Friday, April 28, 2006
CHIARA LUBICH'S FOURTH WAY
Lubich and Gurdjieff proposed very similar concepts. First Gurdjieff as quoted by Ouspensky:
But in reality the way of the fakir[of which he says "In Persia fakir simply means a beggar; and in India a great many jugglers call themselves fakirs"], the way of the monk, and the way of the yogi are entirely different. So far I have spoken of fakirs. This is the first way.
The second way is the way of the monk. This is the way of faith, the way of religious feeling, religious sacrifice. ...
The third way is the way of the yogi. This is the way of knowledge, the way of mind.
The fourth way requires no retirement into the desert, does not requie a man to give up and renounce everything by which he formerly lived. ...Furthermore, the fourth way has no definite forms like the ways of the fakir, the monk, and the yogi. ...
Then the fourth way differs from the other ways in that the principal demand made upon a man is the demand for understanding. ... The more a man understands what he is doing, the greater will be the results of his efforts. This is a fundamental principle of the fourth way. ...faith of any kind is opposed to the fourth way. (IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS: THE TEACHINGS OF G. I. GURDJIEFF, P. D. Ouspensky, pgs. 46-49)
Another symposium was held at Castelgandolfo--a Hindu-Christian Symposium titled "The Way of Love - Union with God and Universal Brotherhood in Hinduism and Christianity". At the website under the sub-heading "The Programme" Chiara Lubich
presented her own experience of devotion to God, stressing “love of neighbor as a new, privileged, way to union with God”.
Dr. Kala Acharya compared point by point Chiara’s exposition to the Hindu tradition which proposed three roads towards God: that of action; that of knowledge and that of devotion. She noted that Chiara, with her spirituality, is now opening a fourth way: “love of neighbor and reciprocal love”.
Fakir = way of action.
Monk = way of devotion.
Yogi = way of knowledge.
Do Gurdjieff's way of understanding and Lubich's way of love equate?
Is this another example of the New Thought plan to present Eastern concepts in language acceptable to a Western Christian--language which disguises the fact that spiritualism, or spirit contact, or channeling are at the heart of this new religion?
What precisely is meant by "Union with God and Universal Brotherhood in Hinduism and Christianity"? (emphasis mine)
Rudolf Steiner's quarrel with H. P. Blavatsky, which caused him to break with Theosophy and form the Anthroposophical Society, was over the issue of language. Steiner wanted to couch Theosophy in Christian terms. Blavatsky wanted it to be given terms from Eastern religions.
What we seem to be seeing today in New Thought attempting to reconcile itself with Christianity via language is the same Steiner-Blavatsky argument. But the Church rejected outright both Steiner and Blavatsky's theology, and still does, according to the Vatican document on the New Age. Everywhere I look New Thought is said to be the New Age religion. It is certainly relativistic.
So just what is Focolare doing over there in the papal back yard?
