16. Об иночестве

In conclusion of all the memories of the Sarov monastery and its famous ascetics, we borrow an article beautifully written by Andrei Nikolaevich Mr. Muravyov from his description of the Sarov desert. This article will show everyone how one should think about desert living and monasticism. Any right-thinking reader, having read his thoughts, will be convinced of the fairness and impartiality of what was said. “When visiting such a famous and edifying monastery, which leaves a beneficial impression on the heart, one involuntarily comes to the thought: how often and unfairly a general condemnation is imposed on all monasticism by people, mostly inexperienced, who were outraged by some sad incident of indecency that happened before their eyes. I will not justify those who give reason to criticize their entire brotherhood; A much graver condemnation than a human one is being prepared for them because, as the Apostle puts it, “for their sake the name of God is blasphemed among the nations.” But recognizing them as truly guilty both before God and before people, is it possible, however, to be indifferent to the unjustly extended criticism of their entire sacred brotherhood, worthy of a better fate? – It should also be noted that among those who condemn the most are people who rarely go to monasteries, just as it usually happens that those who complain about the duration of the divine service are those who go to church less often than others; on the contrary, those who often visit the churches of God are not tired of long prayer, and they are more lenient towards monastics, because, having devoted themselves to spiritual life, they are more deeply imbued with a sense of their own weakness and love for their neighbor. “What is a monk?” - asks Saint Ephraim the Syrian, who deeply comprehended the life of monks, and the blessed Abba answers himself: “a monk is like a man who falls from a height and, having found a rope hanging high above the ground, grabs it, hangs on it and constantly cries out to the Lord for help, knowing that if he weakens and lets go of the rope from his hands, he will fall and die.” But according to this saying of the Saint, monasticism is not some lofty state of human perfection, but a state of repentance, a transition from evil to good, a striving for perfection, even if the achievement of it is not yet close; Only the extraordinary virtue of the first ascetics, amazing the world, adopted the name of the Angel for this image of salvation. We see in the book of the blessed Abba John of Sinai, called the Spiritual Ladder, entire monasteries of monks, which are filled with people who bitterly repent of their crimes, but are not rejected from communion with the brethren; We also see examples of unworthy wanderers or Saravaits, with only one monastic guise; and despite this, then there was no general criticism of the worthy: because at every time and in every rank there were good and evil people, and the Apostle Paul himself complained to the first Christians that he suffered from false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26). Consequently, we should not be too demanding of the monastics of our time, and, as it were, suppress their weak life with the weight of the example of the hermits of the first centuries, who seemed to be giants of the spirit in their time. If we want to be fair, then we will put ourselves in the same frame, and compare our own way of life with the life of worldly Christians of that time; then only the picture will be painted with the right colors and illuminated with real light, and we will unwittingly become condescending to our brethren, even if some of their faces turned out to be false brethren. This should not, however, give weak monks a reason to persist in their weakness; but on the contrary, as I have already said, it should arouse them, through the fear of responsibility for a general criticism, to their own private correction. Let us examine impartially: what is the difference between us, the laity, and the monks? because, we must tell the truth, we seem to have forgotten to what extent our mutual relationships and responsibilities are similar, and it is unlikely, according to the Savior, that we, phariseically, do not place unbearable burdens on their shoulders, under the pretext of their renunciation of the world, when we ourselves do not want to move this with a finger (Matthew 13: 4). So what is the essential difference? – they renounced the world! and haven’t we also, through holy baptism, renounced Satan and all his works, and all his angels and all his ministry? – and doesn’t the Apostle also command us “not to love the world and what is in it (1 John 2:15) - doesn’t the word proclaimed to the tonsured monk also apply to us: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and the authorities, and the ruler of the darkness of this world, to the spiritual wickedness in high places; For this reason, take up all the weapons of God, so that you will be able to resist in the day of cruelty and everything that you have done” (Eph. 6: 12. 