspects that don't present a major contrast and which are presented as two single sentences that are kept together in a single paragraph, indicating that they do belong together.

This convention makes the compound definition distinct from the horizontal dual definition that likewise doesn't present a major contrast, but which is split into separate paragraphs, indicating that the aspects do not belong together.

The dual definition for the term, Burial, is an example of this type. Another example is the definition for the term, Euphrates.

There is a need for having unique compound definitions recognized, for which the duality cannot be separated as the whole concept would thereby become lost. The compound definition is naturally also the most challenging one to come to terms with. It challenges the limits of conventional perceptions. But in a few cases when complex concepts are involved the conventional limits need to be challenged.

This type of dual definitions is required when it becomes imperative to set up checkpoints that must both exist together before the concept is recognized that they define.  In these cases, each separate definition presents a complete aspect in itself, but each part is required in conjunction with the other for the defined aspect to be correctly understood.

Three terms of this type are found in the Glossary.  The terms are DEVIL, BURIAL, and EUPHRATES.  In each of the cases, the definitions are presented as two separate sentences within the same paragraph.  For the sake of simplicity, let us look at the definition of BURIAL first.

BURIAL - a Type 3 compound (dual) definition.

BURIAL is defined in a single paragraph, as:

.1.  Corporeality and physical sense put out of sight and hearing; annihilation.
.2.  Submergence in Spirit; immortality brought to light.

We have a clear dual definition here.  There are two separate sentences given.   Except both sentences complement each other, rather than presenting a contrast or a diversity.  Neither aspect can stand without the other if a correct perception of the concept of BURIAL is to be attained.  Which means, there is no duality in deed.  Let us ponder why this must be so, and what principle this requirement reflects.

The process that we have indicated in the first sentence can certainly be pursued (materially) in isolation from the other process.  Indeed, it has been so pursed throughout the ages, through will power, for instance.  But does this result in any kind of burial?  No. It results in one type of belief, replacing another type of belief.  Nothing is being buried in any real way.  This impossible process for burying a materially centered existence by material means has been attempted many times throughout history.  This is what the monks had pursued in ancient times who had locked themselves into dark-celled monasteries, shutting out all impulses from the surrounding world.  They had shut out corporeal and physical sense to the utmost, by physical means.  We have no indication, however, that this process did elevate consciousness to the perception of infinite Truth?  Instead, the process caused deprivation.  No burial of Earth-bound mortal thought or belief takes place, unless it is accomplished in context with a deep reaching submergence in Spirit.  The two aspect must appear as one concept and be so represented on the pedagogical structure.  The duality cannot be separated because it is a part of the same process, which is not divisible.

A similar consideration comes to light when we focus on the second sentence of the definition of Burial in isolation, so that that the concept of burial is seen only as "Submergence in Spirit..."  One can certainly pursue the spiritualization of thought by material processes, and many have tried.  But does the approach work?  People sit down and read the Bible three times in succession, or study the Christian Science textbook five hours each day in a high intensity submergence in spiritual writings, but will this submergence bury the limits of corporeality and the earth-bound mentality of physical sense?  It won't.  If it did, the spiritual absolute could be gained in a month in a high intensity effort of reading.  If such a process was possible, why did Jesus spend thirty years in preparation for his public career, and Mary Baker Eddy many more years than that?  Indeed, in countless cases people do try to enforce the spiritual ultimate by reading the Bible or the Christian Science textbook routinely from cover to cover in order to gain spirituality.  But, can any materially intensified effort produce the spiritualization of thought that buries the very material sense that caused the intensified effort in the first place?  Not likely!

The fact is we can force neither aspect by itself materially, with mortal will or intellectual processes.  But we can do it spiritually through scientific development, discovery of Principle, acknowledgement of Truth, and through the reflection of divine Love unfolding evermore as universal love in human domain.  This happens when a higher point of reference is brought into view that is created by all the elements of the compound process coming together as one.

Now one must ask the question: How is one to define the outcome of this process of development, of discovery, of reflection, etc., when this higher point of reference govern our axioms, perceptions, and experiences?  Won't this combined shift in focus from the mortal to the infinite domain, bury what separates man from infinite reality?

