The Science of Peace
Advanced scientific concepts
Part 3 - The seven-pointed stars in the
and related biblical names.
Each star on the five-star crown of Mary Baker Eddy's seal has seven points, and so has every star shown in Christ and Christmas.
Also, the front center jewel in the crown in Christ and Christmas is surrounded by seven leaves, the leaves of Revelation 22, which were "for the healing of the nations."
The factor seven is a significant one in Universal Divine Science. We find it reflected in Genesis 1 in the seven days or stages of creation. We also find it reflected in Mary Baker Eddy's work in her seven synonyms for God. The seven-pointed stars may stand in metaphor for both. That adds up to fourteen. If we fined each of these symbolically represented in the four development streams of the pedagogical structure, the total adds up to 56 (4x14=56).
This may surprise you, but there are exactly 56 rays of light shown surrounding the 7-pointed star on the front cover of Christ and Christmas. This number 56 appears to be significant. What does it mean? How does one relate a 56-element structure to the 144 element Glossary matrix?
Well, the answer is not easily recognized, but it is profound. In fact the matrix contains space for two such structures, in the form of a structure of light representing the days of creation and the seven synonyms for God, poised against a correlative structure of voids of reality or areas of darkness.
The two 14-element structures are both centered around the Type 5 directional dual definitions, which can part of the structures of light in an upwards oriented environment, or become a part of the structure of voids and darkness in a downward oriented environment.
With those central elements shared we can divide the lower three rows in half, so that each half in each column has 14 elements.
One may wonder if the seven days of creation and the seven synonyms for God really fit together as a single structure. It appears that they do.
(Please refer to Appendix G9) If one takes the Glossary definition for the term GOD, in the sequence given, a surprising correlation unfolds with the seven days of creation. The Glossary definition for GOD actually contains two seven-element structures. One represents all substance, the other all intelligence.
Please note that in both structures Principle is primary, which corresponds with what Mary Baker Eddy says about divine Principle. She states that "God is divine Principle and that His synonyms are Love, Truth, Life, Spirit, Mind, Soul, which combine as one. The divine Principle includes them all." She adds that "the word Principle, when referring to God, should not be written or used as a common noun or in the plural sense." She adds further that "what are termed in common speech the principle of harmonious vibration, the principle of conservation of numbers in geometry, the principle of the inclined plane in mechanics, etc., are but an effect of one universal cause,--an emanation of the one divine intelligent Principle that holds the earth in its orbit by evolved spiritual power, that commands the waves and the winds, that marks the sparrow's fall, and that governs all from the infinitesimal to the infinite,--namely, God. Withdraw God, divine Principle, from man and the universe, and man and the universe would no longer exist."*218
In the above the dual aspects of God, intelligence and substance, are clearly brought out. They are both represented in Appendix G9, and they are represented with intelligence as being primary as we find it indicated in the Glossary definition for GOD.
In Appendix G9, for comparison, the major definitions for the cardinal points have been added outside the days/synonyms structures, for the first four days or steps, and what their outcome might logically be for the remaining three steps. The comparison with the cardinal points (representing the rows) is close and rather profound, so much so that some aspects of it have been added in brackets to the definition of the cardinal points.
As in most cases, Mary Baker Eddy also presents the mortal counterpoint to the spiritual
fact. It appears that the deeper we reach into the unfolding of God the
deeper do the submoral denials become, to the point that God is deemed to have "disappeared in the atheism of matter,"
(see ADAM) which Christian Science vehemently overturns in its all-action approach, demonstrating the forever reality and relevance of God.
All of that pertains simultaneously to the structure of the 56 rays of light, and to the structure of the 56 voids of darkness.
The interesting aspect is that one can map the two 7-element structures into each of the two halves in every column, bringing the seven days of creation into each half, together with the seven synonyms for God. And all of that is centered in moral domain, which Mary Baker Eddy says repeatedly is highly important for the learner in Christian Science. It is interesting to note here that in the 7-days structure the moral domain is associated with the divine synonym, Soul. Is she suggesting that the divine Principle of Universal Soul, reflected universally in all mankind, is a key aspect for the moral development of individuals and society? The divine Principle unfolding as Universal Soul, is naturally manifest in the Principle of the Universal Brotherhood of All Mankind. Without this principle we have no moral platform, and the gates are open to hell, to the treacherous notion that God, divine Principle is dead or irrelevant.
Mary Baker Eddy gives us seven elements in the synonyms structure, one each for the seven days of creation, all standing as rays of light in each of the four columns to eradicate the corresponding voids of darkness associated in the lower half with the concepts of Hell and Night. These counterpoints of divine light to the elements of darkness create a symmetric confrontational structure that counteracts the very existence of Hell and Night in consciousness, represented on the lowest
row in the symmetry with Kingdom of Heaven and Day of the confrontational structure
that is centered in the moral domain.
This symmetry has an interesting characteristic. It brings the five lower aspects (in Appendix G9) from the middle of the fifth day, into the moral domain, which contain the divine synonyms, Truth and Love. By this complex arrangement, Mary Baker Eddy brings all of the synonyms of God that are not defined in the Glossary (Soul, Truth, and Love) into the moral domain where divine Principle needs to be recognized first as universal and ever-present. If Soul, Truth, and Love are understood and acknowledged in their universal dimension encompassing all mankind, the moral domain flows into the Christ domain. It also becomes apparent why Mary Baker Eddy has put such great emphasis in divine Love as a key element for Christian Science healing, saying that if the healer reaches the patient through divine Love the healing will be accomplished in one visit.
