Часть первая. Чтения о культе

Love, love, love, and more love... Repeated countless times by countless people who never approached the threshold of religion, this mysterious word has lost all meaning. But, like connective tissue, it grew, filled the entire area of ​​​​the religious consciousness of our contemporaries, and thereby pushed out the entire content of religion. In this sacred word, the true content has now become: “NON-RELIGION”, the secret meaning of speeches about love is always, more or less consciously, or semi-consciously, a gesture of hostility against religion. The specious rebirth of religious fabric is called speeches about love. Yes, in speeches, for who would dare to lay claim to a life of love - not that humanitarian altruism, which is based either on career, vanity and pride, or on faint-heartedness and hysterical suggestibility at the sight of suffering. But, gentlemen, if we want to talk about religion, really about it, we need to, at least for the duration of these discussions, discard rag flab and psychological “likes” and “dislikes.” With a courageous gaze we must prepare to meet true life in religion, “the fearless heart of immutable Truth” 25. The Apostle Paul is depicted with a two-edged sword: for, according to his testimony, “the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword: it penetrates to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and is a judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from Him, but everything is naked and open before His eyes: to Him we will give an account” (Heb. 4:12-13). And also “The sword of the Spirit is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). Be strong if you want to carry within you “the fearless heart of immutable Truth”! Do you remember who specifically spoke about love? The apostle of love - we are now commemorating him 26. And he is the Son of Thunder, Boanerges 27. Only those who have locked the mountainous Peruns within themselves have the right to speak about love. When suppressed thunder bubbles in the depths, when heavy blows of hammers forge our hearts, when lightning explodes and furrows and tears apart our created flabbiness, then there will be something to transform into the activity of love. But there is no need to refer to love when your days drag on helplessly, “without the Divine, without inspiration” 28. The descent of love is accessible to those who, with a clear outline like snowy peaks, have pierced the blue ether of heaven. But the descent of those sitting in the swampy lowlands is an empty deception. Love, love, love... no, not love, but jelly and semolina porridge. First of all, not love. 2. “Come, children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Ps. 33:12). This is not a modern word. But what can you do: if you want to talk about religion, a matter that is essentially unmodern, you will have to come to terms with this unmodern, but timely, always timely word “fear”. Religion is, first of all, the Fear of God, and whoever wants to penetrate the sanctuary of religion must learn to fear. The absence of fear is not evidence of courage, but, quite the opposite, of audacity, spiritual impudence, insolence - characteristic of cowardly natures when they are convinced of impunity. He who does not know religion does not know the fear of God. He is not afraid, for he is convinced of the insignificance of the Other who is above him. “Lord, plant in me the root of good things, Thy fear in my heart” (7th prayer for those who are coming to sleep, John Chrysostom, 9 o’clock in the night) 29. The root of good things is the fear of God, infused from above in our hearts: in religion nothing grows without this root, everything good comes from it. Take the Bible or at least watch the symphony of passages about the fear of God. How many are there and how significant are they? The Lord is terrible in His greatness, in His immeasurable superiority, in His incomprehensible mystery! The Lord is like fire. “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). His name is terrible (Mal. 1:14), the place of His appearance is terrible (Gen. 28:17); God - great and terrible, terrible for everyone and in everything - repeats the Holy Scripture countless times, and after him - all those who truly knew God - knew, and did not write deadening dissertations about Him or, between tea and dinner, idle feuilletons. Terrible, terrible, terrible - both to the chosen people and languages: the whole religion, and every religion is full and permeated with this inexplicable fear of God. And therefore - “let the fear of the Lord be upon you” (2 Chronicles 19:7), “the fear of the Lord will be your treasure” (Isa. 33:6), etc., etc. “The fear of the Lord is pure” (Ps. 18:10); he is “the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 110:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10). He “is true wisdom” (Job 28:28). He is “the source of life” (Proverbs 14:27) and “leads to life” (Proverbs 19:23). This is what the word of God teaches us. 3. Fear of the Lord... We have heard a lot (more ironically, it seems) that “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.” However, few have thought about the inevitable truth of these words, so close to the judgment of philosophers about amazement as the beginning of philosophy. To have knowledge, one must touch the object of knowledge; a sign that this touch has been achieved is a shock of the soul, fear. Yes, this fear is aroused by touching something new, completely new - against our everyday life. Wedged into the mix of impressions of the world is the non-worldly, incomparable with anything, unlike anything, different. And having wedged itself, it tears the fabric of the ordinary, and thereby our consciousness, which has grown to the ordinary; penetrates, like a two-edged sword, to the separation of soul and spirit, to that junction where our noumenal core actually comes into contact with the area of ​​phenomena, discoveries and worldly penetrations. Having penetrated, our Self burns with a burn: from Time we saw Eternity. Ah, when the mucous membrane is cauterized with a hot iron, then no one asks themselves whether they want it or not, whether they like it or not: then there is no time for psychologisms. “Truly it is so, it is significant,” the cauterized person will say. But this “is” will speak out on its own, not from thinking, it will shout out. Such is the fear of God. When we truly - without pretentiousness and languid affectation - perceive the Divinity, then there is no time for sentimental outpourings. Then, shaken by great fear, we cry out from our depths: “Thou art truly.” The first thing that sacred Delphi forced the pilgrim to say was “Ει, Esi” 30. But “Esi” is not an easy word; it will only be felt in a concussion. The prophet Daniel had a vision on the bank of the river 31. “And only I, Daniel,” he testifies of himself, “saw this vision, and the people who were with me did not see this vision; but great fear attacked them and they ran away to hide. And I was left alone and looked at this great vision, but there was no strength left in me, and the appearance of my face changed enormously, there was no vigor in me. And I heard the voice of His words; and as soon as I heard the voice of His words, I fell on my face in a daze and lay with my face to the ground” (Dan. 10: 7-9). And from the words of the One dressed in linen, who appeared in a vision to Daniel, “I fell with my face to the ground and became numb...” the prophet writes about himself, “from this vision my insides turned in me, and there was no strength in me” (Dan. 10, 15, 16). 4. Here the new breaks through the ordinary in a mysteriously extraordinary form. But it is not in the form of the intruder that is the source of fear, but in the feeling of the transcendence of the one who appears. The unearthly was revealed - and the whole world felt fluid, shaky, unsteady: the existing thing faded before the truly existing. And with the happening, our very existence faded: we ourselves found ourselves a trembling flame among the windy spaces - on the border of nothingness, barely non-existent. But then we found our eternal support - in the Existing One from all eternity. Our final humiliation is also our greatest exaltation. The fear of God is twofold. There is a constant source and causative agent of this antinomian movement: a constant engine of no and yes to our being. This is a crater in which lava is never covered with rocky crust. This is a window into our reality, from where other worlds are seen. This is a gap in earthly existence, from where streams of nourishing and strengthening flow from another world. In short, this is a cult. 5. The first, basic and strongest definition of cult is precisely this: it is that part of it isolated from all reality where the immanent and the transcendent, the earthly and the above, the here and there, the temporary and the eternal, the conditional and the unconditional, the corruptible and the imperishable, are found. Let us make a slight digression here, for the sake of an example. We will need the material offered as an example, and we will still have occasion to use it later. So, let there be some combination of wooden blocks in front of you. This is “ordinary”, “local”, “perishable”. But: “Thy cross, Christ, even though it is a tree, is apparently a being, but it is divinely clothed with power and sensually reveals the world, it cleverly works our miracles of salvation, and bowing to it, we glorify Thee, Savior, have mercy on us” (Octoechos, chapter 5, Tuesday, evening. Verse, verse 2) 32. “Even if a tree is apparently a being, but it is divinely clothed with power”, “we show the world sensually, our minds work miracles of salvation” - these are the typical formulas of every Cult, every department of it, every part of it, wherever, whenever and in whatever way the cult manifests itself. The contact of the “visible” and the “divine,” the “sensual” and the “smart,” that is, the intelligible, noumenal, transcendental, is the characteristic and main feature of the Cult. The essence of the cult with all its consequences is wrapped in this antinomy of the high and the low. The consequences, in summary, are that the “visible” and “sensible”, due to their essential connection with the “divine” and “smart”, turns out to direct our activities along paths that are unusual and unusual for the “visible” and “sensible”, as such. The movement of the sign of the cross is an internal contradiction, for any movement must have a definite direction towards its goal, and this movement, as if rushing towards the goal, then denies its aspiration. And yet, this internally contradictory movement in the cult, as we will see later, dominates. Coupled with the sensual, spiritual force changes the sensual, forcing it to be different from what it would be natural to expect it to be as an isolated force. So, invisible, but powerful, the friend of the double star deflects its light and visible pair from its characteristic rectilinear uniformly progressive motion and forces it to move curvilinearly and unevenly, drawing loops. Returning to our example - the cross - we can note: is service, chanting, worship, kissing, incense, lighting candles and lamps worthy of pieces of wood, which, apparently and sensually, is the cross? But what can we say then about prayerful appeals to him, about invocations of him, revealing that before us is not a piece of wood, but a living, heavenly being who can protect us and help us, according to our call to him? The Honest Cross is not impersonal to us, and not even he, but You. And what may be T for another, in itself and for itself is I - that is, a person, a rational and spiritual being. “The cross, the hope of the faithful, the weapons of kings, the glory of priests, the monastics of the fortress, by your power save all those who glorify you forever” 33. Kissing you with your power, O Cross, grant the Lenten season to pass in peace and deliver the work of the enemy.”34 “Lift up the horn of the Church, honorable Cross, cast down heretical pride by your power and rejoice the faces of the Orthodox, vouchsafe to precede all of us with your announcement and bow to you, the foot of Christ: for in you we glory, blessed tree” 35. “The Cross of Christ, who taught the thief to faith, and grant me grace to flow with fasting, to precede your worship and to be revived” 36. “Cross, scepter of Christ, Church horn, victory of kings, guardian of Christians, you are my enlightenment, you are my praise forever” 37. “...All-holy Cross of Christ, increasing the sweetness of life, make us worthy to worship you with all our pure hearts, giving us purification and great mercy” 38 . “Rejoice, O Cross, for by it, having known in one moment the thief theologian, cry out: remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom...” 39 “The Cross of Christ, the hope of the end, grant us through your nourishment to quietly pass through the abyss of good fasting, saving us from the anxiety of sins” 40. (Nurturing - from the word “feed”, the same as guidance, guidance.) “Honest Cross, my fortress and refuge, enlighten me now with abstinence, cheering and cleansing me, delivering me from temptations, and glorifying You, I magnify Christ the Master” 41. “You are our light, your holy constitution, the triumph of victory, the Cross of Christ, you delight us in abstinence and we are worthy to worship you” 42. “All-honorable saving cross, guardian of the world, keep me fasting and show me worthy of your honest worship” 43. “Blessed Cross of Christ, indescribable victory, you have shrunk from the earth to us. Show us that we are all worthy of your worship, having been purified by fasting” 44. “The great Lord appeared on the Cross, show me the image of the Divine beauty of yours, now worthy of the admirer of your praise, for as I have inspired you, I will proclaim and kiss you” 45. NB: “Yako”, ώς is a conjunction not of comparison, but of equation; Wed 46 (ώς αληθώς). “Like fire” means not “as if by fire,” but “by fire,” even “primarily by fire.” “Yako” means “the same and even more.” Therefore, the expression “as if animate” means: “you are animate, even more than animate.” Consequently, there is a direct recognition of the Cross as an animate being, and not as a substance. “Rejoice, three-rich and divine tree, the Cross, the light that exists in darkness, the four-pointed world, with the radiance of Your rise of Christ, manifest the dawn, making all the faithful achieve Easter” 47. “Dead by the tree, the tree of you has found life, my Christ-bearing Cross, my indestructible guardian, strong power against the demons, I call you to worship today: sanctify me with your glory” 48. “Now, as we worship the Cross, let us all cry: Rejoice, tree of life; Rejoice, holy sceptre of Christ; Rejoice, heavenly glory of men; Rejoice, praise of kings; Rejoice, power of faith; Rejoice, invincible weapon; Rejoice, driving away enemies; Rejoice, bright and saving radiance for the world; Rejoice, great glory to the martyrs; Rejoice, strength of the righteous; Rejoice, angelic lordship; Rejoice, most honorable" 49. “Praise thou art to the Church, honorable Cross, weapon of kings and God-made honor to the whole world, Cross, joy of the Orthodox, guardian of the universe; preserve and sanctify those who worship you” 50. “Cross, guardian of the world, drives away demons, granting you invincible intercession in all things, grant the fast to pass away the rest with a clear conscience, correcting our souls before Christ, blessed tree” 51. “All-honorable cross, purification of all the faithful, power of kings, sanctify all those who worship you” 52. “The Cross, the persecutor of demons, the physician of the ailing, the fortress and guardian of the faithful, the victory of kings, the praise of the Orthodox in truth, the affirmation of the Church of Christ: may the wall and the guardian, the blessed tree, take us away” 53. “The Cross of Christ, the angel of saints is a miracle, but the devil and the demon are a great plague, save Thy servants” 54. “Rejoice, most honorable and life-giving Cross of the Lord... Oh, most honorable and life-giving Cross of the Lord! Help me with the Holy Lady, the Virgin Mother of God and with all the saints forever, amen" 55. So, truly and essentially, and not rhetorically and arbitrarily, necessary, and not conditionally - the Cross can be called Τ s; and if it can, then it must, because it is impossible to steal the personality inherent in it from a Face. And if we want to approach worship in any way, we must take it as it is, without rushing to bring everything to the vulgar level of everyday speeches; we must take liturgical texts in complete seriousness and literally. The Canon of the Honorable Cross - the work of St. Gregory of Sinaite 56 - consists entirely of appeals to the Cross as a living being. And he personally came to the call of the teacher Andrei Yurodivy. Here only concreteness can help - otherwise our worldly thought, like a dog, will continue to return to its vomit. Let's try to be specific about how much is available here. “On a dark night, Andrei the Fool passed by the Church of the Supreme Apostles Peter and Paul. Satan, in the form of an Ethiopian, pushed him into a ditch full of mud. Having plunged into the mud up to his waist, St. Andrew called out: “Apostles, who enlightened the four ends of the earth with your fiery teaching, bright lamps, help me, your unworthy servant, by delivering me from the depths of the ditch.” And immediately - ευθέως - appeared - έφάνη - The Cross hanging in the air, and was like a scorching fire, emitting radiance of rays into the valley to the blessed one. Seeing - θεασάμενος - the Cross, he exclaimed: “Let the light of Your countenance shine upon us, O Lord.” – σημειωθήτω εις ημάς τό φως του προσώπου σου κύριε – . And immediately - παραχρήμα - appeared - έφάνη σαν - two men who took him out of the ditch and became invisible - αφανείς. And that wondrous Cross walked through the air ahead of the saint and illuminated his path until he entered the portico. Turning to see where the Divine Cross will go after this, he sees: and now, as if with golden wings, it was lifted up - ήρθη - into the heights and, as it ascended, it emitted fire-like rays into the air" (Acta Sanctorum, Mai VI, cap. XYYY, p. 47 Ε). “Let the light of Your face be revealed to us, O Lord” (Ps. 4:7), - Andrei the Fool the Fool exclaimed in the words of the psalm (and according to the Russian translation: “Show us the light of Your face, O Lord”), and the Cross appeared to him. The Old Believers, when reading these words of the psalm, all together make the sign of the cross on themselves. This means: the appearance of the light of the face or the sign of the light of the face of the Lord is the appearance of the Cross, that is, the Cross is the light of the face of the Lord, or the appearance of His glory is the glory of the Lord, or also the contemplated image of the Lord, revealed to the world. And in His image man was created. Therefore, the Cross is human nature taken upon Himself by the Lord, in its unity and divine reflection. In this sense, the Honest Cross can even be identified with the Lord, according to the unity of the Divine Hypostasis of the Lord. Thus, the martyr Procopius, in the pagan Neania, appointed to persecute and exterminate those who believed in the Crucified One, at night, with an earthquake and a thunderstorm, heard a voice from heaven: “Neania, where are you going?” Neania said: “...