On Boris Mouravieff 's 'Gnosis' [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Ken McRae

20-04-2006, 06:45 AM

Some strange statements notwithstanding, Mouravieff's is the only full-scale attempt to draw wide-ranging metaphysical conclusions from the Orthodox doctrine.

"Strange statements?" That is itself a strange expression for heresy, which is what the Church calls the doctrine of reincarnation. Surely Mouravieff knew the Church condemned this teaching, and yet in total defiance of this fact, he asserts that it constitutes an essential part of the "secret" Apostolic Tradition. In his Foreword, the translator asserts the following:- "I have no doubt" that this esoteric Christianity "originates from revelations issued by that Great esoteric Brotherhood to which the Apostle Saint Paul alluded in his Epistle to the Romans;" "a tradition which, until recently, was only transmitted orally." The clear and radical implication of such a statement is that salvation is impossible for the "uninitiated", and most especially for those who learn of Mouravieff 's esoterica, through this publication, and yet choose to reject it.

Mouravieff, it is implied, received the 'full' Tradition or Revelation via an 'oral' transmission, but from whom precisely we are not told; and was apparently commissioned by the Brotherhood to publish it, in its "fullness", to correct the "heresies" of Ouspensky's incomplete 'Fragments'. The "Fragments", we are told, were gleaned from the scribblings of Gurdjieff, which are well-known to consist in large part of Sufic "wisdom" teachings. And thus we are confronted again with the problem of "syncretism", a doctrine most definitely condemned by the Church. However, the translator assures us that Mouravieff 's 'Gnosis' is "directly drawn from the Eastern Christian Tradition" "and especially from the Philokalia". So, then, on the surface at least it would seem that Mouravieff is opposed to 'syncretism'. But is this really the case? Let us take a closer look:-

"Detailed studies of the early Fathers of the Church reveal that at one time Christianity did have such a tradition of conscious transformation; the direct equivalent of the spiritual forms of Yoga in India or the Sufi doctrines in Islam, although for more than 1500 years this form of the Christian tradition has never been generally tried or even known about by the average Christian. Mouravieff tells us that it was hidden from persecutors and sectarian disagreement around the third century AD, and that, as a direct result of this, although it survives in unwritten form in certain monasteries of the Eastern churches and in partial form in certain texts little known to Western man, its existence has in general been forgotten by the Christian West to this day." (Volume III, p. xiii)

So, then, according to the above passage, what Mouravieff has presented in this gnostic Triology, is "the direct equivalent" of "the Sufi doctrines in Islam!" Thus is it crystal clear that Mouravieff is as much a "syncretist" as 'G' and Ouspensky. The description of the work found on the back cover of Volume Two promotes this as a key selling feature: "These three books," it says, "agree to a high degree with the teachings of the early fathers of the church, as well as with the inner teachings of all religions." And it is further declared, on page xv of Volume III, that "if we imagine, as so many do, that in recovering ancient teachings Mouravieff proposes a return to ancient ways - to the ways of medieval Russian Orthodoxy, for example - we will discover that this is not so. The book points not towards a return to a forgotten past but to a future yet unknown."

But the point I wish to close on is this: It is clear that Mouravieff believes that apart from the 'full' reception and diligent application of his 'gnosis', it is quite impossible for any Christian to achieve true theosis, or enter the Kingdom of Heaven: "Christ categorically affirmed that entry into the Kingdom of God," states the translator, "is closed to those who have not been born anew. This second Birth is the object and goal of esoteric work." (Volume I, p. xviii) Now, the underlying implication of such a statement is clear, which is this: The esoteric work of the Second Birth is inaccessible to all in the absence of this "hermetic" gnosis which is now published in its fullness for the first time, by Mouravieff. Now, how do you propose to reconcile or harmonize such a radical claim with Patristic tradition? The two appear totally irreconcilable in my eyes.

M.C. Steenberg

20-04-2006, 01:30 PM

There appears to exist also a certain http://www.praxisresearch.org/ Praxis Research Institute continuing the work of Boris Mouravieff.

I'd not heard of this before. Does anyone know anything more about it?

INXC, Matthew

Ken McRae

21-04-2006, 04:45 AM

"Christ categorically affirmed that entry into the Kingdom of God ... is closed to those who have not been born anew. This second Birth is the object and goal of esoteric work."

"These three books ... agree to a high degree with ... the inner teachings of all religions."

Mouravieff 's esoteric "syncretism" is most explicitly evidenced in the following passage from the Preface to Volume One:-

"Esoteric studies help us to make sense of the evolution of man and of human society. This explains the increasing interest these studies have aroused in cultivated circles. Yet, paradoxically, many Europeans who feel drawn to these researches turn their eyes towards the non-Christian Traditions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism and others. It would certainly be exciting to compare esoteric thinking in these different systems, because the Tradition is One, and whoever delves deeply into these studies will not fail to be struck by this essential unity.

"Yet to those who desire to go beyond pure speculation, the problem appears in a different light. This unique Tradition has been and still is now being presented in multiple forms, each meticulously adapted to the mentality and spirit of the human group to which its Word is addressed, and to the mission with which this group has been charged. For the Christian world, the easiest way; the least difficult way to reach the goal, is to follow the esoteric Doctrine which forms the basis of the Christian Tradition." (Preface to Volume I, p. xx)

According to the above passage, then, the Gnosis (or System of esoteric Christianity) expounded by Mouravieff constitutes the "essence" or core of true Christianity, (in the Brotherhood's opinion, of course, not mine;) and together with all other forms of esoterica, comprises a single unified Tradition, a Tradition that forms the essential core and basis of all exoteric world religions. Eastern Orthodoxy, then, is nothing more for Mouravieff than an external form that has been "meticulously adapted to the mentality and spirit of the human group to which its Word is addressed, and to the mission with which this group has been charged." Thus, the exoteric elements serve a purely utilitarian purpose, and can be ultimately dispensed with, once a person has graduated to the higher education of the esoteric school. According to Mouravieff 's gnosis, or school of thought, Hindus, Buddhists, Sufis, and all other non-Christians are just as capable as Orthodox Christians of being born again and entering the Kingdom of God; just so long as they receive the "full" gnosis of the Tradition, and rigorously engage themselves in the esoteric work which is required. Now, I ask you all: Is there not something deeply heretical with or about this picture? It looks a lot like a Christless Christianity to me; and thus the basis for the religion of the coming Anti-Christ.

M.C. Steenberg

21-04-2006, 10:25 AM

I'm curious as to just what defines this 'Tradition' of which Mouravieff speaks. Him?

Under their veils, such groups as this are all fairly much the same.

INXC, Matthew

Ken McRae

22-04-2006, 02:51 AM

I'm curious as to just what defines this 'Tradition' of which Mouravieff speaks. Him?

That's a good question, Matthew, but this is something that's kept very secret. The most that Mouravieff ever seemed willing to say about it is that the Eastern Orthodox "branch" of the Tradition is defined by a secret society, known as "the Brotherhood"; a society that has apparently existed in hiding, according to Mouravieff, within the Eastern Orthodox Church herself, from about the third century down to the mid 20th century. And yet, though it seems implied by Mouravieff that the time of hiding in the shadows has past, and a new era has dawned, we are never told anything about the current leadership of this secret "Brotherhood" today. Nor does it appear Mouravieff ever claimed to be the only living guardian of the Tradition, but that there was, instead, a well organized society to which he himself belonged and from whom he had apparently received instructions or the order to publish the 'Gnosis' in its 'fullness', leaving nothing unveiled; and upon which he continued to lecture within a university setting, until the day he died. A quick online search turned up the following commentary on his 'Gnosis', by one who appears to be an "initiate" standing within the same gnostic Tradition as Mouravieff himself:-

Commentary on Boris Mouravieff's Gnosis
by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

>> http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/mouravieff1.htm <<

"In recent months however, we have been surveying a body of teachings that not only meshes with, but vigorously expands upon the Cassiopaean Transmissions to an extent that we cannot think that it is accidental. In fact, the overlapping and 'filling in the gaps' quality of this work is so astounding that we are certain that the Cassiopaeans themselves are very likely involved in this teaching in ways we do not understand.

"The work in question is that of the Russian exile Boris Mouravieff, presented in his three part study and commentaries entitled Gnosis. Very little information is available on the background of these materials while a good deal of disinformation is circulating in other circles, and it is best to address these problems before we even attempt to present the material ... etc. etc. etc."

Ken McRae

23-04-2006, 05:44 AM

" ... one who appears to be an "initiate" standing within the same gnostic Tradition as Mouravieff himself."

Such a statement requires some qualification, of course. It is clear from the Commentary that Ms. Knight-Jadczyk does not profess to be a Christian, let alone a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, it is important to remember that from Mouravieff's point of view, the esoteric Tradition is One. It would not concern him at all that Ms. Knight-Jadczyk is an "outsider", with regard to membership in the Eastern Orthodox Church, for what really counts in his book(s) is that she accepts and adheres to the 'Gnosis', as he delivered it. That she formally belongs to a separate and distinct branch of the "One Tradition" is a secondary and unimportant consideration. And from Ms. Knight-Jadczyk's point of view, as already quoted above, she clearly believes "that the Cassiopaeans themselves are very likely involved in this," that is, Mouravieff 's "teaching in ways we do not understand."

EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:-

"We sometimes ask ourselves if the Cassiopaeans are who they say they are, because we do not take anything as unquestionable truth. We take everything with a grain of salt, even if we consider that there is a good chance that it is truth. We are constantly analyzing this material as well as a great quantity of other material that comes to our attention from numerous fields of science and mysticism. We find it to be quite extraordinary that the Cassiopaean Material is so closely aligned with the teachings of the great Sufi master, Ibn Al-'Arabi, with the Fourth Way Teachings of Gurdjieff, Castaneda, with the Esoteric Christianity of Boris Mouravieff, and even ancient Altaic Shamanism. In this sense, the Cassiopaean Experiment is truly a Fourth Way work." ( see the 8th paragraph from the bottom @ http://www.cassiopaea.org/ )

Byron Jack Gaist

25-04-2006, 07:34 AM

Dear All,

Christos Anesti!

For those of us on the New Calendar, we have just celebrated Easter and are returning to our daily work.

Concerning the above "institute", I understand it to be the work of one Robin Amis, who claims to have encountered a secret tradition of personal transformation on - Mt Athos, of all places! Mr Amis is influenced by the work of Mouravieff on "Gnosis", though a superficial read of the website pages suggests that the teaching being referred to is not quite so 'radical' as Mouravieff's. In fact, what is confusing me, and I would appreciate it if someone can clarify this, is that apart from the use of "psychobabble" terminology, Mr Amis only seems to be advocating the standard use of the Jesus Prayer. There is a whole book by an Athonite abbot posted on the site. If this is a heretical teaching, then presumably we are not talking about a real Archimandrite or a real work, or the real Archimandrite whose book this is, doesn't know his work is being misappropriated in this way.

Like Matthew, I would appreciate any clarification. Also, does anyone know if Gurdjieff really did visit Mount Athos?

In Christ
Byron

Scott Pierson

16-07-2006, 01:57 PM

I've read one of the books by the Praxis Institue on Saint Theophane the Recluse. The books is actually really good made up mostley of quotes from St Theophane and first hand accounts with only a little commentary.

This sounds a lot like "Traditionalism" (not Orthodox Traditonalism of course) to me (Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Seyyed Hoessein Nasser). They do a good job of pointing out the flaws of "modernity" , secularism, socialism, capatalism, democracy and various new age pseudo religions but they have this wierd idea that all "traditional" religions point out the same truths. Father Seraphim Rose was greatly influenced by Guenon early on in his life and it helped lead him to Orthodoxy. I actually first started looking into Orthodoxy myslef based on curiosity I gained from reading "Traditionalist" works ( Cutsinger, Seyyed Hoessein Nasr etc) which often pointed out Orthodoxy as the most valid form of Christianity.

M.C. Steenberg

16-07-2006, 02:15 PM

If I recall correctly, there was a lot of (mostly negative) discussion relating to Mouravieff and the 'Praxis Institute' here in the Community not so terribly long ago. Perhaps someone remembers?

The search feature (http://www.monachos.net/forum/search.php) will likely point in the right direction.

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

17-07-2006, 08:52 AM

Dear Scott,

Where do you think Traditionalists might come into the picture with the Praxis Institute? Mouravieff and Gurdjieff were, as far as I know, not Traditionalists but occultists or gurus of a kind.

I agree by the way that there is a lot to commend in Traditionalist thought, but with a big proviso it is understood where some of that thinking is leading (e.g. perrenial philosophy, occultism, fascism etc.). I have a question to anyone who may know something relevant about the thought of Philip Sherrard in regard to this. On the one hand he is the Orthodox translator of the Philokalia into English, on the other some of his own writings seem to be marked by a Traditionalist ideology, excellent as they are. I know he was a Traditionalist, but my question is really about how an Orthodox Christian may regard or receive his ideas.

In Christ
Byron

Scott Pierson

17-07-2006, 11:34 PM

Where do you think Traditionalists might come into the picture with the Praxis Institute? Mouravieff and Gurdjieff were, as far as I know, not Traditionalists but occultists or gurus of a kind.

Maybe it doesn’t come in. I just thought it sounded very similar in some of its religious claims. But then again the idea that all religions teach the same "esoteric" truths is pretty common now and it might not be related.

I've only read one book by the Praxis Institute and it seemed rather Orthodox but like I said most of it was just direct quotes of St Theophane or of first hand witnesses of his life.. It didn’t discuss anything about a common core to religions or anything of that nature.

I've read one book by Phillip Sherrard "Christianity lineaments of a Sacred Tradition". The Introduction is by Bishop Kalistos Ware and he discusses Sherrards relation to "Traditionalism" a little. It appears from the book that Sherrard does not buy into some aspects of Traditionalism. In fact he argues against Guenons labeling of the Trinity as the "relative absolute" and basically defends the Personal Trinitarian nature of God. He also appears to consider Christianity more then simple "one tradition among many" . He appears a little more orthodox then some of the other "Orthodox" authors who consider themselves Traditonalist/Perrenial Philosophers. You can get the book on Amazon.com. The Chapter on " the presence of evil" which compares Christian and Platonic views are evil are interesting.

Owen Jones

19-07-2006, 04:16 PM

The name for this "traditionalist" movement is perennialism. It is a gnostic ideology that centers around a small coterie of intellectuals. Like all gnostic movements its motivation is alienation. The world is so evil that it has nothing to offer. There is nothing that the world can teach us. Superficially, this can sound like traditional monasticism, since the Orthodox monk is one who leaves the world behind. And no doubt, alienation is a factor in all religious belief. We experience the world as somehow distorted, not what it should be. But the gnostic takes it a good bit further, and develops an intellectual system, not based on God's love and mercy or His transformative power, nor on obedience to His commandments, but on the alienation. The alienation is experienced as salvific itself. Not the belief. Not the virtue that follows on belief. The gnostic intellectual believes that he has found a higher way because of the experience of his alienation -- which he believes he feels more acutely -- is interpreted as the higher form of spiritual illumination. So he can believe anything he wants to believe, as long as it is purely traditional. Of course, this is a classical gnostic mythology. If we were to be truly traditional, how far back are we to go? Why not go back to the beginning? But where is the beginning? There is no beginning that we can go back to. So we have to pick some convenient middle point that we choose as being a pure way and we call that the beginning. The perennialists believes that in some point in history, everything went wrong. Mankind got off track. Prior to that point in history, people believed and practiced their traditions, and therefore it was a more spiritually pure time. So all we have to do is get back to that point in our consciousness and restore those traditional practices. The perennialist intellectual therefore sees himself as a kind of salvific vanguard. This is a classic gnostic mythology. The periodization of history into phases culminating in a present time of fall, is just the flip side of Hegel's periodization of history, culminating in a present time of complete and pure knowledge.

In perennialism, the system dictates that there is a unity of traditional belief and custom that existed in some mythic past that has been lost in the atomization brought about by modernism. It does not matter if you are a Muslim or an Orthodox Christian or a Catholic in the manner of the pre-Vatican II type. It really does not matter what you believe, as long as you are very traditional about it. They believe there is an esoteric truth that relativizes dogma. In that search for esoteric truth, this small coterie of perennialist intellectuals believe they have found an answer to the atomization of society and self that is the result of modernism. It is an existential revolt against modernism. It is really no different than Marxism or liberalism or any other modern ideology in that the perennialist has built an intellectual system around his own alienation. As gnostics go, they are no doubt more serious about certain spiritual things. But as all gnostics, they have their own idiosyncratic understanding of the primary sources. I won't name names but in my personal experience, there is a high degree of personal arrogance associated with this movement. The perennialist is someone who, ironically, sees himself as a pure individual. A pure spiritual individual who becomes the vanguard of a wider movement to restore reality to its true form by leading people back to a more pure time.

They need no help from other people to guide them. In fact, everyone else is misguided. Their gnostic system is their guide and their help. They need not draw any wisdom or strength from other people. They are here to tell other people how they should think. A pretty good definition I should think of atomization.

Scott Pierson

20-07-2006, 12:17 AM

like all gnostic movements its motivation is alienation. The world is so evil that it has nothing to offer. There is nothing that the world can teach us. Superficially, this can sound like traditional monasticism, since the Orthodox monk is one who leaves the world behind. And no doubt, alienation is a factor in all religious belief.