Structurally, the 7-days structure is that of a platform. It begins with the highest element and reaches down to everything that unfolds under it. In this sense the seven days of creation represent not stages of creation in the standard sense, but states and stages of progressive scientific unfolding or awakening. The deepest sense of this awakening is the acknowledgement of divine Love as eternal good. The creation story tells us that God as was satisfied and could go no further than to acknowledge the eternal completeness of good. This is the center of the moral domain. Here mankind's scientific development begins. Here the question begins as to what constitutes the completeness of God as eternal good, and what void does it fill, step by step, reflecting the void and darkness symbolically presented in Genesis 1:2.
Thus the voids and darkness of HELL and NIGHT are not 'fought' as something substantial, but are simply filled will the light of the reality of GOD. In this manner HELL and NIGHT loose whatever substance and reality they have been falsely given. Thus, HELL, "Mortal belief; error; lust; remorse; hatred; revenge; sin; sickness; death; suffering and self-destruction; self-imposed agony; effects of sin; that which 'worketh abomination or maketh a lie,'" yield to the reality of good, and NIGHT, "Darkness; doubt; fear," yield to the reality of God, "The great I AM; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence." This yielding of the void to the unfolding intelligence and substance of God reflected in man is reflected in the omni-action of divine metaphysics that unfold in the processes of Christian Science treatment and revelation.
All of this is reflected in the 7-pointed stars of the 5-star crown that has been made the symbol of all of Mary Baker Eddy's works. I should add here that the division of the lower three rows into an upper and lower zone, and the direct application of the seven days of creation and the seven synonyms for God in each development stream in both the upper and lower zone, would not have been possible without the discovery of the five different types of dual definitions existing in the Glossary. The discovery of the principles of these five types of definitions opened up a whole range of vistas that were unattainable before, including some of the most profound aspects of that structure.
At times it had been a challenge to keep all of the aspects in mind, considering that one is relating 144 Glossary definitions to the vast pedagogical structure of the type that is shown as an example in Appendix S in which all the numerous metaphors and related structures are combined. The kind of structure that is shown in Appendix S is an example of what can be created. It will likely continue to involve as the unfolding of Divine Science continues. The 144-element structure is sufficiently large to accommodate the infinite development of mankind's perception in Divine Science. Mathematically the possible arrangements in such a structure add up to a number that is 250 digits long. For all practical considerations the huge number of possibilities provides an infinite base for the development of scientific perception. This infinite base also sets Divine Science apart from all religions, which are universally finite in doctrine rather than being an open door to infinity and the infinite nature of God and man.
Biblical Names in the Glossary.
There are several groups of definitions for biblical names in the Glossary, which all have an amazing story to tell.
These names can be grouped into three distinct categories. One category contains the names of the great patriarchs:
Abel, Noah, Abraham, Elias, Jesus, and Moses, but also impersonal names as in
the case of the Urim and Thummim. A lot needs to be said to point out their significance to the overall matrix structure. But there are
also other names in the Glossary that are not so well known. They are the names of the sons of Noah, and the sons of Jacob. There are even individuals focused on through the Glossary definitions whose names are hardly mentioned in Bible in respect to specific actions or beliefs. However, they all represent complex human relationships that require some careful thought. So let's begin with the easy ones.
The names related to Noah.
This is the smallest group of names in the Glossary. The names are: Japheth, Shem, and Ham, the three sons of Noah; and Canaan, who is the son of Ham. The remarkable aspect about these names is, that hardly anything is written about them in Scriptures, except for their brief involvement in a single incidence. Still, Mary Baker Eddy has chosen the interrelationship described there to be represented in the Glossary where they present the metaphor for important aspects of the confrontational structure.
The brief incidence, to which the definitions of the names are evidently related, took place after the flood. We are told that Noah had planted a vineyard after the flood was but a memory, and was found drunken one day, and naked, in his tent. Here the definition of the various names becomes important.
The story line tells us that it was Ham who discovered the nakedness of his father, who then went immediately around to everyone and told them about it, especially to Shem and Japheth. In response Shem and Japheth took a garment upon their shoulders and went backwards into their father's tent, still going backwards covered the nakedness of their father.
We are told that when Noah woke and knew what had been done, he uttered a profound declaration that has kept scholars puzzled: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren," Noah is quoted to have said, who quickly added, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."*219
With these words the brief story ends that has prompted five definitions to be put into the Glossary. Is this high level of attention justified? Evidently it is. But what is so important about the story?
We are told that Ham, the father of Canaan, discovered the nakedness of Noah and was fascinated with it, so much so that he eagerly spread the news. All right, then, where is the justice for the denunciation of Ham's son that he should bear the heavy burden announced by Noah for something that was done by his father?
Indeed, where is the justice? There is no justice, if this is what we see, by which Noah is portrayed as a cold and cruel man. Ah, but were Noah's words really a denunciation as it is generally assumed? Or were they not rather a scientific observation - an observation about the inevitable result of the mental processes that Noah had recognized to be at work? Why must we assume that this was a denunciation? Noah's observation would likely have been stated sadly, as he knew that such results would inevitably manifest themselves.