[the king] gave me the position of duka in Alexandria, [and the power to exterminate Christians with executions.”] And again a voice was heard saying: “Oh, Neania, are you coming against Me too?” Neaniah said: “Lord, who are you? Show me - έμφάνησον - Yourself, for I cannot see You - θεωρήσαι σε.” And immediately - ευθέως - a crystal-shaped Cross appeared - ώφθη - to him - ώς κρυσταλλοειδής - and a voice was heard from the Cross: “I am Jesus crucified, the Son of God.” Neaniah says to Him: “...”. Next is the conversation between Neania and Christ about the birth and death of the latter on the cross ('Ανάλεκτα Ίερουσ. Σταχυολ. T. V (1 - 27), § 3; Palestinian Patericon, issue 16, pp. 8 - 9) 57. Neania asks the Lord to “show Himself” - that is, to show His face - but the Cross appears, and the Cross testifies: “I am Jesus.” Consequently, the appearance of the Lord, the Lord in the appearance, is the Cross. “The Cross is in Christ, and Christ is on the Cross; The cross is the image of the crucified Christ” (Archpriest John Sergiev, My Life in Christ, Part 11, 58. But man is in the image of Christ, and therefore the Cross is the image of God in man, his type, while the type of the Cross, the prototype of Man, is the Most Holy Trinity Itself: πρωτότυπος – τύπος – εκτυπος 59 Holy Trinity – Cross – Man. Man is created as a noumenal Cross. Hence every highest manifestation of human nature is in a cruciform prostration. Like a crumpled bud, a man sits huddled in his mother’s womb. It grows - and expands, like a bud - blossoms. The flowering of the human species is the most beautiful thing that is in a person, the most humane thing in a person, when it is stretched out crosswise. This is even externally visual. But it is even more mysterious and spiritual. Raising one's hands to the mountain and prostrating oneself in a cross shape are two types of the deepest prayer - revealing oneself before the Lord and according to the Lord, and therefore becoming like God. There is no need to prove that the host of saints prayed exactly like this: in the lives of the saints you will find many examples of incessant prostration of the cross. To the Venerable Pachomius the Great “it was my custom to stand in prayer, with outstretched arms and hands, and in no way to let go or bend them before praying, but to stand as if hanging on the Cross: strengthening my body, raising my soul to the thought of God, sweating profusely” (Acta Sanctorum, Mai III, p. 25, §11; May, 15, 387 pp.) 60. When Stephen the Wonderworker raised “his consecrated hands” in grief, then “from them, as if from torches, fire flew out, spreading light far away” (Acta Sanctorum, Juli III, dies 13, § 23; Pal 61. And Elder Zosima “saw Mary of Egypt, praying with raised hands, ... exalted like one laclot from the earth, and standing in the air and praying" (April, 1 day, 12 p.) 62. The cruciform prostration is a noumenal prostrate: and therefore you cannot dare to attack it unworthily. St. Paphnutius forbade it to the harlot Taisia who turned to Christ: “Carry it worthy... your hands are raised to heaven, even... your hands. scalded with uncleanness" (October, 8th day, 128 pages) 63. God-likeness is baptism, the realization of the cross in oneself. The Holy One - the entelechy of humanity - is the Cross. The cross is entelechy. And therefore the vision that happened to two monks of the monastery of St. Simeon the Divnogorets is very significant. Before the Mother of God, sitting on the throne, they saw blessed Martha, the mother of Simeon of Divnogorets, “standing before Her [the Mother of God], and raising her hand to Her in the shape of a cross, and transformed into a golden Cross, and shining with light in the likeness of the rays of the sun, and seeing life, the whole Cross brightened, only her face was known higher than the Cross.” (July, 4th day, 67 p. 64; Acta Sanctorum, Mai V, p. 403 – 404). But more than that. The cross is a type not only of a person, but also of the entire universe, contemplated as a single Whole. Cross - “God’s image is significant to the world, both invisible and visible” (canon of the Honorable Cross, creation of Gregory the Sinaite) 65. The whole world was created in the image of the Cross - St. Basil the Great testifies: “Before the wooden Cross, an extended mental Cross was erected to the whole world, in the midst of which the four parts of the universe touch and the power of which, contained in the medium, passes into the four parts” (Basily the Great, -, part II, p. 298. Tr. Ser Lavra, 1900). According to the testimony of Blessed Jerome (Commentary on Evan Mark), “a person cannot turn to heaven with prayer except in the form of the Cross, nor swim on water otherwise; The cross is a form common to all movements and to all living things; it’s even the world’s own species” 66 . Elder Mark lived in the Egyptian desert. The fame of his asceticism attracted many people to him, and in order to get rid of the constant interference in prayers, he decided to flee to another place, but first went to Alexandria for the patriarch’s blessing for this. But in Alexandria he was seduced by the speeches of the heretic crusader, who equated the Cross with the gallows and called for the humiliation of this terrible instrument of the Lord's death. Mark tore off the cross and broke it; He did the same with the other cross that was in the cell, but he buried the fragments and spat on the place where they were buried every day. But one day he hears: “Mark! Why have you insulted My banner? Why did you desecrate My earthly bed, My heavenly heights, earthly depths and breadth in the boundless universe? Why did you do this? "God! Why do you want to punish me? - the elder asked and heard: “For the trampling and desecration of My Cross, on which I lifted humanity from earth to heaven, stand up and look!” Mark stood up. The entire sky was filled with a wondrous light. There was no sun, no moon, no stars; it seemed that the whole universe had turned into one light; the old man turned to the east and saw: the heavens stretched downwards, upwards, and in all directions; There was no earthly plane that he saw every day from morning to evening. The Earth itself has become one point on which the righteous stand. In the distance, the Cross stretched across the entire sky. The whole universe became one Cross, and it consisted of one light, which did not hurt the eyes, like the sun, but was soft and pleasant. The lower end sank into an endless depth, and the upper end rose to an infinite height. The righteous man saw that there is nothing lower than the lower edge of the Cross, and there is nothing higher than its top. The ends of the crossbar diverged into an endless distance in both directions - right and left. And it became clear to the elder that, both to the right and to the left, there was nothing more distant than the ends of this crossbar of the Cross. The angel in the form of a young man said to the elder: “Look and listen! The cross is the image of the universe. He is the history of all things, from the very first moment of creation. Senate, - Worldwide Glory of the Cross of Christ. “Church”, 1910, No. 19 – 20, <pages) 483 – 485, 507 – 508). This basic pattern of the entire universe as a whole is repeated in particulars. St. Basil the Great, in the very days of creation, sees various uses of the same type of cross. To the gaze of the ancient Christians, shocked by the novelty of cross-centrism and completely betraying their hearts and minds to it, every part of the world and every phenomenon of the universe matured sub specie crucis, under the category of the cross. This is not an empty game of analogies, but a genuine experience of apologists and church writers when they talk about the Cross as inscribed everywhere and visible everywhere. "Cross Lamentations IV, 20). And yours [i.e. e. pagan] symbols represent the power of the cruciform shape. I mean the banners and trophies with which you carry out your solemn processions everywhere, displaying in them signs of your power and strength, although you do this without even thinking about it. And you place the images of your dying emperors on the same figure and in the inscriptions you call them gods.” This is the testimony of St. Justin the Philosopher (St. Justin the Philosopher, - 1st apology, chapter 55. - Works. Translation of the priest Preobrazhensky. 2nd edition. M., 1892, pp. 86 - 87). “You [pagans], perhaps, having wooden gods, also honor wooden crosses as components of your deities. But are your very banners and various military signs anything other than gilded and decorated crosses? Your victory trophies have the appearance not only of a cross, but also of a crucified man. We find a natural resemblance to the cross on a ship when it rushes along with its sails spread or approaches the shore with outstretched oars. In the same way, the yoke, when you tie it up, looks like a cross; and a person, when he, with outstretched hands, lifts up a prayer to God with a pure mind, imagines the image of the cross. So, the image of the Cross is found both in nature and in your religion" {Minutius Felix, - Octavius, ch. 29. – Writings of apologists. Transl. priest Preobrazhensky. Ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 260). “The crossbars of the ship's mast and the ends of the sails bear the figure of our cross. Likewise, the birds themselves, when they fly up and hang in the air, with their wings spread, imitate the form of the cross. And the very trophies and signs of victory in triumphs are decorated crosses, which we should have not only on our faces, but also in our souls” (Origen, - Sermones, VHI) 67. “Great is the mystery of the Cross, and in our opinion the world itself is saved by this sign. For when sailors sail on the sea, they first of all erect a tree and stretch the sail, in order to cut through the sea waves through the structure of the Cross of the Lord... And a good farmer, preparing to plow the earth's soil and obtain life's food, tries to do this by means of the tree of the cross, for, having attached a sharp blade to the lower part of the plow, he attaches a club and a handle on top, and imitates the figure Cross; therefore, the very unity of the plow is some semblance of the suffering of our Lord. Also, the sky itself is located in the image of this sign, for, dividing into four countries: east, west, south and north, it is, as it were, restrained by the four corners of the Cross. The very position of a person with raised hands depicts the Cross; That’s why we are commanded to pray with raised hands, so that by the very movement of our limbs we confess the passion of the Lord, because our prayer is soon heard when our very body imitates Christ, Whom we contain in our thoughts” (St. Ambrose of Milan, - Sermones, LVI) 68. Similar to this are the testimonies of Tertullian (De Oratione) 69, St. Basil the Great (Commentary on Is. XI, 12; Six Days) 70, St. Augustine (Sermones, LIX, on the eve of Pentecost) 71, St. John of Damascus (Exact exposition of the Orthodox) faith, book. IV, ch. XI; Creations, vol. G, ed. SPb. Spirit. Ak., 1913, p. 306), etc. Taken in isolation, this evidence may appear to be nothing more than rhetoric and ad hominem apologetics. But, taking into account the church teaching about the Holy Cross, expressed in worship, in iconography, taking into account the experience of saints who speak in no way apologetically, we are convinced that Christian contemplation really sees all world life under the scheme of the Cross. Everything is the Cross, everything is cross-shaped - the Cross lies at the basis of all being as the true form of being, no longer only external, but an organizing form>Platonic είδος. Realized in matter, the venerable Honest Cross is no longer a thing among other things, but an entelechy of reality, τό όντως ον, τό δν νοούμενον. Although sensually contemplated, it is, however, an intelligent essence, comprehended by the mind, and in its most visible and tangible form, in the crossing of the lines itself, its intelligibility appears. But if so, if we have the thing in itself in our hands, before our eyes, then, of course, the cross, the essence of which is expressed by its appearance, cannot be from the enemy’s power, cannot be beautiful. In the image of the Cross, the devil cannot appear to the ascetic to deceive, as is evidenced by St. Barsanuphius the Great “Answer 413. In the book: The Venerable Fathers Barsanuphius the Great and John, a guide to spiritual life in answers to the questions of his disciples. Transl. from Greek M., 1883. P. 301.” 73 and St. Procopius - Neania (Άνάλ. Ίερουσ. Σταχ. T. V (I - 27), § 8. Pal Pat, vol. 16, p. 16) 74, etc. And therefore the sign of the cross is the main and surest weapon against the wiles of the devil. The Cross is always the Cross itself; there cannot be a deceptive Cross. This noumenality of the Cross as a pre-heavenly spiritual essence is shown with particular depth and expressiveness in the vision (not the one that was stated) of St. Andrew the Fool. Full of mysterious beauty and infinitely deep content, this vision could serve as the topic of a special philosophical, dogmatic and religious-historical study. But the too long story about him prevents us not only from reading the relevant excerpts, but even from conveying its content; I will limit myself to just a brief reminder that St. Andrew saw three heavens, in which the birthing springs of universal existence were located. In the first heaven, St. Andrew saw the Cross, near which beautiful singers stood and sang a sweet song to the Lord. In the second heaven, in front of its gates, there stood two Crosses, where the sacred procession also took place. In the third heaven, St. Andrew saw three Crosses, shining like hot iron. The leader of St. Andrew entered into the midst of the fire and bowed to the Crosses, but St. Andrew could not ascend into the fire and bowed to them from afar, while in the first and second heaven he kissed the Crosses (Acta Sanctorum, Mai VI, cap. V, ρ. 20 C - 21 D, § added). Not having the opportunity to further engage with this vision, I persistently call your attention to the life of St. Andrew 75. So, the Cross is a living being, intelligent, conscious, spiritual, capable of hearing our prayers and responding to them. Placed between the Most Honest Cherub and the disembodied Heavenly powers in the petition of the lithium, in the dismissal, etc., He, therefore, in his rank, occupies a place immediately after the Most Holy Virgin Theotokos and above the Heavenly Forces, above St. John the Baptist, above the apostles, prophets and saints. This mountainous Being is the image and type of the entire universe, as was shown to the ascetic elder Mark in the Egyptian desert - the universe itself, contemplated by the gaze of Eternity. He is the building force of the world, “a signifier of the world” 76, the guardian of the world, the guide of the world, the idea of ​​the world - Sophia. Both as a whole and in its parts, the universe is cruciform, and cruciformity penetrates the universe in all directions, in all divisions, in all senses. And we even learn that the Cross pre-existed the world - and Time itself - in the thought of God (cf. Acts 2:22 - 23, 1 Cor. 1:23 - 24; 2:7). But if so, then this “piece of wood” - aka the Mysterious Eternal Being - can it not be scary? Tradition says that the Apostle Andrew the First-Called, going to death on the cross, uttered the following words, turning to the Cross: “Before the Lord had even been crucified on you, you were terrible as a man” (The exploits and sufferings of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called. - [St. Demetrius of Rostov], - Menaion of the Chetya. <Book of Lives of Saints for the month of November.) November, 30th day, M., 1897, pp. 627 – 628.” Church hymns testify that the Angels themselves serve him, “the image of the Holy Trinity” 77 with great fear. And so, this tree is venerated with awe and tenderness: “Come, let us bow to the Intercessor of our life, the revealed tree of Christ our God, the Cross” (Lenten Triodion, Tuesday 4th seventh evening, on “Lord, I have cried,” verse 4) 78. 6 79. Speaking about the Cross, we took it as an example: with examples the mysterious area of ​​​​the cult can be most closely explained. But the point now is not in the Cross, but in the property and purpose of the cult in general to bring us into contact with other worlds: and the feeling of presence, the presence of mysterious beings around oneself, in front of oneself - mysterious beings, activities and forces - cannot but be terrible, and should not be not terrible. “This place is scary” 80, because it’s scary to look into the breakthroughs of the empirical. Ancient cults (even less terrible, in essence, than the Christian cult of cults), ancient cults were more shocking with their outward appearance - and thereby opened, as if torn, and not the prophetic apple of the vision of the Mysteries. Designed for greater sensitivity, the Christian cult moderates the tragic depth of its secrets with more restrained and dry forms: if the fire bubbling in the Holy Chalice appeared in forms equivalent to the ancient forms, no flesh would withstand. If only the light of the Holy Mysteries would shine, not hidden by the sight of bread and wine, said Fr. John of Kronstadt, - then no created eyes would have tolerated their brilliance 81. But for us, in order to approach the characteristic lines of the cult - which is what I call the philosophy of the cult - it is useful to first look at the formidable grandeur and massiveness of the ancient cults - in order to approach the understanding of the fear of God, the initial experience of religion - for the fear of God is yes to God. The more massive, lapidary, and archaic we think about religion, the closer we will be to the truth. We would like to give our reasoning a stony heaviness, so that the words all weigh 10, 100, 1000 times more than they weigh, so that each of them, like a hundred-pound weight, falls on you, so that each of them with its weight makes you feel it, so that you cannot throw off its burden, so that, in a word, it cuts into you deeper and deeper. Only then could we count on success and think through something together about the foundations of the cult. But no, my word is powerless and empty... 7. Perhaps in such cases, in order to be clear, it is best to abandon the system and evidence and turn to the sincere, but incoherent, initial course of one’s own thoughts, in accordance with the impressions actually received from life itself. In my life, one of these defining experiences was a trip to Gyu listan. I have little hope that I will be able to convey to you what the emphasis was on this trip, but I will try anyway. This was in the memorable year 1892. Cholera was rampant. I was then 9 years old, and I spent the summer on my aunt’s estate - Khanagyai, in the Elizavetpol province 82. Steep road in the rocks and through the forest to the foot of the mountain Μ ρ o in a. Snowy peak, piercing with clarity] 83 – the smell of fat and barbecue. 