Mr. Merry must excuse me if I dissent from the position...
Letchworth Citizen
Mr. Merry must excuse me if I dissent from the position taken up in his last letter. He says now that all he originally said was that there were certain things in Christian Science which were common to Christian Science and theosophy, and he proceeds to give three instances of what he means. The original report, however, of his lecture stated quite definitely that he represented Christian Science as a counterpart of the Vedantic doctrine of Maya. This, I showed quite clearly in my last letter, is not the case. The Vedantic doctrine of Maya differs fundamentally from the Christian Science teaching of the unreality of matter, inasmuch as theosophy, on this gentleman's own showing, teaches that matter is an illusion, and this illusion "is produced by the divine nature." Christian Science denies absolutely and unequivocally that there is any connection between this illusion and divine Mind. When two teaching differ, root and branch, as to causation, to say that one is the counterpart of the other is — I wish to use the term without any offensiveness at all — playing with the facts.
Now, let me take the critic's three points, which he uses to argue that Christian Science teaching is the counterpart of the doctrine of Maya. First, he says both teach that all material phenomena are unreal and illusory. Now, all idealistic philosophy, from the time of Plato onward, has taught this. You might just as well say that Platonism, Conceptualislm, Berkeleianism, as well as the whole body of modern idealism, were counterparts of the doctrine of Maya, as that Christian Science is.
Secondly, he says that both teach that matter is due to ignorance. The Stoics taught that evil was the result of ignorance, Socrates and Epictetus taught something of the same sort; but it would hardly be contended that the teaching of Socrates, of Epictetus, or the Stoics was therefore the counterpart of Maya. As a matter of fact, on the critic's own showing, the ignorance of truth implied in the Christian Science teaching of unreality and that implied in theosophical teaching on the same subject, is fundamentally different. The illusion of matter is produced, according to theosophy, on the gentleman's own showing, by the divine nature, and must therefore be part of the consciousness of divine Mind, and, unless this Mind can rid itself of something which it possesses, must be also eternal. Christian Science, on the other hand, teaches that the divine Mind, being perfect, is conscious of nothing but perfection, and is unconscious of the illusion or lie which, in the very nature of illusion, does not exist.
Thirdly, he says that Christian Science and theosophy agree, inasmuch as they teach that reality and truth are only united by self-identification with the divine nature. That, of course, is what theosophy teaches, but it happens to be the very reverse of what Christian Science teaches. Christian Science teaches that reality and truth are the same thing, and for that very reason do not need to be united, for they are one, and that one is God and the spiritual kingdom. It would have been difficult to make the position clearer than this critic has in showing how Christian Science and theosophy differ fundamentally from one another. Christian Science teaches that man in the image and likeness of God is simply a divine idea, which has always existed in divine Mind and has always been perfect. It denies absolutely that this divine Mind has any cognizance of any other mind.
It is perfectly true that Christian Science teaches the unreality of matter, and so does theosophy; but that no more makes theosophy and Christian Science counterparts than it makes Christian Science, Stoicism, Platonism, Conceptualism, Berkeleianism, and modern idealism counterparts of one another. Take a single example from orthodox theology. Primitive Christianity, the theology of the early fathers, the theology of Anselm, the theology of the Roman hierarchy, the theology of Luther, of Calvin, of Knox, of Laud, and of Wesley, all teach, as does Mrs. Eddy, that God is the creator of all that exists. Therefore, according to the critic, all these systems are counterparts of one another. As a matter of fact, the world knows that their teaching is so diametrically opposite that the great mass of them persecuted each other, with remarkable impartiality, for accepting what the critic would ask us to believe is the same teaching.
This teaching, he says, is the teaching of the New Testament, which might be accepted by the Vedantists, and which he sums up in the first and third verses of the first chapter of the gospel of St. John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." What is called orthodox theology contends that this means that God created the physical universe, and that He made the flesh, which Jesus said "profiteth nothing," and of which Paul said that it could not please Him; that He made the storm, which Jesus quelled; the leprosy, which Jesus healed; and ordained death, out of which Jesus raised people, and which Paul says entered the world through sin. To sum up, that He made sin itself, that He is the author of heaven and hell. Vedantism may agree with this teaching, because it makes the illusion of evil a product of the divine nature. You might therefore argue that because the Vedantas and orthodox theology agree in this, there is no difference between orthodox Christianity and theosophy or Hinduism.
Christian Science, however, declares that the second of the verses quoted by the critic is the key to the situation; that it is precisely because none of these things are known to the divine Mind or created by an omniscient creator, of whom the apostle declares, that "without him was not any thing made that was made." "That which is born of the Spirit," as Jesus said to Nicodemus, is the spiritual universe, the ideas of the divine Mind, but "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," the illusion of mortal mind, with the whole range of its phenomena of sin, disease, and death, none of which could be known to divine Mind, or omniscience would cease to be intelligence; none of which could be contained in spiritual infinity, or that spirituality would cease to be infinite; and none of which could exist in divine omnipotence, or that omnipotence would have ceased to be the omnipotence of Spirit and became instead the dualism typified in the fruit "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," the eating of which, in the words of the Jehovistic writer, ultimates in death.