You are right on target in your appraisal of perennialism imo. Strangely enough however, despite the similiartiys to classical gnosticism traditionalists usually dont hold "Gnostics" (Valentinians, Carpocrations, etc) in that high of regard. I guess many of them consider it to be a revolt of emotional pseudo mysticism against the more "austere" and "traditional religions"..Or maybe embracing heretics is a little to "untraditional" ?.. but as you pointed out in many ways they embrace the main characteristics of classical gnosticism. Julius Evola specifically seemed to hold classical gnosticism (or any form of Christianity (real or pseudo) for that matter ) in low regard he considered it Lunar, passive, stressing grace rather then self effort and manly struggle. He preferred the Buddha of the Aryan solar race who conquers heaven by his own struggle and asceticism blah blah... It does have a romanticism about it and really grabs hold of ones pride and for that reason can be pretty attractive for some. I know it was to me for a while.

Byron Jack Gaist

21-07-2006, 11:24 AM

...and via Julius Evola the Hermetic philosopher, to Mussolini and Italian fascism, and to Savitri Devi, a woman who believed that Hitler is the Aryan Saviour (I'm ashamed to say this oddball was half-Greek). There is a not-too-thick line between "traditionalism", intellectual pride as Owen rightly pointed out, and fascist ideology. Solzhenitsyn might reply:
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? (from The Gulag Archipelago . Good and evil cannot mix, but they coexist side-by-side in every heart. Purists and gnostics look for ways to eliminate this frustrating duplicity of human being, and this kind of black-and-white thinking takes place sadly both within and outside the Church. As long as this is borne in mind, there may be much to learn nevertheless from these extreme thinkers, both as an example of what to avoid, but also drawing on some of them as the erudite sources of learning many of them genuinely are.

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

23-07-2006, 02:06 PM

The best short introduction to modern gnosticism is to be found in "Science, Politics and Gnosticism" by Eric Voegelin. Voegelin points out that, while ancient gnosticism was otherworldly in the extreme, modern gnosticism is immanentist. Bringing heaven down to earth in one form or another. The super-traditionalist, whether of the intellectualist variety like Cutsinger, or just the typical bore in the parish who must do prostrations in the aisle, believes there is a perfect parish somewhere with a perfect liturgy that conforms perfectly to the canons set forth in the year 325, yada, yada, yada. He tries to live like a monastic, has a mirror in his bathroom but puts a towell over it, and is an example of self-will in the extreme. He wears his Orthodoxy like a burden or a chip on his shoulders.

There is much scholarly debate about gnosticism, its historical and experiential roots, but the spirit of activism that characterizes our age is probably the best example. If we don't like something, we are entitled to change it. Typically by getting all worked up about it, and then organizing people to do something about it.

M.C. Steenberg

24-07-2006, 12:15 AM

There is much scholarly debate about gnosticism, its historical and experiential roots, but the spirit of activism that characterizes our age is probably the best example. If we don't like something, we are entitled to change it. Typically by getting all worked up about it, and then organizing people to do something about it.

I found the above very interesting, Owen. I think I agree very much with the general sentiment on 'activism'; though I would be curious to know more, as to how you link this with 'gnosticism'.

INXC, Matthew

Ken McRae

29-07-2006, 06:10 AM

Also, does anyone know if Gurdjieff really did visit Mount Athos?

Dear Byron,

While G never took any of his students with him to the Holy Mountain, it is generally believed he was there several times himself ; and that he made arrangements, just before his death, to take a group of them with him; which never happened, according to plan. Nevertheless, according to Amis and other sources, G instructed his students to establish contact with the Inner Tradition on the Holy Mountain, after his passing. And it seems they took his advice.

Ouspensky apparently established a relationship of sorts with Father Nikon, a hermit of the Holy Mountain; another G disciple named Bogachevsky became a monk on the Holy Mountain, for a short time; it is believed Mouravieff established contact as well; Amis, Mouravieff 's disciple, claims to be a regular pilgrim there (ever since '82/83); and says he had some kind of relationship with Elder Paisios. He also claims that the English translation of the Philokalia can be largely attributed to the work and influence of G and Ouspensky. Palmer, (one of the three translators of the English edition of the Philokalia,) was a former disciple of Ouspensky's, Amis says. So, perhaps it'll be Amis, and the Praxis Institute, who'll produce the long awaited fifth and final volume!

I'm posting here three lengthy passages from two online documents, purely as documentation for the above claims. I've stated my opinion of Mouravieff's Gnosis, so let no one think I trust it or support his Syncretistic philosophy. Having said that, though, I confess to owning some of the Praxis Institute publications, as you all know; and will probably buy a few others, too. Amis' new translation of St. Gregory's Triads is one such work, but I'm hesitant for obvious reasons; and if he (and his Institute) produced the fifth and final volume of the English Philokalia, I'd find it very difficult to resist, as I am beginning to lose hope of ever seeing it produced by anyone else! So, I suppose it could be argued I'm indirectly supporting the Work, however reluctantly. Nontheless, I maintain my original opinion that this organization and their publications must be approached and read with great discretion!

humbly ~
Theophilus

On the Inner Tradition Today (http://www.praxisinstitute.net/Praxis%20Now/Church%20of%20The%20Elders/Christian%20Fourthway.htm) - by Robin Amis

1) In the 1980's a story was still current in Ouranopolis, the Greek seaside village from which the ferry leaves for Mount Athos every morning, of an old man who travelled round the great monasteries of Athos just after WWII offering the monks new factory-made carpets in exchange for their ancient Turkish equivalent. Whenever I would mention this story to someone with a serious interest in Gurdjieff, their face would light up with a knowing smile, and they would say something such as: "we know who that was."

For those who are unaware of him, Gurdjieff was an Armenian savant known to have taught in Moscow before the revolution, who finally reached as far West as California. Gurdjieff told the students of his strange system that “this is esoteric (or 'inner') Christianity," but without revealing his sources for this information, although a clue is given by the fact that at the end of his life he suggested an attempt to contact those who originated the teaching, and directed that attempt to specific Christian sources. Not surprisingly, this statement had little or no effect: some of his more influential students continue to seek for the source of his teachings in the Sufi masters of the Middle East. Between them, a few men from an Orthodox Christian world - G. I. Gurdjieff, Boris Mouravieff, P. D. Ouspensky and others who followed them -began to define something that my many years of investigation have proved was based - at least in large part - on the forgotten psychological method of the early church. Gurdjieff himself confirmed his debt to Christianity when he told his pupils that after his death, then imminent, they should 'make contact with the Inner Tradition on Mount Athos.'

2) The Philokalia, the great compendium of teachings of the early fathers that has driven Eastern monasticism since the sixteenth century, and which has waited until now to be proven, was translated into English as an indirect but clearly traceable result of the work of these two men, as a direct result of Ouspensky’s friendly contact with a hermit on Mount Athos, a Father Nikon. After O’s death, certain of his students visited that hermit, and this contact with the mainstream had considerable effect on Western spirituality, since it was this that led directly to Gerald Palmer’s translation into English of parts of the Philokalia. The idea came from Ouspensky’s friend Father Nikon in conversation with Palmer, once a student of Ouspensky. Palmer’s co-translator in this, also co-translator of the Art of Prayer and Unseen Warfare, was Madam Kadloubovsky, who for many years was Ouspensky’s secretary.

It was after several years of investigation into sources on Mount Athos that I finally discovered, much closer to home, the report that Gurdjieff had arranged, only a short time before his death, for a party to go to Athos in hopes of establishing contact with the Tradition whose doctrines he had taught in such a unique manner. This finally convinced me that this statement that his teachings were esoteric Christianity was correct not just loosely, but in many important details, previously unproved because of the difficulties in carrying out an adequate study.

How Gurdjieff Translated the Desert Elders for the Modern World (http://hurleydonson.com/origins.htm)

3) Gurdjieff often said he had a unique tutored education at the hands of Russian Orthodox priests. He also was clear that, among his many travels, he paid extensive visits to Mount Athos, a peninsula off the coast of Greece that is home to twenty monasteries and is the heart of the Orthodox tradition.

It was in these experiences that he learned the esoteric tradition of the Desert Elders and saw how effective it is in elevating humanity and opening consciousness. This explains Gurdjieff’s plans to take a group of his students to Mount Athos toward the end of his life. When that venture fell through, he told his students that, after he died, they should go to Mount Athos and connect with the tradition there.

However, Gurdjieff was cognizant of how the off-putting pietistic language of this religious tradition conflicted with the growing agnosticism of Western culture. That’s why he translated these principles into terms that were free from association with any particular religion, added to them some other principles he learned along the way from other traditions, and dressed the whole system up in an exotic presentation he called The Work.

Byron Jack Gaist

01-08-2006, 07:33 AM

Dear Theophilus,

Thank you for posting this fascinating information. Especially the part about Mme Kadloubovsky being Ouspensky's secretary! It's strange how such a fine translation into beautiful English could be produced by people who themselves held unorthodox views.
However, Gurdjieff was cognizant of how the off-putting pietistic language of this religious tradition conflicted with the growing agnosticism of Western culture. That’s why he translated these principles into terms that were free from association with any particular religion, added to them some other principles he learned along the way from other traditions, and dressed the whole system up in an exotic presentation he called The Work.
Can the Work really be seen as Orthodox Christianity minus the cultural / theological accoutrements? Or is it something else altogether? Of course, once we are not talking any longer about God, then it surely is "something else" by definition, but are the psychological principles of the Work at least true in some way to Orthodox Christian psychology and anthropology?

In Christ
Byron

D. Bains

18-08-2007, 11:28 PM

i find your discussion on fourth way christanity very interesting. i have some personal knowledge of the praxis institute which mayhelp to answer some of yoru questions. it is very fascinating.

Byron Jack Gaist

20-08-2007, 09:39 AM

Dear D Baines,

Thank you for your expression of interest in this discussion. If you have personal experience of the Praxis Institute and can answer some of the many questions regarding "gnosis" which have resulted from this discussion, please feel free to go ahead and post some of your thoughts and comments. I, for one, would be interested in reading them and continuing the discussion!

In Christ
byron

Andrew

20-08-2007, 04:43 PM

Does the Praxis Institute believe that the Person of Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the Pre-eternal unoriginate Logos, and is the only savior of the cosmos? Do they believe that the Orthodox Church is His very flesh and blood here on Earth?

Andrew

20-08-2007, 05:04 PM

How Gurdjieff Translated the Desert Elders for the Modern World (http://hurleydonson.com/origins.htm)

3) Gurdjieff often said he had a unique tutored education at the hands of Russian Orthodox priests. He also was clear that, among his many travels, he paid extensive visits to Mount Athos, a peninsula off the coast of Greece that is home to twenty monasteries and is the heart of the Orthodox tradition.

It was in these experiences that he learned the esoteric tradition of the Desert Elders and saw how effective it is in elevating humanity and opening consciousness. This explains Gurdjieff’s plans to take a group of his students to Mount Athos toward the end of his life. When that venture fell through, he told his students that, after he died, they should go to Mount Athos and connect with the tradition there.

However, Gurdjieff was cognizant of how the off-putting pietistic language of this religious tradition conflicted with the growing agnosticism of Western culture. That’s why he translated these principles into terms that were free from association with any particular religion, added to them some other principles he learned along the way from other traditions, and dressed the whole system up in an exotic presentation he called The Work.

There is a statement in that article that is laughably absurd... "There is a Christian terminology for it, a Buddhist terminology, a Jewish terminology, an Islamic terminology, and most importantly for many reasons, there is the impartial terminology of The Work." Impartial terminology? Hogwash. The Christian way of repentance is not a terminology. It is THE WAY. The only way. It is Christ and His Life of kenosis offered to man. There is no other way. If some deluded guru's try to say anything besides this, that there are other ways than the Cross, or that the Cross is just another form of some "Tradition," then anathema to that. Truly, this is heresy. I hate that. Truly. Christ is everything. I do not want anything but Christ. I do not want ascetical techniques, or contemplation, or heaven, or hell, or paradise, or anything. I want Christ, the Savior of mankind. Pietistic language? If one cannot accept that Our Lord is a divine human person who was born of flesh and blood from the Holy Theotokos, who was nursed with human milk, who had his diaper changed, who was raised to manhood as the fullness of man, then I see this as a great tragedy. He is Everything. I do not see Christ in Gurdijeff's silly system of dances and false eloquence. If some group wishes to promulgate this nonsense as Orthodoxy or as the true tradition, then again, damnation to that horrible heresy.

Also, the statement in that article that the Holy Fathers of the Desert didn't care about dogma. This is ludicrous. St. Anthony would not speak with heretics, and when some heretics claimed him as a supporter, he went down from his mountain and publicly denounced the heretics and proclaimed the true faith. He was vehemently vigilant when it came to "exoteric" dogma. Same with any of the other fathers. The Orthodox way of hesychasm is not about lifting up humanity to "objective consciousness." It is about a maniacal love of God, a love so strong that man chooses to destroy everything that comes between him and his Love. He counts himself as worse than dust and humbles himself so much that he no longer takes heed of his own thoughts, opinions, and experiences, instead dwelling only on the silence in which God can reveal Himself in. And this God is the Holy Trinity. Only the Holy Trinity, nothing else. And the Holy Trinity is truly the only way of talking accurately about God, or experiencing God. There is no other way. Hesychasm is not about technique. It is about love of the Person of Jesus Christ. I do not see love for Christ in Gurdijeff. If he was too squeamish to reveal love of Christ in his "Work," then what a horrible failure. Lord have mercy.

I wish Fr. Seraphim here would comment on this. It seems that he has knowledge of "the Work" and it's followers. He has been quick in the past on this board to condemn it at every turn. It is a modern heresy born of the falling away from the love of God.

Byron Jack Gaist

21-08-2007, 08:06 AM

Dear Andrew,

You are, I think, quite right not to suffer nonsense from gurus and other false prophets, nor to accept any dilution or distortion of Orthodox dogma. However, I would like to indicate that is not my intention in discussing Mouravieff's "gnosis" with both Orthodox and people from other religious and secular backgrounds. I can't speak for everybody of course, but my own purpose and interest in this discussion is more of a loosely academic nature, like discussing with peers the history and origins of ideas which surround us, whether we agree with them or not. I agree that "silly dances" or pseudo-spiritual arrogance is not the way to go about pursuing an Orthodox spiritual life; this doesn't mean to me that what sufis do or believe is uninteresting or without its own merit even - we may disagree on some fundamental issues, but share some common conclusions or attitudes nonetheless, which themselves open up the possibility of discussion and respectful encounter. As for dancing, surely Christ is not against dancing in His praise? King David danced, didn't he? I would fully agree though that inserting heretical or heterodox ideas into the dancing would be where truly believing Christians should draw the line, and Gurdjieff was patently not an Orthodox thinker (nor would his followers claim him as such, I surmise).

So yes, love of Christ and firm belief in the Holy Trinity before anything else; but surely ordinary believers as well as academics have to try to make some sense of, and adopt an informed attitude regarding the myriad philosophies they will encounter as they journey through life?

In Christ
Byron

Andrew

22-08-2007, 05:54 AM

Byron Jack Gaist

23-08-2007, 07:59 AM

Dear Andrew,

Your indignation is justified and understandable. Distorting the message of the Holy Mountain is misleading, unnecessary and probably ultimately in the service of someone other than Jesus, though that's not perhaps for me to judge; there may be good intentions even in the most unexpected places, and God is probably much more complex than I can get my head around, even if I see little point in doubting the absolute truth value of any aspect of our Orthodox dogma. I'd just be happy to absorb even a little of what the experienced spiritual fathers on the Holy Mountain actually teach, rather thar than straining it through some New Age philosophy!

Please don't feel you should "let cooler heads engage" with this material. Your passionate response shows you have a lot to offer to it!

In Christ
Byron

D. Bains

24-08-2007, 05:57 PM

I am very interested in this conversation. I am an academic by training and I am not involved in any new age or other group. So, I cannot become involved in closed-minded thinking or emotional outbursts. I am simply interested in the history of ideas – it is not my place to judge their worth.

So, where do we start? Well, I have spent time with Praxis studying their work, and I found it very interesting. Robin Amis definitely knows something things that aren’t widely know, and he is very far from being New Age. I’m sure that, if he was not married, he would be living on Mount Athos. He has probably been to The Holy Mountain more times than most.

What next? Well, first don’t believe everything you read in Mov, 1 to 3. There is a code that outlines which bits are serious and which bits are not. It is a trick from alchemy. You need to have a teacher or apply discernment. Therefore, do not get too excited when you find a flaw because it may be intentional.

As a discussion, what is a Christian? Robin talks at length about God’s Drill. Either God finds you, or you find some way to God. The latter, is essentially, The Work. Few people in The Work know what it is. But, in truth, few people in any church know the real way to Christ. Both sides are full of people with loud voices and big egos. I know that Robin Amis is not one of these people.

So, ask away – I’m not a teacher nor a guide, but I am happy to engage in sensible discussions with people searching to know.