We must assume, when judged by his alertness to the flood, that Noah was an extremely alert and wise individual. Which means that he was certainly not a cruel man. He must have realized that the atmosphere that Canaan is invariably subjected to as the son of a man who is fascinated with nakedness and corporeal sexuality, would have the effect of reducing the child's chances to near zero for establishing his own free divine identity. Focusing on nakedness and sexual sensuality was evidently a feature that the child's father had become engrossed with, so that any child under such circumstances would become a slave to degenerative mentalities. How would such a person establish his freedom, refusing to be a slave? How, indeed?
It becomes evident that the writer of that story portrayed Noah as the only person in that brief episode who even raised a concern for the child. The Noah story is evidently intended to elevate thinking to a higher level. It causes that event that on the surface appears to be a cruel farce, to be transformed into something remarkable and beautiful. The real conflict, here, is with oneself, but when it is resolved the process becomes an elevating experience by which one discovers the principles that are reflected in reality. The scientific healing process is reflected in the role of Shem and Japheth, who went backwards and covered the perceived nakedness in order to
re-establish a sense of dignity. It is interesting to note how this healing concern is reflected in what Mary Baker Eddy has defined for the name Shem. She defined Shem as "A corporeal mortal; kindly affection; love rebuking error; reproof of sensualism."
Japheth, on the other hand, is defined in a higher sense, as "A type of spiritual peace, flowing from the understanding that God is the divine Principle of all existence, and that man is His idea, the child of His care."
It is interesting to note that Mary Baker Eddy's defined two essential aspects of the process of healing, which are brought together on a higher level as a compound concept in the definition for BURIAL. Japheth and Shem represent cooperative moral leadership. Here we find humanity. Noah said that Japheth shall dwell in the 'tents' of Shem. By responding to the riches of the brightest in moral leadership humanity becomes enriched. The salvation of humanity lies not with elevating a homogenous state of semi-insanity to a higher level of thinking, but rests with individual responses to advanced forms of leadership that often involve quantum jumps in perception. On this platform rapid progress can be achieved on a wide basis that elevates the whole of society.
The significance of Noah
It should be noted that any form of leadership can exist only within the framework of the vertical confrontational structure where scientific perception confronts erroneous perception, centered of the moral domain. The purpose of this confrontation is to cause a transition out of HELL to the KINGDDOM OF HEAVEN, from the physical to the spiritual platform of being.
In this context the attributes of Ham and Canaan appear as shadows of a world that never truly existed. Nor does exist. It's assumed reality was artificial from the beginning like a mythology that has never had any footing in Truth. The healing process in the confrontation of the mythological imagery with scientific perception liberates the human scene also physically, because the mythological imagery existed only in human belief. In the scientific confrontation of error, the error becomes detached from the image of man. In this uplifting process to a higher level of thinking the belief structures become eradicated that once 'inspired' the self-degeneration of society.
If we consider the definition of Noah a new significance for this renowned biblical figure comes to light. In the biblical narrative Noah stands at the center of a complex story that plays itself out in the confrontational sphere. In this sphere we find the representational interrelationships between Ham and Canaan, and Japheth and Shem, and Noah who provides the point of reference that defines the interrelationships. Without Noah's comments the interrelationships could not have been defined, nor would Mary Baker Eddy's definition of them be of any great significance. Noah provided the crucial point of reference by which every aspect of this interrelationship, which is in this case sexually focused, becomes defined in terms of fundamental principles. But Noah stood not only at the center of that story. He has a dimension of his own which is reflected in Mary Baker Eddy's dual definition of ARK. The term Ark is defined with a horizontal duality (type 1) that spans across the matrix and is defined at the highest levels of the confrontational structure.
Mary Baker Eddy defined the duality of ARK with the following two statements:
.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.
Then she added an explanation: "The ark indicates temptation overcome and followed by exaltation."
She tells us that Noah was not only aware of the reflective nature of scientific perception, as light shining in darkness, but that he was totally at home in the light. His comments about Shem, Japheth, and Canaan reflected the point of reference that he had established for himself, which made the scene of corporeal existence so profoundly transparent to him. Still, Noah is not portrayed by the biblical author as a leader. Rather, his is portrayed as someone above that, as an Exemplar. The role that has been cast for Noah serves more as a bridge across the boundary between the confrontational structure and the reflective structure. Mary Baker Eddy's definition of the name Noah seems to confirm this.
NOAH is defined as, "A corporeal mortal; knowledge of the nothingness of material things and the immortality of all that is spiritual."
Names related to Jacob.
The group of names related to Jacob is the largest group of names in the Glossary. It contains many of the names of the "Children of Israel" whose names are written in history as the root of a nation. Jacob's name was changed to Israel in later days. The focus in the Glossary, however, is on a totally different aspect than the historical importance attached to the names. The Glossary definitions for the names are clearly related to the circumstances surrounding their birth. Most of the individuals are referred to in the Glossary as "Jacob's son."
At first glance, this definition seems rather unjust. The Scriptures tell us that the original naming of the individuals reflected the mental background of their mother, rather than that of Jacob, who plays no active role in the sequences that are describing his son's births. However, Mary Baker Eddy must have realized that the mental background of the two mothers, Jacob's two wives competing with each other for Jacob's affection, is reflected in the naming of the children, which were 'given' to Jacob as Jacob's sons. Thus, the definition attached to their names, as "Jacob's son" is justified. Also the names that were chosen were largely the immediate result of that dual marriage relationship. And they are accordingly defined in Glossary.
