MORE ON BEING . . . .

[rv.ros...@gmail.com]

Dear ______,

Being encompasses and includes Mind, so how can Being
be devoid of intelligence and wisdom? How is it possible
that Being not include "infinite Mind and its infinite
manifestation?" Are we not taught that Mind is never "in"
its idea? Aren't Mind's ideas that which constitute Mind's
"infinite manifestation?" Where does "Mind and its infinite
manifestation" exist? Do they not constitute the very
integral nature and substantive essence of Being?
Mind neither contains nor does it constitute its "infinite
manifestation" and absent Mind, "infinite manifestation" is
not self-existent. However, Being includes both "infinite Mind"
and its "infinite manifestation". Thus, Being is unequivocally
more totally encompassing and completely comprehensive
than any and/or all of the seven synonyms even when the battery
of seven Synonyms combine as ONE. That ONE still does not include,
contain or constitute its "infinite manifestation." The
textbook clearly states on page 467:

"Science reveals Spirit, Soul, as not in the body, and God as
not in man but as reflected by man. The greater cannot be in
the lesser. The belief that the greater can be in the lesser is
an error that works ill. This is a leading point in the Science
of Soul, that Principle is not in its idea."

How can Being be without spiritual substance if one of its
constituent elements or parts happens to be Spirit?

I'm addressing Being, with a capital "B". Whereas, the
"scientific statement" given in the textbook on page 468,
pertains, exclusively, to "being" with a small "b" . . . not
"Being" with a capital "B". Perchance the two have you
perplexed and confused?

You're ruminating as do most. Your 'mind-set' has been
jarred and you've recoiled, stating that I've done something
you either elected to not try to do; or that you tried and did
not succeed in accomplishing . . . . and that's "squaring [myself]
with another by outwitting him" but actually that's not correct.
What is correct, and you apparently completely overlooked catching
my full disclosure and warning on your first read through what I
posted as it constitutes the following:

"The few, of whom I am aware, who have dared to go "where angels
fear to tread," in their individual and unselfish endeavors to
proffer their higher spiritual explanation of why this change
occurred, and furthermore, what the change produced, or brought
about, to more spiritually and scientifically refine, clarify and
perfect the teachings of Christian Science, . . . have risked being
made to suffer severe criticism and denunciation, as their
explanations of why this change occurred have defied the "general
drift of thought" that was then, and is now so deeply entrenched and
embedded within the thinking of most students of Christian Science."

The Science of Being neither bends or blends to suit
"the general drift of thought." However, thought becomes
eventually and irrepressibly transformed as it comes into
harmonic convergence with, and thus, conformity to the
schematics of the Science of Being.

In Unity of Good,

Dave Nolan