Owen Jones

26-08-2007, 04:37 PM

Dear Matthew,

In response to your question from way back on Aug 7, modern gnosticism is predicated on the notion that, if there is a God, he messed up the creation, and had enlightened mankind gotten there first, then he would have done a much better job. Therefore, the consequence of that awareness is that all suffering is evil at its core, the result of God's botched job. So whenever a person suffers, he creates a political movement. For example, I have just watched a short piece on the news about a woman whose sister died twenty years ago from breast cancer. So she started a world-wide organization to fight breast cancer, and this organization has provided a billion dollars over the years to breast cancer research, early detection, and financial support to those suffering from this disease. Which is all fine and good, but there is an obvious element missing from the equation. She is obviously, from her interview, still suffering terribly from the lost of her sister whom she has virtually deified, and her activism on the subject becomes a substitute for any spiritual lesson she might have learned. The alternative of course is not to be found in an utter passivity in the face of injustice or suffering. Heaven forbid. But this idea that the only response is to fight it and defeat it is at the core of modern gnosticism. Who was it who said, "do not resist evil?" What we see in this unfortunate woman is not the intellectual kind of gnosticism, but a gnosticism of the will, in which she feels responsible in some sense for the evil unless she works tirelessly to eliminate this scourge of womankind. But what if she does? What then? Can she then rest peacefully? I doubt it. There will still be an emptiness, unless and until she goes on to the next crusade.

Byron Jack Gaist

26-08-2007, 07:38 PM

Dear D Bains,

Well, first don’t believe everything you read in Mov, 1 to 3. There is a code that outlines which bits are serious and which bits are not. It is a trick from alchemy.

Could you expand a little on the above? I have no idea what you may be referring to...

Either God finds you, or you find some way to God. The latter, is essentially, The Work. Few people in The Work know what it is. But, in truth, few people in any church know the real way to Christ. Both sides are full of people with loud voices and big egos.

Your words seem to suggest that The Work (Gurdjieff's Work? Mouravieff's? Robin Amis's?) does know "the real way to Christ". Why then do only the few even in the Work know it? And I presume the "people with loud voices and big egos" in The Work are not the ones who've found it? Can you point us in the direction of this Way?

Sorry about the many questions, it's not suspicion, I'm just genuinely intrigued by your latest post.

In Christ
Byron

Dear Owen,

modern gnosticism is predicated on the notion that, if there is a God, he messed up the creation, and had enlightened mankind gotten there first, then he would have done a much better job.

In the gnostic world-view, how might "enlightened mankind" have helped God do a "better job"?

Always interested in what you write.

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

26-08-2007, 09:52 PM

Byron,

To begin with, the world is obviously very badly organized. So let's all roll up our sleeves together and get it organized. Modern managerial theory, particularly when applied to government, is grounded in this gnostic impulse, that if we can just get things organized, it will be a new world.

D. Bains

27-08-2007, 10:08 AM

From my limited understanding, the situation is simple.

There is a system outlined in Mov 1 to 3 that tells you which bits are serious, and which bits are distractions. I know what it is, but was told by Robin not to share. But it is clearly there.

Regarding The Work and the church, in any organisation/group the top few get it and most dont. I was a professional economist, and I was surprised how few university professors understood their subject.

As an aisde, i was surprised to read such uninformed comments on management on this thread, they make my point precisiely - few people know, the rest talk.

Regarding The Work, most negative posts about the system made on this list are made by people who dont like the idea - they dont actually know what it is that they dont like.

for instamce, G's dancing is laughed at, without actually asking the simple question - why is it done? It is linked to the whirling devishes!

I am happy to debate, but we need to raise the level out of respect for such serious matters.

with love

Byron Jack Gaist

27-08-2007, 06:59 PM

Dear Owen,

I see the point about "rolling up our sleeves" to repair the botched job God has made of the world. If I understand it correctly, this might lead to - or indeed originate in - the thought that we are superior to God and His wisdom in some extraordinary way, and He therefore needs our help.

My question however was aimed more at finding out which particular theological rationale lies behind this gnostic assumption. Also, how is this rationale different from, say the Orthodox concept of man's synergy with God?

Lastly, what about Tikkun Olam in Judaism, recently popularised in a movie with Richard Gere? Is this a gnostic concept? Or is gnosticism one of those labels with a context-dependendent meaning like "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"?

Dear D Baines,

I'm afraid one of my questions was much more basic: what is "Mov 1 to 3"? Are you referring to Mouravieff bks 1-3? If so, then why put a system in there for people to have to work out what to believe and what to take as nonsense? Why does he not simply say what he means, and let people understand it to the degree they can (or can't)?

I agree that sufi dancing is not funny, and any joking about it made on this website was not I believe done with malice, but alongside a genuine desire - consciously acknowledged or not - to spur and challenge guests from other religious traditions into serious dialogue. Whirling Dervishes are very beautiful to watch. Their opening for the Eurovision song contest a couple of years ago seemed a little tacky and unnecessary to me; in Instanbul they are a tourist attraction. Judging the value of the dancing by this however, may be like judging Eastern Orthodoxy on the basis of the fact that icons are sold at newsagents as key-rings in Greek kiosks! And Rumi wrote some amazing poetry. Anyone who can't see the ecstasy in it is surely missing the point.

I know The Work cannot be done through discursive reasoning, but could you give us a verbal summary of it, at least in its relation to Christianity (or even Sufism)? Why should anyone take up The Work, instead of going directly to Mount Athos or Konya?

In Christ
Byron

D. Bains

28-08-2007, 03:34 AM

Dear B

Regarding the code in M 1-3. The alchemists developed a tradition of encoding their works in order to stop outsiders understanding their texts. It is also the case in the Christanity I have experienced, where parts of The Bible are ignored because they do not make sense to the preacher. So, in M1-3, parts are irrelevant and misleading to stop people outside of the circle gaining access. Is this now clear?

Regarding Whirling Devishes, you need to ask their spiritual significant. Temple dancing and their art form gives the performer greater control over their subtle body, in the same way as juggling or Alexander Technique may also. Christanity is not something that simple occurs in the intellect. On the contrary, the intellect has to be re-trained. This leave the body. And the true Christian has control over every movement. This philosophy has surfaced recently in the management approach of Action Inquiry - "Every action is research; all research is action". The Work is very clear of the need to gain control over your body. The same is true in Christanity of the highest form, I believe.

I cannot give an adequate overview of The Work because I simply do not know enough, but I will share what I can.

It may be interesting to talk about "singing your song". Every person is programmed to "sing" about themselves and their lives in a programmed way. These songs rarely reflect the true self. I notice everywhere people singing the same tune about themselves constantly. This is usually programmed and bears little resemblance to their true state. Some Christianity is sung as a song about a person, and that person is misusing what is available.

love

Andrew

28-08-2007, 03:36 AM

I want to clarify that I wasn't making fun of Sufi dancing. I was pointing at Gurdijeff's choreographed dances and musical pieces.

Byron Jack Gaist

29-08-2007, 04:23 PM

Dear D Bains,

Thank you for the interesting clarifications. The alchemists did indeed codify their writings and express themselves obliquely with symbols which would be unclear to the uninitiated, and this has I suppose led some modern critics to suggest that alchemy is pure fantastic gobbledegook. The New Testament is also a pretty complex and symbolic work in places (Revelation springs to mind), and much in it is hard to understand for the ordinary reader; this is why we in Orthodoxy have the guidance of the Church and Holy Tradition in interpreting what we read, and do not read the Bible in a protestant manner as individuals, whether lay or clergy. Is there a consensus of interpretation for Mov, or is it up to the individual to work his / her own way through?

I like what you've written about body movement and "singing one's song". It sounds to me like a search for the authentic self, physically, psychologically and spiritually. This is commendable, but in Christianity we have Church teaching and the sacraments to help us along on this journey. It may sound 'fixed' if you do it that way, but in fact it's still up to each of us alone to find our way to salvation, and there are no set formulas for getting there (this is my own opinion, what do others think?). Is there anything equivalent to an ascetic tradition and to 'sacraments' in Mov or in The Work to assist the seeker on his / her path (by the way, are Mov and The Work the same or different? I understand Ouspensky fell out with G, and so did Mouravieff. Did each go on to form their own system?)?

I sense the danger, fo me at least, in this conversation is that because I know so little of The Work, I am generalising out to other disciplines to try to get a grasp of what we are discussing. Do you think you could be more specific and start by analysing an example? What about the "choreographed dances and pieces" that Andrew points to?

In Christ
Byron

D. Bains

29-08-2007, 07:03 PM

ok, where do I start.

I think you are right in what you said about perceptions of alchemy, but it could give the impression it is actually gobbledegook. Any person of discernment always finds gold in alchemic texts. Alchemists spent much time working on christian texts in order to understand their meaning.

I think that we need to agree on something before we move forward. Within The Work and within the church, some people "know" and others don't. Just being at a meeting or in a congregation doesnt make you in the know, even if you are polite and join in. This is my point. I'm not in the know, but I'm happy to seek as a research activity. Without doubt, Robin Amis knows, both in terms of The Work and The Orthodox Church. So, when we talk, I am not interested in the vast body of knowledge that is dogmatic, I am interested in how the inner few become full of knowledge. In other words, how you become a Saint.

Few people in The Work read Mouravieff because they like pop culture, cult, guru-led nonsense. There is a clear code in Mour 1-3, and it isn't up to the individual to interpret themselves - exegesis is not a personal choice. However, people like the myths about G and O more than they like the truth. G did go to Mount Athos - and knicked many of their nice rugs! But, he and O did not mention Christanity so they put people off. O was a practising Christain according top a reliable source.

Again, i claim to be no expert, only an observer. Robin is the only expert I know of, but I have not had contact for many years.

Can you tell me more about "Circumcision of the will" and we can trade more knowledge.

what do you wish to know about dancing?

regards

Andrew

30-08-2007, 05:22 AM

D. Bains, have you read We Shall See Him As He Is by the Athonite Elder Sophrony? It is a personal account of theosis.

What the "few" know is no different from what the Church openly teaches - Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and he shall lift you up. Repent. Commune. Confess. Pray without ceasing. Love God and your neighbor. Love your enemies. If you do these things you will become a vessel of grace. And all of these things are found within the theanthropic organism that is the Flesh and Blood of Christ, His Body, the Church.

Read another man who was "in the know" and spent much time on the Holy Mountain, St. Justin Popovich.

And again, I think you are commiting the main fallacy of the Perennialists in dividing the Way into exoteric and esoteric. There is no such division in Orthodoxy. The true faith is clearly expounded in the dogmatic works of the saints, in the Lives of the Saints, in the Liturgy, etc. Some people pay no heed to them, and that is their own problem. The outer expressions of dogma, liturgy, and such things are a direct expression and reflection of the experience of theosis.

The Orthodox life as taught on the Holy Mountain is aimed at union with the Tri-Personal God. I don't see how this has anything to do with The Work. The Work is not aimed at union with the Godman person of Jesus Christ. Our entire spiritual tradition is aimed at the Person. I think you would profit much by reading Elder Sophrony on these topics.

Byron Jack Gaist

30-08-2007, 09:43 AM

Dear all,

D Bains offers some interesting information above. Earlier on, Theophilus wrote that
While G never took any of his students with him to the Holy Mountain, it is generally believed he was there several times himself ; and that he made arrangements, just before his death, to take a group of them with him; which never happened, according to plan. Nevertheless, according to Amis and other sources, G instructed his students to establish contact with the Inner Tradition on the Holy Mountain, after his passing. And it seems they took his advice.
It seems not only that G visited Mount Athos, but that he also characteristically removed some of its property - both in the material sense (rugs) and in the spiritual ("establishing contact with the Inner Tradition" but remaining nevertheless outside the Church), for which I'm sure the fathers forgave him, even though it raises questions about his integrity. There is undoubtedly something fascinating about G and his Middle-Eastern tricksterish character, his larger-than-life persona. Surely this was consciously cultivated by G, in order to be both inviting to disciples and to confound the uninitiated.

Nevertheless, I agree with Andrew in that there is no "esoteric teaching" at least to my knowledge, in the Church. Vladimir Lossky makes the point that theology and mysticism, dogma and spirituality are one in the Othodox tradition. I don't think D Bain's point about "those in the know" can be entirely dismissed though, since the truths explicitly laid out in dogmatic formulations, although widely available to anyone who can read a book or hear a sermon, only gradually become lived experience by the faithful as they deepen their Christian practice and commitment. It is all very well offering Christian dogma in the manner of pat answers in a book, but quite another thing to be living the truths one is talking about. As Andrew says,
The outer expressions of dogma, liturgy, and such things are a direct expression and reflection of the experience of theosis.
So in a sense, both D Bains' "select few" and Andrew's "open teaching" are correct, it being a question of degree of illumination of the person, the Orthodox saint being the paradigm of Church teaching as lived experience. I would also recommend both the writings of Fr Sophrony Sakharov and St Justin Popovich.

Regarding "circumcision of the will", I'm afraid it's the first time I hear this expression. I have heard of "circumcision of the heart", which is a scriptural expression:
"he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
(Romans 2:29)
It was originally addressed to uncircumcised gentiles when debate about application of the Mosaic law was being held in the early Church, but it is also addressed to all Christians as an obvious metaphor for purification from sin, cleansing of the heart. I have also heard of "cutting off one's own will", which is what is required in practice in order to achieve circumcision of the heart I suppose. But I've never heard the expression "circumcision of the will" as such.

What I'd like to know about G's dances, among other things, is what the cosmology and anthropology is behind the postures, and what is being aimed at by the dancer. Also, D Bains, you haven't clarified if The Work is a unitary teaching or if there are different "Works", one acc. to G, one acc.to O, a third acc. to Mouravieff?

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

30-08-2007, 04:36 PM

In Orthodox Christianity, there is no reference to the self, or the true self. This would imply that there is something called the self, some separate entity, that yearns to be "actualized". Orthodoxy talks about life, the true life, vs. death, which is an existence that is apart from God.

Regarding Sufi dancing, I will gladly ridicule it. The Sufis stole everything they know from the desert fathers. Islam is essentially a parasitic religion, and Sufism, which the vast majority of Muslims would claim has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, is an attempt to add mysticism back to Islam, which is the least mystical religion on the face of the earth. Like Islam in general, Sufism was born in violence, and has been more or less domesticated. Alienated "westerners" especially westerners who like to think of themselves as intellectuals, are curiously attracted to Sufism, because they have certain prejudiced attitudes toward Christianity due to their ignorance, and the problems associated with Western Church history.

The modern esoteric movement is easily exposed as a gnostic intellectual movement. When you see people writing on the subject of esoterica, look at what they say about obedience to God, obeying the commandments, and practicing the virtues. If you see a dearth of these references, you know you are dealing with a gnostic. In the Philokalia, there is often a focus on the esoterica, but the common thread is obedience to the commandments and the practice of the virtues. When this is overlooked, you know you are dealing with someone who primarily has a gnostic interest or agenda.

D. Bains

31-08-2007, 12:23 AM

hello

G was a trickster - but, this served a purpose. Tricksters serve a religous purpose when established religions fail to do their job. I think you need to see G as an instrument, and not get sucked into myths about him. He liked to distract, it seems. Do you know what he was an instrument for? It is something that Robin Amis was very clear about. Can you steal truth?

Esoteric knowledge is that which is specialized or advanced in nature, available only to a narrow circle of "enlightened", "initiated", or highly educated people

It is clearly the case that there is an esoteric tradition in your Church.

Vladimir Lossky makes the point that theology and mysticism, dogma and spirituality are one in the Othodox tradition. I do not know this author, but I doubt this is true in a real sense. Once all these forms get put into words, they become the same, so by default seem the same.

Regarding "circumcision of the will". I'm working from memory here. Is circum of heart a monastic practice - we could be talking about the same thing?

Ok, dances are about gaining control over one's actions and being constantly aware. Forget about nonsense that goes with them. G was clear that people need nonsense.

The Work differs between popularist teachings and a small handful who know what it actually is. Most stuff on the Work is cultish unless properly understood.

In an earlier post someone mentioned going to Mount Athos. I am a pretty vulgar, uncontrolled person in my actions, etc. Could I just turn up on the Mount and be greeted with open arms? How do I get from being a Western male, driven by my intellect to someone cosntantly in my heart.

what is the smallest, initial step I can take?

regards

D. Bains

31-08-2007, 12:27 AM

I think the post on sufi and gnosticism to be very good. Im not sure whether it is correct in terms of its argument, and may offend some pople. But it makes the basic truth of the Work - dont be put asleep by the intellect and external distractions - stick to the proven method.

Herman Blaydoe

31-08-2007, 12:51 AM

what is the smallest, initial step I can take?

What is the smallest initial step you can take in any relationship? Get to know the other person! Spend time with them.

D. Bains

31-08-2007, 01:17 AM

I feel that this thread may soon be ceased.

I do not claim to be an expert, but I'm willing to share what I know.

Within The Work Robin Amis seems to point to the Church Fathers and some on Mount Athos as knowing.

To make this clear, I think the information is available to all that look, but the knowledge is only know by a few.

The Work is basically a system for turning away from the world. The problem is that few within The Work know what to do when they start to focus within. This is question Robin Amis found an answer to within your Church.

How does the modern Western person learn to use their mind less? The Work is a series of techniques for achieving this end - moving beyond the intellect.

I agree with the posts, but how do you make the infomation work in practice?

I'm not sure whether these posts are what is required here - but remember Im only telling you what I heard, not what I believe.