The Glossary presents a contrasting double definition for Jacob's own name. The double definition corresponds with the two major aspects that dominated Jacob's life. As is well known that the early part of Jacob's existence was a saga of monumental duplicity. He was duplicity's patron saint. He was determined to have his brother's birthright (a father's blessing that by tradition is given to the eldest son); but Jacob managed to get it for himself through fraud engineered by his mother. The duplicity resulted in an atmosphere that forced Jacob to leave home. He found refuge with his mother's brother, named Laban. In Laban's house, he was being subjected to duplicity, himself, which he lacked the inner resources to defend himself against. He worked six years for the hand of Rachel, the younger daughter of Laban. We are told that he loved Rachel with a great passion. However, on the day of the wedding, he was given Leah, the older daughter, instead. We are told that his passion for Rachel was so strong that he served Laban another six years, to obtain Rachel, also.
Twelve sons were born to Jacob out of this double marriage unfolding from duplicity. Many of their names are defined in the Glossary. Once again, little is said about these individuals in the Bible, with the exception of Judah and Joseph. The little that is said about the others concerns the circumstances of their conception or birth. The Glossary definition of the names must therefore be related to the circumstances surrounding the births of these people that is reflected in the names themselves.
To say that Jacob's double marriage might have been a battleground of envy and conspiracy appears to be an understatement. Each of the two wives struggled to gain control over their common husband. The situation was further complicated in that Leah, whom Jacob didn't particularly love, was bearing him children, while Rachel, the love of his dreams, remained barren. The names of the children reflect to a large degree the two wives' struggle for supremacy.
The Scriptures tell us that Leah called her first son, Reuben, for she said to herself, "Surely the Lord has looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me."*220 In the Glossary we find the name presented in following manner:
REUBEN (Jacob's son). Corporeality; sensuality; delusion; mortality; error.
Leah conceived again, but this conception occurred in the same frame of mind. She called her second son Simeon. The name does not appear in the Glossary as the definition would have been redundant.
At the birth of Leah's third son, her frame of mind had shifted. She said: "Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons." The Scriptures report, "Therefore was his name called Levi."*221 The name, Levi, means: attached. We find the name defined in the Glossary in the following manner:
LEVI (Jacob's son). A corporeal and sensual belief; mortal man; denial of the fullness of God's creation; ecclesiastical despotism.
Leah bare Jacob a fourth son, "and she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah."*222 Interpreted, the name, Judah, means: Object of praise! A much higher sense of human identity and human relationships unfolds here, which unfolds a divine sense of reality that is wholly spiritual. The name JUDAH is defined in the Glossary in the following manner:
JUDAH. A corporeal material belief progressing and disappearing; the spiritual understanding of God and man appearing.
Note, this name appears in the Glossary without the usual designation, as Jacob's son. The change in presentation reflects the fact that the birth itself was no longer intended as a means to attract Jacob. In essence, it was unrelated to Jacob. This fact is reflected in the definition for the name, JUDAH. The definition represents a profound moral and spiritual unfolding.
Rachel, of course, envied Leah. Out of the depth of her anguish she gave Bilhah, her maid, to Jacob that he might also have children through her. And Bilhah bear Jacob a son. "Rachel said, God has judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore she called his name Dan."*223 The name Dan can be interpreted as: to judge. The name is defined in the Glossary as:
DAN (Jacob's son). Animal magnetism; so-called mortal mind controlling mortal mind; error, working out the designs of error; one belief preying upon another.
Bilhah bear Jacob a second son, whom Rachel named Naphtali. The circumstances surrounding this birth were too similar in nature to deserve special mention. The name Naphtali does not appear in the Glossary.
Leah stopped bearing children after her fourth son. But this didn't stop her. It appears that she raised the whole concept of human generation to a higher level. It appears that she didn't see herself as an essential part of the process any longer. She simply gave her maid Zilpah to Jacob that he might have children by Zilpah instead of by her, as if the personal element was rather insignificant, which in reality it is. Even in the biological sense the personal contribution that any individual makes in the 'birth' of a child is absolutely minuscule when compared to the countless Principle-directed processes that ultimate in the birth of a human being with a quality and harmony of interaction that becomes more astonishing the more we learn about it. We have no right as parents to call the children in our world, "our" children. They are the children of our humanity, the children of divine Principle, Life, which we are privileged to see ourselves reflected in, even as we reflect God. We should see all children as children of our (divine) humanity and care for them as such. This divinely universal image of the child, rather than as personal creation and possession, has astonishing implications. I have briefly touched upon this universal sense in one of my novels*224 where it comes to light with a challenging dimension and the potential for tremendous healing on the social scene.
As Zilpah bear Jacob a son, "Leah said, A troop cometh: and she called his name Gad."*225 She must have realized the infinite potential of this process that no longer depended on anyone's specific personal involvement. The name Gad can be interpreted as: good fortune. The name is defined in the Glossary, in the following manner:
GAD (Jacob's son). Science; spiritual being understood; haste towards harmony.
This definition and that for Judah, present the highest spiritual sense of all the definitions of the names related to Jacob in the Glossary. In a very real sense, Leah had completely removed herself from the process of being a personal creator with the power to control another individual through personal attachments. It appears that she scrapped the vertical model of relationships that is reflected in the top-down control in the sub-moral domain of hierarchical relationships, where people dominate one-another in countless different ways. She foresaw a strong possibility in the scientific divine sense to establish her own identity as being independent from the magnetism of her involvement with Jacob and her being controlled herself by that vertical process.