8. Temple of Jerusalem. From this childhood impression I had an internal transition to the cult of the Jerusalem Temple. I consider it necessary to outline this cult in at least two or three strokes: in a certain sense, every cult is true. But this Jerusalem one, in particular and without any doubt, is the true cult of the True God. We cannot help but take it into account if we want to get closer to understanding the cult in general - for it is undeniably true, but, in addition, it is just as undeniably majestic. Its enormity, splendor, richness, so to speak, intensity - in all its manifestations, in general a kind of uniqueness in world history, and what is even more important, its fame and examination in the smallest and most subtle details, knowledge of all its incidents, both ritual-technical and internal-liturgical, make this cult an indispensable and irreducible subject in the study of the cult in general. However, I do not hope that you know biblical archeology, and therefore I will limit myself to very little. Let's start with the size of the church. You know that the temple, the actual temple of ναός, was surrounded by an internal courtyard, divided into two sections - where the sacred rites were actually performed, where the fat and men stayed, and that later, under Herod Agrippa, an external courtyard was probably added to this latter - for the pagans. What are their sizes? Solomon's Temple occupied an area of ​​400 cubits in length and 200 in width. At the same time 85 Altar of burnt offering: 20 cubits in length and width and 10 in height. In Herod's church - 30 lengths and 15 widths. Front elbow = 6 palms = 10.18 inches = 448 mm. When describing the church, of course, the sacred cubit, i.e. 7 chadoney = 11.86 vershka = 522 mm. The area of ​​the modern church of Haram El-Sharif = 17.5 tithes, and, according to Olesnitsky 86, it was all part of the Solomon Temple, but not everyone agrees with this 87. Herod's Church: courtyard = 322 cubits long and 135 wide (Trinity N. G.}, - Bible Arch 397 88). So, the altar is 30x15 cubits = 22x11 arshins! An eternal fire burned on it: it was not a hearth, but a whole fire into which flammable material was constantly thrown. Imagine the crackling, whistling, hissing of fire on such an altar. Imagine almost a cyclone forming over the church. According to legend, it was never extinguished by rain. But this was necessary: ​​why be surprised, since whole bulls were burned here, not to mention many goats, rams, etc. Imagine what 89 the smell of burning, lard - if one barbecue in the East spreads smoke down several streets! It is not for nothing that in the figurative language of Jewish theology the altar was called ariel, the Lion of God. Indeed, he devoured both victims and firewood. Number of victims: according to Josephus, 265,500 lambs were slaughtered at Easter; According to the Talmud, Herod Agrippa, in order to count the number of fans, ordered to separate a kidney - there were 600,000 of them. At the consecration of Solomon's Temple, 22,000 bulls and 120,000 sheep were slaughtered. Sometimes the priests walked ankle-deep in blood - the entire huge courtyard was covered in blood. Imagine the smell of blood, fat, incense - was heard in Hebron - smoke - trumpet sounds - from 21 to 48 during the burnt offering 90 - the singing of countless choirs, of course, the bleating, screams and groans of animals, despite the efforts to bring them into silence. There was no point in going here with weak nerves. It was not for nothing that there was a ban, under threat of death, for foreigners to take even a step beyond a certain place. On the day of sukket - tabernacles - 70 bulls were brought: 13 on the first day, and then less by one - after all, they had to be burned! 9 . The ritual of the day of purification, yom hippurim or hippur - the 10th of Tishri (see M. Kobrin, - Day of Purification of the Old Testament. Hill, 1902) (Tishri - the 7th after the 1st spring month, i.e. approximately August - September). Ox, Aries, 2 goats and Laiehova - Laazazel. Anan, Shekinah, tied by the leg, 5 full ablutions + 10 partial. – Pronounced the name GPGR – spelled them out – blessings – in the sounds of the choir – singing... changed clothes 4 times] 91 . I repeat, it was difficult to bear the TRUTH of the highest reality revealed in the cult. Touching the ark killed, desecration of the cult was punishable by death. Sacrificial blood descended into the Kidron stream, and all of Palestine was fertilized with the blood sediment: there was so much blood! Blood, blood, blood - blood, “in which the soul” 92 - flowed in streams. The “Lion” rose fiercely - a sacrificial fire, devouring the prey and raising the children before Jehovah to the sweet smell. But if this is terrible, then how much more terrible are the pagan cults, with their human sacrifices, with the throwing of idols - children - into the liquefied bowels, with slaughter, with the tearing out of the heart from a living person (Mexico), with sacred torture, etc. One of these cults of the Carthaginians is perfectly described by Flaubert in “Salambo”. You can truly believe in a cult, and then it is - τό όντως δ ν - truly existing from existing, or not believe - and then exclaim: Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum 93. 10. All this is scary, because the Supreme Reality is scary. However, all this, the whole cult “is a shadow of the future, but the body is in Christ” (Col. 2:17). “Even though they are the shadow of those who are to come, the body of Christ is the body of Christ” (Col. 2:17) - the body, i.e., reality is true being, opposed to shadow. And again: “The law (i.e., the cult of the Old Testament), having a shadow of future benefits, and not the very image of things, with the same sacrifices, constantly offered every year, can never make perfect those who come with them” (Heb. 10, 1) - σκιάν γάρ εχων about νόμος των μελλόντων αγαθών, ουκ αυτήν τήν εικόνα τών πραγμάτων. So, all this is the shadow of the future, umbra futurarum rerum 94. And if the shadow of reality is terrible, then how much more terrible is reality itself. The quantitative grandeur of the Old Testament cult is, as it were, compressed into the qualitative intensity of the New Testament cult. Not bulls, goats and lambs, but the Lord Himself, He Himself offered Himself as a Sacrifice: “Thou shalt offer Thyself alone” 95. And each Eucharist is truly that same Blood, not different, not new, but the same, numerically the same, unfolding in the forms and reminders of church rite: for Golgotha ​​is a historical fact, mysteriously and eternally IS in the heavenly church (tabernacle) and is seen there through our earthly shell. The anointing of the Holy Myrrh is truly the Holy Spirit, and the Holy font is truly the False Divine. And the words: “Take, eat...” 96 - not others - but the same ones [, not reminders, but actions] 97. 11. You may not believe in the Christian cult at all, that is, you may be outside the Christian religion. But to be involved in it means, by believing, to participate in the cult. Then there is no place for ease towards him, that ease to which few people are not devoted. The Old Testament cult forcibly frightened with its enormity; Christian - has acquired as much density, so to speak, as it has concentrated in our small, toy, one might say, churches. But lightning-throwing and scorching in essence, he, with rare exceptions, does not clearly reveal his terrible power, does not subjugate our amazement and prefers to remain at the bottom of our faith. Let us not be deceived by the modesty of our shrine and let us not consider it, noumenal, too familiarly close; Let us not lose the fear of God! [v] Although there is food, O man, the Body of the Lord, [v] Approach with fear, so as not to get burned: there is fire. (Poems for Holy Communion) 98 “I tremble, accepting the fire, lest I be scorched like wax and like grass. Ole terrible sacrament! Ole the mercy of God! How do I partake of the Divine Body and Blood, clay, and become incorruptible?” (canon for Holy Communion) 99. “I, the accursed one, dare to perceive Your whole Body, lest I be scorched” (prayer to St. Proverbs 11, St. John of Damascus) 100. [v] Behold, I begin Divine Communion. Creator, do not scorch me with communion: For thou art a fire, scorching the unworthy. O man, it is in vain to be horrified at the Blood that idolizes: For there is Fire, the unworthy ones burn... In the mysterious depths of our being there is always a fall or sanctification. But on the surface, is man not abandoned to his stupidity and his frivolity? A terrible and scorching religion is reduced to the plane of crucifixes-trinkets, prosphoras, beads, cherubic icons with roulades, sermons, to one of the countless entertainments for you, bored slackers and especially slackers. Is there really no reprisal against us? Let us remind you: there are often cases when the veil of views was pulled back before the eyes of an unbeliever, and the essence of the cult looked at them menacingly. Angels co-serving, or even replacing, clergy. Christ the Child slain on the paten. Blood poured out. Trembling of the heavenly powers. The light is unbearable. Enemies of the human race, distracting from the Holy Mysteries. Cases of this kind are numerous and, scattered over many centuries, are recorded and confirmed. But there are many more of these cases than how many have been registered. They are so comparatively frequent that in the “Teacher's Izvestia”, i.e. Instructions for the priest on what to do if one or another unforeseen event occurs, such as the shedding of the Holy Blood, an attack by enemies, a fire, a spider falling into the Holy Chalice, etc., among many other surprises, the following is stipulated: “If after the consecration of bread or wine a miracle appears, eat the form of bread in the form of flesh or youth, and the wine in the form of blood,” while not only explaining how to proceed with such a transformation, but and it is explained that “a miracle from God, unbelief or otherwise, was revealed for the sake of guilt” (Izv. teaches in the Service Book, embossed 6th in St. Petersburg. 102). 12. Here are a few features - they could easily be multiplied indefinitely - that depict religion from its terrible side - terrible, that is, requiring the fear of the Lord. “Come, children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord,” King David calls us 103. We took two, three steps. But we are convinced that the area of ​​religion is really different from our ordinary world, that everything here is new, everything is different. And in the obvious, we are met here by the same truth. Contact with her is a burn and fear. Invisible lines of magnetic force are outlined when iron filings enter a magnetic field. Thus, the invisible and secret becomes accessible to sensory contemplation, having been clothed with the empirical, it is located along its own lines of the invisible. Entering the sphere of cult, the sensual lives and combines no longer according to its immanent connections, but in other ways and becomes part of a different, transcendental structure, with its own laws and with its own special connections. Involved in other connections - strange and incomprehensible on the plane of the sensual, in unexpected relationships, henceforth restrained by other forces, it thereby breaks out of the region of earthly gravity, ceases to be simply earthly and only sensual. Just as the food that has become part of the body and, assimilated by it, sensually reveals its hitherto invisible life form, είδος, cannot be called simply external and lifeless, so earthly things in the area of cult cease to be earthly and, from an earthly point of view, in the earthly plane, as earthly things, but earthly things are peculiar, special, strange, the incomprehensibly complex - from the point of view of the cult itself, in the plane of the mystery that the cult defines, composes and forms, from this point of view there is already something else, dedicated, sanctified, transmuted, transubstantiated - is the mystery itself. But, I repeat, the cult, strange and incomprehensible when viewed from below, when viewed in reverse, when viewed from above, acquires integrity and unity. Distorted by an incomprehensible force, fragmented and shuffled, the elements of sensory reality, as if destroyed by a whirlwind rushing over it, unite into new, hitherto unseen hieroglyphs of the secret world, as soon as we rise up and from there contemplate their overall picture. The power, transcendental to them, formed them according to laws that do not flow from their essence, although they imply it: this power is the thread that connects what is above and what is below. [The cross is a form, a cruciform movement is a whole movement. How is the whole movement an arrhythmia? Here is an example of how natural life changes when the non-mundane element invades it.] 104 13. But if this is really so (and I don’t know how to think otherwise), then we find ourselves in a situation that almost destroys the possibility of lectures. Our understanding approaches the cult not through rational study, but through life contact with it: outside of concrete life in the cult or around the cult there is no understanding of it. From one cult it is possible, to a certain extent, to comprehend other cults of other times and other religions, guided by life analogies and echoes. But this certainly requires a fulcrum in any specific cult. Otherwise, all our words will be empty words, idle argument. Obviously, only a series of approaches, a sequence of detours around the secrets of the cult, are possible, but by no means an exposure of the secrets themselves. I will say more: the true meaning of our readings should not be approaching the mysteries, but moving away from them. We are moving towards them, which seem so close: but we will see, as we move forward, that these secrets are further than we thought about them. Let us move further, and they will still be removed in our consciousness. And then we will begin to understand that the secrets of the cult are not at all those toy hills that they seem to many at first, but mountain ranges rising above the clouds and supporting the sky. Familiarity with cult will then be pushed aside by the fear of God. If this is so, then our goal will be achieved. We have to deal with things that are mysterious by their very essence. But to this essential mystery is added the almost complete lack of research even on the external side of the cult phenomena. The very subjects of the presentation have not been studied or have not been studied at all in the directions we need, in meanings other than what is before us - with other intentions, from other angles. If we had time, we should re-study and build the very science of the cult in its external structure, analyze cult forms, give the anatomy, histology and physiology of the cult. Only then, strictly speaking, could we begin to attempt to philosophically examine the phenomena of the cult. But this undertaking - the foundations of cultic studies - is infinitely difficult and in itself, for an individual researcher it becomes impossible even in the weakest attempts - for us, who have at our disposal only (4 χ 4) four times four weekly hours and are deprived of the opportunity to assume one or another stock of liturgical information... what should we do? Chat? I would never have dared to speak to you with these conversations if it had not been for many years of positive thoughts that have been tormenting me: the main place of church ruin is inattention, lack of reflection on the cult, the main task of modern theology is the explanation of the cult. Therefore, realizing in advance the inevitable wretchedness of everything that I can say, especially under the current conditions, I still take upon myself the burden of bearing internal and external condemnation, for frivolity, superficiality and self-confidence - I take it exclusively as church obedience. Having no theories of my own, I not only do not have definitive theories, and therefore no system, but I am also decidedly hostile to it. A system - a frozen thought - is generally a contradictio in adjecto 105 and is hostile to living deepening. In a question that has not been studied, in a question more than any other that presupposes eternal deepening, the system is absolutely unacceptable. Fragmentation and sketchiness should prevail here. There is no final thought - there are only strokes and approaches. My task is to excite thought, but not to satisfy it. What I can offer you is not a course of lectures, but a collection of topics for reflection, some beginnings, not even many beginnings of the future philosophy of the cult. But that is precisely why I am addressing you as friends, not as those seeking to attack by surprise, but trying to understand. My thought is not armed with either scientific references or exact quotes. She stands defenseless before you; This is forced by both lack of time and partly by the nature of the subject, which - scientifically - has hitherto been sub judice est 106. With this personal appeal, allow me to end today’s introduction, which had the task of directing your attention to some of the beginnings of our conversations that stand before us and thereby inducing your thought to go towards what will be said in the future. Not only do I not have definitive theories (and therefore) no systems, but I am also decidedly hostile to them. The system - a frozen thought - is a contradictio 107 and is therefore hostile. Nietzsche's words about the vulgarity of the system 108. There is no final thought - thought flows - and this is its meaning - in flow. In lecture 1 you need to insert: a) etymological analysis of the word fear and its equivalent in other languages, especially Hebrew, b) exegetical analysis of the passages of Holy Scripture where the fear of God is spoken. Especially “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” 109, c) judgments about the fear of God as the beginning of the wisdom of holy theologians, d) about bloody cults - in detail about the cult of Jerusalem, e) about the cross as an object of pre-Christian and extra-Christian cult (the universality of the cult). II. Cult, religion and culture Reworking what 1917.