I am very happy to be wrong in the company of so many knowledable people - by the way, recommended book ordered

regards

Byron Jack Gaist

31-08-2007, 08:11 AM

Dear Owen,

In Orthodox Christianity, there is no reference to the self, or the true self. This would imply that there is something called the self, some separate entity, that yearns to be "actualized". Orthodoxy talks about life, the true life, vs. death, which is an existence that is apart from God. This is based, I'm sure, on your intimate knowledge of Orthodoxy; but how then does one account for such quotations as the following:
Enter into yourself, live within yourself, in the quiet of your interior self, with a temperate and pure soul, with a calm and humble spirit.(Venerable St. Ephraim the Syrian)
Real self-knowledge is the clear vision of one’s deficiencies and weaknesses to such a degree that everything is filled to overflowing with them.(St. Theophan the Recluse)
One who is capable of seeing himself is better than one who has been made worthy to see angels. (Venerable St. Isaac of Syria)
Mankind considers it extremely important to know earthly and heavenly things, but it is far greater to have knowledge of ourselves. The man who is conscious of his personal failings is much more worthy of praise than is he who searches and understands the paths of the stars, but does not know the path to salvation.(Blessed Augustine)
The Church Fathers have always insisted on the critical importance of self-examination as a pre-condition for spiritual growth. Echoing the classical oracle of Delphi, Clement of Alexandria exhorts: "Know yourself! If you know yourself, you will know all things." Evagrius of Pontus states: "He who knows himself knows God." And Isaac the Syrian claims: "To know oneself is to know one's failures, which leads to the resurrection of the dead."

I don't want to overstate my point with all this, but I would like some clarification of what is meant when we say there is no "true self" in Orthodoxy, especially since we are par excellence a faith which believes that humans are unique persons in relation to the unique Persons of the Holy Trinity. If there is no true self, what is a person then?

Dear D Bains,

I haven't been to Mt Athos either. If you are interested in Orthodox Christianity, it may be worthwhile to look for an English-speaking Orthodox congregation or monastery near you, and speak to a member of the clergy or a monk, as well as lay people of course. As I was saying earlier, I think it is likely you will find different degrees of illumination in different people!

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

31-08-2007, 03:52 PM

Well, I would prefer to think of it as the paradox of the self, from an Orthodox perspective. In other words, I examine myself critically, with God's help, in order to better deny the self. Self-denial is, of course, a common thread in all religions, but I think what we need to look at in Orthodoxy is a transformation, not just of the self, but away from the self into Godliness. The way in which we use the term "self" today is quite different. I guess that was my implicit point, so forgive me for not being more accurate.

Byron Jack Gaist

31-08-2007, 04:10 PM

Dear Owen,

I think you are quite right to emphasize the difference between Orthodox and non Orthodox uses of 'self'. My only concern is not to lose unintentionally part of what I feel is special in the faith and can perhaps contribute to our broader debate on Gnosis, the uniqueness of each person. So thank you for clarifying this important point.

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

31-08-2007, 08:54 PM

The "uniqueness of each person" is, of course, a very modernist way of expression. The Church expresses its anthropology symbolically in the form of hierarchies, in which those of low estate are raised to the level of divine sonship. The least among us, etc....It's hard to imagine today how dramatically new and radical that teaching was. Christ is the Son of God by nature, and we become sons of God through adoption. The idea that a person of low estate, a SINNER!, could qualify, was startling, scandalous, impious, blasphemous. "I can not to save the righteous, but sinners!" Totally scandalous. But the idea that somehow there was no such concept of an individual person prior to Christ seems a bit far-fetched. Or that within the typologies of persons and races that were standard in the ancient world, people did not in any way acknowledge the uniqueness of each individual, seems a bit implausible to me.

Byron Jack Gaist

02-09-2007, 05:59 PM

Dear Owen,

Agreed again! Our sense of individual 'uniqueness' is often mixed with pride in our modern culture of narcissism. I am referring to the emotionally neutral fact of each individual being known from beforehand and to the very core of their being by their Creator, a scriptural notion I think. It is existentially reassuring perhaps, but should not be a source of pride since (a) it is entirely God's doing and (b) we're mostly not living up to it. In fact, an awareness of this 'uniqueness' should focus and sharpen our sense of responsibility.

In Christ
Byron

D. Bains

09-09-2007, 08:29 PM

is there any chance that archimandrite sophrony could have come in contact with 4th way teachings during his stays as a painter in Paris?

Andrew

10-09-2007, 03:45 AM

is there any chance that archimandrite sophrony could have come in contact with 4th way teachings during his stays as a painter in Paris?

He had a wide correspondence, and was a part of the general intellectual scene of Paris in his day. I would not be surprised. He practiced intense forms of yoga before he entered his hell of repentance and saw the uncreated light. He writes a lot about the difference between the natural light of man in the image of God, and how eastern ascetical techniques can lead man to this light, and the Uncreated Light of God.

D. Bains

11-09-2007, 12:27 AM

Im loving his book - if only it was compulsory reading!

however, in connection to the 4th way, I would make the following point.

most of us are not gripped by god's drill, as Robin Amis describes.

So, how do we move from our current state to become more awake?

that is what teh 4th wat offers, a move from the wilderness.

does anyone have any references to god's drill that i can research?

Andrew

11-09-2007, 05:38 AM

Theophrastus

11-09-2007, 07:03 PM

So, how do we move from our current state to become more awake?

that is what teh 4th wat offers, a move from the wilderness.

Perhaps the desire to move from our current state, to become more awake, is part of the problem -- not the problem, mind you, but part of the problem. That is, it's good to desire to improve, but to take this desire beyond a certain point, is to succumb to the fruit offered by the serpent in the garden, the fruit that promises an un-natural improvement, an ophidian awareness. The healthy desire for improvement might then lead to two paths: the path of patience, of waiting, of taking only the next immediate step; or the path of taking heaven by storm, of forcing a pre-mature awakening by sheerly willful nisus, along the lines of the Nietzschean Uebermensch. Much of the modern forms of 'enlightenment-training' too closely resembles the latter, I fear, but maybe that's part of the 'trickster' aspect of it all. Those intent upon immediate awakening might need to experience the 'rise and fall' of it all, before joyfully living in the valley, chopping wood, carrying water, and praying without ceasing. Projects such as Gurdjieff's feed off the springs gushing from the likes of Orthodoxy.

D. Bains

13-09-2007, 07:35 PM

Projects such as Gurdjieff's feed off the springs gushing from the likes of Orthodoxy (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Orthodoxy).

is this an established fact?

James Aubuchon

13-09-2007, 08:40 PM

I am an Orthodox Christian who has had experience in the past with the occult, eastern religions, and psychedelic experience. I find that spirituality emanating from those sources (including sufism), are very much different from the spirituality that emanates from, say, the Desert Fathers. Their spirituality is not about awareness, ego states, and the transcendence of ego so much as about repentance, virtues, and the attainment of purity. If you read the Philokalia, The Ladder, etc. you find a very different approach to things.

I know a little about Gurdjieff, but I cannot comment on his overall approach to things, but it appears from my limited exposure to him that he really has no idea where Orthodox spirituality comes from, and how it works.

An example comes a from a friend of mine who once asked another friend who had been an RC monk what the book The Cloud of Unknowing was all about. This friend was into the things that I listed that I was into above. The answer from this former monk suprised him.

He said, "It's really just about Jesus Christ."

This is where I think all efforts to understand Orthodox spirituality becomes a problem because:

It's really just about Jesus Christ.

Jim

D. Bains

14-09-2007, 01:18 AM

Herman Blaydoe

14-09-2007, 02:40 AM

Would you like to discover whether members of the fourth way have been successful in collecting and interpreting teachings from mount athos?
Not particularly, but that might just be me...

I don't see the need of any "fourth" way. We have THE WAY which is Christ Jesus. Anything else is something less.

Father David Moser

14-09-2007, 02:46 AM

I thought this forum was about examining and discovering - I find it very closing in terms of shutting down discussions.

Would you like to discover whether members of the fourth way have been successful in collecting and interpreting teachings from mount athos?

Actually this forum is about "the discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy specifically through its patristic, monastic and liturgical heritage." Thus Mouravieff and the "fourth way" are only tangential to that focus and it is not about discovering or examining the "fourth way" but rather about discovering and examining Orthodoxy.

Fr David Moser

James Aubuchon

14-09-2007, 04:22 AM

I thought this forum was about examining and discovering - I find it very closing in terms of shutting down discussions.

Would you like to discover whether members of the fourth way have been successful in collecting and interpreting teachings from mount athos?

OK I'll bite. What have members of the fourth way discovered? (if you like, you can PM me, since this may not be appropriate to this forum)

I did not mean to simply dismiss you, or shut you down. I want to hear what you have to say.

Then perhaps I can tell you some of the things that I've discovered?

Forgive me, a sinner.

Jim

Theophrastus

14-09-2007, 05:09 AM

Projects such as Gurdjieff's feed off the springs gushing from the likes of Orthodoxy (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Orthodoxy).

is this an established fact?

I think it's pretty obvious that Gurdjieff's project would only work (assuming that it does work, of course) within a context of previous and continuing repentance, metanoia, and self-surrender; and what better way to learn these things, than from the moment of birth into an established tradition like Orthodoxy? I wouldn't use the phrase "exoteric leads to esoteric" since that smacks of the stink of enlightenment, which is best left back in the '70s. The exoteric, especially prayer and virtue, can never be left behind, as if it were a tired wife. Without what Bushnell called "Christian nurture", all you have are adults attempting to defenestrate before they can ambulate.

James Aubuchon

14-09-2007, 04:25 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that Gurdjieff's project would only work (assuming that it does work, of course) within a context of previous and continuing repentance, metanoia, and self-surrender; and what better way to learn these things, than from the moment of birth into an established tradition like Orthodoxy? I wouldn't use the phrase "exoteric leads to esoteric" since that smacks of the stink of enlightenment, which is best left back in the '70s. The exoteric, especially prayer and virtue, can never be left behind, as if it were a tired wife. Without what Bushnell called "Christian nurture", all you have are adults attempting to defenestrate before they can ambulate.

But wasn't Gurdjieff a moral relativist? How does the establishment of the virtues (a very specific set of things according to the writers in the Philokalia) work if morality is merely culturally defined? And just what is meant by metanoia? Is it bringing your mind and heart in line with God's word, and ultimately God himself, or is it simply attempting to cultivate awareness?

Also, did Gurdjieff see reality as "illusion" or "dream" like the Buddhists? He seems to use the analogy of us being "asleep" and needing to "wake up". Now Scripture also uses this analogy, but the context is very different.

Are what our Holy Fathers experience in theosis really the same as Cosmic Consciusness as being put forth by modern "new age" thinking, or is it something entirely different?

Why do the *bodies* of many saints seem to emanate holiness and sometimes avoid corruption after death for long periods of time?

It would appear that the "transformation" that takes place is more than just "in the mind". It is also in the body.

As I said, are we trying to compare apples to oranges here?

Also, how does Gurdjieff understand the role of demons? Does he believe that they exist? Our saints all bear witness that they were sorely beset by hostile spiritual powers that assailed their minds and tried to turn them from the path. When one receives the Holy Spirit, they become able to discern that spirits or demons are indeed attacking them, throwing evil thoughts into their minds, etc. The Philokalia has entire sections devoted to being able to discern what demons are attacking you, and how to combat them. St. Anthony had demons literally yelling at him and making all sorts of distracting noises during his prayer. He didn't try to integrate these things into his psyche, or realize that they are just manifestations of his own Supreme Identity. He resisted them, and they fled, and he became filled with holiness.

Without a completely Orthodox Christian context, one cannot understand the mysteries of the Christian faith. That's the only real esoteric dimension that there is. What do you do? You place your faith in Jesus Christ, you receive baptism, you keep the commandments, avoiding sin and putting on the specifically defined virtues that are outlined in the Scriptures, you fast, pray, partake of the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the eucharist, and become transformed from darkness to light. Only then can theosis be understood in its proper context.

A syncretistic approach just does not work. I know because I have tried. I am speaking from experience here. There *are* hostile and deceptive powers at work, that attempt to lead souls astray. I have actually met some of these hostile powers. They always claim to be some holy person, and when questioned seriously, they always turned out to be lying, deceptive spirits.

Every Time!

Forgive me if this sounds like I am narrow-minded and dogmatic. I only seek to share with you from my own experience, what I believe to be the real deal here.

Forgive me, a sinner.

Jim

D. Bains

15-09-2007, 01:18 AM

James Aubuchon

15-09-2007, 03:04 AM

I am not trying to be vague on my posts. In my own way, im trying to be highly respectful because I hold a deep respect for the teachings discussed here.

When i read this "the discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Orthodoxy) specifically through its patristic, monastic and liturgical heritage", my point is simple - some members of the Fourth Way have been involved in examining this heritage and claim to have deep nderstanding of its teaching

shouldn't this be examined properly?

I have no involvement in any 4th way group, but I am highly taken by orthodox teachings.

with love and respect

I hope that I am examining it with you. I have asked a number of questions in my last post that I feel form somewhat of a basis for properly understanding the Orthodox heritage. Without this context, it is possible to distort what the Fathers (particularly in the Philokalia) are saying. We need to realize that they are working from a certain framework. We could call it their "reality tunnel". Without standing squarely within that framework, we distort things and draw false conclusions.

On the other hand, it is precisely the mystical theology of the Orthodox Church that drew me to Orthodoxy in the first place. They seem to have a framework which is not hopelessly trapped in western epistomology. However, it is still Christocentric in its application, meaning that any effort to strain the theology (and the practice) of the specifically Christian context (as Gurdjieff seems to do) does not and *cannot* get at the heart of the matter.

The Scriptures refer specially to a "gnosis falsely so-called". Therefore true Christian gnosis is not the same sort of gnosis that the Gnostics speak of. What is it then? This is the subtle mystery that needs to be found, and can only be found through Orthodox Christianity.

I'm afraid that actually there is no big mystery here. Unlike Gurdjieff (and many other occultists such as Aliester Crowley, Robert Anton Wilson, etc.) who seemed to want to play games and be tricksters in order to shock people into "enlightenment", St. Paul paints a rather everyday picture of Christianity when he says:

2 Corinthians 4:1-2
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

It's just that old time religion. Look at how St. Paul pictures how one comes to true Christian gnosis:

2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Notice that "knowledge of God" (Christian gnosis) involves not simply taking captive every thought (watchfulness) but making the mind "obedient to Christ". This is very different from the idea of simply attempting to become aware of ones thoughts, or control one's thoughts.

It is devotion to Jesus Christ, pure and simple.

With peace and love,

Jim

D. Bains

15-09-2007, 10:50 PM

From my understanding Robin Amis has traced the 4th Way teachings directly back to Mount Athos, and he follows the Church Fathers not any new age teachers like G or O.

He is the only one in the 4th Way saying that Orthodox Christanity is the source of 4th Way teachings. Others within 4th Way disagree and say that it comes from ancient Egypt.

Where Robin's strength comes from is through understanding. He has researched this stream for 30+ years.

The line he pursues is this - only an elite few practice the teachings of the church fathers properly, and many within the church like the sound of the teachings but fail to practise the proper path.

He uses interpretive frameworks from the 4th Way to help with understanding.

James Aubuchon

16-09-2007, 12:15 AM

The line he pursues is this - only an elite few practice the teachings of the church fathers properly, and many within the church like the sound of the teachings but fail to practise the proper path.

We hear these things all the time. There is some sort of esoteric Christianity which is really the way Christianity was supposed to be, but it has been lost except for certain secret or occult societies that have managed to protect these "true" teachings and pass them on.

Now I suggest that you find out from an actual Elder from Mount Athos whether this secret or "inner" tradition actually exists. His name is Father Ephraim, and he resides at St. Anthony's Monastery outside of Phoenix, AZ.

Father Ephraim is able to correspond via e-mail, and he might be willing to answer your questions.

http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/

If you do manage to correspond with Father Ephraim, I hope that you will come back and share with us what you found out.

Sincerely in Christ,

Jim

Andrew

16-09-2007, 04:46 AM

We hear these things all the time. There is some sort of esoteric Christianity which is really the way Christianity was supposed to be, but it has been lost except for certain secret or occult societies that have managed to protect these "true" teachings and pass them on.

Now I suggest that you find out from an actual Elder from Mount Athos whether this secret or "inner" tradition actually exists. His name is Father Ephraim, and he resides at St. Anthony's Monastery outside of Phoenix, AZ.

Father Ephraim is able to correspond via e-mail, and he might be willing to answer your questions.

http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/

If you do manage to correspond with Father Ephraim, I hope that you will come back and share with us what you found out.

Sincerely in Christ,

Jim

Yes, Elder Ephraim would be the person to talk to about these things if you really want to get an authentic Athonite to sift the tares from the wheat, so to speak. I don't know if he'd be able to talk with you about these things, though, but you should try. He lived in the obedience in the holy synodia of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, one of the great saints of this modern era. He repopulated four monasteries on the Holy Mountain, has thousands of spiritual children throughout the world, and has helped plant twenty monasteries in North America... and he hopes to have an Orthodox monastery in every state of the US, if I've heard correctly. He is an icon of humility and the fear and love of God. Seek his prayers!

If you want to talk with him in person, your best bet would be to talk to one of his spiritual children who is an abbot at a monastery close to you. They can get you more direct access to him... he is a highly sought after elder.

If you are in England, you might want to talk to Fr. Zacharias, who was an Athonite monk and spiritual son of Elder Sophrony.

Father David Moser

16-09-2007, 05:14 AM

The line he pursues is this - only an elite few practice the teachings of the church fathers properly, and many within the church like the sound of the teachings but fail to practise the proper path.

