Day 59: Principle and Practice

109:32-112:2

These pages continue Mary Baker Eddy's discussion of how she came to discover Christian Science. The two passages I marked are:

The three great verities of Spirit, [1] omnipotence, [2] omnipresence, [3] omniscience, - Spirit possessing all power, filling all space, constituting all Science, - contradict forever the belief that matter can be actual.

And -

The Principle of divine metaphysics is God; the practice of divine metaphysics is the utilization of the power of Truth over error; its rules demonstrate its Science.

MBE also states reason and revelation were reconciled for her as part of her journey. That sounds very close to a line I marked on Day 50. The idea of these two ideas tied together and then repeated within 20 pages of each other means something. I never picked up on this connection before.

MBE states she used only the Bible as her textbook. I've never read the Bible all the way through - any version.

As the material in the chapters gets to this stage where new concepts are introduced -- or I didn't pay attention one of the many times I read the material before -- I have to slow down and think about what is pinging around in my head. Jumbled thoughts point somewhere but not at first. So I may ramble more than usual.

Words I looked up:

equipollence
theosophy
millenarianism

Day 58 - Science: Theory & Proof

107:1-109:31

Today, I'm going to change up how I title each entry in my journal. I hope this will help people get the gist of the reading selection, as I read it. I'm also going to post-pend each entry with the text of the selection. Not sure if this is kosher with The Mother Church so this may not last long. I'm doing it so you can read both the selection and my journal entry at the same time and place. I'm using this Gutenberg site as my source.
[Update Aug. 27, 2010, removed text, added link to S&H on spirituality.com]

These three pages cover in more detail how Mary Baker Eddy came to discover Christian Science. How she was healed, then spent time understanding the the healing, then looking for a provable method to repeat that healing.

I had to look up apodictical. I'm surprised how few words I have to look up now, since I've been looking them up for years - the definitions do eventually stick.

The thought that struck me was the idea of "God with us." It must have been fresh and new back then. Now, with books, TV shows, and movies about this very idea -- it isn't a far stretch to believe it. MBE talks about how the idea seemed so "antagonistic to the testimony of the physical senses." She goes on explain the divine law unfolding to her that matter possesses neither sensation nor life. This last thought is still out there, not widely excepted or understood in popular culture.

The line I marked:

Christian Science reveals incontrovertibly that Mind is All-in-all, that the only realities are the divine Mind and idea.

She goes on to say that healing is a demonstration of the divine Principle:

This proof once seen, no other conclusion can be reached.

These three pages are a melding of physical history of discovery and the spiritual understanding of that discovery. I'm not sure where I'm going with that. I'm going to let it soak over night.

Day 57

105:22-106:29

Today is the last day of this chapter. The last two pages end on a bang. Mary Baker Eddy has gone from hypnotism at the beginning of the chapter to people using their mental powers to an evil end. I'm sure there's a general word for this but it escapes me right now. I see the anti-hero trying to persuade the person to climb on the train tracks while the train is about to run them over. What is the name of that bad guy? I don't mean the CS term but the average word you would use to describe this person. Drives me nuts when I can't remember a word.

Back to the point.

So the last two pages, Mary Baker Eddy  says:

to go from the use of inanimate drugs to the criminal misuse of human willpower, is [1] to drop from the platform of common manhood into the very mire of iniquity, [2] to work against the free course of honesty and justice, and [3] to push vainly against the current running heavenward

 I don't think anyone reading this book would try to achieve mental powers with the intent of harm. I'm a glass half-full type, meaning I'm optimistic people just want to be good. That said, there is a reason MBE came up with a Rule for Motives and Acts stated in the Church Manual. It is a slippery slope and once you get on it, it can go downhill quickly.

Meaning...

We all just want what's best and we, each of us individually, think we know what that is. And we guide people to that point, thinking we are doing the right thing. The 'we' I refer to isn't listening to the still small voice in this example or angel thoughts, or reflecting God. But that's hard to see or hear when our own self-will gets in the way. At least, that's the way it is for me.

MBE ends the chapter with two lists, one as the works of the flesh and one as the fruits of the Spirit. These are dramatic, big, in-your-face lists so it is easy to say I want to good list, obviously. But it if the subtler forms of the works of the flesh list which is the tricky part. Wrath and strife are the two that have shades of grey I need to keep an eye out for.