The outcome must be essentially as Mary Baker Eddy has defined the concept of BURIAL:

.1.  Corporeality and physical sense put out of sight and hearing; annihilation.
.2.  Submergence in Spirit; immortality brought to light.

I want to be very careful before I separate these kinds of concepts, because in this case, corporeality and physical sense put out of sight and hearing, without an accompanying submergence in Spirit, will cause me to engage in self-annihilation by which immortality will not be brought to light. Neither can one engage in the submergence in spirit without the parallel process of corporeality and physical sense being put into the background and gradually out of sight and hearing. If the unity of this essential combination isn't maintained, immortality will evidently not be brought to light. This means that we are dealing with a single but compound concept that must be represented in Glossary structure as a singularity.

If we don't do this, then the duality is split in two different concepts. In this case I must ask myself however, if I would still be talking about the same concept of burial. Is the process still possible if either one or the other of the two constituent parts is taken out of the picture, as would happen when the two parts are split up into isolated elements. I would answer, no, to this question. I would have to say that the real concept becomes lost when one takes away a part of a compound unity.  But even as I say no, I am challenged to consider the duality that is involved, am I not?

The term Euphrates presents a similar challenge.

EUPHRATES - a Type 3 compound (dual) definition.

Mary Baker Eddy could have given us a much longer list of compound definitions, but the few examples are sufficient to illustrate the principle involved.  The point is that each one tells the same type of story, and describes the same type of process.

The type of dual definition that cannot be separated illustrates in principle what unfolds in human experience as we shift our point of reference to the infinite.  As this happens, all earth-bound material concepts become buried, never to rise again, and the spiritual reality that once was but a distant theory comes to light as the center of one's existence. This is especially evident in the definition for Euphrates.

The same requirement to integrate an apparent duality can be recognized for the dual definition of Euphrates.  The definition is given in two closely related sentences that are combined into the same paragraph.  The two sentences describe two essential facets of the same process.  Here too, a clear duality is presented, but both aspects are a part of the same phenomenon.

The same integration of a duality into a single concept, though less complex, is found in the definition of DEVIL, which is presented in two sentences that present no horizontal or vertical separation.  One sentence defines the concept of DEVIL as "evil; a lie; error; sickness; animal magnetism etc..."  The other sentence presents the notion that "there is more than one mind."  There is no separation indicated here even though each sentence presents a complete and separate idea. But draw the two together and a complete perception is reached that neither of the two parts is able to represent in itself.

The indivisible duality contains vital aspects that are complete in themselves, but must be recognized together.  This indivisible duality needs to be highlighted.  In the definition of Devil, the duality tells me, that whenever a concept arises that tells me that there is more than one mind, watch out!   The result will always be evil.  The notion that there can be more than one mind - one to control, and the other to be controlled - invariably adds up to evil.  This deep connection seems to mean nothing in today's modern world, a world that is so filled with personality focus, mass hype, and material individualism.  As a result, people do not recognize that there is evil in the wake of the manipulative mania of many mentalities.  The vital context is missing in general thought that unmasks the error involved and defines the very notion of multiple roots of intelligence, which have been promoted by emperors and empires since time began, as the root of evil, of animal magnetism, or whatever form such personal sense may take on.

In the case of Devil, the two underlying concepts must be seen as one, or else the essence of the thing that is to be exposed, is lost.  We must recognize that the perception of evil, and the perception of more than one mind, are linked.  If we don't, we may be tempted to defeat evil by mortal will, through penalties or whatever, which merely adds to the evil.

The correct perception of the nature of evil (represented by the concept of Devil), by reversal, hints at a foundation for metaphysical healing.

With this in mind we can now get back to the definition of EUPHRATES.

The Glossary contains two sentences, to define EUPRATES, combined into a single paragraph as follows:

.1.  Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; the true idea of God; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness.
.2.  The atmosphere of human belief before it accepts sin, sickness, or death; a state of mortal thought, the only error of which is limitation; finity; the opposite of infinity.

At first glance one could think that we have two contrasting definitions before us - a spiritual one representing divine Science, and a material one representing the atmosphere of mortal belief... the only error of which is limitation.  But, this is not what the definition is saying.