And after a fashion the Orthodox Church agrees with him in this. Those "elite" we recognize as saints and the rest of us who fail we call repentant sinners who depend upon the mercy, compassion and lovingkindness of God.

You see, our deification is not dependent upon how well we "practise the proper path" but rather upon the grace of God freely given to all who desire it.

Fr David Moser

D. Bains

17-09-2007, 01:10 AM

You see, our deification is not dependent upon how well we "practise the proper path" but rather upon the grace of God freely given to all who desire it.

Ok, it seems here then is the difference between The Fourth Way view of Orthodox practise and the official view.

Either, you strive yourself to become a saint, or God's Drill does this for you.

Therefore, the 4th Way shows you how to achieve the first steps towards God.

I think this highly controversial. But, I think Robin Amis' view that there are two routes to God very convincing, if i haven't mis-represented him. I may have got the stick by the wrong end!

Again, I must stress this is purely research for me. I do not hold with any 4th Way view, but I hold great respect for the teachings of orthodoxy. Please accept my posts in this spirit.

Andrew

17-09-2007, 04:26 AM

Ok, it seems here then is the difference between The Fourth Way view of Orthodox practise and the official view.

Either, you strive yourself to become a saint, or God's Drill does this for you.

There are very few either or's in Orthodoxy. You strive, and God gives. God gives, you strive. It is a Personal relationship. Truly, in every way, a communion of Persons. God is not an energy field or an abstraction. The Trinity is a tri-Personal communion of Love that takes delight in cooperating with man in all aspects of man's Being, and in the Cosmos. Our God delights in Love with us, in cooperation with us in Creation, in cooperation with us in repentance, in cooperation with us in our very salvation. It is not all God, and it is not all man. It is a synergistic communion of deified flesh and blood.

I think the Fourth Way people don't understand the Personal nature of the Church. And you can't quite understand it until you start living it.

D. Bains

17-09-2007, 11:48 PM

I think the Fourth Way people don't understand the Personal nature of the Church. And you can't quite understand it until you start living it.

as i initially stated, i am purely interested in the history of ideas

M.C. Steenberg

20-09-2007, 11:44 AM

I've just scanned through this thread, rather from the side, as I've no knowledge of the 'fourth way' group. But as of yet, it sounds exactly - and almost shockingly exactly - like second-sixth century 'Gnosticism'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Herman Blaydoe

20-09-2007, 05:20 PM

D. Bains

21-09-2007, 05:18 AM

I thought that we would get some serious comments and debate, instead of flippant remarks and stero-typical, unresearched views.

I do not support the 4th way in anyway, but a leading light in that group has claims to have made important contacts with mount athos - i thought that a serious claim worth discussing.

However, I am no going to stop the 4th way discussions, because it has served its purpose for me. It has made me aware of orthodox teachings, and I will now turn my self towards serious contemplation of their message.

so, no more 4th way thread.

regards

Byron Jack Gaist

21-09-2007, 08:50 AM

Dear all,

I'm rather disappointed D Bains seemes to have jumped ship, but I can understand why. Mouravieff called his theory a "Gnosis", and I for one would be very interested to hear what similarities it has to the 2nd - 6th century heresy, not just that it is similar. Maybe an interest in heretical ideas is morbid and unhealthy in terms of our spiritual development; I've no doubt this is the case, especially if one falls prey to such ideas in the process of examining them. But off-hand dismissals of an entire philosophical system are surely also unhelpful. May there be contact points, points of mutual concern, opportunities for dialogue with heterodox and secular thought? Is Orthodoxy completely at odds with every idea not propagated by a Church Father? I just think it may not be such a useless enterprise to articulate the commonalities, as well as the differences.

Sorry if I sound didactic, that's not my intention. I just want to express my disappointment that, like D Bains I've followed this thread having learned very little about the relation between both sides of the divide. If I meet any people seeking God through the 'fourth way' - whether they are doing this consciously or unconsciously - I shall now know very little to say to them as to why they may find Orthodoxy a better spiritual path, even though I'm certain it is.

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

21-09-2007, 11:06 AM

I rather agree with Byron. As someone who spends a great deal of time in the scholarship of early 'gnosticism', I am intrigued that a relatively new group would so openly reflect it. I don't really have the time to get too deeply into a study of this group, given other committments (as an aside, the connection of some of its members to Athos doesn't, of itself, give it merit); but I do find it interesting as a potential focal point of the resurgence of 'gnostic' thought in modern dress.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-09-2007, 03:54 PM

Not long ago I finished reading The Formation of the Christian Bible by Hans Von Campenhausen. Its main focus is described in the title. Some of the best parts of the book however are a description of how our New Testament was formed in active response to gnosticism, Marcianism and Montanism. I had read general descriptions of this before but Von Campenhausen's description is very lively (lots of quotes from the offending heretics and responding Fathers) and convincing.

Most effective I think is his description of the essence of these heresies. In a sense Christ is a 'purifier' of Judaism & this same theme is picked up on by St Paul and then consequent Fathers such as St Justin Martyr. In this light Christianity is a purification of Judaism as illuminating and fulfilling its inner purpose.

Quite rapidly though as Christianity spread throughout the pagan world a similar perspective was held in relation to that world's beliefs. Which is that Christianity actually illumines and fulfills the higher aspects of pagan thought and life.

This however was not only a historical perspective (ie how God has worked through the Church to fulfill all things.). It also is a strong sense that Christianity is the ultimate distillation and purification of all the higher human impulses from religious to spiritual to ascetic to philosophical. Thus by the 4th c the Church is commonly referred to as the True Religion. These two little words say a lot about the self understanding of the Church in the midst of the society in which it was placed.

What Campenhausen shows in a powerful way is how gnosticism, Marcianism and Montanism were each distinct exaggerations of the above theme. From our perspective of so many centuries these heresies appear as almost entirely external threats to the Church. At the time however (to different degrees with each) much of the greatest threat from this came from those within the Church.

Of course the more extreme versions of these threats were something which came from a position clearly from outside of the Church. But in most cases each began as a milder version from within the Church and each represented a powerful 'purifying movement' from within the Church which had tremendous appeal.

In a sense this impulse from within the Church continued even past this point. We can see something similar for example in Donatism which begins over the dispute on what degree of 'falling away' allows one to remain as being among the faithful. The converse, which accounts for Donatism, is to believe that only those not fallen, ie only the pure, can be true members of the Church.

We really see this for example in Tertullian who in his turn was attracted to Montanism. His main impulse almost as a character trait is towards Christianity as the progressive purification of Christians as the fulfillment here of God's final intention for mankind. That is why precisely in this way of thinking there is often present a strong prophetic element.

Interestingly in the Introduction to the SVS version of Tertullian's On the Lord's Prayer an interesting argument is made that Tertullian never actually left the Church for the Montanists. If this is correct (and I'm not sure it is, although a good question the author asks is why St Cyprian would have so faithfully read a schismatic) apparently Tertullian always preached his intense views from within the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

21-09-2007, 07:53 PM

As someone who spends a great deal of time in the scholarship of early 'gnosticism', I am intrigued that a relatively new group would so openly reflect it.

I don't claim to grasp Gnosticism as a concept really well and so much of the nuance is lost on me. Gnosticism seems to be, in modern populist Orthodox context, a term used to defame something you don't understand or agree with but can't quite say why.

Disclaimers aside, however, I think that the relationship between "gnosticism" and the "fourth way" (as it has been described here) is more "functional" than "substantive". In Mr. Bains' previous post #67 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50613&postcount=67) he quotes Robin Amis and gives this characteristic to the "fourth way"

The line he pursues is this - only an elite few practice the teachings of the church fathers properly, and many within the church like the sound of the teachings but fail to practise the proper path.

This concept of an elite few who practice the teachings correctly with a larger group that knows less and whose practice (and therefore spiritual attainment) is lesser is reminiscent of gnosticisms teaching of the select few (the enlightened ones) who have the "secret knowledge" and then a larger group of followers who are not yet enlightened and who therefore possess an incomplete knowledge, not being privy to the ultimate secrets.

It would be hard to say that these are then same thing - but there does seem to be at least an external similarity. Fr Raphael brings out this point (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50840&postcount=79) quite well when he says

[There] ... also is a strong sense that Christianity is the ultimate distillation and purification of all the higher human impulses from religious to spiritual to ascetic to philosophical. Thus by the 4th c the Church is commonly referred to as the True Religion...
...gnosticism, Marcianism and Montanism were each distinct exaggerations of the above theme. From our perspective of so many centuries these heresies appear as almost entirely external threats to the Church. At the time however (to different degrees with each) much of the greatest threat from this came from those within the Church.
... in most cases each began as a milder version from within the Church and each represented a powerful 'purifying movement' from within the Church which had tremendous appeal.

When we in the Church see other spiritual traditions/systems that claim to be a distillation of the "archetypal" truths (including Orthodoxy) and which involve some hint of elitism - these automatically get branded as "gnosticism" based on the "functional" similarity whether or not there is a substantial similarity.

I suppose one could argue that this external functional characteristic is the "new gnosticism" and thus is a valid use of the term, however, the change in meaning then makes it a useless distinction (or worse yet a confusing distraction) in actually comparing these "neo-gnostic" systems with Orthodox Christianity.

Fr David Moser

Nina

22-09-2007, 01:37 AM

Dear all,

Maybe an interest in heretical ideas is morbid and unhealthy in terms of our spiritual development; I've no doubt this is the case, especially if one falls prey to such ideas in the process of examining them.

In Christ
Byron

Yes I agree, because in this case like in that of other sins sometimes it is better to avoid idle curiosity about them and as the Lenten prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian states:

O Lord and Master of my life, cast away from me the spirit of laziness, idle curiosity, ...As we know from the Gospel and Saints' lives, there were thieves, prostitutes etc. who departed from their previous way of life and went on to even become Saints (is there any person who was a heretic and repented and became a saint? - this is a honest question I have because I do not know the answer).

If I as an Orthodox Christian tomorrow will meet and have a chance to convert from sin a thief, a prostitute etc. I do not necessarily need to have engaged, or have known the philosophy behind their sinful engagement, in order to talk to them about Christ.

If I speak to a thief, or prostitute about similarities in their way of life, with Christianity, I am not sure I will find any... because sin does not have a connecting point with Christ. Sin is separation from Christ.

Maybe I will mention to a prostitute the examples of Saints who were such as her in their pasts, but as we know from the record there is a spiritually healthy dose of information about sin that we need, which often is close to zero. For instance Saint Mary of Egypt tells her story without going too much into the details of her sinful life (actually I have read somewhere that we should spare even the father confessor from details and descriptions of sins when we confess). What I will mention is about the life in Christ these Saints have experienced and told us about.

I am not saying heresy is equal to a carnal sin. From what Fathers say heresy is even worse and dangerous because of its entanglements. And I still need to know if someone from heretics repented and became a Saint like the examples of Saints, who participated previously in their lives in sins of other nature.

But of course if you know someone that needs intellectual persuasion to convert from his way to Christ, and for him you are willing to endure much temptations without falling yourself, by all means follow what your spiritual father, and conscience tell. Since if you are able to pull one from the abyss of Hell, you are higher than any of us here.

There are, I am sure, spiritually strong people who can delve in such knowledge and be immune and resistant. I know that Holy Fathers who had reached dispassion did not get affected by such information. However, for the benefit of those who are weak like I am (and for a fair representation of all in a discussion) we must always exercise caution with all kinds of information about sin. How do we know where the next trap is set by the devil?

Also what James has said is very valuable especially because he has experience and knowledge in this area:

Without a completely Orthodox Christian context, one cannot understand the mysteries of the Christian faith. That's the only real esoteric dimension that there is. What do you do? You place your faith in Jesus Christ, you receive baptism, you keep the commandments, avoiding sin and putting on the specifically defined virtues that are outlined in the Scriptures, you fast, pray, partake of the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the eucharist, and become transformed from darkness to light. Only then can theosis be understood in its proper context.

Jim

D. Bains

23-09-2007, 11:31 AM

dear all

i suggest that this thread is deleted.

the only reason i entered discussion is to establish if a few individuals in the 4th way have had access to teachings from mount athos - however, few on the thread seem willing to explore this as a set of facts.

on the contrary, there seems to be some religous show-boating going on.

if you dont know anything about someone's elses experience of the othodox religion, please do not use childish labels or name calling to dismiss their experience.

it creates the impression that you are writing threads to impress other readers instead of following the purpose of forum - to learn about orthodox christanity.

I have read that the sin of getting christian or spiritual teachings wrong is not the greatest one - some great figures in the orthodox religion have spent much of their life in the wilderness.

the real sin is pride. being proud enough to feel that you can belittle another's search for the truth, however failed they are.

therefore, i think this thread should be deleted - it has failed to create the apporopraite light.

with respect from one lost but searching

M.C. Steenberg

23-09-2007, 10:30 PM

Dear Mr Bains and others,

While clearly there are some rather over-reactions, there has also been some profitable comment on the question of the relationship of the thought being discussed to the whole concept of 'gnostic' thought - which is a real issue to be explored, not simply name-calling. There is also a reasonable discussion of the question of esoteric and hidden traditions, etc.

I agree with you that name-calling is childish and unnecessary; but at the same time, critical discussion should also allow for issues one does not favour to come under review as well.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

24-09-2007, 08:56 AM

Dear all,

This is unfortunately my second attempt to reply (the first got lost between mouse clicks), so I will be brief.

It seems to me that Fr David and Fr Raphael have accurately pinpointed certain complexities of the issues involved, and the necessary level of sophistication which needs to accompany discussion about them. Matthew is also correct, I feel, in pointing out the limitations of a forum such as this where detailed academic investigation of issues would perhaps be called for.

I would, however, cautiously disagree with the perspective suggested by Nina, who comments that
If I speak to a thief, or prostitute about similarities in their way of life, with Christianity, I am not sure I will find any... I have the impression all people who are sinners, until they become saints are not entirely 'Orthodox'. Just as we need to be in conscious dialogue with those parts of ourselves which are still the 'old man' in us, I tentatively suggest it is a good idea to address with seriousness and yes - even respect - those other persons we feel are less than Christian, or less Christian than ourselves. Forgive me if I am putting words into the divine mouth of our Lord or reinterpreting His sayings in a vulgar way: but Jesus did say to the sinful woman that she was forgiven 'for she loved much' (lk 7:47). Please take no offence at what I'm saying, Nina, for I believe there were other good and correct points in your post. When you say, however,
But of course if you know someone that needs intellectual persuasion to convert from his way to Christ, and for him you are willing to endure much temptations without falling yourself, by all means follow what your spiritual father, and conscience tell. Since if you are able to pull one from the abyss of Hell, you are higher than any of us here.
I think you are assuming that I consider myself able to tackle heresies head-on and 'win' in a sort of intellectual contest; the reality is that I am one of those who need "intellectual persuasion", even though paradoxically I am already convinced of the basic truth of Orthodox teaching. I just like to know how it works (where that's possible or wise to know), not just that it does. Different strokes for different folks, I guess!

In Christ
byron

Nina

24-09-2007, 02:41 PM

I would, however, cautiously disagree with the perspective suggested by Nina, who comments that I have the impression all people who are sinners, until they become saints are not entirely 'Orthodox'. Just as we need to be in conscious dialogue with those parts of ourselves which are still the 'old man' in us, I tentatively suggest it is a good idea to address with seriousness and yes - even respect - those other persons we feel are less than Christian, or less Christian than ourselves. Forgive me if I am putting words into the divine mouth of our Lord or reinterpreting His sayings in a vulgar way: but Jesus did say to the sinful woman that she was forgiven 'for she loved much' (lk 7:47). Please take no offence at what I'm saying, Nina, for I believe there were other good and correct points in your post.

I was addressing the issue from another perspective. Since, I believe that a fair discussion/dialogue comprises different perspectives (as I have mentioned in my post above). And some other posters here, before me, also expressed a difference in thought about the fourth way. Expressing a difference in thought, it is an equal right of everyone, since you are taking this discussion in a public forum with people who have various outlooks, perspectives, beliefs.

My post's purpose was not disrespect, or hypocrisy. And because I have a different opinion, it does not mean that I oppose the dialog here (the fact that I wrote here, attests). I do not consider others, Christians, or less Christians. I consider them humans. I expressed my thoughts since it is written by the Apostle that: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

When you say, however, I think you are assuming that I consider myself able to tackle heresies head-on and 'win' in a sort of intellectual contest;No. This is a misunderstanding of my words. In any case, please feel free to continue with your quest, since it is not important to elaborate on this misunderstanding.

Nicolaj

24-09-2007, 03:57 PM

It is some long time ago as I first made contact with gnosticism, being at that time roman catholic. It was fasciniting to me then while it claimed to know more about the scriptures, the Bible and also more about Jesus as he could have known about himself.

Okay it took me a long walk on the dark side to make me realize that this had nothing ever to do with Christianity, nor Orthodoxy Neither with Jesus, Living Son of the Living and Loving Father.

And yes there have always been this temptations to find a easy way into heaven, but as our Lord already proclaimed the camel goes quicker through the eye of a needle. The fine thing about orthodoxy is that if you take it serious it captures your entire life, it influences your eating, your labouring, your studying, it changes everything! And it isn't bad if you don't be declared a Saint at the end, Jesus loves us and he love us as well as we struggle, but rise again and trying to come forward towards him.