ΧΙ.7 wrote. Cult is perceived from the top down, not from the bottom up. And if we were to take a listener who was in no way involved in the life of the cult - one who really did not have the slightest personal experience, nor the experience of the ancestors that inseminated and excited his blood, nor artistic anticipations of this experience, in a word, if we were to find such an inhuman monster for whom the cult does not exist in the least in its concrete life, then all our conversations with him would, of course, be in vain: such a person would be deaf to the philosophy of the cult. But there are probably none here; I would like to testify to you my faith that such cannot exist at all - my faith, despite the temptation that has been alive since childhood, despite the secret horror, that there are humanoid animals devoid of a human, that is, cult, soul - minotaurs, subject to some mystical dislocations of humanity. Let's leave them, however. I am turning to you in the confidence that everyone has the experience of a cult and that the cult, at least to some extent, is understandable to everyone - precisely when looking from top to bottom. Then the task is feasible: secretly preserving your thought from top to bottom, try to approach the cult from the bottom up, that is, to comprehend, deepen and dismember your already existing impressions of the cult. Then, while remaining cult empiricists, we can talk as if (only as if) independently of experience - for greater clarity of our conversations. But, I repeat, we will not throw empty husks into the mill of a priori reasoning, but again the same cult, already known to us. With this caveat in place, we can make our first approach. Considered from the bottom up, a cult is a certain human activity, namely a type of cultural activity that exists along with others. The phenomena of the cult - the church, church utensils, other accessories of the church and home prayer, and also all elements of the cult - such as the text and melody of chants, prayers, consecrated substances, etc., etc.; United into concrete integral unities, they are the instruments of this cultural activity: by them, and through them, and in them, the cult as an activity is manifested and carried out. In order to compare a cult with other cultural activities, it is necessary to compare its tools with the tools of other activities, for every activity is carried out and manifested through its tools and can itself be defined as a tool-building activity, while man himself, the actor, is a ζώον τεχνικόν, as a being who builds tools. It should be added, by the way, that ζώον is opposed to 9ήρ, like animal to the word bestia 110, and can refer not only to animals, but also to man, and to an angel, and even to God. Thus, according to the definition attributed to Plato, Θεός ζώον άθάνατον: “God is an immortal animal” 111. Cherubim are called in the language of the Church ζώα - “six-winged animal”, angels are called ζώα λογικά - “verbal animal”. Ζώον, like animal, is a designation for all living things. Man is Ζώον – animal; The construction of tools specifically belongs to him, and in this particular activity of constructing tools lies his peculiarity in comparison with other living beings. Now we will not discuss the nature of tools: we will only say that a tool, as such, is a projection into the outside creative depths of the human being, which builds his entire own empirical existence - his body, his mental life. Please note that in Greek instrument is οργανον (organ). Indeed, the organs of our being - mental and physical - are the instruments of the spirit that the spirit builds for itself; and our tools together, which we build, are also organs of our empirical, mental-physical composition. Now we will limit ourselves to a bare list of human tools. When we say the word tool, we are most immediately reminded of hammers, saws, plows or wheels, etc. - in a word, in the crudest sense of the word, the material tools of technical culture. For greater clarity, we will call them machines, instruments – Instrumenta. Tools are the most significant – literally – manifestation of tool-building activity. But there is another kind of weapon, the least material, airy, to put it precisely and literally, but no less powerful; this is the essence of the word, - in particular - technically formalized concepts and terms. The word, “airy nothingness,” is, however, an instrument of thought, without which thought is not revealed and is not realized. Not in a figurative sense, but in the most precise sense, words are tools. Let's call this type of tools concepts - Notiones. Now the question arises: is the tool-building activity of our spirit limited to the creation of concepts, terms and machine tools? Or, perhaps, the completeness of the list requires stopping attention on one more area that we have so far left out of our horizons? You guess, of course, that we are talking about cult instruments. But in order to definitively answer our question, in order to place cult tools among other tools and determine their place here, let’s try to proceed from a priori grounds. Then it will become clear whether we should not simply identify the instruments of worship with the instruments and concepts already known to us. Machine-tools stand before us in full visibility. We cannot doubt their reality: they are essence. Stick, hammer, saw, pump, etc., etc., including airplanes and gramophones - the essence. But their rationality - their λόγος - is deduced by inference. It is not directly visible. We can see without reasoning that the machine has been realized; but that it was carried out by reason, if you want, that human activity in general produced it - this requires proof, each time special, and it is carried out by us unconsciously each time. Otherwise we would not be convinced that the machine is a product of human intelligent activity. On the contrary, concepts and terms are cognized by us directly with complete conviction, as activities of the mind, as λόγος. The concept directly reveals human activity. But the visual embodiment of these activities, that is, their implementation, must be proven and is not directly visible to us. Moreover, most of our contemporaries almost or completely deny it. If we are inclined to consider a machine to be an unreasonable reality, then the word, on the contrary, is a reasonable nothing, a nihil audibile - an audible nothing. Machine-tools are contemplated as εργα, as things; but their rational ενέργεια, the rational energy that produced them, must be demonstrable. Concepts-terms are recognized by us as reasonable ένέργειαι, as activities; but whether they are εργα at the same time cannot be seen without evidence. In other words, the creativity of the mind breaks down into the production of things, the meaning of which is not obvious; and on the production of meanings, that is, pure activities of the mind, the reality of which, the entry of which into nature is not obvious. It is necessary to prove the meaningfulness of things and the materiality of meanings. But it would be possible to prove the meaning of things and the materiality of meanings only on the basis of such a thing, the meaning of which would be directly given, or from such a meaning, the reality of which would not itself, in turn, require proof. It is necessary that at least at one point of human activity there should be a visual unity of its two poles, that is, the indisputable embodiment of meaning, or, what is the same, the indisputable spirituality of a thing. Then, relying on this solid point, we could show that other works of human activity are essentially the same, but are not immediately seen as such. But, at least at one point, unity must be seen: otherwise we have no way to prove the unity of heterogeneous things. Until we have established that such works of creative activity of the spirit really exist, neither proof of the meaning of things-machines, nor of the reality of meaning-terms can be carried out. And if, secretly, we think differently, then this is because, and only because, we have at least a vague experience that has revealed to us a third activity. But let's forget about it for now. Then the creativity of the spirit must split into two mutually exclusive areas, and, consequently, reason itself [in the patristic sense as the focus of the spirit, not modern] splits in its foundations. Two mutually exclusive activities, not connected in any way, do not get along in the aquatic mind! But the unity of self-consciousness [transcendental apperception, or self-identity of the Self, I=I] also requires the unity of spiritual activity - the activity of the mind - the organic articulation of its activities. The activities of the mind cannot but be internally united. And if so, then the mind must know about their unity. But in order to know about their unity, he must have before him such an activity in which the unity of meaning and reality would be clearly realized. This realization of clarity by the mind - in the unity of meaning and reality - will be a bridge that generally connects the activity of realization, as such, with the activity of comprehension, as such. In other words, if there is a clear balance of one and the other activity, then there is also a point of application through which, at which and in which the mind primarily realizes its unity, that is, the point of implementation in the activity of a single self-consciousness, I = I. On the contrary, if there is no such point, then the mind disintegrates, the I is tragically torn away from the Self, from itself: in the extreme this would mean ontological madness, Gehenna, hell. So, we can say: the unity of self-consciousness, I=I, forcibly presupposes the activity of the mind, harmoniously connecting the reality of the machine-thing with the meaningfulness of the concept-term. And vice versa: the presence of such antinomically conjugating activity of the mind would serve as a condition for self-consciousness, would be the supporting point of all reason, in all its activities, i.e., both theoretical and practical. The activity we are looking for is the transcendental condition of all activities of the mind and of the mind itself. Reason itself, in order to exist, must rely on a living antinomy and in this antinomy maintain its balance. Otherwise, balance is instantly lost and the mind - incomprehensibly, but undoubtedly - decays, rots and burns in the fire of Gehenna. The antinomic activity of the mind is not only desirable in itself, but also desperately necessary as a condition of the possibility of all life, in its entire composition, even in those of its manifestations that, parasitizing on this primary activity and robbing it, direct their blows at it, thereby cutting off the roots of their own nutrition. This is how the need for antinomic activity is formally established. What, further, are its more particular signs, according to which one could determine where exactly to look for this truly fundamental activity - this activity, the prius 112 of human existence, - that activity through which and in which a person first becomes a man? Being the production of realities-things, this activity must, one way or another, deal with the material world, and, moreover, not in its barely tactile aspects (-let's look ahead-), like the construction of terms embodied in the subtlest vibrations of the air, but in more indisputable and visual features, in material, massive and clearly, indisputably and tactilely material. On the other hand: being the production of meanings - λόγων, being a “smart”, “verbal” doing (again in the sense of meaningfulness), this activity must, one way or another, reveal meanings - τούς λόγους - and, moreover, visually, and not as it is done in technology (we are looking ahead in our statement that in technology there is still meanings), where it is necessary to prove the meaning. Consequently, the meaning in the production of such activity of the spirit must be visible, revealed in a certain body: the body itself must stand before contemplation as some embodied meaning: about λόγος σάρξ έγένετο - the Word became flesh 113 . The product of this central and primary activity of the mind is the appearance of an idea, or an embodied idea. This is the descent of the heavenly to the earthly and the ascent of the earthly to the heavenly, the union of Heaven and earth. “Heaven and earth 114,” the Church sings in the service of the Nativity of Christ, thus defining the Incarnation (stichera on the lithium). And again: “Today 115,” the Church sings in the service of the Annunciation. Heaven and earth, above and below are combined into one. The place of this combination is the Mother of God. That is why, in the canon of the Guardian Angel [canto 7, “and now”], the person praying calls upon Her: Mother of God, “the clever ladder, through which God descended and man ascended” 116. “Smart” means intelligible, noumenal. The Mother of God is an intelligible ladder along which God descends into the world and man ascends to heaven. But the Mother of God is the Church, the focus of the Church, the heart of the Church: in Her, with particular expressiveness, that activity is carried out that determines the essence of the Church, that is, that activity that constitutes the deepest foundation of self-consciousness. This activity is the ladder by which God descends into the world and man ascends to heaven; with this activity, “the lower ones copulate with the higher ones.” And therefore its product is enlightened matter, a transformable substance. In it, reality is spiritualized, sanctified, deified. And then, in such a new reality, as in the central node of being, both practical activity and theoretical activity mutually find themselves, for here, on this common two-pronged trunk of them, it becomes obvious that they are two - not two, but one, the same activity: real meaning or meaningful reality - one and the same activity, but in their polar-conjugate moments. This activity must exist. But does it exist? 117 The closest example of such activity is artistic creativity. It combines the practical side—the embodiment of one’s ideas by the mind—with the theoretical side—the comprehension of activity. A work of art does not need either proof of its material reality [for it is clearly real, clearly there is such a thing], nor proof of its ideal meaning [for it is indisputably comprehended, undoubtedly not without meaning]. It is έργον, but it is also the incessantly flowing and vibrating ενέργεια of the spirit. Works of plastic arts testify with particular clarity that there is the activity of the human spirit that we are looking for, and this activity, as we said, is its closest example in fine art. We said: “closest”, for the comprehension of matter that is produced by art is a comparatively external comprehension: the marble of a broken statue or the paint of an erased painting are substances, only substances that are not comprehended through and through, not transformed, not assimilated by the spirit - not golden, but only gilded by the Logos. 1918. V.5. Night, after the all-night vigil It is clear that it cannot be otherwise. Fine arts, historically, are links that have fallen out of their nests or jumped out of a more serious and more creative art - the art of worship - feurgy. Feurgy, as the central task of human life, as the task of the complete transformation of reality into meaning and the complete realization of meaning in reality, was in ancient times the fulcrum of all life’s activities; she was the mother's womb of all sciences and all arts. It was a real condition for the development of self-awareness, a spring of life, and all human activity. All activities found their unity in it and outside of it were considered as existing frivolously, superficially, prodigally, so to speak, and, therefore, illegally and painfully. More precisely, the autonomous existence of extra-theurgic activities was a blasphemous crime and was viewed as such. And in even more ancient times, the very thought of the possibility of their independence did not arise, and could not arise: in a strong and healthy consciousness, even a glimpse of madness is excluded. But when the unity of human activity began to disintegrate, when feurgy narrowed only to ritual actions, to a cult in the later sense of the word, then the activities of life, standing out from it and, so to speak, legitimizing their prodigal existence, their criminal independence, their extra-divine self-sufficiency, became flat, superficial, without intrinsically valuable content. They then lost the true point of their application, and therefore - the strong confidence in their unconditional necessity. Their content ceased to exist as unconditionally valuable and immutably real. Form and content separated and began to come into contact randomly and arbitrarily. Activities ceased to be taken for granted in the rules of life and became a whim, a whim, a luxury, an invention - not “in fact”, but “on purpose”. And then the activities turned from Reality and Meaning - to reality and meanings, that is, in their separation from the First, the realities became empty and the meanings false. Things have become only utilitarian (useful), concepts - only convincing. But utilitarianism was no longer a sign of reality, and persuasiveness was no longer a sign of truth. Everything became similar to the Truth, ceasing to be involved in the Truth, ceasing to be the Truth and in the Truth. In short, everything has become secular. This is how Western European humanitarian civilization occurred - decay, decay and almost the death of human culture. Thus, the human personality fell apart and decomposed into specialties, details and particulars, none of which is necessary and all are accidental and conditional, having lost the unconditional condition of its unity, and with it the strength of noumenal self-awareness. Thus the soul crumbled into a sum of thoughts and desires, that is, states brought on by random winds from outside. We asked ourselves about the central activity of our spirit. Feurgy is literally our answer to the question posed; feurgy is such an activity. But ours, actually our life, is not organized into feurgy. This disorganization does not, however, indicate the non-existence of activities where spiritualization occurs more deeply than in the fine arts. This activity is τ ь, and it is precisely the basic grain around which and from which feurgy develops; quantitatively less than feurgy, it is qualitatively, in the depth of its antinomic connectedness, not inferior to it. It is the same feurgy, but in a curled, kidney-shaped, bud-shaped form. This is the seed of true humanity, this bud of spiritual integrity, this bud of culture - CULT, in the narrow sense of the word. In fact, where does the cult belong? We enter a church, we see sacred objects in it - instruments of worship - and the church itself is also a sacred object, also an instrument of worship. What to think about him? What to think about sacred objects of worship? These are not just tools, machines for producing something useful - not valuable in themselves, but only as a means to achieving something useful. There are also such tools in the church: for example, tongs, extinguishers, an alcohol lamp for lighting a censer, a ladder for lighting lamps, bottles for storing oil, hangers for sacred vestments, brushes for cleaning crumbs, a scoop for ash, decanters for water, etc., etc. But these are not objects of worship. What distinguishes religious objects from machine tools is their holiness, that is, their isolation from other objects, their unique self-value, unlike anything in the world of machines (relative, of course), their spirituality. Tongs, bottles, brushes, etc. are things; instruments of cult - icons, cross, chalice, paten, censer, vestments, etc. - in addition, are meanings that require internal recognition, and not only allow external use. But, at the same time, being meanings, they are not only internal meanings, but also indisputable realities located in a series of things. Before us, for example, is the holy cross. This is the object of our worship, our reverence, our veneration; it is the meaning and focus of other meanings. This is a spiritual value. This is a shrine. But this shrine is not only in the depths of our spirit, but also objective: the holy cross is a thing among other things, although we have also seen that it allows itself to be addressed as a person, although it is included as a person among other persons, being placed hierarchically after the Most Holy Theotokos, but before the powers of