It appears that Mary Baker Eddy is pointing at something more profound, which takes the process of human generation out of the personal domain altogether. Even in the biological process of human generation the personal element in the process is so minuscule that it is barely worth the mention. Apart from fertilization, the process unfolds on the basis of universal divine Principle that no person has created or controls. We have hardly a basis therefore to speak of a child as our child, though we may be the parents in the process. It is more scientifically correct to speak of a child as the child of our humanity that we all share, as the child of divine Principle or God.
The paradigm shift towards this divine perception is unfolding in divine Science in the way we perceive children. It should reflect itself in the kind of recognition that causes society as a whole to regard itself responsible for their care and their education. Indeed, society should see itself as the universal child of God in this context.
This higher level scientific recognition puts society squarely onto the platform of the lateral model for human relationships, the divine model, as human beings and God existing horizontally side by side, which thereby invalidates the sub-moral vertical model that defines hierarchical relationships as reality of society for which no principle exist, or a scientific basis to justify it.
It appears that Leah had a faint perception of the impersonal universal process of divine reflection that takes the human being out of the personal domain into the universal divine domain. The definition of this process as: "Science; spiritual being understood; haste towards harmony" is right on the mark. Unfortunately, like it is so often the case, Leah didn't develop her pioneering perception further, for reason unknown to us. Therefore she regressed back into the sub-moral vertical domain of privatized living and hierarchical relationships. The regression isn't radical at first, but it is definitely recognizable in her own statements.
Zilpah bear Jacob a second son, and Leah said, "Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher."*226 The name can be interpreted as: happy, blessed. The name is defined in the Glossary, as:
ASHER (Jacob's son). Hope and faith; spiritual compensation; the ills of the flesh rebuked.
In a developmental process this stage of recognition might be a step towards the higher recognition surrounding Gad, but in this case it comes after Gad, which indicates that a vital point had already become lost sight of, resulting in a regression, a falling back on the renewed acceptance of errors. From this point on the drift back towards the vertical model accelerated as a new complication entered the scene.
Reuben had found mandrakes in the field, and gave them to his mother Leah. The root of the mandrake plant was thought to induce conception, and was at times used as a narcotic. Rachel entreated Leah that she give her some of her son's mandrakes, and offered in exchange that Leah shall lie with Jacob.
By the influence of the corrupting material sexual mythology Leah was easily drawn back into the vertical interrelationships model, so it seems, back into the old competitive game to get some personal controlling hold on her husband by which her own vertical relationship to Jacob became defined once again. When Jacob came out of the field that evening, Leah went out to meet him, and said: "Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes."
Thus Leah bear Jacob a fifth son, and said; "God has given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband; and she called his name Issachar."*227 The name has a dual root; one is related to man, and the other to wages. The name is defined in the Glossary as:
ISSACHAR (Jacob's son). A corporeal belief; the offspring of error; envy; hatred; selfishness; self-will; lust.
Leah did bear Jacob a sixth son that she named Zebulun, and a daughter that she named Dina. Neither name appears in the Glossary. The definition would have been redundant as Leah had regressed back into the old mentality that she started out with. She said about Zebulun, "now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons."*228 This comment is similar to the one she made about her first son. If only she could have held on to the bright period of unfolding spiritual integrity, associated with Gad and Asher. Obviously, she lacked the scientific resources to protect herself against the lure of the mandrakes affair.
After the mandrakes affair Rachel finally conceived and bear her first son. She said; "God hath taken away my reproach: And she called his name Joseph; and said, the Lord shall add to me another son."*229 The name Joseph is derived from the verb: to add. The name is defined in the Glossary in the following manner:
JOSEPH. A corporeal mortal; a higher sense of Truth rebuking mortal belief, or error, and showing the immortality and supremacy of Truth; pure affection blessing its enemies.
Note: The birth of Joseph was indicated as not in attempt to control Jacob. It represents a stepping away from the sub-moral vertical model, to the scientific vertical model of progressive development in Christ-Science. Coincidental with this, the definition of the name Joseph is presented in the Glossary without the label: Jacob's son.
The definitions of the names Joseph and Judah may also represent something more than just the mental background surrounding their conception and birth. Joseph's story is presented in great detail in the Scriptures; how he was sold by his brothers into slavery, from which he emerged as the right hand of Pharaoh to preserve life, and how he reappeared on the family scene as the benefactor of his brothers.
Judah did not reach the same height of spiritual development, as did Joseph. Still, his place in history is that of a national leader. His name became more associated with national identity, the beginning of a universal lateral God-defined identity, rather than with spiritual development accomplishments. Nevertheless, Judah was instrumental in saving Joseph's life when the rest of his brothers had intended to kill Joseph.
One may wonder, therefore, if the circumstances surrounding the birth's of the sons of Jacob, that Mary Baker Eddy has seen fit to focus on so richly, were overriding factors that did provide a mental backdrop that would govern the individual's identity and corresponding development in life. Without a strong scientific defense against the damaging mental background of some of the individual's births, the background at the time of their birth appears to have determined the individual's perceived worth in their own eyes, and appears to have shaped what they perceived as their identity, which subsequently shaped their lives according to the accepted identity. For Judah and Joseph that mental background was ideal. Their naming and their contribution in life appears to coincide with the exalted identity of man that had unfolded. But what about us? What identity do we assume for ourselves?