How about you? Anything on the works of the flesh list that has some grey for you?

I want to give this chapter a nickname but Mental Malpractice seems too CS-ish. Any ideas?

Day 56

104:3-105:21

These two pages covers two different topics, one leading to the other. The first topic is animal magnetism as belief. The second topic is something along the lines of to think a crime is the same as to do the crime -- mental crime.

I'm still brewing about these two pages. Here is what I underlined:

The medicine of Science is divine Mind; and [1] dishonesty, [2] sensuality, [3] falsehood, [4] revenge, [5] malice, are animal propensities and by no means the mental qualities which heal the sick.

Day 55

102:1-104:2

Today's two pages covers a lot of ground. I had to read it twice and I might have another go at it. Here are some words that I don't automatically think of as meaning the same thing but clearly Mary Baker Eddy means they are, or at least very related:

magnetism
hypnotism
mutual influence
attraction
mesmerism

The first sentence I underlined is:

There is but one real attraction, that of Spirit.

Attraction is an idea so widely used in popular culture. When I think about it, it means starting new friendships or relationships to me -- what keeps people together. So to put it in the above context, I think back to the chapter on Marriage, and how I need to make sure that those relationships are superseded by God and not the other way around. I know MBE is taking a stronger, harsher view of animal magnetism than that -- after the last chapter on One God, I get that -- just putting it in perspective for myself.

The next sentence I stayed with was:

The planets have no more power over man than over his Maker, since God governs the universe; but man, reflecting God's power, has dominion over all the earth and its hosts.

I mentally changed the word planets to flowers because my body wants to believe in allergies. Allergies seem like the ultimate hypnotic dream to me. The boogy man in the closet I can't see.

The next one:

The destruction of the claims of mortal mind through Science, by which man can escape from sin and mortality, blesses the whole human family.

The whole human family is something I need to focus on. Not me, or we, but all. This was a nice way for MBE to say it.

She defines animal magnetism or hypnotism:

As named in Christian Science, animal magnetism or hypnotism is the specific term for error, or mortal mind. It is the false belief that mind is in matter, and is both evil and good; that evil is as real as good and more powerful.

Sometimes, I wish the Glossary or the Index did a better job of tracking definitions like this. But I just make notes on the back pages of what is defined where. Much easier with tags in an online blog. Yeah!

The last one:

In Christian Science, man can do no harm, for scientific thoughts are true thoughts, passing from God to man.

Goal for today: realize and understand true thoughts from God -- God's dominion, not flowers dominion.

Day 54

100:1-101:32

These two pages introduce the concept of hypnotism as proposed by Mesmer and explain the French government's investigation of the claim of hypnotism's ability to heal or work on the body. Since I've read some of Mary Baker Eddy's biographies, I know she tried hypnotism herself, to find healing. At first, she thought it healed but then the healing didn't last so she moved on in her search before discovering Christian Science. I underlined randomly, now that I look at the page:

mutual influence

impressions made upon the senses

the power of the imagination

The only full sentence I underlined is:

In no instance is the effect of animal magnetism, recently called hypnotism, other than the effect of illusion.

Hypnotism seems to be one of the those rigid beliefs in people. They either do believe in it or they don't.

The term "mutual influence" is interesting because that's not how most people would think of hypnotism. I hope MBE explains this in the chapter.

Day 53

97:29-99:29

Today is the last day of this chapter. When I started the chapter, I wasn't looking forward to it and couldn't believe how long it was. Now, I'm thrilled - I totally get this chapter but think it could use a new name: One God.

I marked several things. I'll see if I can explain why.

It is imperious throughout all ages as Christ's revelation of Truth, of Life, and of Love, which remains inviolate for every man to understand and to practise.

These three (Truth, Life, Love) are everywhere in the book so when they are together, I tend to slow down on the sentence. Here, Mary Baker Eddy is saying I must understand and practice them. I've mentioned before how I tend to focus on these three and delve for a deeper understanding so I think I'm working on that one. But practicing? Well, that could use some work on my part. Don't mean to be cheeky about it, but, yeah, I have some work to do there.