heaven, or, in other words, in third place after the Lord Jesus Christ. Objects of worship are the realized combination of the temporary and the eternal, the value and the given, the imperishable and the perishable. This antinomy is their essential property. But whether we understand or not how such a connection is possible, it exists, it is undeniable. It is necessary to understand religion based precisely on this immutable fact of historical reality, from the existence of a cult, and all explanations must not eliminate this fact and not weaken its internal inconsistency, but, on the contrary, take it into account and emphasize and sharpen it with all determination. And when this awareness of inconsistency is achieved, then the typicality of this contradiction, which creates and maintains objects of cult, will be revealed - its typicality for all human activity, which always contains both givenness and value, but, however, perhaps with less clarity and schematic clarity than in objects of cult. This means that all human activities that fall out of the realm of feurgy, although prodigal, still remain feurgic in their essence, i.e. sacred, hierarchical, spiritual. Indeed, to secularize them would mean just as much to mercilessly destroy them. Feurgy can be abused, blasphemously stealing its values ​​- and hem depriving them of value - but one cannot live without it, - for it is humanity itself. One thing must be demanded of worldly leaders of all kinds—consistency—and “to be squandered in pride in the thoughts of their hearts” 118 . To those who refuse feurgy, we say: “Renounce yourself.” Man himself is a living unity of infinity and finitude, eternity and temporality, unconditionality and perishability, necessity and chance, the knot of the ideal world and the real world, “the connection of worlds” (Derzhavin) 119, and he cannot create otherwise than his own similarities, that is, the same contradictions of the above and below as he himself is. Otherwise – madness and Gehenna. But liturgical activity is central; as an underlying grain of total activity - it is activity that directly expresses man in his innermost being, his being, activity - actually and primarily human, for man is homo liturgus 120. And all other activities will be side activities, they express human nature one-sidedly, with less clarity, that is, they reveal their inconsistency with less clarity, in the penumbra they contain either one or the other side of the main antinomy. However, their living, their vital, their deepest - this is precisely their contradictoriness, and if we could imagine an activity completely devoid of the main contradiction, that is, only the creation of things without meaning or only the development of meanings, in every possible way devoid of reality, then we would thereby recognize such activity as not human - not the activity of a spiritual being - even moreover, absolutely incomprehensible to us and, therefore, lying outside the field of our consciousness. Meanwhile, this is precisely where different types of immanentism, so characteristic of Protestants, are drawn: here, not together, but separately, in different spheres, spiritual meaning and technical utilitarianism are affirmed - selfish calculation and intimate knowledge of the spiritual environment. The nature of religion is to connect God and the world, spirit and flesh, meaning and reality. The pathos of the Protestants is to isolate both into isolated, non-communicating, absolutely secluded areas from each other, to lock them up, separating them with an impenetrable wall, and once and for all to ensure the world that Divine forces and energies do not interfere with it, so that its autonomy, “freedom of the flesh,” is indestructible, and so that the spirit is disembodied: “freedom of the spirit.” I don’t want to be disingenuous by calling such deviations heresy: that would mean seeing something religious in them. But they are anti-religious, they are essentially anti-religious - not extra-divine, but godless and anti-god. Religion leads to a mysteriously terrible and incomprehensible unification of two worlds, and this is done by a cult. Consequently, it is now more clear why liturgical activity should be seen as the core of human activity in general, the primary activity, meaning this “first” not in chronological order, but in logical order 121. Thus, along with theoretical activity, which creates concepts-terms (Notiones), and practical activity, which expresses itself in instruments-machines (Instrumenta), a third activity is established, liturgical activity, producing shrines (Sacra). Instrumenta, Notiones, Sacra - these are the three types of works of human creativity. As for art, it, as the actual ability to embody in matter, is not an independent activity, but only a necessary side of any activity: theoretical, practical, and liturgical. Participating in all activities, art cannot be outside of all of them and certainly contains one of them, at different times - one or the other predominantly. Neither the area of ​​theoretical creativity, nor the sacred area can exist without the art of embodiment in words; on the other hand, neither the sacred nor the technical can do without various fine arts as embodiments in solid matter. All areas contain a moment of art. And art, in turn, necessarily adjoins the above three main activities: for the visual arts, the technical aspect is essential, as what is done artistically, and for the verbal arts, the theoretical sphere, as giving some true meaning, expressed beautifully. That is why art should be considered as a quality, as a characteristic of the three activities already mentioned, and not as an independent activity, although this quality manifests itself most deeply and most clearly in the liturgical sphere. So we have three activities: Instrumenta, Sacra, Notiones. In what follows, we will denote these typical works of human activity - practical, theoretical and liturgical - for the sake of brevity, as well as for the convenience of schematic relationships, by the initial letters of their Latin designations or a combination of them, for the sake of euphony, with an artificial word sign: SIN is a very ugly word, a kind of Vigzhel, but still for the sake of mnemonic purposes and following the example of the rabbis who love to compose such words, we will keep it 122. Schemes of relationships between human activities In logical order, the relationship of human activities is such that Sacra form a focus that unites Instrumenta and Notiones, i.e. I and N should be considered as moments of disintegration or disclosure of S - one way or another, depending on the general assessment of the historical process. But what is the real-historical order of the relationship? What is the genetic ratio of S, I and N? The answer to the question posed should be the following. But first let's look at existing opinions. In the activities of human society, at first glance, there are three distinctive aspects - theoretical, practical and liturgical, we have said so far - worldview, economy and cult - we will speak further, using ordinary terminology. Worldview is a set of concepts about the world, morality, law, God - in general about everything, de omni re scibili 123; it is mythology, dogmatics, science. We designated this totality with the letter N. N are tools of worldview that serve to produce other tools of the same kind, that is, other concepts and judgments. The economy is a set of tools for the production of external material and utilitarian culture. Here one can distinguish tools in the narrower, proper sense of the word, from weapons. The first serve the creation of material wealth, be it the mysterious depths of human life or the scum of vanity, in general - the creation of material values. The second, that is, weapons, are for the protection of these latter, protection from encroachment or, on the contrary, encroachment on someone else’s property. But the opposition of tools to weapons proceeds historically gradually. From a sharpened stick for digging up edible roots, on the one hand, a piercing weapon is produced, on the other, a spade and a plow; the club, the oldest military weapon, with minor changes turns into a bulldozer for crushing clods of earth and into a mallet for dressing tree bark. The metal ax only recently, and even then among cultural peoples, turned from a military weapon into an instrument serving almost exclusively for peaceful purposes (New Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. 29. Newfoundland - Otto, Petrograd, 1916, column. 716 “tool”), which, however, does not prevent us from sometimes returning it to primary activity. We denote the set of tools and weapons with the letter I. Finally, the cult is the totality of shrines, Sacra, i.e. sacred things, such actions and words - including here relics, rituals, sacraments, etc. - in general, everything that serves to establish our connection with other worlds - with the spiritual worlds. We denoted this set with the letter S. From the tripartite nature of human activity follows the possibility of three basic theories about the relationship between these activities: three, namely, depending on the recognition of one of them, by choice, as primary, and the derivation, therefore, of the other two from this one, accepted as the primary one. These two inferred activities are therefore considered as consequences of that primary one, as a superstructure over it, as its derivatives, in a word, as something secondary and reflected. It is natural for the activity of reason, which builds a theory of human activities, to turn first of all to itself and to see in itself the root and spring of other activities, declaring them derivative from itself - superstructures over itself, or its incarnations and implementations. Thus, the system of concepts is recognized as the primary activity. With the further development and disclosure of such an assessment, the theory of “ideologists” arises, - this is how Napoleon I contemptuously called the builders of life according to armchair-invented schemes, - or ideologism. Ideologism sees in the forms of economy and in the rituals of worship the simple application of theoretical - scientific, mythological, dogmatic, etc. - constructs of the mind. First, it is thought up that this and that needs to be done in such and such a way, and then this project of activity is supposedly carried out. Tools and weapons are invented, rituals and shrines are invented. But theoretical activity is individual. Ideologism therefore tends to emphasize the importance of solitary consciousness and individual creativity of the individual; Ideology inevitably ends with the cult of great people, heroes of history, creators of thought, who invent new channels of life and then direct life itself along them. Great inventors, creators of the political system, legislators and politicians, religious reformers, creators and founders of religions - in various cases, one or the other - are presented in ideologism as such primary sources of the structure of life. This theory prevailed mainly in the age of rationalism - the 18th century. Enlightened absolutism paid tribute to it, presenting to perfection a fictitious, externally imposed gloss of life. Terror completed this theory, desiring to rebuild his whole life, to the bottom, according to fictitious schemes, with single gestures. But one can imagine the relationship of human activities in another way, namely by recognizing that what is primary is not the worldview, but the economy, the economy, while the worldview is only a retroactive justification of an already created economic system with its tools and weapons and the resulting economic and other social relations, and the cult is the sanctification of the same system, again retroactively. According to this understanding of life, our basic concepts of reality are modeled after our economy. As it develops, it carries our thought along with it. We think of reality in the same way as those instruments of economics that serve us in this historical period of culture, and thereby logically consolidate, or rather try to consolidate, as if to absolutize, these instruments of economic production. On the other hand, the object of culture, according to the expressed understanding of life, are the same tools and the same economic system, but finally fixed in our soul by the sacred awe, reverence and veneration with which we surround it for its usefulness. The deification of the most important accessories of the economy and instruments of technical production - the plow, harrow, plow, mortar, hand mill, grape grinder, weapons, hearth, dwelling, cultivated field, cereals and other cultivated plants, domestic animals, and finally, forms of society, power, etc., etc. - serves, or rather, served, as one of the most important evidence cited by the defenders of historical or economic materialism. According to this theory, economic progress itself occurs spontaneously, by itself, carried away by the fatal laws of economics, in addition to plans and outside the goals set by thought. And this spontaneous movement is accomplished by small changes, partially, gropingly, not along deliberately planned paths, but every time by chance and, therefore, is done not by great inventors, but by the masses, impersonally and thoughtlessly. If ideologism, which dominated in the age of autocratic rule of isolated theoretical reason, in the age of absolute monarchies and terror, reduced everything to a great, solitary ratio legislating over life, then economic materialism, which spread in the middle of the 19th century, amid the hasty and hasty growth of technology, but with the sense of value and strength of the individual reduced to the last degree, with the ever-growing tide of impersonal democratic masses, striving to lick up every the person standing above them, be it an emperor, a high priest or a prophet - economic materialism, I say, on the contrary, reduces everything to the economic needs of the masses. However, economic materialism was - and it is not, it is not - in science. In place of economic explanations of history, from the last quarter of the 19th century, a new theory, developing especially at the beginning of the 20th century, has been put forward, which has not yet received a definitely stable name, but which should be called sacred. Its enemies will probably call it something like religious materialism, and although this name, from the point of view of religion itself, is deeply false, for in religious consciousness there is nothing at all corresponding to the secular word matter; but, viewed externally, sacred theory may indeed appear to be a kind of materialism. Personally, having my own approach to similar views, I am inclined to characterize this range of thoughts as concrete idealism. Sacral theory - let's dwell on this term for now - develops primarily in the comparative anthropological school of cultural researchers, mainly on English soil: historically it is very clear that the conservative thought of the English, with their affirmation of established ways of life and with their organic inclination towards custom, even towards some kind of ritual belief, has produced a theory according to which all life in general is determined by a kind of series, embodied religion - from which everyday utility, and theoretical concepts. I believe that you will not doubt the English origin of this school if I name you Spencer and Taylor as its semi-conscious founders, and 124 as its developers. Here, in a different and not so characteristic turn for our purposes, adjoins the sociological school, thriving primarily on French soil: Durkheim, Toutin, Hubert and Mauss, partly Salomon Renac and others, and an older researcher, Fustel de Coulanges 125, should also be included here. First of all, this theory emphasizes the central and dominant place of cult in religion. Cult ritual, sacred rites, sacraments - and not myths and dogmas, and especially not rules of behavior - constitute the core of religion: everything else is layered around the cult, serving as auxiliary moments of the cult and receiving independent significance only through some, to a greater or lesser extent, destruction of the entire religion. A myth outside of worship, a dogma outside of worship, a rule of behavior in itself - already there is a secularization of religion, there is already an act of hostility towards religion, there is already worldliness. To explain the views of this school more specifically, I will cite several excerpts from “Readings on the religion of the Semites” by Robertson Smith, published in 1907 (W. R. Smith, – Lectures on the religion of the Semites, London, 1907. I quote from the book: [Archpriest] N. Bogolyubov, – Philosophy of religion, part 1, historical. T. I. Kyiv, 1915, pp. 30 – 32). What R. Smith says about the religion of the Semites applies to any religion. “In every religion,” says R. Smith, “both ancient and modern, we find, on the one hand, certain beliefs, on the other, certain institutions, ritual practices and rules of behavior. It is our habit to regard religion rather from the side of faith than of practice, for until relatively recently the only forms of religion seriously studied in Europe were those of the various Christian churches, yet these churches recognize that ritual has meaning only in connection with its interpretation. Therefore, “when we approach any foreign or ancient religion, we naturally think that our task is first of all to study the confession of faith, since here only we can find the key to ritual and practice [on my own behalf I will add: for we do not live in this religion and, approaching it from the outside, we see only external forms, but not the spirit that gave birth to them; but if we only approach them from the outside, then we still have no key, neither in rituals nor in myths; for all this understanding of religion will not be an understanding of living religion, but of external forms and external concepts. – 77. F.]. Meanwhile, continues R. Smith, ancient religions for the most part did not have a confession of faith, they consisted entirely of institutions and practices. Of course, people do not usually follow a known practice without connecting meanings to it; nevertheless, we meet, as a rule, with such a phenomenon that, while the practice was strictly established, the meaning connected with it was so uncertain that the same rite was interpreted in different words, in different ways, although as a consequence no question of orthodoxy or heterodoxy arose" (W.