In the first sentence, divine Science, is not defined as something absolute.  It is defined as "a type of the glory, which is to come."  Something is being developed.  This development relates to the operation of divine Science.  Indeed, this is what the definition defines.  But what about "the atmosphere of mortal belief... the only error of which is limitation?"  This, too, defines scientific thought.  Science is a spiritual aspect of our humanity, but it operates within the sphere of mortal mind, the sphere of human limits, even as it acts to push back these limits. If it were not for human limits, which science aids us to overcome, science would have no meaning. Science is a human platform for understanding principles and phenomena that the physical senses cannot accurately convey. Science is a spiritual aspect of our humanity that enables us to understand divine aspects within the limits of human sense. Divine Mind is its root. Mind is God, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omni-action - all power, all presence, all Science, all action. Mind, omniscience, constituting all Science is reflected in man. Human theories are destitute of Science. If Science were not divine, human limits and the mortal sense of finity would disable its unfolding. Instead, divine Science unfolds amidst the atmosphere of mortal thought and disables all that is mortal, and elevates thought above its perceived limits and finity to pattern the divine.

EUPHRATES, as the river in the development stream of divine Science represents the environment in which the human and the divine meet and the finite becomes uplifted into the infinite.

If it were not for the limits of human sense, science would have no meaning as a progressive structure for advancing understanding, developing true perception line by line. If All was fully understood, science would not be needed, man would be omniscient. But man is not God, Mind, infinite Spirit. Man is spiritual and scientific. It was never said the God is Science and that man is omniscient. God is the essence of Science. God is Truth. God is all knowing. That all-knowing quality of divine Mind, the quality of omniscience, becomes reflected humanly as a divine manifest, or divine Science, that enables us to shed our limits, step by step. But God is above Science. Mary Baker Eddy writes under the definition of MIND: "...Deity, which outlines but is not outlined." Science outlines reality, but it does not outline God. Science outlines reality for man. It is the light that banishes the darkness. The environment in which this compound process happens is EUPHRATES.

In Mary Baker Eddy's "scientific translation of mortal mind" the highest domain is labeled: spiritual.  This is the domain where divine Science unfolds and brings us nearer to infinite Principle where mortal mind itself disappears, and man as God's image appears. Divine Science is synonymous with human limits in the context of its overcoming them. It doesn't dwell apart in a universe of its own where human limits are not known. It operates where the human limits still are the scene but pervades them in a manner that they become progressively un-known and the divine becomes known.

There is neither a horizontal nor a vertical separation apparent in this duality. The duality is such that it draws both concepts, the human and the divine, together.  Rather than separating the concept of EUPHRATES into two concepts, the dual nature of it as a single concept needs to be acknowledged. The compound definition of EUPHRATES highlights two distinct but vital concepts that we need to hold together consciously as one and to acknowledge that unity.

According to general perception we should have a contrasting duality indicated.  We have a statement about divine Science, followed by a second statement about human belief.  According to general perception these two aspects have nothing to do with each other.  The vital point is that this general perception is unscientific.  In fact it is terribly, terribly wrong.

The vital point that is highlighted by the compound dual definition, is the spiritual fact that its two aspects are not separated by nature, but are separated only in human belief.  What common perception would separate is scientifically drawn together when a higher point of reference is introduced through divine Science that makes the definition a compound definition. Human theories would come up with all kinds of arguments as to why the duality should be separated, but as Mary Baker Eddy has put it, "human theories are destitute of Science."*210 

If the two definitions of EUPHRATES are not seen from the standpoint of divine Science that interfaces with the highest form of mortal thought, to the point where mortal mind itself begins to vanish, the meaning of the whole concept of Euphrates becomes lost in error. Science becomes mythological and Divine Science a contradiction.

The question should be asked what resource would mankind have if the process of divine Science could not unfold within the limited platform of mortal mind.  Mankind would have no resource at all with which to advance beyond itself.  Divine Science is that resource and unfolds on the highest level human platform, driven by a human intellect whose chief fault is its limitation and acceptance of finity.  If humanity was not driven by a need to overcome its limits, then one should ask; what do we need divine Science for?

All Science unfolds in human thought, which is inherently encumbered with limitations arising from belief in finity and corporeality. Even Christ-Science unfolds in this environment. Christ Jesus struggled with human limitations and finity almost to the very end, as is evident in the Garden of Gethsemane, but through his final steps in Divine Science he managed to overcome those limits. We are told it took him three days to step beyond the grave.