This book and the teachings of the 4th way aren't even near to the wisdom of the Fathers of the Church, and in my humble opinion it is a waste of time just to read it.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

Aaron Taylor

02-10-2007, 06:57 AM

There is a whole book by an Athonite abbot posted on the site. If this is a heretical teaching, then presumably we are not talking about a real Archimandrite or a real work, or the real Archimandrite whose book this is, doesn't know his work is being misappropriated in this way.

Like Matthew, I would appreciate any clarification. Also, does anyone know if Gurdjieff really did visit Mount Athos?

In Christ
Byron

I just registered for the discussion forum here because I came across this thread. I don't know whether Gurdjieff really visited the Holy Mountain or not, although from what I know of him it would not be surprising (it seems like he travelled quite a lot searching out 'strange' spiritual practices and things). I do, however, know a couple of things about Robin Amis. I believe he is very sincere about what he is doing, but that it is a mistake to think Gurdjieff is a true representative of the Orthodox hesychastic tradition as he didn't appear to teach any sort of Christian theological doctrine at all, or to speak about baptism and the other mysteries of the Church. For this reason, although I understand he was in fact received into the Church, I'm a bit dubious about Amis's own Orthodoxy. Amis has indeed been to the Holy Mountain a number of times, and the book he has published is indeed by a real Athonite father, Archimandrite George of Gregoriou Monastery (the monastery has itself published a few of Archimandrite George's books in English). But if I remember correctly from what a friend who knows Archimandrite George has told me, the fathers at Gregoriou appear to know nothing about Amis's connection to Gurdjieff and the whole 'Fourth Way'/Perennialist thing. Furthermore, a few friends of mine have seen Amis around Thessaloniki attempting to get the bookshops to carry his books, saying nothing to them about the more out-of-the-ordinary ideas he holds.

Hope that helps a little bit!

aaron

Byron Jack Gaist

03-10-2007, 07:58 AM

I just registered for the discussion forum here because I came across this thread. I don't know whether Gurdjieff really visited the Holy Mountain or not, although from what I know of him it would not be surprising (it seems like he travelled quite a lot searching out 'strange' spiritual practices and things). I do, however, know a couple of things about Robin Amis. I believe he is very sincere about what he is doing, but that it is a mistake to think Gurdjieff is a true representative of the Orthodox hesychastic tradition as he didn't appear to teach any sort of Christian theological doctrine at all, or to speak about baptism and the other mysteries of the Church. For this reason, although I understand he was in fact received into the Church, I'm a bit dubious about Amis's own Orthodoxy. Amis has indeed been to the Holy Mountain a number of times, and the book he has published is indeed by a real Athonite father, Archimandrite George of Gregoriou Monastery (the monastery has itself published a few of Archimandrite George's books in English). But if I remember correctly from what a friend who knows Archimandrite George has told me, the fathers at Gregoriou appear to know nothing about Amis's connection to Gurdjieff and the whole 'Fourth Way'/Perennialist thing. Furthermore, a few friends of mine have seen Amis around Thessaloniki attempting to get the bookshops to carry his books, saying nothing to them about the more out-of-the-ordinary ideas he holds.

Hope that helps a little bit!

aaron
Thank you, Aaron, and welcome to the forum. Amazing that the Archimandrite seems unaware of the way his writing is being presented. It would seem from your description that, despite his probable sincerity and all, Robin Amis is continuing in Gurdjieff's 'trickster' style - it starts with trading authentic rugs for fake ones, and ends up by selling fake teachings for real ones in Thessaloniki bookstores! Nevertheless, there has always been a veritable ocean of conflicting philosophies rubbing shoulders uncomfortably in weird and not-so-wonderful doctrines. My hope is that God will find a way to put it all to good use in the end. I'm personally inclined to enjoy G and O and 'Fourth Way' material for the fantastic 'hall of mirrors' effect of reading books like "Meetings with Remarkable Men" or "In Search of the Miraculous", as well as for one or two useful metaphors like 'waking sleep' and 'self-remembering'. Like the Da Vinci Code, the rest is high fantasy, and when seen in this light it is no more harmful than any other fiction. Not to everyone's taste, perhaps, and not to be taken seriously for living one's life by. But with discernment, it may be possible to learn even from unlikely sources!

In Christ
Byron

Theophrastus

03-10-2007, 10:46 PM

Thank you, Aaron, and welcome to the forum. Amazing that the Archimandrite seems unaware of the way his writing is being presented. It would seem from your description that, despite his probable sincerity and all, Robin Amis is continuing in Gurdjieff's 'trickster' style - it starts with trading authentic rugs for fake ones, and ends up by selling fake teachings for real ones in Thessaloniki bookstores! Nevertheless, there has always been a veritable ocean of conflicting philosophies rubbing shoulders uncomfortably in weird and not-so-wonderful doctrines. My hope is that God will find a way to put it all to good use in the end. I'm personally inclined to enjoy G and O and 'Fourth Way' material for the fantastic 'hall of mirrors' effect of reading books like "Meetings with Remarkable Men" or "In Search of the Miraculous", as well as for one or two useful metaphors like 'waking sleep' and 'self-remembering'. Like the Da Vinci Code, the rest is high fantasy, and when seen in this light it is no more harmful than any other fiction. Not to everyone's taste, perhaps, and not to be taken seriously for living one's life by. But with discernment, it may be possible to learn even from unlikely sources!

In Christ
Byron

Yes, I think 'tricksters' can serve a purpose, especially for Westerners who might be too stuck in the 'head'. How do you convince someone that concepts, words, formulas, and metaphysical frameworks can be just as much of a trap as booze, women, and drugs? Intermix true, useful teachings, with not-so-obvious high-spiritual fantasy. Eventually, the hard-core sleep-walkers -- among whom I am chief -- will awaken from their (Kantianly dogmatic) slumber, and begin the process of living from the heart, instead of merely from the head.

Matthew Sutton

18-07-2008, 01:35 AM

I have known Robin Amis well since 1993 and though I was introduced to Orthodoxy through the late David Melling, my brother's tutor at Manchester, he has played an important role in deepening my understanding of the faith. I also know he has brought many others to Orthodoxy.

During the 1960 and 1970s Robin was a tutor with the Study Society one of the many off shoots of the original Ouspensky and Gurdjieff groups that blossomed during that time. However in the late 1970s he increasingly felt "The Work" could not provide the spiritual answers he sought or was trying to teach. Having heard one of Metropolitan Anthony's talks on the radio he took his entire group to Ennismore Gardens to witness the liturgy there. This experience and subsequent research and visits to Mount Athos ultimately lead to him becoming Orthodox and also his split from the Study Society.

During the mid to late 1980s his increasing interest in the monastic tradition and his Orthodox connections in the UK led to the formation of Praxis as a small publishing business with translations of The Eros of Repentance by Father George at Gregoriou, The Path of Prayer by Theophan the Recluse, Eugraph Kovalevsky's (Bishop of St Denis) A Method of Prayer for Modern Times as well as a book on the Life and Teachings of Theophan drawing from the Heart of Salvation, . In addition there is an audiotape book of readings selected by Gerald Palmer from the Philokalia and more recently a translation of Gregory Palamas first book The Triads.

At around the same time (late 1980s), through a series of coincidental meetings Robin was introduced to the man who had translated Mouravieff's Gnosis 1. What interested Robin was that Gnosis was written by Mouravieff in the language of "the Fourth Way" (or "The Work") to address the many who had fallen under Gurdjieff spell. Mouravieff's own view of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky both of whom who he knew well is detailed in an article now available through Praxis. This is instructive for those interested in Gurdjieff. Mouravieff died in 1967. Robin never knew him other than the fact he edited the first book and translated the other two and was subsequently the recipient of all his litery works. He has provided commentary and some teaching on them for those who knew the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky teaching.

From an aristocratic background and very well connected in the church Mouravieff fled Russia in 1917. He was himself was a devout Orthodox and stayed in close contact with Athos throughout his life. He lived in France then Switzerland following the Nazi invasion in 1940.

What is important here to understand is that it has always been very important for Robin to share the fruits of labours in Orthodoxy with the people in the tradition he came from. Gnosis comes from this attempt as does his book "A Different Christianity" published in the 1990s. The fact that the Gurdjieff people are uninterested is a shame and only a small have come over ..myself included!! "A Different Christianity" though has done well in addressing other groups especially Chrisitian ones and it has now seen around 5 reprints. It is not written in Orthodox language yet it bears witness to the faith as does Gnosis for those who have followed Gurdjieff.

This obviously causes confusion. I have concerns that the Praxis website does not differentiate clearly enough between the 4th way work and Robin's Orthodox work. Then I see it is not only for us Orthodox to navigate around.

Robin and his wife Lillian herself Greek Orthodox are now in their late 70s. Robin spends alot of time on Athos and is deeply committed to completing his work. Shortly before he died Father Paisos said to Robin words to the effect of (I can't remember it exactly sorry!) You in the West have all your intellectual knowledge that can create wondeful science and advances now you must go and teach them the language of the heart.

This is surely the key and no easy task in such a very sick society.

Yours in Christ

D. Bains

21-07-2008, 03:02 PM

Matthew's post is very welcome.

I would like to make the following points.

1. From what I know of Robin's activites, he has always acted as a very ethical man, who deeply respects the orthodox tradition.

2. He has a vast store of knowledge that few people have accessed, which I feel should be disseminated wider

3. The response from some members to this thread on this site was very unexpected, which made me feel that some posters write so their views can be seen rather than having true knowledge of what they are posting about

4. I only spent a small amount of time with Robin several years ago, and I feel my perspective on his hard work probably does him no justice

I hope this helps. I will not be returning to this list again because of the temptation this thread creates in some to criticise in order to make their own light seem brighter

warm wishes

Byron Jack Gaist

28-07-2008, 08:17 AM

Matías Perez Artuso

22-09-2008, 02:06 AM

This thread has caught my attention through Google and I thus became a member of this seemingly interesting forum.

Anyway, I am interested in what is under discussion here, and I would like to contribute and, hopefully, enrich this thread.

Boris Mouravieff claims to be himself a devout Orthodox and throughout his books he claims that the teachings he is providing are not his own, rather that the whole gnosis comes from some Monastery at Mount Athos.

Is it possible that deep within some monastery some christian gnostics live on, practicing and teaching this doctrine? Is this so far fetched, i.e., to have a fifth column of intellectuals who disagree on the traditional interpretation of a given religious doctrine, right in the core of that same religion?

As far as Gurdjieff and Ouspensky are concerned, there is indeed a great similitude between their teachings and Mouravierff´s. In fact, Mouravieff begins his book saying that the danger of the fourth way lies, not on its falsity, but on its incompleteness, the one element Mouravieff intends to explain and provide.

In my readings I have come to realize that there is a great similitude among various religions, as far as their esoteric sects are concerned, and I ask myself why. Once a friend of mine told me: either there is a god or there isn´t. If there is, there is no reason whatsoever for the many religions and their differences. This proves either that god doesn´t exist or that, if he does, nobody knows him really well and they follow past religious leaders, whose teachings they claim to understand, but whose experiences none have come to realize.

I can say that there is a sort of psychlogical religious doctrine which is shared by many different backgrounds, the most stricking of which are Gurdjieff´s Fourt Way (supposedly coming from Sufism), the christian Gnosis (according to Mouravieff), the jewish Kabbalah, Hinduism (specifically Jñana and Raja Yoga according to Swami Vivekananda), not to take into account the metaphysics of Socrates and Plato, the psychology of Carl Jung, and a series of mystical or hidden sects such as Hermetism and Pitegoreanism.

For those interested, I would recomend Swami Vivekananda´s Jñana Yoga and Raja Yoga, which explain the ideas of both Gurdjieff and Ouspensky in a far more reasonble way. Vivekananda himself was a Hindu priest who brought Yoga to the West.

In any case, the central idea of all this systems is that religion is a personal experience of real communion with a trascendent and absolute entity of spiritual nature (howsoever we may call it), and insofar as no human is born with the sensory organs destined to perceive spiritual entities, that human must first acquire the ability to perceive them, only then being able to see god. The way to acquire this apptitude is a series of psychological introspective excercies in the way of meditation, through which the indivdual can get to know his own unconscious mind, or Self, as this teachings call it. This unconscious self is considered only a part of a wider unconscious entity shared by every sentient being and unsentient entity in the universe. Having reached the individual unconsciouss or Self, one can then proceed to the collective unconscious, which turns out to be god. In such a context, the universal ethics of non I but Thee becomes sensible: not to harm anyone and do for them what I like for myself is readly done under the authority of any religious leader and moral exapmle, but it would be much better to leave the ipsedixitism behind and realize that, if I am You and You are Me and if We could percieve it as real , then all the ideals of love, understanding and ecumenism would become real.

Regards.

Byron Jack Gaist

23-09-2008, 08:24 AM

Dear Matias,

You write:
either there is a god or there isn´t. If there is, there is no reason whatsoever for the many religions and their differences. This proves either that god doesn´t exist or that, if he does, nobody knows him really well and they follow past religious leaders, whose teachings they claim to understand, but whose experiences none have come to realize. This sounds rational, taken at face value. What it cannot account for however, is for the possibility that some may know God better than others, and also that perhaps there is 'a reason for religions and their differences', namely that one is the true faith, and the others are false doctrines, increasing in their lack of true insight according to their distance from this one, true faith. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying here categorically that it is like this; I'm saying it could be, and your friends' theory seems to brush this possibility aside.

You then write:
The way to acquire this apptitude is a series of psychological introspective excercies in the way of meditation, through which the indivdual can get to know his own unconscious mind, or Self, as this teachings call it. This unconscious self is considered only a part of a wider unconscious entity shared by every sentient being and unsentient entity in the universe. Having reached the individual unconsciouss or Self, one can then proceed to the collective unconscious, which turns out to be god. In such a context, the universal ethics of non I but Thee becomes sensible: not to harm anyone and do for them what I like for myself is readly done under the authority of any religious leader and moral exapmle, but it would be much better to leave the ipsedixitism behind and realize that, if I am You and You are Me and if We could percieve it as real , then all the ideals of love, understanding and ecumenism would become real. As your post implies, no ordinary moral person, religious or not, disagrees with the universal values you mention. The problem I see with 'I am You and You are Me', even if it is indeed a powerful way of bringing the message of kindness and non-violence home, is that it is untrue. We are not each other, as the absolute monism of the occult would have us believe. At best, this is only a metaphor for what does seem to me to be true, which is the fact that we don't really make sense as beings except in relation to each other. And if we humans are not each other, but each our own person, how much more so is this true for the gulf that separates man, let alone 'every unsentient entity', from the uncreated essence of God? Man, according to Orthodox teaching, can participate, body and soul, in the Divine energies; but not in God's essence, which is beyond and outside anything in this world or the next. The 'collective unconscious' is not God, it is a philosophical postulate deriving from Plato and others. What is its ontological basis? Put simply, what is this c.u. made of? Is God a symbol-producing faculty of the human soul? The human imagination? Why can't the semantics and connotations of language, for example, be sufficient to account for these experiences?

I'm not saying I personally have the answers, only that your questions raise more questions. Contrary to some current popular impressions, Christian dogma is not ipse-dixitism, but is itself a partially successful attempt to put a Mystery into human words, so as to come to discern it better; thus Christians ultimately have to experience Truth for themselves as much as - more so - than any New Age seeker in the bewildering cacophony of the spiritual supermarket; even if this New Age seeker has managed to convince themselves that underneath the confusion, all roads lead to the same destination.

In Christ
Byron

P.S. As for 'fifth columns' in the Church, why would these supposed crypto-gnostic monks bother? Christians are perfectly good at undermining themselves!

Owen Jones

23-09-2008, 03:29 PM

When our Master says, "the Kingdom of God is within you," he does not mean by that that God is you.

On the subject of competing religious claims by a wide variety of sects and cultures, here is my speculation on the subject. In science, when there is a paradigm shift, it is not a negation of everything that has come before but a fulfillment of it. Christ is not a negation of everything that has come before (or since) but a fulfillment of it. This includes other so-called religions.

As for sectarianism, this seems to be the bane of human existence. But the existence of sectarianism is not a negation of truth or Truth. It is simply a manifestation of humanity. It is not a brief for a kind of gnostic universalism on the one hand or nihilism on the other.

The kind of perennialism that is much in vogue in certain intellectual quarters, and which seems to have attracted Mr. Artuso is itself a psychological reaction to the intellectual environment, which is characterized by sectarianism and factionalism and a general confusion. IT is an attempt to overcome uncertainty. Why need faith when you have certainty? So, ironically, perennialism becomes another type of fundamentalism.

Aaron Taylor

23-09-2008, 04:09 PM

Is it possible that deep within some monastery some christian gnostics live on, practicing and teaching this doctrine? Is this so far fetched, i.e., to have a fifth column of intellectuals who disagree on the traditional interpretation of a given religious doctrine, right in the core of that same religion?

I'm not saying this Mouravieff fellow couldn't have had contact with Athonite fathers (the claim Mr Bains kept reiterating), but it certainly sounds like he misunderstands or misrepresents their teachings. To a public used to books like The Da Vinci Code, this idea of 'Christian gnostics' on the Holy Mountain may not seem far-fetched, but try visiting Mt Athos. If there is some 'fifth column', they've not only done a wonderful job of hiding themselves, they've actually deceived many, many people, including highly experienced Athonite elders. The Athonites wear their spirituality on their sleeves, so to speak. They are not an 'esoteric sect', but an exemplary part of the whole Church whose teachings--well-known to those that pay attention--are the 'traditional interpretation' of Orthodox 'religious doctrine'. In this, there is no difference between the 'simple' Athonites and the 'intellectuals'. A visit to the Holy Mountain is the best way to discover exactly how far-fetched this whole idea is.