> R. Smith, - Lectures... p. 16). And this is natural. “The explanations given could not produce a strong feeling, since in most cases they were only different stories regarding the circumstances in which the ritual was first established... In short, the ritual was connected not with dogma, but with myth” (id., p. 17). “Mythology, strictly speaking, did not represent an essential part of the ancient religion, since it did not have a sacred sanction and was not a force that compulsorily acted on its admirers. Myths, associated with individual sanctuaries and ceremonies, were only part of the liturgical apparatus; they served to excite the imagination and to maintain the interest of the believer, but the latter often made a choice from many stories regarding the same subject, and once he performed the ritual diligently, did not care what he believed regarding its origin. “Belief in certain series of myths was not obligatory as part of true religion, and it was not assumed that a person by his faith deserved a reward and gained the favor of the gods. Only the exact execution of certain sacred actions prescribed by religious tradition was obligatory and creditable. If so, then it is obvious that mythology could not occupy the predominant position that was often attributed to it in scientific studies of ancient beliefs. Since myths contained the explanation of ritual, their significance was always secondary; and it can be said with certainty that in almost every case myth arose from ritual, and not ritual from myth, since ritual was fixed, myth changed, ritual was obligatory, and myth was left to the freedom of the believer” (id., pp. 17 – 18). Hence R. Smith concludes that “in the study of ancient religions we must begin not with myth, but with ritual and traditional custom” (id., p. 18). “Ritual and practical custom were, strictly speaking, everything in ancient religions. In primitive times, religion was not a system of beliefs with practical applications, but an organism of strictly established traditional actions, to which each member of society conformed as a rule of life. Of course, people would not be people if they did not perform their actions without connecting meaning to them; but in ancient religion it was not the meaning that was first formed as doctrine and then expressed in practice, but, on the contrary, practice preceded doctrine and theory. People create general rules of behavior before they begin to express general principles in words; political institutions are older than political theories; in the same way, religious institutions are older than religious theories” (id., p. 20). “When we study the political structure of early society, we do not begin by asking what was said about the early legislators and what theory people came up with to explain their institutions, but we seek to understand what these institutions were and how they governed the lives of the people. Likewise, in the study of Semitic religion, we must begin not with the question of what was said about the gods, but with the question of what were the active religious institutions and how they guided the lives of the believers” (id., pp. 21–22). It is useful to explain Robertson Smith’s positions with something from modern times – from something close to us. Researchers of religion usually refer to India and Greece as proof that with strict ritualism and even with the presence of revealed scripture (Veda) and tradition (Upanishads), the widest scope of theological and philosophical thought was possible and that even the firmness of ritual is a kind of guarantee of tolerance and freedom of speculation - for religious unity is already ensured by ritual and scripture. The six mutually exclusive major systems of philosophy in India were equally based on the authority of the Vedas. One could add Judaism here. As is known, with the firmness of the developed ritual and the inviolability of the letter of Scripture, further, with a highly developed Tradition, Judaism allowed very wide freedom of theological and philosophical thought. This should also include the Talmudic prohibition to systematize the Holy Scriptures, for such systematization leads to divisions... The very fact that the society was led by three directions, mutually exclusive theoretically - the Pharisaic, the Sadzukei, etc. Jesse - shows how tolerant Judaism was of thought, since it did not claim superhuman authority and did not shake the foundations - the letters of Scripture and ritual, in the broad sense of the word. And later - the appearance of the secret teaching of Kabbalah and various philosophical teachings in the bosom of Judaism - further confirms the same thesis. But even near us there is a religious environment in which one can see something like India: this is the Old Believers. Firmly adhering to the inviolable letter of ritual and Scripture, it allows very broad freedom of understanding - and this is why the Old Believers are alive and deep - in complete contrast to us, the “Orthodox”, among whom it is possible and has almost become obligatory to ignore worship and, even more so, the rituals and rules of life, to doubt the authenticity of Scripture and not take into account either the canons, or the lives of saints, or patristic tradition - but for whom the code is obligatory seminary-positivistic understanding of life and intellectual-nihilistic spiritual way of life. It is possible, even for a bishop, to deny transubstantiation in a district message to the clergy of his flock, but one cannot doubt Richel-Harnack’s nihilism. I take this opportunity to publicly express my deep respect for the Old Believer verb “ritual belief” and “literalism” with the truly free and creative spirit of its interpretations and deepenings, with its heartfelt comprehension of the importance, mystery and indisputable essentiality of the rite. To explain from life how a myth arises, as an example of an ephiological, i.e. ritual-explanatory, myth, I will give an explanation I heard from a Nikolaev soldier: “Jesus Christ... His name was Jesus, they called Him that, and Christ was added after, in remembrance of what He was crucified on. The Cross is Christ... He was an Angel whom God ordered to enter the flesh.” And here is an example of a new formation in the area - as Clermont Ganneau suggested calling such phenomena 126 - in the area of iconographic myth: rural priests, and behind them peasants, sometimes explain to children, students of parochial schools, the cruciform crown of the Savior with the inscription: ΟΩΝ, i.e. about ών – Existing, Sy, as an abbreviation: He is Our Father. The iconographic image creates an explanation, a “myth.” But then this myth itself is embodied iconographically and fixed: on icons instead of the Greek where F is, obviously, already a real abbreviation of the word FOH. I heard another explanation of the same kind - this is precisely the inscription of the Mother of God icons: i.e. Μήτηρ Θεου. This inscription is interpreted as follows: Mother of the Pharisees, Teachers, but it seems that it is so: Mary of the Mother of Thomas, Assurance. But if the examples given are more curious than edifying, then it is worth delving into our divine services, and we will find any number of examples that explain the thoughts of sacred theory, already indisputable in their value. Thus, we recognize the Creed as the most important sum of dogmas. Under pressure from rationalist theologians, we usually believe that the Creed is a theoretical declaration of our doctrine, which is precisely because, i.e., because it is true, it is sung or read after the Eucharistic canon, as if a conciliar act of faith was inserted there. But this opinion is deeply erroneous. The symbol of faith developed from the baptismal and sacramental Trinity formula: “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” which underlies all sacred actions, all worship; and therefore the Symbol remains the same as its original grain, i.e. in the liturgy it is by no means a declarative character - and to whom should one declare one’s faith, since only the faithful remained after the exit of the catechumens - but a mysterious, effective one - namely, unity in love and, ontologically, essentially understood, unity of thought - through which only one can be cognized - in order to confess - the Trinity Consubstantial and Indivisible. The Symbol of Faith is a living phenomenon, a vital manifestation of unity in love: just as light comes from the sun, so church unity - consubstantiality and inseparability in the mysterious love of Christ, unity and unanimity in the Body of Christ - is radiated by the confession of the Trinity, Consubstantial and Indivisible: this confession is the Symbol of Faith. But its meaning is precisely as sung in the sacrament of church gathering, and not outside of worship, much less outside of the Church, for outside of church life it is not a Symbol and not faith, but simply something unnecessary and incomprehensible - πτέκ, that is, outside of worship, the Symbol of Faith cannot be understood or studied, just as the vital activity of, for example, the human body cannot be understood or studied. chemically decomposed elements that were once part of it. Let us explain our thought with another example: We tend to consider the Apostolic Epistles and the Holy Gospel as a book. But the Holy Gospel and the Holy Apostle are not “books”, but moments of liturgical action, parts of the divine service. Here they have not just a narrative or simply edifying meaning, but much more - an effective, mysterious one. Likewise, the “books” of the Old Testament: they should be read only prayerfully, that is, effectively, liturgically, and not passively, mentally, theoretically. The Psalter, for example, is an incantatory book, as a result of which it is read over the deceased, in order to protect him from evil demonic violence. Some of her psalms, such as “Alive in the Help of the Most High” (Ps. 90), are primarily incantatory, which is why they are embroidered on belts, written in cases where spiritual protection is required, and spoken as a spell against mad dogs and dashing people. The spiritual custom of constantly, even during any activity, speaking psalms by heart is based on the incantatory power of the Psalter, as a form of mental activity and sanctification of one’s entire being with a mysterious word; this custom is widespread among pious Jews, as well as pious Christians; This kind of clever work was done, for example, by Kiev Metropolitan Philaret (Amphitheaters) 127 . But not only the Psalter, but all of Holy Scripture has a cultic, non-literary meaning. Actually, it is impossible to read the Holy Scriptures without liturgy, without prayer, outside of divine services (we will talk about the boundaries of divine services later, but now we are talking only on the merits), abstracted from it, for this means to worldize it, even if you really like it, just as you cannot put on a phelonion on the street just because this attire is beautiful, for such a way of acting would be the worldning of sacred clothes. According to the peculiar expression of the Talmud, the sacred scroll of the Torah “gets your hands dirty” - and you must wash them, both before and after touching it. This, if you like, is the grain of truth contained in the Catholic and approximately our ban on reading the Bible to the laity. Reading the Gospel “in the office”, outside of prayer, is not only sinful, but also absurd, for this would mean studying the living, having first killed it. The Holy Scriptures in our dissertations are like “violets in a crucible”! 128 Consequently, the Gospel, the Apostle and, in general, Holy Scripture are only part of the Church Charter. The Typikon - I will say paradoxically - is greater than Holy Scripture, for the latter is not outside the first, but is contained in it and by it. Similarly, one should talk about the rules of behavior. Holy fasts, for example, are not self-sufficient, not of a moral order, but relative - to divine services, of a liturgical order - for example, as preparation for Holy Communion, as a ritual ordering of life, - in general, as a charter, i.e., as a moment of liturgy, church service - the boundaries and scope of which will be discussed further. Also: church sermons are not a Protestant ad hoc that has entered into a holy place and at a holy time, but statutory readings, provided for, determined by the Church, i.e., again, parts of the service, moments of it. and not at all self-sufficient lectures on edifying topics, which tore apart the fabric of liturgical actions, prayers and chants. Our spiritual school teaching is false at its very core, because it presupposes some kind of self-sufficiency of theology and even different theologies, such as dogmatic, moral, etc., etc. In this completely formal program, the Protestant way of thinking is already predetermined, for Protestantism, in its essence, is the denial of cultocentrism and the substitution of the religious center - a thought that, as such, cannot but be autonomous. There is no doubt for me that Orthodox teaching is centered on the cult - and not on teaching the cult, but on life in the cult, and the various “subjects” are only moments in the study of the cult. As soon as they become independent, forgetting about the cult, then, regardless of one or another of their contents, they find themselves on the Protestant plane, for, according to the content of their teaching, one can be like Orthodox, but, having a center other than the cult, be eccentric to Orthodoxy, that is, a Protestant... But let’s return to the discussion of sacred theory. b, it is precisely through their enmity that they correctly feel for its center, the living nerve of religion, a nerve so alien to modern consciousness that exposing it, simply indicating it, seems in our age to be in itself deadly for religion. But precisely because the representatives of the sacred theory, wrong in their mood, are right in their instructions, wrong in their assessments, are right in many respects in fact: the enemy’s gaze often sees the essence of the matter deeper than the gaze of an indifferent one. The same applies to the direct enemy of religion - Durkheim, although his thoughts require many significant additions. Scientists of our day would like to say: “Religion is essentially alien to modernity, and it is no coincidence that modernity is alien to religion.” And let this be said - clearly and definitely - let war be declared between modernity and religion. Let's see who will win, religion, alien to the world, alien to all modernity and as ancient as humanity itself, or the ever-flowing modernity, which manages to abandon its goals even before they begin to be realized. But those who know religion despise modernity, abhor it and, in disgust from it, are ready to extend their hand to its obvious enemies rather than to its hypocritical admirers. There is nothing more hostile to religion than Protestant attempts to trim its eagle claws, cut off its eagle wings and make up itself as a kindly old woman, from whom, due to the decay of her days, one can occasionally tolerate - without deafening ears - two or three instructions, of course, in the expectation that she will soon end her days without attacks. But this is exactly what its defenders do - like Thiele, for example - trying to restore or maintain that non-religious view of religion, according to which it is only a special worldview, and the cult follows it like some kind of appendage, in essence unnecessary and only tolerable sometimes - when it is not too violent. “In teaching, whether it be mythological and poetic in form or dogmatic and philosophical, I recognize,” he says, “the source of every religion. The essential element of a religion is, without a doubt, its spirit, and the spirit of a religion is most clearly illuminated by its teaching. Only from here do we learn what a person thinks about his God and his relationship to Him. Cult, ritual and ceremony teach me nothing when I contemplate them, unless I have some explanation of their meaning" (S. P. Tile, - Elements of the Science of Religion, I, p. 22 - 23. Quote from: [Archpriest N.] Bogolyubov, - Philos rel, I, p. 34). Another researcher echoes him: “It is completely impossible to begin the study of religion with ritual or rites. Religious ceremonies in themselves do not tell a person anything. These are certainly silent facts. To make them speak, it is necessary to determine their meaning in one way or another” (Bogolyubov, – id., p. 34) 129. “Thiele rightly calls religious doctrine “the source of every religion”” (id., p. 35). We cannot go any further in a misunderstanding of religion. If a cult is supposed to speak and teach something ( - the typical Protestant view of the cult as a continuous sermon-lecture, and not as a secret action! -) and by itself, without an interpreter, cannot teach, then the whole point is in the interpreter, and not in the cult. Why this palliative? If the cult is truly necessary and cannot be replaced by any conversation about it, if it is truly necessary to live in the cult ( - but not just to stare - “contemplate”, according to Tila, the rituals -), then, obviously, the interpreter itself is then only a moment of the cult, but by no means the main thing and not the first, just as it is not the main thing and not the first thing in the cult not to be in a deranged state, although this is one of the conditions for participation in the cult. A proponent of the comparative anthropological method, Farnell 130 points out, for example, that pre-Christian veneration of the cross could contribute to the spread of Christianity in some countries; also - notes a curious coincidence: “In the same city of Ephesus, where, during the visit of St. Paul, fanatics raised an indignation in defense of their virgin Artemis, six centuries later the people greeted with similar ecstatic delight the decision of the Council, proclaiming the Virgin Mother of the Lord (Θεοτόκος) (L. R. Farnell, - Evolution of Religion, London - New York, 1905, p. 69). Well, this is an excellent indication, and, of course, here, in this coincidence, there is no mere accident - we will talk about this further. But for the Protestants here there is a reductio ad absurdum 131 of the comparative anthropological school: “Thus, the comparative anthropological method poses a great danger to science... It is impossible, of course, not to compare and contrast the institutions and ceremonies of one religion with the institutions and ceremonies of another, but when starting this, it is necessary to accurately determine their meaning in advance” (Bogolyubov, - id., p. 54). Of course, you cannot compare something whose meaning is unclear; But is it possible to “precisely determine the meaning of the ritual” without rationalizing it, without destroying its life? And it is not an external comparison of rituals that is required, but an internal penetration into the life of the cult - through life in the cult, if not in this one, then in a similar one. Really, our Orthodox rationalists should learn, at least from the enemies of religion. “Anyone who has actually lived in religion,” says Durkheim, “knows perfectly well that it is precisely the cult that arouses impressions of joy, inner peace, clarity, enthusiasm, which for the faithful are like an experimental proof of his beliefs. A cult is not simply a system of signs through which faith is transmitted outwardly, it is a collection of means by which it is created and periodically recreated” (E. Durkheim, Les formes elementaires de la vie religieuse. Le systeme totemoque en Australie, Paris, 1912, p. 596, cp. pp. 594 sqq). These are the golden words of A. Durkheim. And more - there is nothing to talk about here. They object to the symbolic meaning of the Mosaic cult, among other things, that if this cult was in fact imprinted with a symbolic character, then one would have to expect the necessary explanations of the symbols from Moses. Meanwhile, this is nowhere to be seen. This is what Knobel objects (Kommentar zu Exod. 25. S. 253. Quote from: Hieromonk, later Archbishop Gideon, - Archeology and symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices. Kazan, 1888, pp. 8 - 9). Having given several symbolic explanations regarding the structure of the tabernacle in his commentary on the book of Exodus, he points out their arbitrariness. “And in general,” he says, “the symbolic interpretation of the Mosaic cult is too inconsistent with the spirit of simple and artless antiquity. Antiquity did not know abstract concepts, but thought and spoke in concrete images, and only later speculative thinking imposed on it what it could not have and did not have.” Here is an objection that is as acceptable in itself as it misses its purpose. “Antiquity did not know abstract concepts, but thought and spoke in concrete images.” Yes, she “thought and spoke,” after all, that is, the externality of the cult was not only external, was not dumb, but was with its entire being - and internal, it was speaking and verbal, in itself, without concepts standing next to it and along with it. The cult was meaningful in itself, and there was simply no need for interpretation, because the cult was the center of life, and not interpretive concepts that parasitized on it. “None of the people of antiquity,” says Bahr (Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, G, SS. 35 – 36), “we find comments on their cults, although the form of these cults was everywhere, more or less, symbolic. In the Egyptian cult in particular, everything down to the smallest detail was symbolic. Various human figures with the heads of birds, bulls, rams, dogs - all this had its own special mysterious meaning, and, however, we do not find corresponding explanations anywhere. The reason for this, no doubt, is that in ancient times real and sensible objects usually served as the direct expression of the ideal and supersensible. The signs were together with words, even clearer than words. The primitive method of writing, as is known, was hieroglyphic, that is, consisting of signs or images borrowed from external nature. The same must be said about the symbolism of antiquity as about poetry, which also deals with images. Poetic creation is not a product of reflective thinking, but the fruit of direct contemplation. The poet conveys known truths not with abstract concepts, but with concrete images. And yet, not a single poet thought of writing comments on his creation. The explanation of poetic images is always a matter of later times, but for the poet’s contemporaries his figurative speech is already understandable. If this is true in relation to any time, then it is even more true in relation to antiquity.” And here it is appropriate to cite the words of Archbishop Gideon (Archaeology and symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices. Kazan, 1888, pp. 9 – 10): “And to this day, almost two thousand years later, the Savior’s parables about the lofty truths of the Kingdom of God are undoubtedly more understandable for a Christian than other abstract preaching about the same truths.” This is the place of cult in religion. But then the central place of the cult in the entire culture, according to the assessment of sacred theory, becomes clear. Culture, as the etymology of the word cultura from cultus shows, has a cult at its core and root. Cultura as a future participle, like natura, indicates something developing. Natura - that which is born constantly, cultura - that which constantly splits off from the cult - like the germination of the cult, its shoots, its side stems. Shrines are the primary creativity of man; cultural values ​​are derivatives of the cult, like the peeling husk of the cult, like the dry skin of a bulbous plant. So, worship is the focus, while other activities grow around it or, more precisely, stand out from it. The system of concepts is initially a system that accompanies the cult - these are the essence of the myths that develop from the cult action itself, from the “verbal” ritual, explaining the cult, the so-called ephiological myths, or auxiliary formulas and terms of worship. These myths, formulas, terms receive further independent growth, autonomously become more complex, move away and are separated from the cult, become secular - literary and scientific-philosophical subjects, formulas and terms and, in the final erosion of the proper religious ritual action, give rise to secular philosophy, secular science, secular literature. So, for example, misgerial dying and unearthly visions of the initiate, as well as necromancy of the initiation centers of antiquity, give rise to mythical tales about descents into hell. It is possible to trace how the plot of the descent into hell 133 becomes worldly: Saul, Ishtar, Odysseus, Aeneas, the apocryphal Christ, Er (in Plato), St. Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland, Dante, Louis Ennius, St. Perellos, Branden or Brendan of the tales of the Middle Ages and he is also in Calderon’s drama “The Purgatory of St. Patrick”, Faust, with his a journey to the Mothers, etc. - including Byron's Manfred - these are the steps in the distance of this myth from the cult (I say myth - this does not exclude one or another historicity of some of these legends). On the other hand, technology arises in a similar way through the erosion of religious meaning. The ritual, being a comprehensive satisfaction of all human needs, also contains a utilitarian element. This moment, deprived of its spiritual meaning, as a kind of residue from distillation, gives in history an economy, an economy understood from its utilitarian side, technology. The concepts of science must be spoken of as products of decay: ritual breaks down into meaning and into a thing. In parallel with the separation of meaning from the ritual, the separation of a thing-tool occurs. The growth of material technology is parallel to the growth of rational understanding of life, for both processes are in fact one process, namely, the process of the disintegration of religion. Hence it is clear why the emergence of technology and science seems to destroy feurgy: in fact, both are signs of the ongoing decay: science is like carbon dioxide and steam, and technology is like ash during combustion. Just as clay and sand arise from the destruction of granite, so science and technology grow at the expense of feurgy, through its destruction, and then feurgy narrows its comprehensive meaning to a ritual in the narrow sense of the word, to the crystalline embryo of an integral life. The first crack in feurgy is the birth of a myth. Let us therefore explain this event. The relationship of myth to shrine seems to me like this: just as tenacious ivy climbs around a tree, so myth entwines itself around the shrine. And just as ivy, having curled its entire trunk with its flexible lashes, then dries up and strangles it, itself taking its place, so myth, having enveloped the shrine, hides and destroys it. Myth makes the perception of the shrine mediated. And therefore it loses its own life, loses its meaning in itself, having highlighted its meaning, objectifying it in myth. The shrine is decaying under the myth that strangled it, caressed it, growing ever larger, and perishes, destroying with it the myth, which is now deprived of the juices of life. But just as in the forest, ivy grows on the ashes of trees, and ivy grows on the ashes of trees that have fallen without support, so in religion: myths, deprived of support, themselves fall, decay, and turn into the soil of new shrines. On the ashes of shrines are myths, on the ashes of myths are shrines. These are the main features of sacred theory. We should now explain it with a number of specific cases in which alone its value can be understood. But these examples will take too much time. Therefore, in order not to lose the thread, let’s finish with our general considerations first. We have seen that ideologism presupposes a solitary ratio, and historical materialism presupposes the work of faceless masses. It is not difficult to understand that the sacred theory, elevating everyone to the highest level of participation in transcendental action, thereby makes each individual person extremely bright, but not in her solitude, but in her union with all participants in the sacred action, for sacred action is communal in nature. Thus, with the sacred theory, conciliarity, the choral principle, synergism or theocratic anarchism, whatever you call it, are again put forward. The personality here is everything - but in everyone, in the unity of everyone, and nothing - outside of everyone, on its own. Durkheim's school greatly contributed to the understanding of these concepts—we will return to them later. Let us now summarize what has been said. Schematically, the three techniques discussed above, three ways of correlating human activities, can be expressed as follows: II) I→(N, S). Historical materialism. III) S→(N, I). Sacred materialism or concrete idealism, where in brackets are placed those aspects of activity that, from the chosen point of view, are recognized as secondary, derivative, and the arrow shows from what exactly they were produced. But the comma placed between them shows that we have not yet said anything about their relationship with each other, that is, these two derived elements. Consequently, applying the same reasoning to these two activities, formally speaking, we can assume that either they do not depend on each other, each originating separately from the activity that is recognized as primary, or they are dependent, and then, in turn, the abstract possibility opens up of considering each of them as the first and each as the second. Thus, each (of the three) point of view is divided into three possible modifications - modes. Consequently, there are only nine possible points of view on the origin and mutual relationship of economy, cult and worldview. We present them schematically in the table. 134 .> All these nine relationships - representing nine different points of view - come together in a simple triangle diagram SIN. Given three points - S, I, N - and all conceivable connections between them by means of straight lines, so that an equilateral triangle SIN is formed. The choice of one or another of the three vertices - S, I, N - as the main one characterizes the type of theory, one of the three, and the choice of connections between this vertex and the other two is a modification of the type, its mode, also one of the three. So, we assume, for the sake of example, that the basis is the vertex S. Then we get theories of the third type, sacred. S can be connected to other vertices in three ways: either by SI + SN, or by SI+NI, or finally by SN+NI. In the first case we deny the connection between I and N, in the other two we affirm it, and, moreover, in directly opposite directions. Doing the same with each of the three vertices, we obtain a disclosure of our diagram [ – triangle SIN in the form of nine broken lines] 135. Religion and culture The origin of some technical inventions from religious customs 1. The origin of modern "Damascus" from the veneration of meteorites ("widmanstät figures") 136. 2. Masquerade; theater is its falsity. 5. The emergence of a home. The center is the kitchen. 6. The cult of the hearth leads to the preservation of fire (cf. Ovsyan-Kulikovsk 137. 7. Cult of fire - sacrifice - for cooking) food. 8. Religious vestiges: pedestal - ; above the windows - omphalos; niches are home altars, coats of arms are totems (?), titles hide faith in the magic of words (“Your Lordship”, “Your Lordship; Excellency”). 9 . The emergence of medicine. Hippocrates 138. 10. Origin of weapons. Broad strokes – free, sweeping lines. 1. “I declare the meeting open.” A special time begins: “doing what is due”... 2. Hearth - fire - kitchen. Plate (Russian) 3. Food = communion. Sacred food. There's a lot we don't know (about food). The connection between body and food was sacred). 4. Drink. Brudershaft. Blood consumption, fraternal creation. 4'. Farming. Domestic livestock. 6. Cloth. Riza - salary - masquerade. Godlikeness. The spiritual mask in our worship: chants, <2 faces), exclamations, movements - nothing personal at all. Art – painting. 8. Smoking. Ritual pipes; oath. 9 . Weapon. Its magic. Honoring him. In the bow - because it is cursed. Onion killed with words. 10. The origin of medicine is the Church of Asclepius. Pshpokrat. 11. Cult of mirrors. 11'. "Damascus". Conclusions for terminology. The meaning of the term. What's happened ? The structure of the term. Layering. The history of the term is the history of layers. Astrology in terminology. Liturgism is a deeper layer. Some basic terms and concepts. Mysteriousness is even deeper. Primary intuition <in the organ), in technology. The knowledge system is not what it roughly and externally says, but it {relies on 7 thresholds of terms). Mystical intuitions underlie the terms. There is no simply sensual, but there is an embodiment in the sensual (supersensible?). Mental life is in primary perceptions; cave, children's games, the mystique of children. Shocks... Revealing the meaning of these concepts is the task of research) of true philosophy - their primary meaning, - the true meaning of life in its terms. Its core crystallizes later, gradually. Terms of ecstasy. "True". Liturgical works. Another kind of thought is research structures. Number of chromosomas; pxsh<mutation) species; Appendix 2. Correlation of human activities Insert into Chapter III Relationships of human activities § 38. On the etymology of the word cultura. 140 § 38. Etymology of the word natura (and add the same materials to the lecture on genealogy). § 38. Words of Vl. Solovyov about the word culture § 37. Image and language. Concept of symbol. § 38. Cultura culturans and cultura culturata (ένέργεια and έργον), parodying Spinoza 141. § 37. Everything is born from a cult. § 42. Explanation of the diagrams with which § ends. Examples of certain theories. § 43. My solution to the question (feurgy). § 43 1 – 43°. Specific examples of phenomena on the origin of culture from cult. To § on the liturgical and statutory character of Scripture: a) about the nature of the “Scriptures” in different religions (“parallels”), the Vedas... b) about the origin of the statutory Gospels and Apostles (from the history of the statute), c) about statutory readings in general, d) about the prohibitions to read the Holy Book in non-Christian religions, in Catholicism, in Orthodoxy and the cases of these prohibitions. Excursion. Liturgical chronology (table). Liturgical chronology. When does it appear in history and where is this or that element of worship. When constructing general schemes for possible solutions, understand the connection of one or another solution with general theoretical principles - voluntarism and intellectualism, etc. About pragmatism. Bergson 142. Max 143 etc. as representatives of practice (“Economic) materialism)”); idealists. Appendix 3. Bibliographic extracts from the “SIN” folder with Florensky’s comments Myths are evidence of events that took place within the religious consciousness. II. Leontiev, – Mythical Greece and Italy (propylaea) 144 “Myth is the verbal expression of such an explanation (apperception), in which the image being explained, which has only subjective meaning, is attributed to objectivity, real existence in what is being explained.” (“From the draft notes of A. A. Potebnya on myth.” - “Questions of the theory and psychology of creativity.” <Vol. 5.) Kharkov, 1914, p. 503). “Liberals. The name of the holidays in honor of Bacchus, established and celebrated on March 17 in an open field, for a whole month... On this day they ate in public and everyone had the freedom to say what they wanted.” (An experience of a dictionary of fortune-telling and soothsaying, sacred holidays and sacrifices that existed among the ancient Greeks and Romans. St. Petersburg, 1830, p. 39). N.B. Bm, this is exactly the origin of the word liberal (liberalis). Liberal, libertas - freedom has, b m , a cult meaning: the one that refers to Liber, when “everyone has the freedom to say what they want.” preserved in different languages ​​and acquired a common meaning. French language: desastre malotru (Provençal malatue) English language: saturnine moon struck “planida”, that’s my planida, that’s his star apex (apex – ritual wand of the practical augurs, which was used to mark the countries of the world) opposition “Izvestia of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, 1918, No. 6, VI series, April 1, pp. 475 – 477. V.V. Bartold, - On the issue of the crescent as a symbol of Islam 145. Initially, the crescent moon was given a different meaning than later. Ya. I. Smirnov suggested that “the young moon could be on the Ani mosques, as on the Seljuk buildings in Asia Minor, a symbol not of religion, but of dynastic, since the Shaddadids were vassals of the Seljuks.” V. Thompsen suggested) that the crescent moon long before Islam, back in the 8th century, became the emblem of the Turks, and Th. P. Hughes'oM - that the Turks borrowed this symbol from the Byzantines and adopted it only after the conquest of Constantinople. In any case, the crescent, as the symbol said, “was not characteristic of Islam in general, but specifically for Turkish-Ottoman Islam and, for example, was not found on Turkestan mosques before the Russian conquest.” – The crescent is a motif in Sassanian art and, probably, Sassanian heraldry. In the crescent moon they saw not only the sky of the luminary, but also the image of a war horse (“khafir” = horseshoe, crescent). (The horseshoe became sacred somewhat like the crescent moon.) Could a horseshoe on a horse's legs be a magical weapon - against the evil eye or some kind of damage? Memory. Mysteries. Άμφικύπελλον. “In the Orphic mysteries, two bowls (κρατήρ) and a mirror served as symbols of the fall and restoration of the soul. Tasting the drink of oblivion from one cup was a sign that the soul, looking at the sensory world, which is reflected in its knowledge, as in a mirror, is carried away by its seductive images, loses the memory of heavenly things and falls into the bonds of the body, and drinking from another seemed to return memory and serves as a guarantee for the revival of the soul for lost bliss. (Ya. Miloslavsky, - Ancient pagan teaching about the soul, about wanderings and migrations of souls and its traces in the first centuries of Christianity. Kazan, 1873, [Cat. 425 MDA], p. 183, note 1). A. Vetukhov. Page 30. Notes on the book by prof. Pogodin “Language as creativity.” Ser Pos, 1913. 146 “In children’s drawings depicting a house, the most important thing is a stream of smoke, a chimney, and the word “house,” as studies of the history of language throughout the entire Indo-European family have preserved for us, goes back to the meaning of “smoke” (dhumas, fumee, dampfen); they took a marten from the “smoke” and so on.” The children kept the remnants. Stanley Hall 147 (stages of development). According to Goclen (1547 – 1628). (Goclenius, – Lexicon philosophicum, 1613, p. 767.) Notio means both species apprehensa and also apprehenso rei specicm. Thomas (Contr. gent IV. 61, 108) by terminus mentalis means signum naturale; conceptus sive actus intelligendi animae (but imprinted in the word). According to Baumgarten, the concept is repraesentatio rei per intellectum (Met., § 612). “Durch das Zusammenfassen das Ahnlichen in den Tatsachen der Erfahrung entsteht ihr Begriff. Wir nennen ihn Gattungsbegriff, wenn er eine Menge existirender Dinge, wir nennen ihn, Gezetz, wenn er eine Reihe von Vorgangen oder Ereignissen umfasst" (Ub. d. Verb. d. Naturwiss. zur Gesamth. d. "1 nrzb.