The next thing I underlined was a listy thing:

The way through which immortality and life are learned is [1] not ecclesiastical but Christian, [2] not human but divine, [3] not physical but metaphysical, [4] not material but scientifically spiritual. 

Then:

Christian Science is unerring and Divine, the human sense of things errs because it is human.

I'm still stuck back on Day 50's Divine Logic, so now when I see Divine, it stands out to me.

I liked MBE's summation of the chapter:

The calm, strong currents of true spirituality, the manifestations of which are health, purity, and self-immolation, must deepen human experience, until the beliefs of material existence are seen to be a bald imposition, and sin, disease, and death give everlasting place to the scientific demonstration of divine Spirit and to God's spiritual, perfect man.

Deepening my experience -- that is a good summation of this chapter. 

On a side note, I'm going to tag the previous posts so I can find things easier. Not sure how that will affect RSS readers. And today is post 50. Any thoughts or suggestions? If you don't want to comment on the blog but would rather make more pointed comments privately, feel free to email me (dina.readinginoneyear@gmail.com).

Day 52

95:28-97:28

Now that I'm reading Science and Health, two pages at a time, I can see the rhythm and linear logic of the chapters. I never saw that before. These two pages are still along the lines of the higher concepts from a few pages ago but are focusing on that transition time in the future, right before the total Spiritualization of man. The writing has the feel of a revelation about the future.

I underlined:

Mortal error will vanish in a moral chemicalization.

I always wondered what this chemicalization would be like but I must say, it just a small way, I've been going through it myself recently. A change in thought is making me look at things differently. Some ideas seem more relevant, most seem absurdly human and mortal error-ish. It's weird to examine every though I have and then realize I don't like them and replace them with something else.

A couple of days ago, I underlined:

Divine logic and revelation coincide.

I seem to be coming back to this quote over and over, looking for meaning that I can get from it -- how I can apply it. 

Day 51

93:21-95:27

There are so many lines of thought in this chapter regarding spirits that I either didn't know existing or just ignored because it was stupid or didn't make sense to me. However, Mary Baker Eddy spends time explaining them and refuting them. So I'm catching up on spirit theory - if you will.

These two pages start with a great summation of Christian Science thought. It's a big paragraph but it is so clear that I need to remember it:

The belief that Spirit is finite as well as infinite has darkened all history. In Christian Science, Spirit, as a proper noun, is the name of the Supreme Being. It means quantity and quality, and applies exclusively to God. The modifying derivatives of the word spirit refer only to quality, not to God. Man is spiritual. He is not God, Spirit. If man were Spirit, then men would be spirits, gods. Finite spirit would be mortal, and this is the error embodied in the belief that the infinite can be contained in the finite. This belief tends to becloud our apprehension of the kingdom of heaven and the reign of harmony in the Science of being.

Then she goes on to discuss how the ability to read people's thoughts, as Jesus does, was on a scientific basis and necessary to provide a healing:

Jesus could injure no one by his Mind-reading.

This kind of mind-reading is not clairvoyance, but it is important to success in healing, and is one of the special characteristics thereof.

I'm not sure if this is comparing Jesus to the medium or the spirit but I get the point. The next passage I underlined is my favorite of the these pages:

We welcome the increase in knowledge and the end of error, because even human invention must have its day, and we want that day to be succeeded by Christian Science, by divine reality.

Even human invention must have its day - sort of a nice thought for someone in my line of work.

I've been thinking a lot about the higher concept passages. I looked at a star in the sky last night and wondered what idea it was. I understand it's not just one single point but is a fully formed idea with subtleties and complexities - but still - what was the idea.

Day 50

91:22-93:20

These two pages start by listing the five erroneous postulates:

• The first erroneous postulate of belief is, that substance, life, and intelligence are something apart from God. 
• The second erroneous postulate is, that man is both mental and material.
• The third erroneous postulate is, that mind is both evil and good; whereas the real Mind cannot be evil nor the medium of evil, for Mind is God.
• The fourth erroneous postulate is, that matter is intelligent, and that man has a material body which is part of himself. 
• The fifth erroneous postulate is, that matter holds in itself the issues of life and death, -- that matter is not only capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, but also capable of imparting these sensations.

