Trying to sum up some things...

[17 paragraphs, but not a waste of time. Read piece-meal perhaps over time perhaps, but it has some perspective...]

This is an area where Fourth Way - or Work - challenges one (it challenges me); i.e. seeing that when you enter the Fourth Way you are no longer a part of the Man #1, 2, or 3 ways, and in Christianity this means Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant ways.

I think one can become jealous to defend the Protestant way once one comes to it because it contains the on-the-mark intellectual doctrine (Calvinism, Reformed, Puritan) which is the hardest to come into understanding (and acceptance) of. But to see it as 'all' is of course wrong because you need a balance of development of all the ways (centers).

The Orthodox definitely has the practical level teaching (not the Work, the Work is of the Man #4 level, but the Eastern Orthodox level nevertheless specializes in the practical level teaching - or spiritual disciplines - just as Protestantism specializes in the intellectual doctrine teaching.

The Roman Catholic way is unique in that it is an emotional level, and it is here that the devil seems to want to reside. Probably the passage to higher centers is through here, so the devil makes his camp here. It's also strangely tempting to weak souls. It's also a horror show.

Perhaps the language of the Homeric epics (or Greek teaching in general, or all B Influence up to the summit) enable one to 'get' what that realm has and what one needs from that realm while bypassing the devil's clutches.

I think a striking point above is that though the Orthodox level is the level where the most practical level instruction resides it is STILL not the Work. Mouravieff kind of pulls the Work down to the level of Orthodox Christianity in that sense, wrongly. The Work is the Man #4 level and can only be seen and valued by Man #4.

Another big point above is to see how any of the three levels (1,2,3) can tempt and keep one inside it. I see it for the #3 Protestant level. Once you learn it you still stay around and study and argue and go on and on and on with it. But you have to learn it well, nevertheless. Then don't get stuck in it.

If the practical need is to find a point-of-contact (even for the Man #4 level) it is the Church, for the Roman Catholic; and it is the Bible, for the Protestant (ideally); and it is something else for the Eastern Orthodox (prayer? internal connection via various disciplines?)...

For the 4th Way it is presence.

I find it interesting that spiritual warfare is a subject of biblical doctrine that doesn't make it into Protestant systematic theologies. The Puritans made it their specialty, but that is where they differ from mainstream Protestants. They knew regeneration and the three-front war with the flesh, the world, and the devil. This is a point-of-contact. You are no more in contact with Jesus and the revealed Word and faith and all of it than when in the armor of God in battle with yourself the world and the devil. On the Way.

A dividing line, or antithesis. Separation from the world, and I from 'it' internally. Separation in terms also of being in the Kingdom of Light and not the Kingdom of Darkness. This is a practical way to see the point-of-contact with the Spirit and the Son and the Father. That point-of-contact which will be everything when you are on your deathbed staring into eternity.

The Man #4 (and 5 and up) formula is: make a goal to read the Bible complete a set number of times. Get it into you. The language into you. So it takes root. Then develop using the knowledge of the Work. Discipline. Then become more refined emotionally. Develop more and more inner command. All the provoking of limits and extending of limits. Effected by real time presence (self-remembering for duration, depth, and frequency) and non-identifying. It brings on the battle, then you use the friction of the war to further develop.

You're on the Way, wherever you are in time or space. The school is above you and a cosmos you inhabit (ideally, when it can reach you, i.e. when you are in the third state of consciousness).

It's real when you have contact with the actual Word of God. That is *really* a Man #4 thing. As Simon was saying, that really isn't taught in any church, even Protestant. Calvinism and Puritanism, yes, but they are closest to the #4 level (or *were*, modern day Calvinists usually can't even recognize or value the pure and whole traditional text Word of God). Like I've said: it should be a basic, default teaching in every church that a Christian should have a goal to read the Bible complete once, three times, seven times. But it's not, because that is a weird thing (a #4 level thing).

It's also real when your false personality (Old Man) fights back. Limits get provoked, and you are on the battlefield. This is real.

It is also a real thing when you engage B Influences (art, music, imaginative literature, history, philosophy, science, religion) and get understanding and emotional refinement from them. Climb the mountain of them to the summit. *See* the mountain to begin with. See how B Influence resides in a hierarchy.

Prayer is a point-of-contact for the #4 level too, as much as for any of the other levels. Ask and ye shall receive. It's a bold act of a newly adopted child of God. Or a king. A point-of-contact is also meditating on and doing the two great commandments: love God and love your neighbor as yourself (which can correspond with the two conscious shocks of self-remembering and non-identifying when it is most difficult). Also, fearing only God and not man. (With regeneration you are 'in', despite yourself, really, it is God's doing, but that is the five solas understanding that is the necessary foundation that knowing sound biblical doctrine gives you...) - C.




--- ******* wrote:

> I'm pretty clear on where and how Catholicism
> differs to Protestantism but I
> am a lot less certain on how the Eastern Orthodox
> tradition of the early
> Church differs. Orthodox are keen on hesychasm,
> although that itself appears
> to have been an area of dispute in Orthodox history.
> They believe in
> 'theosis' - which actually isn't off-kilter - we
> should all aspire to be
> more Christ like - presumably the point of
> difference is that a Protestant
> does not see 'theosis' as an element of individual
> Salvation where Orthodox
> does. They refute the Spirit coming from the Son,
> Spirit comes only from the
> Father, (the filique controversy). The Great Schism
> appears to be less about
> theological understanding and more of a power
> struggle between Byzantium &
> Rome, or between Greeks & Latins brought about
> through
> language/communication barriers. The most
> controversial issue - and this
> would be much less an issue for the Catholics at the
> time of the Schism -
> the Orthodox does not allow for sola scripture
> because for them the bible
> only exists in the context of the living tradition
> initiated by Christ,
> handed from generation to generation, (apostolic
> succession). Like
> Catholics, the Orthodox did not want the individual
> to approach the Word.
> The Word belongs to the Church. It is interesting
> how the Coptic, Orthodox &
> Catholic Church appear so alike. The 5 solas of the
> reformers make
> Protestants an entirely different breed.
>
> I've just been reading this article on
> western/eastern art and finding
> myself in broad agreement with the author. I
> wouldn't say I necessarily
> agree with the authors description of western art as
> secular - that
> obviously is not true even if you allow that many
> artists painted religious
> works simply because that's where the commission's
> were coming from.
> Nontheless, the issue about transformation seems
> quite accurate. I think as
> a discussion of spiritual art, there are some useful
> points amidst the
> numerous theological pops, although I don't think
> Icons are alone in their
> spiritual display, a lot of celtic art meets the
> same standard and actually
> so too most stained glass work and much sculpture
> and music.
>
> http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html
>
> Mouravieff's writings come from the Orthodox
> tradition, G had it somewhere
> in his background and if we are to believe it, G
> asked his pupils to go
> search the Orthodox tradition. I've been looking
> over the Praxis website
> again. Outside the Philokalia (which I never read)
> that site is a storehouse
> of Orthodox teachings in english, not that it's all
> free, but it's an access
> point with a 4thWay understanding in the selections.
> There's this freebie (I
> haven't read it yet):
>
> http://www.praxisinstitute.net/Praxis%20Now/Theosis/theosis_contents.htm
>
> Overall though, whilst there are some useful things
> to be found within the
> Orthodox, it really is a variant of the same strain
> as Catholicism.
>