Of course, the Athonites are 'gnostics' in the sense in which Clement of Alexandria and other Fathers of the Church use the term. But as other posts have made clear, this is something quite different from 'gnosticism' and from other 'esoteric sects'. Their 'gnosis' is centred on the God-man Jesus Christ and it is available to all, not merely to a select few.

I hope no one thinks I am trying to make my 'light seem brighter', because it isn't! I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that much of what these men say may be more or less Orthodox (although if Matias has given us a faithful summary of Mouravieff's teaching, there is clearly much that is wrong), and that God may be able to use their books to bring others to the Church (I'm reminded of the role Rene Guenon's writings played in Fr Seraphim's conversion). I'm just concerned that there is the possibility they may mislead people as well. Byron, it sounds like you've managed to read them in the right spirit, and I'd certainly be interested in reading them myself. I'm actually quite interested in esoteric sects and occult teachings, and possible similarities that these may have with Orthodoxy. But it sounds like Mouravieff et al. are giving at least a few people the wrong idea about Mt Athos and about the Orthodox Church.

Aaron

Andrew

23-09-2008, 05:08 PM

I think Elder Sophrony treated this topic very well in his books; the difference between the traditional Orthodox theophany and the enlightenment of other religions is that the vision of God in the Church is an entrance into a communion of Persons with the Holy Trinity through God's Tri-hypostatic energies. The ascetic becomes more himself as the person he is in the divine light, and he comes to know God personally as He is. In the ascetical systems and theories found in the Vedas, Buddhism, Sufism, and other spiritual systems, man breaks free from his transitory person to become one with the transpersonal/impersonal Absolute All (or Nothing). Orthodoxy is the affirmation of the particular person, and a personal encounter and communion of being; other systems are transpersonal, a negation of particular personhood, and absorption into the Absolute. These are very two disctinct, irreconciliable systems. What the Perennialists do is reinterpret Orthodox teaching and experience to fit it into the transpersonal system.

Ryan

23-09-2008, 06:50 PM

If this esoteric path contains such transcendent wisdom, why do they need to pilfer from the Orthodox Church, whose teachings have always been clear and open? What could these gnostics possibly learn at Mount Athos, that they didn't know already?

Rick H.

23-09-2008, 09:08 PM

I have seen some references here to the Traditionalist School; however, I cannot see who (or where) this was first introduced this into this thread. Could someone point me to the first mention of the Perennialists please, possibly the one who first introduced this? I would just like to see how this was initiated and developed in this thread. Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

Matías Perez Artuso

24-09-2008, 12:01 AM

I must excuse myself for my ignorance on Orthodox Tradition as a whole.

If my interpretation is right, then Mouravieff´s Gnosis is a mixture of Christianism and Hinduism: the vedantic philosophy expressed through christian symbols, in conjuction with some common esoteric elements form hermetism, kabbalah and sufism.

In any case, Mouravieff claims that his techings are Clement of
Alexandria´s and Origenes´, not his own.

Anyway, if you ever find out who on mount Athos believes what Mouravieff believed, please be so kind as to tell me (preferably before the Orthodox authorities lay their hands on them :-)

Now seriously, what I would like to recall from these gnostic ideas is the following:

1) They share christian morality, and they provide an intellectual basis upon which to act, not in the way of argumentums ad verecundiam, but as the only reasonable way to proceed (the reasons being explained thoroughly there)

2) They are universal, inasmuch as they pose that God attainement is mankind´s prerrogative, not a privilege of a few or a lot who share a set of beliefs, in exclusion of everybody else.

I finish with the example of a hindu saint called Ramakrishna who, after having seen god, he tried all the religions he could get to know (among which he mentions christianism and islamism) and he claims that he got to god in every single one of them, being thus all religions a way to god, if practiced wholehartedly leaving superfical differences behind.

If there is something one could take from this gnosticism, if not its ideas, it should be the importance it gives to Love and Ecumenism.

Regards.

Rick H.

24-09-2008, 02:40 AM

He [Sherrard] appears a little more orthodox then some of the other "Orthodox" authors who consider themselves Traditonalist/Perrenial Philosophers.

Thanks very much to the person who pointed me to page #1 in answer of my question.

I don't know if Scott is still around, but I am wondering now who the some of these other "Orthodox" authors are who consider themselves Traditionalists?

In Christ,
Rick

Byron Jack Gaist

24-09-2008, 08:14 AM

Dear Aaron,

You write:
Byron, it sounds like you've managed to read them in the right spirit, and I'd certainly be interested in reading them myself. I'm actually quite interested in esoteric sects and occult teachings, and possible similarities that these may have with Orthodoxy. My own acquaintance and familiarity with occultism is partly through my research interests. Earlier on in this thread I referred to all these ideas as a "hall of mirrors". The metaphor alludes perhaps to the fact that the fascination of these teachings is ultimately only a special effect produced through various distortions and partial views of one's own image. My priest and spiritual father helps me to remain grounded by reminding me that the appeal of the occult is its uncanny characteristic of producing quick results. Why eat beans when you can have steak and chips? The answer of course, is in what will happen in the long run. Also, occult knowledge, for all its apparent curiosity and 'depth', is in many ways 'head knowledge' as opposed to Christianity, which in this context may be described as the way of the heart. At the very bottom of the occult barrel, it seems to my current state of understanding, one finds freemasons, neo-pagans, neo-gnostics, deceptively 'innocent' New Agers and ultimately - dare I say it? - satanists. Occultists go crazy at Christians who suggest that they are in some way in league with the devil, but scratching the surface usually does lead to some connection between magic and the devil. If you want my honest opinion, I wish I'd never looked into these things in the first place, but right now for professional reasons I must continue my research. When it's over, I hope to start reading exclusively Christian spirituality, and be done with all the voodoo. The essential thing, it seems to me, is to get to know Christ before we leave this planet, not to be titillated by the likes of Gurdjieff or Madame Blavatsky. There are plenty of Church Fathers one could devote one's entire life to studying, and never get one's head around the true depth of their teaching.

In Christ,
Byron

P.S. About the Traditionalist school, the composer John Tavener was part of it, and surely enough he ultimately left the Church. Interesting and scholarly thinkers rub shoulders there with Nazis and loons. Although it is intimately and perhaps inextricably interwoven with the occult, the strong point, I feel, of Traditionalism is in its consistent rejection of modernity and its identification of the unconscious vices of modern culture. Plus there is some good, albeit highly tendentious, scholarship and depth of knowledge there, a characteristic which is both appealing and seductive to the educated person, but ultimately a useful feature if a suitable distance can be kept from it. St Basil saw no problem in picking from the fruits of Greek knowledge, and I don't think, as long as we remain firmly Orthodox, there is a problem with carefully selecting from even these occult teachings, as long as we are discerning and appropriately guided in our search, bearing in mind that only a good tree produces good fruit. Why study it then? Well, I'd like to hear people's views on that. Sometimes I think that fighting one's enemy heps us to grow stronger, sometimes I think that if you fight with monsters, in the end you become one. The 'occult' is not monolithic, anyway; it's a mixture of various historical ideas ('head knowledge'), and as long as we are clear on following Orthodox doctrine in everything, all ideas are potentially profitable to discuss, even if only to differentiate our own position throughly from these - this is my personal opinion however.

Theophrastus

06-01-2009, 08:31 PM

Also, occult knowledge, for all its apparent curiosity and 'depth', is in many ways 'head knowledge' as opposed to Christianity, which in this context may be described as the way of the heart.

This being the reason, it seems, that some 'occultists' recommend remaining within one's family and religious community: family and religious community provide the space in which to practice sacrificial love, while the 'occult' knowledge provides an intellectual understanding of the bigger, cosmic picture.

John Simmons

05-04-2009, 12:53 PM

GURDJIEFF

I keep threatening to write a book about this topic, and have
wisely refrained thus far. I was greatly influenced by Gurdjieff,
Mouravieff and the teachings of the "fourth way" at one point.
I had been introduced to "essence" or "noetic reality" by Buddhists,
but discovered that I could not take part in any spirtual path that
did not focus on Christ in my heart. Indeed, the very attempt on
my part to do so, proved to me that the presence of Christ in the
heart, however dimmed by hardness or spiritual stupidity, was the
pearl of great price that had to be safeguarded.

However, having seen into the noetic part of the soul, how it forms
the inward focal point, with its attendant characteristics, makes
one realize the futility of a Christianity built on the relationship
to the personality (the various thoughts of the intellect, feelings
and the various emotional states, however sublime, and the various
aspects of the will whereby I "do something or make "something
happen"). Gurdjieff states that someone whose center of gravity is
this personality "cannot do." Thus one of the first efforts made in
the fourth way, is to simply observe this fragmented, centerless,
seemingly random amalgamation of aspects of the personality, until
one sees that "one cannot do" and based on further observations,
one rarely is able to "be" either. From my own experiences of
Western Christianity, I came to appreciate the aphorism of Gurdjieff
"Conscious faith is freedom, emotional faith is slavery, mechanical
faith is foolishness." By Conscious faith, I realized that Gurdjieff
was talking about faith that touched noetic reality.

While Gurdjieff was certainly raised Orthodox, and even claimed to
be in training for the priesthood, some of his preceptors had rather
odd views, and one supposedly left Mt. Athos to become a priest of
the "essene brotherhood". Many of these details are derived from
"Meetings with Remarkable Men", much of which is meant to be an
initiatory allegory rather than historical facts about Gurdjieff
(although there are probably some of both). Further readings
in the Gurdjieff Corpus reveal that while he calls the fourth way
"esoteric Christianity" he does not in any way favor Christian
revelation, but rather, a noetic trans-tradition that encompases
and transcends Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and various
Persian traditions - the roots of which he traces to "pre-sand"
prehistoric Egypt, and Atlantis before that. Much of the teaching
seems to resemble Sufism, with clear borrowing from Hermetic and
Pythagorean philosophy as well as Yoga, Rosicrucianism, and a mix
of other Eastern sources.

He also made some rather strange claims about the traditions of
Mt. Athos, including a practice where the monks say the word "ego"
(e.g. "I") in order to see "where it sounds in them". As far as I
know, no visitor or resident of the Holy Mountain has ever heard
of such a practice.

Gurdjieff's teaching is heavily Gnostic, and he gives credence to
the Gnostic "Gospel of Judas" directly (a fair number of at least
nominally Orthodox students left at that point). While there are
many references to Orthodox Christianity, even considering the cycle
of services to be esoterically inspired (borrowed from "schools of
repitition" in Egypt), his first major work in the series
called "All and Everything" spends a fair amount of space attempting
to deconstruct Orthodox Christian practice in its conventional forms,
pointing to supposed esoteric roots of various practices which the
Church has forgotten about.

See this article "Gurdjieff & Christianity" by a Gurdjieffian:
http://knol.google.com/k/the-gurdjieff-journal/gurdjieff-christianity/rwersjeofjp9/9#

and while you are at it, you can read an article about Mouravieff by
the same Gurdjieffian (William Patrick Patterson):
http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/mouravieff1.htm

(Mouravieff is not generally taken seriously by Gurdjieff Students)

In spite of all this, Gurdjieff never saw himself as seperated
from the Church, and had an Orthodox Funeral in Paris, and yearly
pannikhidas in churches near the major Gurdjieff foundation centers
(A priest told me that they made odd requests, such as to dim the
lights during the service, as this apparently happened during the
funeral, and was thought to have significance. The foundation
folks stopped asking this particular priest for services, because
he took the opportunity to preach true Orthodoxy at them!).

There is much in Gurdjieff which an Orthodox Christian will toss
out the window if they are to become/remain Orthodox. Gurdjieff
himself told his students not to believe anything he told them,
but to verify everything for themselves. However, there are some
who will leave the fourth way to become Orthodox, only to discover
that not all of the fourth way has left them, and there is some work
to wrestle with the understanding of ones own soul.

An article by a student of the work who has become Orthodox:
http://www.gurdjieff-internet.com/article_details.php?ID=192&W=1

The best of Gurdjieff is a psychology of self-knowledge and
watchfulness, some of which echoes the Holy Fathers.

OUSPENSKY AND MOURAVIEFF

Ouspensky was a student who left Gurdjieff, took what he understood
of the teachings, and began teaching himself. William Patrick
Patterson has a book which supposes that Ouspensky left because he
was unwilling to work on his chief feature (e.g. face himself in
the particular things that Gurdjieff was showing him about
himself). Whether or not that is true, it is apparent that his
faith in Gurdjieff was shaken somewhat when Gurdjieff was not above
the "law of accident" as it related to automobiles, and for all of the
esoteric wisdom getting handed out, Gurdjieff could be a bit crude
and rough for the sensibilities of Russian intelligentsia. Gurdjieff
told other students at Ouspensky's death that he "persished like
a dog" (e.g. did not attain the necessary consciousness to live
beyond death), but formed a more favorable impression of him, when
he saw the book "fragments of an unknown teaching" which, according
to Gurdjieff, accurately preserved the teaching at the time Ouspensky
was present. Ouspensky had grave doubts about Gurdjieff's teaching
near the end of his life, and was more interested in the Philokalia,
setting in motion the first translations in english, via the contact
of his students with Fr. Nikon of Mt. Athos.

Mouravieff had a negative impression of Gurdjieff and his students,
but was drawn to the teachings themselves. He was personally
convinced that the teachings were Christian in origin, and claimed
to recognize the sources. This did not prevent him from needing to
hang on to Ouspensky to get the details that he was in turn getting
from Gurdjieff, which he eventually revised and published himself as
"Gnosis".

Defenders of Mouravieff try to point out that Mouravieff must have
had a connection to the source of the teaching as there are more
details in his presentation than in Gurdjieff's or Ouspensky's.
But Mouravieff's teaching isn't really "more complete" as much as
it is a different teaching, incorporating different ideas into the
Gurdjieff system. While there are plenty of fanciful ideas of the
sort that were popular amongst the Russian intelligentsia who dabbled
in esoteric ideas (e.g. great esoteric brotherhood), there is also a
lot more from Orthodox Christian sources. Mouravieff's genius seems
to have been in picking out some of the gems from Ouspensky and finding
a connection to writings of the Holy Fathers.

At one point in my search, I cried out to Christ "why can't I find
something in Christianity that speaks to the depth of the noetic
experience I had?" What a thing to pray! That night I wandered
randomly into a bookstore and discovered the Philokalia! Later I
discovered Mouravieff, which also seemed to speak to my condition,
but his real gift to me was in introducing me to St. Theophan the
Recluse, and from there to the Way of A Pilgrim" and other artifacts
of the Paisian revival, which in turn convinced me that I just needed
unadulterated, full strength Orthodoxy.

I had the uncomfortable feeling while reading St. Theophan that I
had seen this stuff before. One memeber of my parish, who had
been in a Gurdjieff group was even considering that Gurdjieff had
been essentially teaching St. Theophan with esoteric trappings! (a
careful consideration of either will quickly dispell this idea). When
I became Orthodox, I basically discarded the fourth way stuff like
blowing out a candle when the sun rises, even thought I could still
see some connections.

Certain fourth way ideas keep coming to the surface as I am pursuing
an Orthodox Christian life. Perhaps this is what Gurdjieff meant
by "verify everything". While I no longer have a relationship to
the "Gurdjieff Corpus" or teaching, those things that became part
of me as an Orthodox Christian are simply there. I do consider it
an important exercise to test my experiences in the light of the
Holy Fathers, wise monastic spiritual fathers that I know, but some
things just seem to stick - perhaps because those particular things
were taken from Orthodox sources. As Fr. Seraphim Rose said to one
seeker encouraging him to to look into Orthodoxy "your heart will join
your head in recognizing the true God, and no real truth you have
ever known will be lost."

For example, one can see Mouravieff's practical teaching on constating
in four different ways nearly match the four types of watchfulness
recommended by Hesychios the Presbyter in the Philokalia. One student
of Mouravieff, defending the Christian origin of the teachings, made the
claim that "there is no question that the Philokalia contains all the
precepts of the (fourth way) Work and its "Christianity" need not
be proven..." Of course if this is true, there is no need to resort
to Mouravieff with its mix of stuff (unless you like cool diagrams!),
if you can drink from the pure waters of Orthodox tradition. Just
as the Philokalia has texts from the fourth to the 16th century which
nethertheless speak as if with one voice, so too, this tradition
proves itself by producing saints from the distant past to the
present.

ROBIN AMIS

I have never met Robin personally, but I have known or know lots
of people that know him or have known him, including some of his
students. Like me, he has cleary been deeply affected by the study
of the fourth way and also the study of Orthodox Christianity, and
has seen the great deal of common ground one can find between
the two. From all accounts he is sincerely trying to find his path
based on his research and his own "meetings with remarkable men"
on the Holy Mountain.