The other thing I marked was:

Divine logic and revelation coincide. If we believe otherwise, we may be sure that either our logic is at fault or that we have misinterpreted revelation.

This has that higher concept feel to it. Misinterpreting revelation is almost vague in that it could be revelations from the bible or it could be revelations we ourselves experience -- the small, still voice.

I did look up one word: Esse.

Day 49

89:32-91:21

Today's two pages felt like a higher concept than dealing with spirits as the chapter implies. I see there are only 8 or so pages left in the chapter so maybe Mary Baker Eddy to heading toward the wrap-up. The higher concept I read was about imagining what our experience would be without matter, just reflecting God. That's not exactly how MBE phrased it but that's what I got out of it. Here how she says it:

Have you ever pictured this heaven and earth, inhabited by beings under the control of supreme wisdom?

There are religions or belief systems that focus on this higher concept with their own flavoring. I must admit, this is another subject in this chapter that I wonder if she is lightly touching on only here or I never got that it was covered throughout the entire book. I'm gaining a lot of respect for this chapter.

Here is another way to convey the higher concept:

The admission to one's self that man is God's own likeness sets man free to master the infinite idea.

Free to master the infinite idea? That's huge. That's not saying let's talk about Jesus or here is how to heal. This concept is way beyond that. This is, to me, the end game of the search - or the beginning.

But there is also a nice smaller thought, almost a stepping stone to the higher concept:

Divest yourself of the thought that there can be substance in matter, and the movements and transitions now possible for mortal mind will be found to be equally possible for the body.

This is wild - movements and transitions for the body? I think from a mortal perspective we know what the human body can and cannot do. The Olympic coverage this week in Vancouver shows us in stop motion time.

So as I continue to read through the rest of the book, I'm going to keep these new higher ideas in mind to see if I can spot them any where else.

What do you think? Higher concepts or was she saying something else?

Day 48

87:29-89:31

Mary Baker Eddy begins these two pages discussing the "eloquence" used by the medium to prove the existence of a spirit. She moves on to discuss how anyone can be eloquent, educated or not. Anyone can be inspired to levels beyond the material brain's capacity or education.

I imagine the argument MBE is responding to is something like this: Perhaps spiritual enlightenment requires intelligence in the human mind?

What I underlined:

Mind is not necessarily dependent upon educational processes.

Matter is neither intelligent nor creative.

Eloquence re-echoes the strains of Truth and Love.

Spirit, God, is heard when the senses are silent.

The tree is not the author of itself

Each page brings a new view of the ideas floating around in our culture about what is God and what is spirit. I wasn't looking forward to this chapter but by reading it two pages at a time, I'm getting a lot out of it, both on topic and off.

I did have to look up a couple of words: viand and erudition.

Day 47

86:1-87:28

Today's two pages continue one with ghosts and ghostly communications. Mary Baker Eddy makes the point that ghosts are thoughts of mortal mind we can see, that thoughts be perceived by others. This started me off thinking not about ghosts but about my own thoughts drifting onto someone else's radar. Not the good thoughts, but the dark stuff I don't want slipping out and influencing people.

MBE's writings usually take me somewhere other than where she wants me to go. I don't know if that's good or bad.

Here are the passages I underlined.

Mortal mind sees what it believes as certainly as it believes what it sees. It feels, hears, and sees its own thoughts.

It is needless for the thought or for the person holding the transferred picture to be individually and consciously present.

Do not suppose that any mental concept is gone because you do not think it. The true concept is never lost.

I'm interested in this line of logic and would like to pursue it. It is either something MBE wanted to discuss all the way through Science and Health and I didn't get it or she wanted to handle this in one chapter, be done with it, and move on. What do you think?

Day 46

84:3-85:32

These two pages are about knowing the past, present, and future.

I know someone who visits fortune tellers as a normal part of her life. She hangs on to everything as though it is written in stone. My thought is, doesn't that make living life a little boring and remove personal responsibility from the outcome? This is a life-long friend so I have gained a huge opinion about fortune tellers of any kind, including spirits. I'm not interested in looking behind the curtain. I prefer to follow my own thought and pray for guidance when I'm not sure. I'm not blindly moving through life either. I expect good, not evil.

Mary Baker Eddy says in several ways that to understand God and obey him, is to become a seer and prophet involuntarily. She cites Jesus' ability to know what the people around him were thinking.

