Indivisible Dual Definitions
A special group of dual definitions can be recognized for which there exists a duality, presented as two sentences in a single paragraph, but which cannot be readily separated, without one thereby loosing the meaning for the defined term. In these cases the two concepts define one-another. If this link is broken, the defined concept becomes transformed into something quite different.
In other words, we have an interdependent duality here that cannot be split apart, because the duality that is presented creates a single concept for which both definitions are required to correctly define it. The dual definition for, Burial, is an example of this type, as well as that for, Euphrates.
Note: In definition for Adam and Ark the two aspects of their duality are separated into two separate paragraphs, whereas in the definition for Burial, the duality is not separated into two separate paragraphs, but is contained within the same paragraph. With this in mind, since no clear horizontal contrast exist, I must ask myself: What is Mary Baker Eddy telling us? I must ask myself: Can I really split the two concepts apart, or are these two distinct concepts of a nature that must be kept together for the defined concept to be correctly understood?
This is an enormously important question for humanity as a whole to consider, because great harm is done if spiritual concepts, which are valid only in unison, become split apart. History has proven this to have tragic consequences.
I want to be very careful here not to separate these two concepts, because corporeality and physical sense put out of sight and hearing, without an accompanying submergence in Spirit, will cause me to engage in self-annihilation by which immortality will not be brought to light. Neither can one engage in submergence in spirit without corporeality and physical sense being put out of sight and hearing in the process. If this linked combination isn't maintained in consciousness, immortality will not be brought brought to light.
So I must ask myself, am I still talking about the same concept of burial, if either one or the other of the two elements is missing, when they are split into isolated parts. I would say no. I would say that the real concept becomes lost when we take parts of it away. But even as I say no, I am challenged to consider the duality involved, am I not?
Devil. Evil; a lie; error; neither corporeality nor mind; the opposite of Truth; a belief in sin, sickness, and death; animal magnetism or hypnotism; the lust of the flesh, which saith: "I am life and intelligence in matter. There is more than one mind, for I am mind, - a wicked mind, self-made or created by a tribal god and put into the opposite of mind, termed matter, thence to reproduce a mortal universe, including man, not after the image and likeness of Spirit, but after its own image."
Both of these definitions say the same thing in different words. We deal with a single concept here, for which both definitions are required to define it.
Here we are talking about divine Science as "a type of the glory which is to come." We are not there yet. And the reason why we are not there yet, is that we work in an atmosphere of human thought that is encumbered with limitation and finity. These are fundamental errors that we face in the realm of science. Mary Baker Eddy did not define science as a synonym for God. It is a process that unfolds in the mortal real, pertaining to lower three rows of the pedagogical structure. At its highest point divine science gives us metaphysics, taking the place of physics, a type of the glory that is to come. Nevertheless, the process unfolds in the mortal domain, which at its highest point is still marked by a believe in limitation, with she thereby highlights for us to deal with. Limitation and finity are the only errors that would hold us back. Didn't Christ Jesus lament about the finity in mortal thought by asking for what reason the disciples doubted.
By drawing the two concepts together into one, one is encouraged to realize that we have the capacity to meet the infinite challenge of divine Science encompassing the universe and man, in spite of human limitations, and gain a true idea of God. The reason is that Divine Science is not a human invention. I see it at its highest elements an aspect of Mind reflected in our humanity where it remains effective in spite of human limitations. If this were not so, what human process would pull humanity out of the atmosphere of human belief in limitation and finity? For this reason I must keep Euphrates together as single concept, a single river, a single flow.
Without the assurance that the river Euphrates presents to us, when seen as a single statement telling us that the infinite task can be met in spite of all human limitations, we wouldn't allow ourselves ever to accept the possibility of the end of all evil as a realizable goal, as the Apostle John suggested will happen.
In other words, each of the two statements in the definition for Euphrates defines the other in a fundamental way.
Can I still separate them into two elements, considering all that, without me loosing the unique concept that the river Euphrates is evidently intended to represent? Or is Mary Baker Eddy telling me that as a corporeal mortal, in spite of the atmosphere of human belief and its limitation and finity that I find myself working in, my understanding of divine Science can encompass the universe and man, regardless; and that I can rejoice in the glory that is to come; that I can engage in metaphysics and take part of the reign of righteousness and thereby gain a portal to Truth? In this case the two elements cannot be separated without the whole concept of the perfectibility of the human situation becoming lost.
These unique considerations involve huge questions, do they not? These are questions that are not easily answered. But how would Mary Baker Eddy answer them?
She refers to the principle of the inseparability of a concept in the Glossary definition of Moses:
Actually, what is involved here is not uncommon. Whenever for instance, the principles of universal love and universal sovereignty are pursued in isolation, chaos erupts, even war, like the Thirty Years War in the 17th Century, in which half of the population of Europe was murdered.
I believe Mary Baker Eddy is teaching us important lessons by asking us to consider what happens if an essential duality becomes separated into isolated concepts. by which we end up with something that is "spiritually lacking."
The challenge that one is facing here, is to determine if the two definition have any meaning standing alone by themselves. So, let's do that and split them apart, and see what we get.
This would be one of the two definitions. If I consider this statement standing all by itself, as a mortal human being living on this earth, I would have to say to myself that this is pie in the sky stuff that is so far out of reach that I have to become a saint before I can see myself operating in this realm. In fact, I find my state of mind quite accurately defined by the second definition of Euphrates.
However, I also must acknowledge that Mary Baker Eddy has put the two definitions together into a single paragraph, so that both may be considered as one, and define the nature of the river for me. By uniting the two elements I see her acknowledging the limitations of mortal thought, but she does not acknowledge it as a limit that isolates me from embracing and understanding Divine Science. She is telling me that the barrier that we are facing in the domain of science is our inclination to cling to finity and limitation. I regard science as a process of getting out of that. Jesus dealt with that, and so did Elias. It determines our metaphysics, our perception of Truth, and our freedom. In every aspect of science mankind has had to deal with this sense of limitation, even in mathematics. It was one of the hardest concepts to accept in mathematics that an equation with powers of n has n solutions. For centuries mankind has been looking for single solutions in mathematics. It took 170 years for mankind, from the time that the proposition was made, to prove it, which became known as The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.