All this tells us that we are not dealing with a contrasting dual definition for the term EUPHRATES, nor with a horizontally separated dual definition, but with a compound dual definition that draws together what seems to be a duality, but is in reality a single profound concept.

In earlier editions of the Christian Science textbook the definition for the term Euphrates had been given in four separated sentences. All four aspects define the river. In essence, they are aspects that are flowing in the river together. There is only river named Euphrates. We cannot have two rivers, both being named Euphrates, running in different directions.

The following four sentences describe the River Euphrates. They are from the ninth edition published in 1884.

.1.  Divine Science, encompassing the universe and man; the true idea of God.
.2.  A type of the millennial glory which is to come.
.3.  Metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness.
.4.  The atmosphere of a finite belief before it accepted sin, sickness, or death; a state of sinless mortal thoughts, whose only error is limits, finity, the opposite of infinity.

The river so defined flows between heaven and earth. I hear Mary Baker Eddy saying to me be cautious and note that the River Euphrates, while it may be the strongest river, the most powerful river, it still flows in a land that makes its water muddy with limitations. I hear her saying to me, be alert of the mud; be alert, of the challenge imposed by limitation; be alert of the final challenge that man is facing at the gate to the infinite is the nagging sense of limitation; confront this sense of limitation as a divine being, because the human being is a divine being. I hear her say to me that the challenge in all forms of mere humanism is the sense of limitation that won't go away until we reach the full scientific coincidence of the human and the divine and enter the gates of heaven. Even Jesus, the greatest pioneer in the Kingdom of Heaven, the man who raised the dead and turned water into wine, was confronted with the sense of limitation to the very end in the Garden of Gethsemane. I hear her saying to me with the complex definition for Euphrates, the gates to the infinite lies before you, but take heed of the sense of limitation that is deemed, human limitation, but which is in effect but a phenomenon of mortal thought, a finite belief with a built-in end, which ends when we place our humanity into the courts of God, the coincidence of the human and the divine. I hear her say to me about the waters of Euphrates, don't cry when the waters taste bitter with the taste of mud at your present stage, be assured that as you come closer to the wellspring of the river, the waters will be pure and sweet.

In the last sentence we have the atmosphere defined in which divine Science unfolds. It is defined as a sinless state of mortal thought which exists "before" finite belief get deeper into itself and accepts sin, sickness, and death. She is also saying that as soon as we get ourselves out of this deep trap through moral development we'll find ourselves caught up in the river Euphrates. I also hear her cautioning me that the metaphor has its own limits. Human progress does not have to be a progress of accretion. Inspired ideas can take us forward in leaps and bounds, in quantum jumps, so to speak.

This profound concept was brought out in Mary Baker Eddy's experience on what would have been her deathbed, when she struggled with the mortal sense of life because of a spinal injury.  She won this struggle in one inspired instant when she found herself stepping away from the disease and death belief.  Out of the ensuing 'sinless thought' unfolded her healing and the subsequent discovery of Christian Science in divine Science.

The reality that is coming to light in divine Science is, that man is living in unity with infinite Spirit or divine Principle, and that divine Science comes to light as an interface through which man can become conscious off the reality of divine Principle, here, and now, and experience its substance. The strong moral domain becomes the first base, opening the gateway to Euphrates. Divine Science unfolds divine Principle even in the moral domain where the deeper errors are dealt with, setting the upwards stage for the "Christ" domain (second row) unfolding in thought "the spiritual idea of God," the scientific idea, the domain of Euphrates in the flow of divine Science.

Divine Science is a divine tool for mankind that enables us to explore the universe of God in which we have our being. It unfolds spiritual concepts, but the spiritual is not Spirit. The spiritual domain lies still within the domain of mortal thought and its framework of limits, even though these limits are fast disappearing in human thought at the spiritual stage of our scientific development. To say that all limits must be overcome before divine Science unfolds the divine idea is in my sense unscientific quackery.

As stated before, in Mary Baker Eddy's "scientific translation of mortal mind" (Science and Health 115) the highest aspect of this sphere is defined as, spiritual, which corresponds with the domain of the Christ, represented in the last column by the river Euphrates.  This means that the errors of limitation and finity that would hide the divine reality are not a fundamental obstacle to the Christ unfolding in divine Science.