13). “For everything that is in the world,” says the Evangelist John, “is carnal lust and the lust of desire and the pride of life” (1. Ch. 11-16.). Are we really going to justify ourselves with the cowardly excuse that a monk who renounces the world pronounces his vow in adulthood, when we come out of the font as babies, and others pronounce these vows for us? But don’t we ourselves, already in age, perceive others, and don’t pronounce for them, as they once pronounced for us, this solemn vow: “We renounce Satan and all his works, and all his angels, and all his service, and all his pride!” Or is this just one form, just the idle words of an outdated oath? She doesn't! “It’s scary to fall into the hands of the living God!” - exclaims the Apostle Paul (Heb. 10:31). In all honesty, there is not much difference between the duties of an Orthodox Christian and a monk. If a monk is obliged to celibacy, then a layman, whether married or out of wedlock, must lead a chaste life to his degree, sacredly observing the sacrament of marriage or virginity. If a monk is constantly fasting, then a layman does not have the right to allow himself to disobey the church rule on fasting, and the whole difference is that monastics never eat meat. The monk must attend all church services daily; It is also useful for a layman to go to the church of God as often as possible, and it is a necessary duty for him not to omit a single holiday service, both the morning, that is, the liturgy, and the evening or all-night vigil. What else can be said about non-covetousness and obedience, which He equally commanded us: “Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow takes care of itself; Every day has its own concern; seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matt. 6:33.34). Or “obey your teachers, who preached the word of truth to you, and, considering the end of their lives, imitate their faith.” (Heb. 13:7.) Shall we strictly attack the monastics because, having undertaken a more difficult path than ours, they follow it as weakly as we do along our own path? – the gates to the kingdom of heaven are narrow for everyone, and if we believe that everything is forbidden to them, and everything is allowed to us, then we are bitterly mistaken, for the broad path does not lead to salvation. That is why, I repeat again, those who are more concerned with spiritual subjects look more condescendingly, from their own experience, at human weaknesses. “But why is there wealth in monasteries,” some say: “what is it for people who have taken a vow of voluntary poverty?” Indeed, if monks, as private individuals, accumulate treasures for themselves on earth, then they do not grow rich in God, according to the parable of the Gospel: it is not in vain that we read in the scriptures of the Holy Fathers, how one day the abbot of the monastery, having found money under the head of the monk he buried, ordered his body to be removed from the fraternal cemetery. But a rich monk is completely different, and a rich monastery is different, which, as a society and a useful society, must have a means for its maintenance and food for the strange and wretched, and for the splendid decoration of its churches. Will they not also say: “Why decorate churches and icons? “It’s better to use this money for good deeds.” How rash such judgments are sometimes! Often the words of the Lord to His former disciple come to mind about the waste, in his opinion, of the precious world of the wife who anointed the feet of the divine Teacher. I will quote the original words of the Evangelist John (12:5, 8.): Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred fines and given to the poor? This speech is not as if you were grieving for the poor, but as if you were a thief, having an ark and carrying something swept away. Jesus said: Do not do it, so that on the day of my burial He will keep it, for you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me. If such precious ointment was not rejected by the Lord Himself for His honest feet, then do we dare to condemn those who decorate the precious vessels in which His entire most pure body and honorable blood are taught to us or preserved? or the altars on which a bloodless sacrifice is offered for us, or the Holy Gospel, containing the words of God, or the life-giving cross in memory of the crucified, and the sacred faces of the Lord, His Most Pure Mother and His saints, in a word, the entire church in which the mystery of our salvation is remembered? – I say this for believers, because for unbelievers all this is vain and alien. Such a judgment is especially terrible when we look at the luxury of our own homes and at the precious decorations of those close to our hearts, which is almost more befitting of a shrine. As for providing for the poor, then, of course, zealous people who sacrifice to the sanctuary of Christ for the sake of Christ do not forget the poor brethren of Christ; but since they do this in secret from the world, it cannot be as visible as their decoration of sanctuaries, which is obvious to everyone. I still hear a loud voice: “The monastics are idle, parasites, and live in the world for nothing! “This reminds me of the cry of the Egyptians about the people of God: “Idle, Idle, of course, for this sake you say, let us go and devour our God: now you are going to do it” (Exod. 5: 7). - As if you can call the very exercise of prayer an idle task! It would be good if our idleness always took place in prayer, even if we did nothing else! The faces of angels in heaven constantly praise God. – Let us again put our hand on our hearts and say, we who condemn the idleness of the monks: what are our own labors and exploits, and how many of us leave behind us a trace of life and good memory? Doesn’t our whole life, for the most part, pass in idle amusements and vain conversations, where there is not even room for prayer? – Truly active people judge less, because they don’t have time for it. I also happened to hear from some: “at least we repaid our debt to nature by leaving behind offspring”; - but did they raise their children in the fear of God and prepared them to be true sons of the Church and the Fatherland? this is still a question; and without this sole goal, the life they have given successively will hardly bring benefit to society and will be salutary both for their own souls and for those born by them. And why are the