Modern developments show that the self-perceived identity of an individual can be molded at any time by clever manipulators, and thus alter the life-experiences of whole segments of humanity to suit the manipulators wishes. This process is widely exploited today through the imposition of reductionist ideologies that take us from a spiritual identity all the way down into the sewer of fascist power and hopeless subjection to slavery. All the wars in history have been created by this process. The shift in thinking that Gad represents, towards the divine, stands as a beacon on the road of human development, and as an example of the direction civilization needs to develop, individually and collectively.
With the naming of the sons of Jacob, Mary Baker Eddy touched courageously on the volatile arena of sexual/marital social relationships, and raised it up to a whole new level. What seemed totally immoral, like encouraging a husband to have sex with another woman and have children with her, resulted in the highest-praise definition of "Science; spiritual being understood; haste towards harmony."
The mental background surrounding Leah's situation in which she let go of all those lower things, like sex and privatized marriage, appears to have created the happiest environment in her life, contrary to what modern emotions would dictate. This happy environment seems to have lasted until she was dragged back into what may be called "the Three Thousand Years War." My novel Roses at Dawn in and Ice Age
World, focuses on this war that society is still fighting against one-another. In fact one of the chapters of the novel is identically named. Also, as the title suggests a solution for the war appears on the horizon as being possible - not easily perhaps, but possible nevertheless. It also appears that mankind needs to win this war before the Ice Age Renaissance becomes possible that we can't even think of for as long as we are at war with one-another as a society.
Obviously, one needs to become aware of the forces that shape one's perceived identity, which in turns shapes ones actions, whether it be scientific and spiritual development, or one allows oneself to drift with the winds, whichever way the winds blow. If the sons of Jacob had been aware of the weight of the mental background that was laid on their shoulders, and had dealt with it scientifically as Mary Baker Eddy has enabled the process for scientific and spiritual development, the whole of human history might have come out differently. There might have been more people like Joseph or Judah, and more happy moments like Leah's represented by the birth of Gad.
I am certain that it wasn't Mary Baker Eddy's aim, in presenting the names, to shackle an individual mentally to his or her cradle. What shackles one to one's cradle, according to scientific observation, is not the historic event itself, but the mental cloud that evolves around the event, which, unless it is dealt with intelligently and scientifically, attaches itself as a label to one's identity. The rest falls into place as a matter of unintentional role-playing enforced by narrow vision.
The story of Jacob's sons is an interesting one, in that the mental background at birth is directly reflected in their naming, which tends to become a powerful mental malpractice force that shapes their identity. If only the mother's had realized what they were doing to their children! It is also interesting to note that all those who were given a name that was linked to efforts of controlling Jacob, were identified later on as the would be murderers of their brother Joseph. The background mentality that had not been corrected scientifically at the outset had developed into the very platform that had been predefined for them by their mothers. This powerful story should caution one to choose one's accepted identity wisely. It should alert one.
The name of Gad becomes interesting in this respect in that Gad is defined as Jacob's son. One small error on Leah's part is inherent in that story. While Leah gave her maid to Jacob, she appeared to have clung to the hierarchical vertical model of the sub-moral domain to some degree. I would like to propose that if Jacob had chosen Zilpah on his own accord, based on the principle of the universal marriage of humanity, and Leah would have still reacted the same, the identification of Gad as Jacob's son might have been dropped, and the phase "haste towards harmony" might have been replaced with "harmony."
In this more fully developed scientific case of man's universal divine identity, Gad might not have been among those who sought to murder their brother Joseph. Any person that recognizes the universal marriage of humanity, acknowledging the universal nature of divine Soul being reflected as common to all humanity as the reality of our being, would never violate that humanity. The whole outcome of the history of humanity might have been different and brighter if that small shift in the history of Gad could have been made.
As for us today, the principle of divine Soul that reflects itself in the natural universal marriage of humanity is still being vehemently rejected, and so is the principle of universal love. Thus the story of Gad continues until humanity will look at itself from the higher level perspective that is rooted in the complex domain of Christ Science where all perceived boundaries and limits give way to the infinite range of Mind.
From a scientific standpoint, it can never be said that a single human being is barred from reaching the height of attainment that Christ Jesus has reached, or Mary Baker Eddy. It can only be said that if the footsteps required to detach oneself from the imposed games of material birth, wealth, status, marriages, associations, historical trends, etc., are not followed up to the degree necessary, man's perceived nature becomes identified by countless games that have nothing to do with spiritual reality, by which society becomes servant in a vertical relationship. The names of the sons of Jacob, that appear in the Glossary, represent major classes of human dependencies that still rule the imagination of humanity and shape people's lives. They represent mental concepts that are of vital importance to be dealt with.
Jacob's story, of course, doesn't end here. All that ends at this point is his association with Laban. Jacob had prospered greatly in association with Laban. However, he still lacked the blessing he had sought for so long. He perceives a call to return home and prepares for it.
The news of his returning home reaches his brother's ears who sets out to meet him with four-hundred men. It is at this point, at Jacob's darkest hour, that the Peniel experience takes place. Left alone, he wrestles with a nameless incorporeal evangel who prevails over him and saps his strength - the strength of his perceived personal identity as a limited mortal. The evangel bids to be let go at the dawn of this morning, but Jacob refuses to let go until his nature would be changed. Then the evangel blesses him.
Jacob emerged from this experience victoriously, with a new name. He would now be called, Israel (a prince with God).