Humanly we appear to be moving Spirit-ward through scientific spiritualization of thought and perception.  We call it spiritual growth.  This, however, reflects merely the unfolding perception of Truth in consciousness, which brings us gently into the sunlight of a more complete and correct perception of reality.  In reality we do not live and move in the mortal sphere, and never have, but have our being in unity with God, with infinite Spirit, Life, Mind, Principle, and Truth. But this reality needs to unfold in the flow of progressive experiences in which mortal thought disappears and consciousness accepts its native infinite nature. This happens in the domain of Euphrates where sinless sense with all its remaining limits and finity looses its mortal character and approximates the divine and the infinite in which its (untrue) limits and finity disappear.

Of the five types of dual definitions that are found in the Glossary, the unifying, compound type is probably the most powerful and most profound type of the dual definitions. 

The vertically separated dual definitions are important, but their contrast is dealt with in rich measure in Christian Science, and is translated into healing.  The horizontally separated dual definitions are less obvious.  They present parallel concepts that we need to concern ourselves with for a deeper understanding of divine Science.  They have far-reaching consequences.  It is important, for instance, to realize that the ADAM mythology not only denies the spiritual facts about man, but also denies the nature and existence of God.

The unifying, compound dual definitions, on the other hand, deals with the least obvious aspects of reality.  They deal with the most deeply seated material perceptions that seem so right on the surface, but are dead wrong under the microscope of scientific enquiry.  For the unifying, compound dual definitions, there is naturally only a single representation possible on the matrix, since all of its definitions converge into one concept in order to define the otherwise indefinable.

The definition of EUPHRATES, as a unified dual definition, is a most beautiful definition.  It presents the immutable rich unity between God and man.  It presents the coincidence of the human and the divine, even while the evidence is still lagging behind.  No other definition in the Glossary draws the human and the divine so tightly together.  It echoes what the Master said: "As I hear, I judge." (John 5:30) - of whom Mary Baker Eddy wrote that he was "the most scientific man that ever trod the globe."*211

Science develops understanding.  One manifests the other.  If one attempts the separation, whatever remains has no meaning by itself.  If we split the two sentences of EUPHRATES apart into a contrasting dual definition, we would separate divine Science from its necessary manifestation in man.  As a result, the nature of God would be lost to us, which can only be gleamed through divine Science leading us out of mortal thought.  Then reality would remain forever clouded.  We would have nothing that is of any value.  The omniscience of God must express itself as Science, and this Science must fully unfold in the highest region of mortal mind, which Mary Baker Eddy defines as "wisdom, purity, spiritual understanding, spiritual power, love, health, holiness."*212

Euphrates must unfold there in spite of the limits held in mortal mind, whereby this mind looses its erroneously supposed finite nature, and infinity comes to light.  This sets the stage on which disease can be healed scientifically - "even to the extinction of all belief in matter, evil, disease, and death..."*213 - so that the spiritual idea of God, the Christ, becomes manifest in human existence.

Unfortunately this singularity where God and man meet in divine Science has been split apart in popular perceptions.  Is it any wonder then that humanity struggles so hard, trying to fill with fruits of human toil, personal energy, personal goodness, personal intelligence the perceived emptiness in which divine Science is barred from consciousness, because of human limits.  This toil is in vain under such circumstances, and must forever be in vain by the nature of the perceived underlying emptiness. This will continue for as long as good in human existence is deemed to be the product of personal creation rather than unfolding from man's unity with God, man's infinite basis for being that Euphrates becomes the gateway to in spite our perceived limits. With the unity of Euphrates becomes the acceptance of its immediate relevance in the human world.

The definition for the term EUPHRATES presents the unity of God and man in which omniscience is reflected as divine Science in human consciousness.  Countless payers have risen to heaven for a deeper and clearer understanding of God, and for metaphysical healing.  People have given sacrifices and ceremonies for it.  If they had only known, that what they seek is already theirs to grasp.  Reality does not unfold through human will and procedures, or dreams of impotence on bended knees, but through a keen understanding of man as the present and forever Son of God.  This opens the horizon to creative discoveries, establishing a higher platform for living than has ever been experienced before, based on understood principles of reality.