I underlined:

Such intuitions reveal whatever constitutes and perpetuates harmony, enabling one to do good, but not evil.

Day 45

81:31-84:2

In today's two pages, Mary Baker Eddy in continuing her discussion about how spirits (people who were alive but are now dead) are not oracles. She also talks about miracles, in connection with spirits.

The passages that I underlined are:

"In a world of sin and sensuality hastening to a greater development of power, it is wise earnestly to consider whether it is the human mind or the divine Mind which is influencing one."

"Nothing is more antagonistic to Christian Science than a blind belief without understanding, for such a belief hides Truth and builds on error."

This discussion of spirits or ghosts makes me remember there is only one God. There isn't another source to listen to for advice or commands. 

But we listen to each other every day and are influenced by each other every day whether we are alive or dead. So one God is obvious but easy to forget. Forget might be too strong a word. Its almost as if the small idea or whisper from someone else that isn't taking us off track turns into a statement over time, then a roar in our ears and we can't hear God because by that time, we aren't listening. It seems subtle because it didn't happen immediately but its dramatic because it happened at all.

Goal for today: Who is influencing me? And Why?

Follow-up from yesterday: I couldn't remember if it was immortality of good or good of immortality but in the end it didn't matter. My daughter said it was one of the best days of her life. 

Day 44

80:6-81:30

In today's two pages, Mary Baker Eddy discusses how spirits, ghosts don't prove immortality while that seems to be what spirit-communications is tried to do.

I underlined two things:

"Life, Love, Truth, is the only proof of immortality."

"In Science, man's immortality depends upon that of God, good, and follows as a necessary consequence of the immortality of good."

Popular Christian religions have this idea that you must behave in this life in order to get to heaven. This always seemed like the carrot in front of the horse. It didn't feel right nor did it seem particularly effective at making people behave.

The eastern religions focus on the now and skip the idea of later.

Christian Science says, in some ways, now and later are the same thing.

Today's goal: look for immortality of good.

Results from yesterday: In the morning sometime, just when things were falling apart with the kids' behavior, I tried to remember what I was supposed to work on. I realized if I couldn't remember it, I couldn't work on it in thought. It was nice that I had that direct correlation so I could bring my own thought back to where I wanted it. It took me a few minutes to remember and the by then the situation had resolved. That wasn't a coincidence but an expected result.

Day 43

78:1-80:5

These two pages are still discussing is error of spirits. Mary Baker Eddy uses strong words to describe the error involved and her opinion on the matter is easy to figure out. She mentions wires and electricity so this must have been something associated with Spirits in her day. I'm not sure if that still goes for today's current thought on spirits. She felt that people looked to spirits as oracles communicating with the living. I know several people that feel that way.

The passages I marked aren't representative of her thought but mine which seems to wander off these days.

    "Communications gathered from ignorance are pernicious in tendency. "
  
That is a short sentence but has a definite punch to it. I wonder if she had a specific instance in her experience in mind when she wrote that.

    "Science must go over the whole ground, and dig up every seed of error's sowing. "
  
I don't have anything to say but it caught my attention.

    "Giving does not impoverish us in the service of our Maker, neither does withholding enrich us."
  
This is something I constantly have to deal with in my own thinking. That there is more than enough and that being obedient in the first step won't harm me in the second.

My goal for today is to look for ways to give in the service and not withhold.

Day 42

76:6-77:32

These two pages are wonderful and well thought out. They go through the argument of Spirit versus body, Life versus Death. I would have underlined the whole two pages but the pages are so thin, the ink would have run. So the section I did underline is the final explanation:

"Of what advantage, then, would it be to us, or to the departed, to prolong the material state and so prolong the illusion either of a soul inert or of a sinning, suffering sense, -- a so-called mind fettered to matter. "

My goal for today is to see through the illusion of the material state.

Day 41

74:3-76:5

Today, I found the two pages clear and right to the point. It made sense and I wondered how I had forgotten that since class instruction.

“No correspondence nor communion can exist between persons in such opposite dreams as the belief of having died and left a material body and the belief of still living in an organic, material body.“

“There is no bridge across the gulf which divides two such opposite conditions as the spiritual, or incorporeal, and the physical, or corporeal.”