monastics accused of such extreme inaction? Not to mention the fact that every monastery, as a society, has its own necessary occupations and positions, which are corrected specifically for this purpose by the assigned monks of the time. In city or suburban monasteries, where the brethren must take into account the weaknesses and lack of time or zeal of the citizens, the service is shortened as much as possible, but even here Matins is never less than two or three hours; Two liturgies last the same amount of time, early and late, one after the other, and sometimes there are three and four and even up to seven, as in some Laurels; All this requires special people; Vespers with the rule also takes about two hours or more. Thus, the total complexity is from seven to eight hours, not counting prayers and funeral services, of which there may be countless numbers. If, perhaps, some will say that this is all useless, then those who come with lively zeal to participate in these public services and ask themselves exclusively for prayers do not think so. Consequently, monastics serve society as much as the parish clergy, and since their service is performed with great attention, they are much more willing to go to the monastery than to the parish church. Of course, it is desirable that monastics conscientiously use the rest of their time for soul-saving activities for themselves and others, excluding necessary rest, and should not indulge in idleness. Not as an excuse for the idle, I will note, however, that many of us, having spent up to seven hours on service, consider ourselves to have every right to be idle the rest of the day, although we ourselves harshly condemn the monks, and time, it seems, must be precious for everyone. At the same time, let us consider how much more needs to be used in the monastery for daily preparation for services, for the reception and conversation of visitors, because this is one of the duties of any monastery, to edify not only with splendid service, but also with affectionate treatment. In remote deserts, where there is less entertainment, the service itself takes up to 12 hours a day, except for social duties and handicrafts. How much time will there be left for idleness? and if some monks, unworthy of their title, use the hours free from divine services for dissipation alien to their rank: then how many others devote the rest of the day to the thought of God, reading, writing, icon painting or carvings, for the blessing of those who come, and is it possible to extend to everyone private deviations from the strict rules of monasticism? – The Lord, at the intercession of Abraham, promised him to have mercy on the whole city if at least ten righteous people were found in it (Gen. 18). Are we, on the contrary, for a few bad monks, condemning the whole monastery and even the entire monasticism, even if half of it was not in the spirit of its calling, then, when perhaps several ascetics unknown to us, in the silence of the cell, deflect the wrath of God not only from their unworthy brotherhood, but also from us, boldly condemning them, in the midst of the abyss of our own sins! If, after everything that has been said above, they look more leniently at monasticism in general, I consider it not superfluous to imagine the real benefits that monasteries have always brought and still bring in our country. Thus, may the dark cloud of reproach, which hides their inner beneficent light from those who do not want to see it, be taken away from them. I don’t think I’m saying anything superfluous or exaggerated if I put it this way: that, given the lack of catechisal teaching in our parishes, our monasteries serve as a catechetical school of the Faith, and without them, perhaps our vast fatherland would have returned, in some of its remote borders, to the former spiritual darkness of ignorance. In truth, the monasteries scattered in the heart and in all parts of Russia are, as it were, a saving catechetical network that has embraced the entire Orthodox kingdom; it can be compared with that Apostolic sea, which, according to the instructions of the Lord himself, brought out such an abundant drowning on the Sea of ​​Galilee: for until now there is an abundant mysterious fishing for human souls in places sanctified by invoking the name of God. Will my comparison seem strange? I will justify it with experience: in almost every diocese there is some kind of treasured sanctuary, where all the surrounding residents have been accustomed to flock on pilgrimage from time immemorial; old and young, everyone goes there on major holidays, and it is necessary to return with a spiritual reserve, which they could not, or very rarely could, acquire at home, in the parish church. The long-standing tradition and the very labor of walking already involuntarily dispose the pilgrims to reverence; they stay in the monastery for several days, go to all services, morning and evening, ask for prayers before the miraculous icons and relics of the Orthodox saints of God, whose lives are familiar to them, and often receive healing in illnesses, according to their living faith in these immortal benefactors of their homeland. Moreover, they eagerly listen to the teachings at the liturgy, visit some of the famous elders for piety, such as Marco and Seraphim and other lamps of Sarov, and with their blessing they bring home crosses and icons, and sometimes homemade dishes made by the hands of hermits. Is it possible for all this not to make a blessed impression on the soul? It is not in vain that Saint John Chrysostom says that anyone who has just spent time in the church where the myrrh is cooked will necessarily come out of it fragrant. This kind of people, simple and humble, are not unpleasantly