Humanity's breaking away from limitation and finity is the product of scientific progress.  By it we shall reach the glory that is to be, as metaphysics do take the place of physics.

This progress cannot be forced, however.  We cannot force on ourselves what we do not understand, but we can move with what is becoming clearer and clearer in divine Science.  An individual can watch for the emergence of the Christ in consciousness.  This is how we climb out of the mortal pit of limits.  Mankind has the power to do this at any moment.  We can choose to begin to work metaphysically and achieve healing in divine Science long before the last limit is put behind us.  This brings us closer to the reality of our being as the "Son of God" in just as in Hebrew texts a month is called the "son of a year."

The definition of Euphrates is a valuable help for healing.  It tells us about perfection, and that we never lost any of it, except in belief, or the ability to claim our place in the divine order. 

This also means that we are not limited to moving forward as in a linear progression, in order to work ourselves out of sickness and into health, which is quite tempting.  Conceptually speaking, all we need to do, is to get back to that point that existed at the 'beginning' before consciousness became too deeply involved in accepting the grosser forms of unreality, such as sin, sickness, and death.

The reality of our being reflects unchanging Truth.  Euphrates reflects this reality in the human domain as "Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; the true idea of God; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness."  In real terms, that which is to come is that which already is.  The evidence may linger, because of the limits of mortal thought, but it is inevitable as these limits disappear or a scientifically taken down, and infinity comes to light in divine Science.

I believe Mary Baker Eddy is teaching us an important lesson by asking us to consider what happens if an essential duality, that is a duality in unity, becomes separated into isolated concepts. She suggests that we end up with something "spiritually lacking."

The value of these compound definitions, which are dual definitions that cannot be separated, especially that of Euphrates, can hardly be overstated.  They bring together distinct aspects that would normally be separated.

The use of dual definitions in the Glossary are a wonderfully unique method for presenting spiritual aspects that require the deepest consideration.  One stands in awe before the majesty of the genius that has developed them, of scientist that has meticulously assured that every possible type is represented in the Glossary for the pedagogical structure for Divine Science.

(Type 4) - The superimposed (compound) dual definition.

The simple exercise in logic that the contrasting dual definitions demand one to pursue, brings to light some interesting aspects of Science.  One of the most interesting of these is probably the dual definition for the term, SON. 

Here we deal with a rather peculiar type of dual definition, which has a specified point of reference included with the definition of a contrasting pair.  This superimposed point of reference sets up a unique perspective from which the contrasting aspects need to be seen. It gives each part of the contrasting pair a compound definition.

The Glossary definition for SON presents the following contrasting concepts for SON.

.1. The Son of God, the Messiah or Christ.
.2. The son of man, the offspring of the flesh.

The added point of reference is not shown here.  Let us explore the contrasting opposites first.  It is plain to recognize that these two opposites cannot mix.  Each definition presents an aspect that is indivisible.  For instance, one either perceives oneself as the son of God, or one perceives oneself as the offspring of the flesh.  One can't be the offspring from both God and the dust of inanimate matter.  In other words, one must determine scientifically with which of the two poles one's sonship lies.

The resulting vertical duality, of course, must be acknowledged by presenting the term twice on the pedagogical structure; once in a spiritual context, and once in a material or mortal context.  Like with any vertical dual definition, one cannot take a halfway position on this issue.  This is an issue of principle.  It is scientifically illogical to assume that one is mainly a spiritual being, but with a little material corporeality added in and tolerated, or that one is mainly material in nature but interwoven with a tinge of Spirit. 

Mary Baker Eddy makes it plain that such intermingling is scientifically speaking, not possible.  She presents two contrasting perceptions, which, unequivocally, exclude each other.  One cannot accept contrasting standpoints simultaneously, or unite opposites to create something else.  This is not possible no matter how strongly one imagines this to be possible, or general religious sentiments support such a view.

Of course, if Christian Science is approached as a religion, rather than as a Science, the mysticism of religiosity allows imagination to embrace scientific impossibilities, such as perceiving man as partly spiritual and partly material - living in a world of matter while relying on spiritual means for support, or living in a world of Spirit while relying on material means for support.  One must assume that the contrasting dual definitions in the Glossary are meant to highlight selected areas where clear and precise choices are essential.