“Jesus said of Lazarus: “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.” Jesus restored Lazarus by the understanding that Lazarus had never died, not by an admission that his body had died and then lived again. “

The thought of realizing its just a dream has been coming to me a lot lately to see through the veil of materialism.

Day 40

72:1-74:2

These two pages deal with spirits. Mary Baker Eddy defines spiritualism (spirit/ghost):

"Spiritualism calls one person, living in this world, material, but another, who has died to-day a sinner and supposedly will return to earth to-morrow, it terms a spirit." 

I'm going to cite passages out of order but stay with me. I think there is something important in these two pages. She refutes the above definition of spiritualism by providing her understanding of Spirit.

"God controls man, and God is the only Spirit."

She is making a distinction in these two pages I didn't notice before between good and bad/sin. The issue at stake is that a spirit or ghost will communicate with someone to control that person. I'll call this the bad ghost theory. A bad person can die then come back as a spirit and control a living person. She talks about how bad cannot enter good and that God, the only Spirit, can't enter into a person.

"God, good, being ever present, it follows in divine logic that evil, the suppositional opposite of good, is never present."

This I get, it's not different from any other chapter. It also feels redundant until I get to the next sentence:

"In Science [Christian Science], individual good derived from God, the infinite All-in-all, may flow from the departed to mortals; but evil is neither communicable nor scientific."

The idea that good derived from God may flow from the departed to mortals is something new in CS for me. 

I'm not a believer in bad ghosts. Using mortal logic, if you believe you have free will, then you have free will enough to not be controlled by bad ghosts or spirits. But good ghosts or spirits? Or is it just departed but not returned? Am I trying too read to much here. What does the first part of that sentence above mean?

Day 39

70-71:32

Today is the first page of this chapter. It's always seemed like an irrelevant chapter because I've never confused these two topics. It must have been confused in Mary Baker Eddy's day since she wrote about it. Spiritualism, as noted here, has three definitions from 1913. I believe the third definition is the one MBE is referring to in this chapter. Please comment if you disagree or have insight on her understanding of spiritualism.

"Spiritualism: A belief that departed spirits hold intercourse with mortals by means of physical phenomena, as by rappng, or during abnormal mental states, as in trances, or the like, commonly manifested through a person of special susceptibility, called a medium; spiritism; the doctrines and practices of spiritualists."

I've also thought of this as the ghost chapter.

On reading the first two pages, I felt MBE's usually stiff writing was gone. The pages are easy to read; they could have been written last year instead of over a hundred years ago.

The two sentences I marked are:

The testimony of the corporeal senses cannot inform us what is real and what is delusive, but the revelations of Christian Science unlock the treasures of Truth.

There is but one Spirit.

These sum up this chapter. My goal for this chapter is to read deeper into the writing instead of thinking the chapter is irrelevant.

Day 38

67:30-69:30

Yesterday's goals where to recognize God's Grace and Truth. It didn't go as well as I hoped. I was at a party, and in a matter of five minutes at the end, I could feel a wall of despair fall on top of me. It wasn't until I was home later talking to my husband about it. I talked for twenty minutes about the party until I figured out what it was. I was jealous but not of anyone's material possessions but of their calm state of mind. As thought a question that is weighing in my thought was really nothing since they had already answered it for themselves.

I haven't been reading or looking ahead so I was surprised to find that today is the end of the chapter on marriage. That fits because Mary Baker Eddy discusses the end of the need for marriage in these two pages. She also discounts agamogenesis.She links marriage with procreation so directly and I must say, I don't. I think of marriage as a state of monogamous thought. Not a legal condition, or a piece of paper. Not a house with little feet running around.

The one phrase that I underlined was:

"Christian Science presents unfoldment, not accretion;"

If a relationship, any relationship helps me to better understand man's spiritual nature, that's unfoldment for me.

I've nicknamed two of the chapters so I thought I would keep a list of those names here.

Day 37

66:1-67:29

So yesterday's goals were to think about pride and honesty in my life. Not an hour after I wrote those goals, did a business relationship gone bad I've been dreading for over tens years, full of pride, rear it's ugly head. I live in a small town so this isn't unusual, but regrettable. The other person doesn't know I'm still here but I doubt that will stay the case for long. I'm praying about how to handle this.