impressed by any sad example of drunkenness or negligence of a careless brethren. “God be with them,” they say, “we came here to pray; after all, sin happens to us too.” Not only simple, uneducated people, but even the highest circle of pilgrims, are given the same impression by the monastery, if only they are visited with true piety, although, of course, a more refined feeling can be more easily offended by some indecency; but for this reason, a general view of monasticism and the benefits that it has brought to the fatherland reconciles this kind of visitors with the shortcomings of monks, and therefore the idea that all this is useful for one people is very unfair; no, according to the Apostle, godliness is beneficial for everything (1 Tim. 4:8). Educated people, in the secular sense, have many more means for their spiritual education, besides monasteries; Where else can the wretched children of nature, who learn the dogmas of the Faith only from what they see and hear, learn it from, because they do not know literacy and do not have spiritual mentors? Neighboring monasteries make up for this spiritual deficiency, for there the service of God is performed without omission, and the very splendor of the rituals explains their inner meaning to those who are attentive; and sometimes some word of a reverent elder sinks deep into the soul and produces a saving change in one’s entire life. Therefore, how painful it is to listen to a superficial and hostile judgment about monasticism from people who are completely unfamiliar with spiritual life and see only the bad side of the monasteries, when, on the contrary, many thousands of people strive for these refuges of prayer, and find spiritual benefit in them! I spoke in general about the benefits of all monasteries, indifferently, small and great, glorious and unknown, scattered across the face of our blessed land. What if we mention the most famous ones, such as: the holy laurels of Sergius and Pechersk, or Solovetsky, to which from time immemorial all of Russia flocks from the most distant borders, just as all of Israel once converged on the appointed days of the Old Testament celebrations to the then only church of Jehovah, in the presence of the God of Jacob. This national annual meeting was a guarantee of unanimity and brotherhood among the people of God, reminding them of the unity of their origin and Faith. The same can be said about the pious wandering of the same-tribal Russian people, scattered throughout our vast fatherland, who meet once a year, in the person of their pilgrims, at any one shrine, and convey mutual thoughts and feelings to each other; even some education stems from this pious wandering, because each admirer returns with a supply of new information about Russia. I will say, for example, that the entire North, that is, the provinces of Arkhangelsk, Olonets, Vologda, Perm and Vyatka, consider it a sacred duty, at least once in a lifetime, to visit the distant monastery of Solovetsky, on the sea-ocean, as the pilgrims innocently say, who do not even dare to get married before they bow to Savvaty, Herman and Zosima, the Solovetskys To the miracle workers. How commendable is such a feeling of zeal, based on another, no less commendable feeling of gratitude to these great intercessors: for, even without reading the chronicle, according to one long-standing oral tradition, from father to son, our entire North still remembers that it owes its education and even population to the Solovetsky monastery. Then only these deserted places, as if forgotten by people at midnight, shone to the world, when the unknown hermits Savvaty and German and after them Zosima decided to retire there, and with their secret prayer they fertilized the desert, according to the very correct saying of church hymns, to the glory of the hermits: “With your tears you have cultivated the barren desert, and from the depths of sighs, you have fertilized you with a hundred labors, and you have been the lamp of the universe, shining miracles, our Father, pray to Christ God for the salvation of our souls.” So effective is this prayer to this day, and is it possible that those flocking from the northern reaches to the Solovetsky monastery do not bring with them at least some spiritual enlightenment to their families? It may not be superfluous, for those indifferent to sacred antiquity, to recall that the Solovetsky Lavra, as it was called in those days, repelled, in the sad time of the Impostors, the repeated attacks of the Swedes and through this kept the entire North of Rus' in obedience to the legitimate Tsar, just like the Sergius Lavra, in the heart of our fatherland, was its only stronghold. First, the population and enlightenment of the entire North, then its protection from enemies, and the hitherto constant arousal in it of a sense of faith - is this still dissatisfying? Just as the Solovetsky monastery, on its sea outflow, serves as a connecting point for the northern borders of Russia: so in its central zone is the Lavra of Sergius. Not only all the surrounding places, but also from distant places, countless admirers flow to the great protector of their homeland, St. Sergius. At the same time, they find in his hospitable abode a daily meal for the poor, a hospital for the sick, an almshouse for the crippled, and a school for orphans. What more could be required from a house of prayer? Are worldly public institutions so hospitable? Should we talk about Voronezh, where, one might say, all of Russia visited for ten years to venerate the relics of the newly-minted Wonderworker, and with his new miracles they were confirmed in their old faith! – And Kyiv and its wonderful Pechersk Lavra, this mother of all Russian monasteries, like Kyiv itself, was