Of all the contrasting dualities that are presented in the Glossary for the pedagogical structure the concept of SON is evidently the most vital to be understood correctly.  We must choose whether we recognize ourselves as divine image, or whether we recognize ourselves as a child of the dust of the Earth.  We cannot escape the principle that as we choose, right or wrong, so shall we live, because one's experience always reflects the dimensions of one's perception.

Now, in order to raise the duality to a higher level where there is absolutely no intermingling possible, Mary Baker Eddy added a specific point of reference to the definitions against which the dual concepts must be perceived, that block that intermingling.  This point of reference is the "Son of a year" concept, which she defined outside of the Glossary.

An explanation of the phrase "Son of a year" can be found in her Miscellaneous Writings, in an article titled: "Bible Lessons."  Mary Baker Eddy writes:  "In Hebrew text, the word 'son' is defined variously; a month is called the son of a year," and she adds; "This term, as applied to man, is used in both a material and a spiritual sense."*214

The question must be asked: What precisely constitutes man's divine sonship as exemplified by Christ Jesus?  Also the question arises, what precisely constitutes man's sonship in the flesh?  These questions do not change the contrasting duality. They merely extend the meaning of each definition into a more precise concept, which makes it less possible for one to be tempted to perceive a possibility of intermingling.

While this intermingling is routinely done in religious thought - for instance Christ Jesus is often regarded as a mixture of flesh and Spirit - the concept of "son of a year" that Mary Baker Eddy adds to the contrasting definitions profoundly highlights the scientific impossibility of such an intermingling.  Mary Baker Eddy tells us that in Hebrew texts a month is called "son of a year."  This concept of sonship is not external, but inclusive.  Man is the Son of God not by attachment, but in being.  The same perception must also be applied to the idea of sonship in the flesh. What is one a part of?

With this new reference point of the Hebrew example added, of a month being regarded as the son of a year, we find that any notion of an intermingling becomes self-evidently impossible.  The whole concept of sonship has been changed.  The old concept has been eradicated.  A new concept of sonship, a sonship in being rather than in attachment, has been put in its place.  By bringing this added point of reference to bear on the identity of man, an entirely new identity has been created that cannot be brought out on any other platform.

The added point of reference appears at first glance as though it was a third definition for the same concept - the very thing that cannot be.  However, we find that the reference is presented in quotation marks, which identifies it as a reference, rather than a third definition.

The full description for the term, SON, with this reference added, is as follows:

.1.  The Son of God, the Messiah or Christ.
.2.  The son of man, the offspring of the flesh.
.3.  "Son of a year."

Now, what does the concept, "son of a year" add?  Actually it doesn't add anything.  It narrows the meaning.  If a month can be regarded as the son of a year, what does this metaphor say about the spiritual fact of man's sonship with God?  It invalidates the concept that man is "created in" the image of God but exists externally from God. Christ Jesus never defined himself in this manner.  He said, "I and my father ARE one."*215

In this advanced concept, man is no longer seen as isolated from the infinite base of being and left to his own devices.  Here man comes to light as an integrated fundamental aspect of that one all-embracing reality called God.

In connection with the superimposed "Son of a year" reference point, Mary Baker Eddy presents the following biblical text which speaks about Christ Jesus perception of, or more specifically the Christ which Jesus exemplified. She quotes him as saying:  "To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God."*216

Mary Baker Eddy comments on this quote: "Here, the apostle assures us that man has power to become the son of God."*217

She points to the power of the human intellect as being able to recognize man correctly and scientifically, and to act according to this newly discovered identity. The transition from living as the "son of the flesh" to living consciously as the "son of God" has always been possible in divine Science, but it became a practical aspect for mankind through the example of Christ Jesus as the great Exemplar of man as the "son of God." The Apostles appear to have been quite aware of this fact and experienced its reality.

The point is, if man were not the son of God in Truth - in the inclusive sense of sonship in being, which cannot change eternally - then no Apostle, or Christ, or anything or anyone, could ever alter that reality in our favor. The power that the Apostle refers to, to become the son of God, is the power of scientific awakening to the forever established divine reality.