Going back over some of the posts, there have been typos or title corrections I've needed to make. Please bare with me.

Today's two pages deal with storms in a marriage. I'll broaden that to any difficulty in a relationship. The first sentence I marked was:

"Amidst conjugal infelicity, it is well to hope, pray, and wait patiently on divine wisdom to point out the path."  

AKA During relationship difficulties

1. Hope
2. Pray
3. Wait patiently on divine wisdom to point out the path

Hope assumes an expectation of good to follow. It also means hope is important and just as important as prayer. If I'm looking for understanding, and not blind belief, why hope? Hope implies it might turn out OK, not that it will. Or is that wrong? Does hope imply it will turn out OK and by hoping I'm changing my thought from fear or anger to good? What do you think?  

Mary Baker Eddy compares a fight between spouses to a boat in a storm at sea.

"Yet, acting up to his highest understanding, firm at the post of duty, the mariner works on and awaits the issue...Hoping and working, one should stick to the wreck, until an irresistible propulsion precipitates his doom or sunshine gladdens the troubled sea."

The last sentence is:

"Grace and Truth are potent beyond all other means and methods."

The Sentinel a while back had an article that talked about the rules of Christian Science. That wasn't the title, if you are looking it up. I don't remember if this exact sentence was mentioned but it did get me to thinking about how Mary Baker Eddy stated the rules. When she says "beyond all other means and methods," that sounds very much like something I need to take note of, which is why I underlined it.

I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of sentences like these from the book, somewhere on the web. Of course, taken out of context, they might confuse or mislead. But for me, I would find that very enlightening.

Grace is a word no one would ever use to describe me. Ever. And Truth, well, more of the painfully honest, why-the-heck-did-she-even-open-her-mouth variety. But I see they are capitalized so it's not my grace and truth that would be potent.

So goals for today: recognize God's Grace and Truth.

Day 36

64:1-65:32

Yesterday, I had a nice visit with a new friend. It was genuine and loving. It was nice to have a few minutes where I felt that life was good. I had a great day.


Today's two pages deal with helping others and the impurity of marriage. The first sentence that I underlined was:

"Pride, envy, or jealousy seems on most occasions to be the master of ceremonies, ruling out primitive Christianity. "

I thought about this list and, in years past, I have had relationships where those were front and center. I have only a few relationships now that have an element of pride. Or is it just being stubborn and unmoving? Is that a form of pride?

The next passage I marked is:

"Honesty and virtue ensure the stability of the marriage covenant."

So the listy thing:

Stability of marriage covenant:

1. honesty
2. virtue

Those, in general, are easy for me. It's when my feelings get hurt or I don't think anyone is listening anyway that being honest feels like being naked. Virtue seems like a fluid concept across the landscape of relationships. One person's virtue is another person's waste of time. My own sense of honesty and virtue are definitely not were I want them to be.

The last quote:

"Experience should be the school of virtue..."

This caught me because I wasn't sure what Mary Baker Eddy meant by that. Its almost vague in that I could go a million different ways with the meaning. Do you have any ideas for me?

And at last, I did have to look up "lees:"

the sediment from fermentation of an alcoholic beverage

So goals for today: evaluate by pride and honesty in relationships. I had a good day yesterday relationship-wise so I hope today's goal will bring even more happiness.

Day 35

62:4-63:32

These two pages cover at least 3 subjects. This is unusual so focusing is hard. The three topics are: raising children, the higher and lower nature of man, and civil law. The word 'happy' in its various forms, doesn't appear in these two pages which sort of tells me the tone changed. Mary Baker Eddy is now on a path of warnings and concern.

The sentences I underlined are:

"The divine Mind, which forms the bud and blossom, will care for the human body, even as it clothes the lily;"

"Our false views of life hide eternal harmony, and produce the ills of which we complain."

"In Science man is the offspring of Spirit."

I haven't been focusing on a physical healing in my daily reading but these, taken together, seem to say different. The phrase "false views of life"  seems to stick out there for me the most. I'll examine my views of life today as I go about my routine to see what comes to thought.

Day 34

60:4-62:3

Since it's February now, I'm getting lost in the day numbers of The Journal. If you are too, you can find a day number calendar online, like this one.