the matter of all our cities! How much sacredness lies in this single treasury of prayer! How many beggars feed there on the alms of the entire Russian land, and how many pilgrims from north and south, west and east, find spiritual consolation in the caves of the Lavra, famous for the incorruption of the first hermits! Take away this natural Jerusalem from us, and what a void will remain in the heart of Rus', not filled by any other treasure! – To judge how dear something is to our hearts, we need to get to know what we love; otherwise it is impossible to understand our feelings. We often hear, and rather indifferently, about the loss of people alien to us, but only the fate of our relatives touches us vividly. I will also say about monasticism and monasteries: only those who are deeply imbued with their spiritual necessity and love to visit them for prayer can judge them. They are alien to strangers, although the fate of all Orthodoxy is closely connected with them. Worldly priests, bound by family ties, are hardly able to satisfy the necessary demands, when on the contrary, monks, who are freer in spirit, because they are not bound by marriage, can exclusively devote themselves to serving the Church, in the fuller meaning of the word. Human weakness does not allow every clergyman to become a monk: that is why the state of the Latin clergy is violent, over which the law of celibacy weighs, contrary to the decrees of the Council; but the Orthodox Church, combining, as stated in the canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, ecclesiastical severity with apostolic condescension, prudently decreed that archpastors governing churches should be exclusively dedicated to God, not bound by worldly ties, and allowed their subordinate servants to enter into a blessed marriage, for the sake of human weakness. For those who exclusively want to work for the Lord, monasteries are open, so that in their turn the primates of the Church and their closest assistants necessary for governance are elected from among them. What would happen if only helpless elders were imprisoned within the monastery walls? Not to mention the impossibility of a splendid service for anyone who would ascend to the episcopal sees; who would assist the Bishops in lightening their pastoral burden? – In truth, when you sometimes hear grumbling among us about the uselessness and multitude of monasteries and monastics, you think that they are talking about Rome or about former Spain, where really the tenth person was a monk or cleric, and not about our blessed fatherland, where everything is measured by the standard of Orthodoxy, for the good of the Church and the State. From official information, one can be sufficiently convinced, by the number of monks and monasteries, how little the real state of church affairs is known by those who are most egregious, and it is scary to hear such strict judgments, with such little desire to know the truth. But will they themselves be surprised to learn that in all of Russia there are only 409 monasteries for men and 118 for women, within the walls of which no more than 5,150 tonsured monks, including elders, and 2,250 tonsured nuns are imprisoned? Add to this number another 3,970 novices and 7,400 novices, who were not tonsured and therefore free to leave the monastery at any time, but who work in it, as they would work in any other worldly society; and of all those, of every age, rank and gender, who dedicated themselves to serving God, there are 15,540, and among them there are only 7,340 persons of both sexes who were tonsured. Is this number really large given the 46 million Orthodox population in Russia? This is how something that seems huge to us from a distance loses its gigantic size as we get closer and becomes quite ordinary if we only look with impartial eyes! Blessed are we who still have the spiritual consolation of seeing our holy monasteries prosperous, under the canopy of the Orthodox Church, and not plundered and crushed by the violent spirit of the enemies of Christ, as in the West, where fresh ruins stand as accusatory skeletons of past glory to present ignominy. For us, our ancient Laurels and monasteries serve as objects of people’s love: because the warm, holy feeling of Orthodoxy attracts them to this day and, if we do not anger God, will continue to attract countless pilgrims imbued with sincere faith and affection for their native shrine. Let us thank the God of our fathers, who allows us to contemplate their incorruptible bodies, and not to worship only their abolished cancers, as in the sad East, where barbarians plundered an ancient shrine. Great desert dwellers of the Russian land! true fathers not only of monastics, but also of your worldly children! Anthony and Theodosius, Sergius and Nikon, Zosima and Savvaty and both Cyril and two Niles, Savva, Dionysius, Alexandra and others, whose names are unknown, and the whole host of Saints who came from their humble ranks to high pulpits to shine for the world! - continue to overshadow your fatherland, saved by you so many times, with the shelter of your present immaterial glory, like the new Archangels of the heavenly powers, whose image you bore on earth! In your holy abodes, created, according to the words of St. Nestor, with your sweat and tears, may peace dwell, and may the spiritual children you have gathered imitate your good example, which you left for us and for them. May this humble prayer of the great ascetic, Abba Ephraim, be given to us not only in our mouths, but also in our hearts, and not just for the duration of Lent, but for the entire continuation of our lives: “Hey, Lord, King, grant me to see my sins and not condemn my brother, for blessed are you forever and ever, amen.”