At best, he is trying too hard to fit a round peg in a square hole,
is a bit too taken with "original fourth-way Christianity", and at
worst, he may be sincerely deluded or in "prelest" One of his students
told me that he practices the psychophysiological methods
described in the philokalia for descending into the heart (which
should NEVER be done by a novice layperson in the world unless
being directed/supervised by an experienced spiritual father -
which he may have been). I had red flags when reading or hearing
about the fact that his method is "producing results" - a claim
you would not normally hear from a hesychast. He also told a student
"well, I'm not quite man #5 yet" (a high attainment in Gurdjieffian
terms). There is also an incident described in "A Different
Christianity" where he describes resting after prayers while on
Mt. Athos, and having an experience like a punch to the solar
plexus accompanied by lights, that he interpreted as being a sort
of spiritual gift, while the description of the experience sounds
more like the type of thing that is a sign of demonic attack.

In his writings, there are constant hints that he knows more than
he is revealing. If one were to believe what he writes, you would
think that he met the Sarmoun brotherhood (Gurdjieff's mythical teachers)
right on Mt. Athos. He describes meetings with "conscious men",
one in particular whom he did not name for a while, then referred
obliquely to as "Father P" who is now known to be Elder Paisios the
New - an Orthodox Elder of great reknown whose teachings are widely
available in english. His teachings are certainly impressive, but
they bear no relationship to the "fourth way", except in a mind
with a highly reinterpretive imagination.

(See the new book "The Gurus, The Young Man and Elder Paisios"
http://www.stherman.com/Catalog/Elder_Paisios/guru_book.htm. This book
gives the story of a young seeker who sought the truth in various
spiritual contexts, including Gurdjieff, but left them all behind
for Orthodoxy as a result of meeting Elder Paisios)

And this is the problem. He constantly reinterprets what he learns
on the Holy Mountain to fit his model. I know a priest who was on the
Holy Mountain at the same time as Amis. It was clear that he
was taking some things, leaving others, and fitting it all to the
cosmology described in his book "A Different Christianity". Not all
of the monastic spritual fathers on Mt. Athos were aware of his
approach (or possibly didn't care, since they are used to pilgrims
with lots of baggage and strange ideas - see the books by Kyriacos
Markides, for example). Some of the monks complained about his approach,
and one Igumen took him to task, giving him a tongue-lashing for his
attempt to esotericise the tradition of Mt. Athos - which apparently
fell on deaf ears.

So I sympathize with his desire to harmonize his experiences
and learning on the Holy Mountain with the psychological science
that he learned from Ouspensky, some of which is inevitable and
even beneficial, but one must know when to stop researching, stop
interpreting and listen. Otherwise, one hears what is not there,
and misses what is. One example of this can be found in "A Different
Christianity", where observing the agrypnia (all night vigil),
he observes the athonite tradition of swirling chandeliers during
the polyeleios of matins. Somehow, he hears that this portion of the
service is called the "polyhelios" (meaning many suns, which has fourth
way significance, and makes sense if you fixate on the swirling
chandeliers), rather than "polyeleios" (meaning many mercies -
taken from the fact that the polyeleios hymn is taken from Psalm
134 & 135, where every verse repeats the phrase "for His mercy
endureth forever").

If I have time later I might summarize the fourth way precepts that
find their completion in Orthodox Christianity.

Byron Jack Gaist

06-04-2009, 01:28 PM

Dear Fr John,

If I have time later I might summarize the fourth way precepts that
find their completion in Orthodox Christianity. I will look forward to that personally. And if that book you threatened to write does eventually hit the press, I'll look forward to purchasing it. Thanks for all this interesting information!

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

06-04-2009, 02:12 PM

There is one dead give away when trying to differentiate gnosticism. Whatever the system, tt always lacks a focus on practicing the virtues and living the commandments of God.

John Simmons

07-04-2009, 01:39 AM

There is one dead give away when trying to differentiate gnosticism. Whatever the system, tt always lacks a focus on practicing the virtues and living the commandments of God.

Well put! I also like the way an article by Dr. Thomas Mether comparing various spiritual paths puts it:

"By sharp contrast, for the Hesychast tradition, ethical praxis is the whole point of the spiritual life. The other two aspects of it, namely dianoetic and noetic training, are totally geared to serve the ethical component, not leave it behind! While Buddhism and Yoga admit that a disturbed conscience and bad habits perturb the dianoia so that its power to be fully rational is inhibited and that they contra-naturally obscure the natural clarity and self-lucidity of the nous, they don’t see why this is the case from an Orthodox point of view. In Hesychasm, the dianoetic training of the reasoning and deliberative dianoia (also augmented by the ethical and noetic training that frees it from interference from the passions) is to make it fit to serve conscience (syneidesis) in a discriminating and deliberative manner by which we rationally match appropriate means to appropriate ends that are themselves appropriately prioritized for the service of God and neighbor. With a purified nous, the virtue of the reasoning part of mind to match appropriate means to appropriate ends that are properly prioritized is phronesis (that is, prudence, which in its nothing to do with prudery or rather cowardly calculative self-concern that the world seeks to make us believe prudence is) when related to our lives and our neighbors. The noetic training in stilling the dispersed, obscured, and distracted nous into a limpid state of wakeful presence and transparent sincerity with oneself is to make it fit to be the fully awake, non-evasive, and vigilant presence of insightful self-responsibility through the call through conscience (syneidesis)."(The whole article is here: http://strannik.com/watchful_gate/node/13)

And a quote from Fr. John Romanides:

"the cure of the sickness of religion involves at all stages "the transformation of selfish happiness seeking love" into "the selfless love of one's own crucifixion which is glorification."Those two ideas have condemned the Orthodox never to be able to produce "seeker sensitive" slick marketing and never to be popular with the New Age crowd - until they get tired of the fantasies, and want some good news :)

Owen Jones

07-04-2009, 12:30 PM

I personally believe that, were Orthodoxy to have any evangelical thrust to it, the New Age crowd would be a fertile field. Not by pandering to it, but by challenging it to get serious.

Permit me to speculate regarding typologies of religious and quasi-religious types. There is the logical type. There is the emotive type. And there is the aesthetic or spiritually sensitive type. The Churches have basically expunged the aesthetic type, and although this is much less true in Orthodoxy, which is, at its core, a spiritual aesthetic, nevertheless the over institutionalization of the Church tends to cause the spiritually sensitive types to look elsewhere. And they fall prey to all kinds of quack ideas. Orthodoxy is based on the active principle that the soul needs constant work and development to a state of mature sensitivity. So that it can sense and feel and see that which is of the Spirit, and become a vessel of the power of the Spirit. So it takes the natural sensitivity of youth and develops it properly. My experience is that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism tends to quash that sensitivity with a kind of facile doctrinalism that appeals to the logical type. You also get the emotive types who wish to hold onto that doctrinalism but believe that you develop spiritually through emotivism. Pentacostalism is the prime example of this. You even see this to a small degree recently in Orthodoxy. But the fact that pentacostalism has not really taken hold in Orthodoxy is testament to the fact that we really are about feelings and sensitivity.

The sensitive type gets very frustrated with the overly domineering and overly organizational aspects of religion and go out seeking all kinds of esoteric experiences, particularly through politics, which is an attempt to duplicate the experience of pericoresis in and through political activism.

New Ageism is really a haven for ex-political radicals who sensed that politics was a dead end and to transform nature and society and self you need spiritual power.

If we go back to the Acts of the Apostles, it is all about the true nature of power, and power relationships. That's what it's all about. And Orthodoxy is all about the virtue of powerlessness, but especially when taken on voluntarily as a cross. This is what is meant when Fr. John Romanides speaks of one's own crucifixion. He is talking about the virtue of powerlessness. So when we speak of obedience in the Church, we are not really talking about it in the conventional sense of someone commanding and someone obeying, but in the spiritual sense of kenosis, of self-emptying. Yes, it involves following rules and obeying commands, but that is not the point. But the problem with obedience as it is usually proffered, it usually comes down to doing what you are told. And, again, what that approach does is drive away the sensitive, aesthetic types.

Theophrastus

07-04-2009, 05:18 PM

Owen Jones

07-04-2009, 06:41 PM

John Simmons

08-04-2009, 01:10 AM

I suppose Aquinas would be an example of the logical type. Just turn on tv on Sunday morning for all kinds of examples of the emotive type. And I would like to think that most Orthodox saints combine the best aspects of all three types.

First of all, I think you are right about the more serious of the New
Age types, however I have talked to a whole lot of "New Age" people
who are definitely more of the emotional type, and whose aesthetic
sensibilities seem to be just as bad as a Southern California
Megachurch (so many books with gaudy pastel auras on the cover!).

Secondly, I think you have hit on something that is relavant to the
topic of the fourth way. I didn't see it discussed earlier in the
thread, but one of the primary "sales hooks" of the fourth way is just
what "fourth way" means contrasted to the other "ways" delineated
by Gurdjieff.

In a nutshell (for those not familiar with it), Gurdjieff stated that
there are primarily three ways that most people are aware of, that lead
one to transformational spiritual development.

Quoting the Wikipedia Summary:

Gurdjieff claimed that there were only three ordinary ways for real
spiritual development. Gurdjieff referred to his methods as the
"Fourth Way."[11]

"The first three ways are:

* The way of the fakir (physical orientation)
The fakir works to obtain mastery of the attention (self-mastery)
through struggles with the physical body involving difficult
physical exercises and postures (this could also include the
more physical of the yogas, sacred dance, Kum Nye, etc).

* The way of the monk (emotional orientation)
The monk (or nun) works to obtain the same mastery of the attention
(self-mastery) through struggle with the affections, in the domain,
as we say, of the heart, which has been emphasized in the west,
and come to be known as the way of faith due to its practice
particularly by Catholic religious. The result of this way, which
Gurdjieff saw as primarily developing will in obedience is the
development of a "stupid saint" who still cannot do (Orthodox
Christians should be seeing a big red flag here!).

* The way of the yogi (mental/noetic orientation)
The yogi works to obtain the same mastery of the attention (as
before: 'self mastery') through struggle with mental habits and
capabilities (This would prefer primarily to the more noetic or
mental yogas such as the higher end of Raja yoga or Vedanta).

Gurdjieff said that his Fourth Way was a quicker means than the
first three ways because it simultaneously combined work on all
three centers rather than focusing on one as is done in the first
three ways, and that it could be followed by ordinary people in
everyday life, requiring no retirement into the desert."

Note that the different "ways" correspond to different "centers"
in man, according to Gurdjieff. There is an intellectual, emotional
and instinctual/moving center in each person, one of which predominates
in a particular person. It was on this basis that Gurdjieff states
that man is a three-brained being.

Gurdjieff also called this the way of the "Sly Man" because one
behaves as if his three centers (intellectual, emotional &
instinctive) were already in balance, and this behavior causes it
to be so. Since one is acting on a basis beyond what has been
actually acquired, the primary requirement is understanding, rather
than particular savant-like partial transformations.

Mouravieff bought into this sales trick himself, describing the
path this way (an unpublished Mouravieff writing quoted by Robin
Amis in "A Different Christianity"):

"The method of Gnosis is a psychological method, the only method
which for active esoteric work does not demand a change in our way
of life. This method allows one to progress, and that more quickly
compared with in the monasteries. The essential elements of this
method are three in number:

a. Prayer;
b. Doubled attention and thus presence;
c. Constatation.

The simultaneous practice of these three elements involves the whole
Personality....This obliges the three centers to assist each other.
This is the essential. All the other exercises are certainly useful
but are no more than auxiliary to this method."

At the time I started seriously studying fourth way materials, it
made sense, since the Christian "ways" I was familiar with were
Evangelical, Roman Catholic or Quaker derived. Spirituality in
these circles has been something of a moving target in the last
century or so, but there is definitely an overall appeal to an
emotional-affective orientation. I observed in others and myself,
that moving away from the affective-emotional realm and partaking
of intellectual development tends to make you something different
in Christian circles. Either you join the "apologetic geeks" and
spend time studying the likes of C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, etc.
or you become more of a speculative theologian rather than an
existential participant, or you just get liberated from the emotional
Christian world altogether (perhaps becoming the type of new ager
that Owen describes).

Gurdjieff certainly didn't mean to imply that all monasteries are
governed by his idea of "the way of the monk", since He states that
one in several are an esoteric school of the type that he went to
(an idea that Robin Amis grabbed onto heavily). Nethertheless, for
all of his familiarity with Orthodox Tradition, he rarely reveals
any great insights into Orthodox Monasticism (if only he had gone
to Optina!). If anything, his description of the fourth way is
closer to the type of balanced development that should be taking
place in monasteries.

He states that the fourth way must take place in the midst of the
world, because it is precisely the shocks of daily life that provide
the fuel for the fire of transformation. He is on to an idea here, but
it is fanciful and delusional. First of all, the goal of his
development is, from an Orthodox perspective, still natural,
unspiritual, earthly (demonic), and psychological. There is no
uncreated light or theosis here, nor could there be. He does not
acknowledge that sin is a problem, so the "shocks of life" that are
in fact defilements and temptations, don't concern him. An Orthodox
Christian will avoid defilements and unnecessary temptations while in
the world, so the very nature of watchfulness is different. However,
there is a seed of wisdom in the idea. The Holy Fathers talk about
the necessity of community life that provide the shocks of which
Gurdjieff is speaking, without the defiling or overwhelming types. We
do need some shocks in order to war against the passions. In the
monastery, this is provided by difficult obediences, difficult
brothers and circumstances. In the midst of the world, we are to
guard against a certain amount of the world's influence, but we who
cannot run in fulfilling the commandments instead can develop by
forbearance in difficult circumstances (See Staniloe, Spirituality
for a good discussion of this).

Aside from admitting all shocks, including defilements, the fourth way
idea that people in the world will do better than monks is pure
delusion, where Orthodoxy is concerned. It is faulty logic
(more shocks means better development) built upon a faulty base
or foundation. Not even all "fourth way" people believe this.

The good news, is that Orthodoxy is not fixated on any one center or
type. My study of the fourth way at least trained my observations to
know what I was looking for - a truly integral Christianity, which is
what Orthodox Christianity is.

"
In the soul we find three powers: the intellect, the will, the
heart, or, as the Holy Fathers say, the intellectual, desiring and
incensive powers. Each of them is assigned particular curative
exercises by the holy ascetics. These related excercises are
both receptive and conducive to grace. They need not be contrived
according to some theory, but rather chosen from tested ascetic
labors particularly suited to a given power:"-St. Theophan the Recluse in "The Path To Salvation"

"The chief character of believing thought consists of the striving
to concentrate all the seperate powers of the soul into a single
power, to seek out that inner focus of being where reason, will,
feeling and conscience, the beautiful and the true, the wonderful
and the desirable, the just and the merciful, and the whole sweep
of the mind are fused together in one living unity, thus restoring
the essential personality in its original indivisibility"-Ivan Kiriyevksy (Optina disciple and key Orthodox Integral
Philosopher)

Theophrastus

08-04-2009, 10:19 PM

He does not
acknowledge that sin is a problem....

Wouldn't the 'lack of attention' be comparable to 'sin'?

Owen Jones

09-04-2009, 04:41 PM

Thanks, John, for an excellent survey of this topic, for those of us who have not studied these particular people. As for aesthetic sensitivities being bad, yes, of course, that is the whole point. Sensitivity can go in any direction. It can be properly attuned or it can be deformed. I was only trying to speak of a type, rather empirically.

The Church has a way of driving away both the insensitive ones who are only really concerned about their way in the world, being successful, etc., and seem to be almost immune to deep feeling on the aesthetic level. Although this is just an appearance. There is still a "deep down inside" yearning which they either deliberately try not to pay attention to, or feel that they have found that experience in their "creativity," and "independence" and so on...

as well as the sensitive ones for whom spending countless hours in church results in little or no sensation. And so they feel like they are not getting what the Church promises. They don't feel anything. Without proper training, this is the result.

It appears that the 4th Way is an attempt to short circuit the arduous process of spiritual/moral development -- to find a quick solution -- kind of like the flea flicker play in football vs. the arduous task of grinding out the yardage... But what is the problem to which the 4th Way is presented as the solution?

Too often, the Church fails to present the obvious, and just assumes it. This is an error. The Fathers always present the obvious first. What is the problem, to which Christ is the solution? This is covered in detail by virtually every Patristic sermon but today it all too often is left unstated, so this contributes to a level of confusion that is exploited by any number of voices out there who write all kinds of treatises and develop all kinds of theories as to the nature of the "problem." And as a result, many Christians are double minded regarding the nature of the problem. If we have an emotional conflict, we go to a psychotherapist, and Church becomes simply a place to learn how to be a good person.

We can say with one accord that the problem is sin. But what do we mean by that? Today, I think it is important to speak in terms of neurobiology, since that is all the rage, and we cannot deny the central role that it plays, and will only take on more significance. John Romanides states that we have a neurobiological problem. Eric Voegelin, in Vol. 5 of Order and History looks at it from the standpoint of a structural problem with consciousness. That consciousness confuses its own status, and thinks that it can think about itself as an object. That consciousness can be an object of consciousness.

The problem in Genesis 1 and 2 is presented as fundamentally an intellectual one. The intellect seizes upon an object and then perceives that the goodness of the object becomes the goal of acquiring the object. The object can even be an idea. The fruit is, after all, an idea, not just the fruit itself. The idea holds great attraction to the intellect as if it is an object that can be seized. And, of course, along those same lines, God then can become the object that the intellect seizes upon. But God is neither a thing, nor an idea. God is Energy, according to our doctrine, which is empirical.

In a sense, true Christianity is all about reworking the body/mind complex through moral and spiritual exercises so that this Energy can flow. In this way, consciousness becomes a sense organ that is now functioning properly.