While thinking over the equations from yesterday, I realized they weren't coming to mind easily which generally means I was avoiding something. I wasn't going to make the same Love mistake again. So I went back to look at the list and find which words caused me to want to not think about them. They were 1) unselfish ambition and 2) noble life-motives. OK, more goals to work on but these two seem big.

Today's passage dealt with children but I'm ignoring that for now. I know that will probably come back on me but my whole attitude of any kind of relationship is what I'm working on.

The first sentence that quote my eye was:

"Kindred tastes, motives, and aspirations are necessary to the formation of a happy and permanent companionship."

There she goes with more happiness. These two pages were covered with it. I feel like a dolt to never have made the connection between happiness and relationships before. Anyway, I did the listy thing:

1. Kindred tastes
2. Kindred motives
3. Kindred aspirations

That does seem to sum up a successful relationship. Tastes maybe not so much, but the other two are definitely important for a successful union of any kind.

The next quote:

"The scientific morale of marriage is spiritual unity."

So, I wonder if it's wrong of me to change this to: "

"The purpose of relationships is spiritual happiness."

What do you think? Not exactly the same thing but not too far off the mark I hope.

Day 33

58:5-60:3

These two pages are about the relationship between husband and wife. I bristle at the idea of "domestic economy." In so many ways, she led a life different from the one on these two pages.

The first chapter has a quote that I changed into an equation:

"Unselfish ambition, noble life-motives, and purity, - these constituents of thought, mingling, constitute individually and collectively true happiness, strength, and permanence."

Then the equation:

unselfish ambition + noble life-motives + purity

=

true happiness + strength + permanence

Again, a correlation between marriage [any relationship] and happiness.

Other relation quotes:

"There should be the most tender solicitude for each other's happiness, and mutual attention and approbation should wait on all the years of married [relationship] life."

I can think of several relationships with friends and family where I haven't given my share of attention. I need to work on that.

"Tender words and unselfish care in what promotes the welfare and happiness of your wife [friend, business partner, etc] will prove more salutary in prolonging her health and smiles than stolid indifference or jealousy."

"After marriage [friendship], it is too late to grumble over incompatibility of disposition. A mutual understanding should exist before this union and continue ever after, for deception is fatal to happiness."

I named the last chapter Jesus; I think I'll call this chapter "Relationships Equal Happiness." What do you think?

Day 32

56:1-58:4

Today, I'm starting the chapter on Marriage. There is the obvious moral connection between a husband and wife but I apply aspects of this chapter to all relationships since that's really what it is about. So if I mention something that seems beyond the bounds of a traditional marriage, that's what I mean, any kind of relationship between two people.

So on to what stuck out to me. The word 'happy' seemed to pop out several times in two pages. MBE makes a connection between marriage and happiness. Again, I think of it as relationships and happiness.

So here is what stuck out for me:

Chastity is the cement of civilization and progress.

Since I'm reading to progress on my spiritual path, the word progress struck me. Chastity as a way to progress seems obvious for someone not married, but as I am married, I want to see how this definition applies to any relationship. Chastity signifies purity. In a existing relationship, I think of that as honesty and truth.What would you say is chastity between friends or even strangers?

Two quotes that seem to be linked are:

Happiness is spiritual, born of Truth and Love. It is unselfish; therefore it cannot exist alone, but requires all mankind to share it.

To happify existence by constant intercourse [communication] with those adapted to elevate it, should be the motive of society.

One of the goals I've set for myself is to broaden my friendship horizons instead of being self-absorbed, and inverted.

As a stay-at-home mom, the women I meet are wrapped up in being moms themselves. A large part of them are focusing on the physical aspects: allergies, growth rates, balanced diets, skin care. This is just the beginning. Then there are opinions about what children should or should not do and how they should do it. There's a lot of negativity and looking for problems in this kind of thought so it makes looking for friends in my most obvious peer group difficult but not impossible. I seem to be gravitating to people who are best described as a shining light. Not necessarily the life of the party but the reason for going. These are the people that I think elevate my thinking. They are happy because that's what they want to be and they look for those bright moments and hold on to them and ignore or laugh at everything else.

That's were I'm trying to get to.