The above story is a well-known one, and is likewise still reflected in many ways, individually. But does anyone respond like Jacob did? Is anyone as determined as Jacob was, to hold fast on significant inspiration, determined not to let go of it until the human experience is changed in tangible ways? The Scriptures tell us that Jacob's experience at Peniel resolved his relationship problem with his brother. This, too, is well known. Less known is the impact that Jacob's experience has had on his family.
Some time after the Peniel experience, Rachel bore Jacob a second son. Although Rachel died during childbirth, she had been able to give her son a name. She named him, Benoni. The name, Benoni, means by interpretation: son of my sorrow. Jacob, however, changed that name. He changed it to Benjamin, which has been interpreted to mean: son of my right hand.
Mary Baker Eddy has given the name a dual definition, which reflects both mental backgrounds. The first definition presents the physical dimension of the name, the Rachel dimension, which is defined as follows:
"BENJAMIN (Jacob's son). A physical belief as to life, substance, and mind; human knowledge, or so-called mortal mind, devoted to matter; pride; envy; fame; illusion; a false belief; error masquerading as the possessor of life, strength, animation, and power to act."
The second definition clearly corresponds to Jacob's exalted perception, which is reflected in the child's new name, Benjamin - son of my right hand. This definition presents for the first and only time a spiritual dimension under the label: Jacob's son, which reflects Jacob's own mentality. The spiritual definition for, Benjamin, is:
"Renewal of affections; self-offering; an improved state of mortal mind; the introduction of a more spiritual origin; a gleam of the infinite idea of the infinite Principle; a spiritual type; that which comforts, consoles, and supports."
The spiritual definition of Benjamin represents the first instance of any acceptance of the rich blessings that had been bestowed upon Jacob by his devoted wives. The Scriptures present no comment from Jacob regarding the naming of his previous children as if he hadn't been involved in the process at all, yet Mary Baker Eddy defines them as Jacob's sons. The Scriptures define Reuben as the son of Leah, or Dan as the son of Bilhah, but Mary Baker Eddy draws reference to them as Jacob's sons. One can recognize the fundamental reason for this, to highlight the impact that Jacob had on his children none the less. Can you imagine how the entire story might have come out if Jacob's Peniel experience had occurred before the birth of Reuben; if Jacob had regarded all 'his' children as he had regarded Benjamin? Once again, the whole of human history might have been different. In this respect, Mary Baker Eddy's definitions for the names of the sons of Jacob have quite a story to tell.
Still, there is more to be said about it. What sets the Glossary terms related to Jacob apart from those related to Noah?
That question brings up an interesting point that is unique to Mary Baker Eddy's work. The names related to Noah are all related to sex as nakedness and mankind's marriage to its bondage, while the names related to Jacob are all focused on sex as rich with blessings, but overshadowed with a different kind of nakedness, an emptiness in marriage relationships that requires a similar kind of profound scientific development in divine Science, of the kind that gained Noah his freedom.
The entire Jacob-affair develops towards the principle of the universal marriage of mankind as children of a common humanity, and a common universal Soul, reflecting the Principle of universal Soul. Jacob was slow in accepting that reality, always seeking personal blessings, beginning with the stealing of his brother's birthright, stealing Leban's best flocks as he departed, and even when he was struggling with the heavenly evangel he continued to seek a personal blessing. The healing came when his character was changed. He never got his privatized blessing. Instead he got infinitely more. He was given the Christ-realization that a human being as a divine idea needs no special blessings but already has all, in unity with all. The Noah related definitions deal with those issues likewise, the emptiness of perceived nakedness. Both Leah and Rachel were struggling with the same basic issue. In this case they struggled with the perceived emptiness from a lack of affection.
It appears that Noah came closest to the universal domain. He didn't see himself naked. He was inspired with the 'new wine' of spiritual inspiration. He was prepared to live in the universal domain as a complete human being, without shame. He had nothing to hide as a complete and spiritual idea and a human being.
Shem and Japheth, on the other hand represent two types of covering up the general perception of nakedness. They accepted the concept and took great care not to look at it. Unlike Noah, they didn't regard nakedness as an impossible concept for a human being and therefore an invalid concept to contemplate. They treated it as if it were real, though dared not to look at it.
Ham on the other hand was fascinated with nakedness, with human incompleteness. Consequently his life was shaped by it. He lived totally in a vertical hierarchical environment, but of a different kind in which not a royal potentate, but a controlling error is imposed, of a radically reduced perception of the nature of the human being that is inherent in general public thought. The pre-flood society's mentality has been defined in scriptures as a virtual sewer of material perception and related domination. Indeed, the flood story follows immediately the Adam mythology in which the perceived sexual nakedness plays a big role. Historians suggest that both the Adam mythology and the flood story originated in Mesopotamian river basin and were probably written at the same time, probably during the Hammurabi period (the Old Classical Period of mid-1700s-BC) when the great creation epics were believed to have been written. The myths themselves were probably of far more distant origins handed down in some form of folklore, perhaps dating back to 4000 BC to the prehistoric cultures and their belief structures of an existence outside the sphere of universal divine Principle.
Nevertheless, the Bible, when it was composed in 'modern' times begins with a narrative of spiritual 'creation' in which God, man, and the universe exist laterally, and 'creation comes to light scientifically in the form of an awakening. Here mankind is recognized as complete, "male and female," not sexually divided and isolated.