The type of dual definition that includes an enriching superimposed point of reference that makes the resulting dual definition more precise, occurs only once in the Glossary, but it is one that is essential in life.  The Glossary for the pedagogical structure provides us with some striking examples that set the stage, and then leaves the field wide open for us to live on that stage in all aspects.

(Type 5) - The two-directional dual definition.

The fifth type of dual definition that exists in the Glossary for the pedagogical structure is a type of definition that presents a contrasting duality that is contained within a single sentence, whereby the contrasting aspects of the duality cannot be split apart from each other, but remain attached to the same definition.

In this case, we have a kind of definition before us that points into two opposite directions simultaneously. It sets up a stage that is depending on what environment is dominant in ones perception.

This dual-direction type of the dual definitions sets up a volatile element with a transitional quality that can lead into opposite directions according to motivating conditions. An example of this type is found in the definitions for the terms, Earth, Evening, River, and Temple. The dual-direction concept is a part of the moral scene, which Mary Baker Eddy described as "transitional qualities." The natural transition is upwards with evil beliefs disappearing a divine Principle becomes more and more recognized as a factor in human living. The transition can also be regressive into the sub-moral domain as divine Principle becomes increasingly denied.

Let's look at the terms and their definitions that Mary Baker Eddy provided. (Note: we have a duality presented in each case, in a single sentence that cannot be separated.)

EARTH.  A sphere; a type of eternity and immortality, which are likewise without beginning or end.

To material sense, earth is matter; to spiritual sense, it is a compound idea.


Mistiness of mortal thought; weariness of mortal mind; obscured views; peace and rest.

RIVER. Channel of thought.

When smooth and unobstructed, it typifies the course of Truth; but muddy, foaming, and dashing, it is a type of error.


Body; the idea of Life, substance, and intelligence; the superstructure of Truth; the shrine of Love; a material superstructure, where mortals congregate for worship.

In each of the above cases there is a defining factor involved which determines the direction into which this definition takes one. In the latter case, the defining condition is the introduction of Christian Science into mortal thought.

Summary of dual definitions

If one considers the five fundamental types of dual definitions, especially the ones which cannot be separated, one finds that the Glossary for the pedagogical structure does indeed contain 144 definitions, so that this Glossary thereby reflects the dimension that John the Revelator had presented for the city foursquare, and that Mary Baker Eddy has twice defined in metaphor in the last two paintings in Christ and Christmas, once in the crown in the last painting. 

The existence of the five types of dual definitions is not easily recognized. Still, this recognition is vital for dealing with the Glossary matrix structure that contains 144 separate and unique definitions (9x16 - 9 jewels frontal view, and 16 jewels global view). Without the recognition of the five distinct types of dual definitions the 144-element structure cannot be created. This fact makes the factor five, which is also incorporated into the crown a highly important element in the sphere of the pedagogical structure for Divine Science, so much so, that Mary Baker Eddy apparently saw this factor so highly important that she made it more prominent in her new design of the crown of the cross and crown seal 

Of course, the factor of five has always been reflected in the design of the crown. In the crown in the last painting in Christ and Christmas we see five sets of jewels shown, and the jewels on either side are surrounded by five leaves. This crown, as we see it in Christ and Christmas, had been initially adapted for the cross and crown seal. In the 1901/1902 time frame. The crown for the seal was simplified. It appears that the other aspects of the crown that represent the 9x16 dimension were consciously sacrificed in order to highlight the factor of five which represents the five types of dual definitions without which the 144-element Glossary structure cannot be created, by which all the lower aspects become meaningless. It also appears as if she is telling humanity that Christian Science cannot be understood without a basic recognition of the pedagogical dimensions of the Glossary structure that the crown represents. It is as if she is saying to humanity, if you want to find me, you will find me through that crown which represents the 144-element Glossary structure.

You may wish to refer to Appendix S for an example of what a completed Glossary structure might look like if all the aspects are bought together. You may wish to locate in that example the various groups of dual definitions that have been described above, which are presented by the crown.

The crown also contains another metaphoric aspect that is deeply related to the Glossary structure, which is the factor 7. Each star on the crown has seven points. The 5 types of dual definitions are essential for enabling a structure to be build in which the factor 7 plays a vital role.

144 terms applied to the Glossary 

This article and its illustrations are a part of the book
Universal Divine Science: Spiritual Pedagogical