This natural model, the lateral model, is however immediately turned upside down into a mythological vertical model in the second creation story that probably emerged from the Hammurabi imperial background. Perhaps the biblical writers tried to present the contrast between the spiritual dimension of mankind's scientific awaking into the Christ era, and the forever regressive imperial influence and its material and grading basis that to the very day has not been overcome. The Adam mythology evidently served as an ideal example of the regressive and degenerative kind of thinking, and the Hammurabi Empire and the effect of its imperial law most likely provided the background for it. Hammurabi's empire stretched far and wide across the ancient world. After the empire was amassed by many conquests, it was kept together by military force and a far-flung structure of laws, and also by corresponding cultural developments. It is unlikely that a counter-imperial model would have been promoted at this time.
The Adam mythology probably reflects the Hammurabi Empire quite well. This imperial-focused story of creation presents a sub-moral hierarchical model where God and man are isolated from one another by perceptions of nakedness and the lies of a snake, and mankind itself begins in isolation and totally divided from one another by sex. This is the 'sewer' model. That model appears to have been carried forward into the Noah story, with Noah representing a step out of that sewer to an astonishing degree by progressive scientific development in divine Science. In this progressive sense divine Science unfolds as a vertical structure too, but as a progressive vertical structure in which the Christ comes to light in consciousness. There is no domination happening in this upwards moving vertical structure of Divine Science that is reflected in the Noah story, only an unfolding of ever-greater forms of freedom. Noah's sons hadn't won those freedoms yet, and less so Ham and his 'victim,' Canaan.
About my book
Universal Divine Science, Spiritual Pedagogicals
in relationship to Mary Baker Eddy
The scientific structure that is being presented in this book is intended to serve as an example for the path of exploring Mary Baker Eddy's outline. The presentation is by no means intended to be absolute. It was presented with the aim in mind to apply the sequences that Mary Baker Eddy has given in her outline in as direct a manner as possible, without deviation in any regard. The interpretation of the sequences were chosen according to what appeared scientifically most logical in response to the structure so derived from the outline.
This does not mean that the sequences presented in this book were intended to be used in the specific manner, though they were proven by the author to be useful and were derived from a couple of decades of work. They were not even intended to lead to the conclusions that were drawn, which came out the background of the structure itself and the never-ending question: what does it all mean.
Other sequences and interrelationships than those shown here might well be possible that might be more revealing and more powerful in their application, leading to conclusions that may take the human thought further towards the infinite. This criterion of infinite development, after all, is the ultimate criterion. Spiritual unfolding is a process without limits. To assume that one has arrived at the final understanding of Truth and at the final model to present it, or even assuming that this is possible, is like putting a cap onto the infinite. Whatever puts limits onto the infinite stupefies the age. It takes away the foundation for advancing creative discoveries.
The purpose of the presentation in this book is to open the door a little, and to do it in the most effective manner by adopting the patterns unaltered as they were given by Mary Baker Eddy, who had pioneered the structure that is being explored, and to do this with the most complete adherence to the Metaphors that Mary Baker Eddy has provided. It has been the author's experience that this method of unyielding fidelity to her outline presents, as much as one is able, provides the most powerful results. Other methods have been explored. Some partially yield to personal opinions and perceived limits. Others fall far short of addressing the full scope of Mary Baker Eddy's work. Some have created a religion of their own on this basis. All have been found wanting. This does not rule out that other perceptions are possible that might be more efficient in the scientific process of unfolding divine Truth in its boundless dimension.
As we work in Divine Science, we stand at the threshold of infinity. We are the pioneers of today, working at the forefront of scientific spiritual perception. The most daring advances of today may be crude in terms of the absolute and may be superceded tomorrow, but for the moment at which these advances are achieved, they are portentous none-the-less.
Here a parallel comes to mind. It is found in the great yacht races for the America Cup, which has become a race in technologies more than in seamanship. In one such race the two top contenders were sailing boats of vastly different designs. One boat was designed as a monohull with a wide flat deck, a high-tech keel, and a mast as tall as a seven-story building. It carried a long, slender sail. The other boat was a catamaran with little more than netting for a deck and an airfoil as sail that dominated the scene like the wing of a jetliner standing upright on the sea. In this particular race the catamaran came in first, with a wide margin. Under different weather conditions, the other boat might have won. Which then is the most ideal configuration for a yacht race? The answer must be, that probably neither is.
Will there ever be such a thing as the correct design, the ultimate boat for the America Cup race? With all probabilities considered the answer will likely remain in the negative for as long as the human spirit faces the infinite and moves forward. New technologies will be developed if the age allows for the further pursuit of scientific discoveries, and these advances will enable constantly more advanced designs of ships. The front line racers of today may be outdated relics tomorrow and may never challenge the world's best again. This does not imply that the front runner boats of today should not have been build. By no means! Each one of these front line designs is a marvel in its own right, capable of 'flying' the sea faster than the wind itself that drives them.
Each new design opens the challenge for the next step, to supersede what exists, to open the horizon of the human spirit further to infinity. Each achievement is a foundation upon which to build towards the infinite that may never be reached, but leaves room for a long run. This is how Christ Jesus demonstrated the nature of man, as endowed with infinite capabilities. This is how Mary Baker Eddy's structure for the Key of David is unfolding man's infinite perception: to challenge the highest perception of today, and to advance the human thought forward in accepting God's infinite design of perfection more fully as the reality of man's being. Man is indeed the image of God with the mental eye set on the infinite realm of infinite Mind opening a portal for its own expression in the human world.
(Appendix G9) - (Appendix
This article and its
illustrations are a part of the book
Universal Divine Science: Spiritual