>, 1862, L. 14)). Ρ. Regnaud, – L'origine des idees eclairee par la science du langage. 1904. 1 fr. 50. F. Alcan. Paris. Trithemius on Albert the Great): Magnus in magia naturali, major in philosophia, maximus in theologia et Ehrnicon magnum Belgium. (Trithemius, – Annales Hirsaus giensens, Tour is, Sancti-Gulli, 1690). Quote ed.: F. A. Ponchet, – Historie des Sciences naturelles au moyen age ou Albeit le Grand et epoque consideres comme son point de depart de Tecole experimentale. Paris, 1855, p. 211. F. Rauh, – Leologues et sociologues. A propos de la “Logique de la Volonte” de M. P. Lapie (F. Alkan, ed. Paris, 1902, 400 p., etc.). “Revue de Synthese historique” T. X, 1, No. 25, 1905, Fevrier. pp. 50 – 56. A. Sokolov, – Cult as a necessary accessory of religions. Polemic-apologetic theological study. Kazan, 1900 (MDA 48, 216). Adoption gave a real connection with the clan, because it included them in the cult. “Natural science began with the practice of witchcraft.” (E. Mach, - Popular scientific essays. Why does a person have two eyes?, p. 71. Transl., “Education”, 1909). “The records and tables in the church of Aesculapius, which, as we saw, were widely used by the priests when treating the sick, contained valuable material concerning the course and origin of various diseases. As is known, Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, laid the foundation for scientific medicine by studying the tables in the church of Aesculapius and systematizing the obtained data. Despite the fact that scientific medicine originated in Greece, miraculous healers continued to heal the sick with spells and mysterious influences.” Academician IN . M. Bekhterev, – Objective psychology and its subject. "West Psychol". 1904, X, pp. 743 149. “Ίπποκράτει τω των Άσκληπιαδών – to Hippocrates of the Asclepiad caste” (Plato, Phaedrus, 270 f.). “The healer, or at least the person who was considered a healer, who was called to help (to Waverly’s sprained leg), apparently combined the positions of a doctor and a sorcerer. He was a lean, respectable-looking Gotlander, with a large gray beard, dressed in a long checkered shirt or blouse, the hem of which did not separate in front and, reaching below the knees, replaced both a sweatshirt and trousers. He approached Edward with great circumlocution and ceremony, and despite the fact that our hero was simply squirming in pain, the doctor did not begin a single simple operation without walking around the patient three times, and certainly from east to west, according to the course of the sun. This ceremony, called “desel,” was obviously considered by not only the doctor, but also everyone present, to be essential in the treatment...” 150 (Collected works of Walter Scott. Vol. 1. Waverley. St. Petersburg, 1896. Published by G. F. Panteleev, p. 145, chapter XXIV. The novel takes place in 1745, and it was written in 1805). The emergence of medical (itsin) terms “Αγος - defilement, μίασμα - in contrast to the ritually pure, καθαρός. (V. Klinger, - “Animal in ancient and modern) superstition”, <Kiev, 1911), p. 144). A. Bert et Pellanda, – La nomenclature anatomique et ses origines. Explication des termes anciens employes de nos yours. 1904. Paris. F. Alcan, 2 fr. Religion and culture The origin of housing as a grave church “We... and those who lived even before this even in their own house and buried the dead” NB (Pseudo Plat., Minos 315 D, Russian trans. Karpova. Μ., 1879. Part VI, p. 542 ΝΒ) 151. This is not mentioned anywhere else. “...The customs and regulations of the Athenians regarding this subject, which were in force in subsequent times, were beautifully described by Becker in Charicles, a work full of distinct learning.” Quote from Eusebius, proving Frazer's theory of plant domestication. Psoralea esculenta – bread root. The root is the size of an egg, very mealy, reminiscent of a turnip. The Indians sacrificed it to the Great Spirit. Prof. A. N. Krasnov, – Geography of plants. Kharkov, 1899, pp. 274 152. “Conifers, apparently, appeared already in the Carboniferous era in the person of the genus Whittlesayos, related to our ginco of an extinct type, preserved thanks to the special care of it by the Japanese. The only species, ginco biloba, bears very little resemblance to conifers...” (Prof. A. Ya. Krasnov, - Geography of plants [Fundamentals of Geography. Issue IV, Part 1. Kharkov, 1899. Μ DA, student library. 3/p] p. 49). In Tertiary sediments of England. Ginco leocaenica Ett. = G. biloba (Japan) (page 51). "Nature", No. 2692, Vol. 107, 1921, June, 2, pp. 430 – 432. The Natural History of Cultivated Plants, (no: “Sino-iuanica. Chinese Contributions of the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran, with special reference to the History of Cultivated Plants and Products.” By Berthold Laufer. (Field Museum of Natural History Publication. 201. Anthropological series, vol. XV; no. 3, Pp. IV+ 445. Chicago, 1919)). The classical name is Μηδική πόα or Spina arabica (cf. our medicines, medicine, indicating) their place of origin. According to Pliny, milinus intra hos decern annos ex India in Italian invectus. Sunflower was first described in 1568, it was compared by Dodoens'oM with the "corinary" Bellis, and Cortuou with the "aromatic" Jaser-pitirum. Chinese Emperor Yun (140 - 87 Century) ordered General Chang-Kien, etc., etc. Cypress was bred by fire worshipers (A.I. Ognev) 153 (SIN). The custom of setting up a beehive on graves was intended so that souls would have food - honey [or could materialize]. Origin of the hive, domestication of bees, etc. Another hive is a church to the souls of bees (see Klinger (V. Ya.), - Animals in ancient and modern) superstition. <Kyiv, 1911,) 146). “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, This is what the Lord commands: If anyone from the house of Israel kills a bull or a sheep or a goat in the camp, or if anyone kills it outside the camp and does not bring it to the entrance of the tabernacle of the congregation to present it as a sacrifice to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, then the blood will be imputed to that person: he shed the blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people; that the children of Israel should bring their sacrifices, which they slaughter in the field, that they should bring them before the Lord to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to the priest, and slaughter them as And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord, so that they will no longer offer their sacrifices to idols, after which they follow fornication. Let this be a statute for them forever throughout their generations.” “Every slaughter of a sacrificial animal, even for domestic use, was considered a sacrifice of peace and had to be performed at the sanctuary. Therefore, the command to slaughter the sacrifice of peace at the door of the tabernacle of meeting is actually only a prohibition to slaughter it anywhere away from the tabernacle or in houses...” (Jerome Todeon, - Archeology and symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices <Kazan, 1888), p. 44, ed. 3rd). And the legislator stipulates: “...so that they do not bring...” Consequently, every slaughter was performed to “goats,” that is, to the pagan gods. All life was already 154 Consumption of meat was already a cult, and the legislator only gives a different character to the cult, but does not introduce it again and in principle?) 155 . Cult domestication of animals Prof. S.V. Averintsev, - Along the coast of the Black Continent (“Nature”, 1912, December, column 1448 – 1449). We are talking about Shambhala blacks, from the Bantu tribe, in East Africa; prof. S.V. Averintsev, who traveled across Africa, says that Shambhala “has chickens everywhere - the main food for Europeans during “safari” [i.e. e. travel]... Blacks do not eat eggs and keep chickens almost exclusively for fortune telling and sacrifices...” A Maury, – Historie des religions de la Grece Antique, t. 2. Paris, 1887, pp. 100 – 101: “II ne semble pas qúon ait sacrifie d'animaux sauvages, quoque plusieurs aient ete consacres a des divinites.” Mori explains this by saying that wild animals were considered to be of significantly lower value compared to domestic animals and that, therefore, they were considered unworthy to participate in the sacrifice. And he immediately notes that people who did not have the opportunity to sacrifice domestic animals brought their images from dough or wax (SchoL ad Thucyd, t. 1, p. 126 Juidas ό βοϋς έβδομος. Servius, ad Aen. II, 116). So, it’s not a matter of cost at all, but of homeliness. That is, domestic animals are specifically designed for sacrifice, that is, their domesticity and sacrifice are inextricably linked. – Doesn’t this mean that domesticity is a superstructure over sacrifice, that is, that the domestication of animals arose from their sacred keeping... Franz. book. Loisel, - History of the menagerie (from antiquity to the present day). 1913. The origin of the menagerie from the cult of animals. In the hieroglyphic writing of the Egyptians, there is often an image of a hamadryas monkey called an, anin, anan, which in exact translation means imitating, imitative. The image of this animal is included in words meaning: depict, imitate, draw, imitator, painter, describe, scribe, writing board, writing. In astronomical images, usually placed on the vaults of churches, the hamadryas is always depicted in connection with the moon. Its image sometimes directly denotes the month as a luminary; sometimes he is in an upright position, with raised arms, greeting the rising moon, and the sitting hamadryas symbolizes the equinox. Horapollo, known to us from the Greek translation of Philip, testifies that “the Egyptians depicted writing with a hamadryas, so they believed that some of these animals themselves had the concept of writing, and therefore the Egyptians believed that these monkeys were akin to them. Hamadryas were kept at the churches, and when a new hamadryas was brought to the church, the priest gave him a tablet for writing, ink and a pen, so that the hamadryas could write on the tablet and thereby prove that he belonged to the very breed of hamadryas that has the right to be kept at churches. For the same reason, the hamadryas was dedicated to Mercury, the patron of all sciences.” Archaeological research has confirmed that hamadryas were kept at churches as sacred animals and were embalmed after death; they were dedicated to Thoth (Hermes), as the deity of the moon, and also as the patron of writing and all science; Therefore, hamadryas were kept especially at the church in Hermopolis. Horapollo also notes the striking effect of the moon on the hamadryas. “During the new moon, the male hamadryas is filled with sadness, hides from people and does not want to eat, while the female always bleeds at this time. These phenomena were so correct that hamadryas were kept at churches in order to recognize the time when the moon and sun were in conjunction. The equinox was also designated by a sitting hamadryas, because the Egyptians observed amazing regularity in urination in this animal: the hamadryas, according to the Egyptians, urinates every hour, and so evenly that the Egyptians were inspired by this phenomenon to invent the clepsydra (water clock) and to divide day and night into twelve equal parts. Trismegistus, when he was in Egypt, became convinced with his own eyes that the hamadryas urinates twelve times during the day at the correct intervals, and this gave him the idea of ​​constructing a device that artificially releases water completely evenly, and therefore the division of the day into twelve hours appeared.” A.E. Bram, - Animal Life. Illustrated edition in 10 volumes, ed. K. K. St. Plair. T. 1. St. Petersburg, [1904], pp. 68 – 70. So, the sacred animal hamadryas is kept at the church, and this provides a reason and opportunity to observe it. His connection with the moon and the correctness of his urge to urinate are noted. Then these apparently sacred properties of the hamadryas are imitated: the division of the day into 12 hours is established, the clepsydra is invented, and the image of the hamadryas is made into a hieroglyph. Other monkeys that were domestic animals are named (id., p. 70), kafu, i.e., baboon, of Egyptian origin, pronounced kapi in Sanskrit and Malabar, and corresponds to the Hebrew kof (p. 69) [baboon?]. “A distinctive feature of consciousness is its ability to produce artificial objects, in particular tools for preparing other tools, endlessly varying production” (A. Bergson, Creative Evolution, translated from the 3rd ed. M. Bulgakov. M., 1909, p. 119). “Having abandoned our pride and strictly adhered in defining the human race to what in the historical and prehistoric period is a constant feature of man and consciousness, we would have to speak not of Homo Sapiens, but of Homo Faber” (id., p. 119). According to P. Natorp, technology is “domination over nature through knowledge of its laws” (Sozialpad. 2 S. 38). There is physical-chemical, biological, anthropological (physical, psychological, sociological) technology (1. e. S. 39). Causal domination [mastery] over the living drives (Trieburiifte) of a person is technology (1. e. S. 157) [and others, see Eisler, Worterbuch. 3.1488 156 ] P. Lacombre, – De Thistoire consideree comme science. Paris, 1894 (especially see pp. 168 – 247). Russian translation under the title “Sociological foundations of history”, ed. Pavlenkova (On the influence of great inventions on the development of mankind) 157. “Everyone knows what an impression the harmonica made with its appearance in Germany and that the poetic imagination heard supernatural voices in its sounds, as if evoked by various mysterious rites. This instrument was considered magical until it became popular, and for some time enjoyed the same divine honor among the adherents of German theosophy as the lyre among the ancients and like many other musical instruments among the primitive tribes of the Himalayan mountains. They turned her into one of the mysterious figures of their mysterious iconography. They portrayed her as a fantastic chimera. The converts of the secret societies, hearing her for the first time after the horrors and excitement of the cruel trials, were so greatly shocked that many went into ecstasy. They imagined the singing of invisible forces, since the performer and the instrument were hidden in the most careful way. There are very interesting details about the extraordinary role of the harmonica in the ceremonies of the receptions of Illuminism. Georges Sand - Countess Rudolyptadt. HY, note. (Collected works of Georges Sand. St. Petersburg, 1897, ed. G. F. Panteleev. T. 6 <, pp.) 359 – 360.) The mysterious marriage of Consuelo and Count Albert Rudolstadt is depicted by J. Sand precisely accompanied by “the magical sounds of the harmonica, this newly invented instrument” (id., p. 359). And since the 2nd half of the 19th century is described here, it follows that the invention of the harmonica dates back to the middle of the 16th century. Lehmann, - Illustrated) history of superstitions. Page 90: sword spell. The sword cuts not because it is a sword, but because it has been cursed. That is, initially a sword, like any weapon, is a magical instrument 158. “The ancients called meteors “Jupiter’s arrows,” that is, they saw in them a kind of lightning. (Duprel, - Monist doctrine of the soul. M., 1908, p. 21). Some episodes of the great Scandinavian epics (Volospa and New Edda) were translated by Moreau de Jonnès as follows: “The path of the moon thunders under the chariot of Thor, the god of thunder... the airspace is set on fire, the sky is burning above the heads of people... round eyes like moons are formed in the heavens from the flames, the earth opens up, the rocks are torn away, and the soil is covered with hail.” – According to the French expert in the field of falling stones, Stanislav Meunier, “in this story it is impossible not to see a description of the fall of meteorites with all the accompanying light and sound phenomena.” “In addition,” adds Moreau de Jonnès, “the runic poem compares the thunder arrow thrown by Thor to a piece of red-hot iron.” This finally completes the similarity.” Cm. Meunier, – Falling stones (“Nature”, 1875, book 1, p. 222). “The myth that represents the Cyclops as forging thunder also points to the primitive use of meteoric iron; From the fact that metal falling from the sky was inevitably identified with lightning and considered a work of blacksmithing, there can be no doubt that they knew about the possibility of forging it; Perhaps this fable was composed by the blacksmiths who processed this iron that fell from the sky, and the heavenly origin of the first material of their industry was in connection with the sacred character generally attributed by legend to the blacksmiths who forged the iron.” Art. Meunier, – Falling stones (“Nature”, 1875, book 1, p. 222). Wed our ideas that blacksmiths know evil spirits. A fireball, bolide, can be brightly glowing; It often happens that the light of the moon positively disappears before him, even on a full moon. In other cases, their brightness was so significant that they seemed dazzling even in bright sunlight. The color of the fireballs varies, sometimes red, sometimes white, and sometimes variable. Their apparent size sometimes exceeds the size of the moon. - Fireballs follow a very inclined, often almost horizontal direction with such speed that there can be no similarity on earth. Their speed ranges from 30 to 60 kim/sec. – They leave a cloud behind them [NB on page 228 fig. 1, great pic. car crash in Quenguk (India). Include in the course. ] When the ball flies through some space, an explosion occurs in it, and it suddenly splits into several fragments, which rapidly fall in different directions. Since the fireball is located high above the ground, sometimes the noise from the explosion only reaches the viewer after a few minutes; This sound can be of terrible force and is usually heard at a considerable distance around the scene of action. The fall in Lesha was preceded by an explosion that was heard at 120 kim in a circle, and the explosion of a fireball in Orgueil (May 14, 1864) was heard at more than 360 kim (!). However, the explosion is rarely single: often two or three impacts are heard, followed by more or less strong peals that last for a more or less long time. “After this entire series of light and sound phenomena, a special whistle heralds the fall of the aerolites. The Chinese, who have known this whistle since time immemorial, compare it with the noise of the wings of wild geese or the sound of cloth being torn; the sound of a bomb flying in the distance is very similar to this whistle.” Art. Myongye, – Falling stones (“Nature”, 1875. Book 1, pp. 226 – 227). To top off the resemblance to a thunderstorm, falling meteorites sometimes cause misfortunes. There are cases when they killed people, and even several at a time; Thus, in 616 in China, one such stone crushed a cart and killed 10 people, etc. In 1837, in Manao, Brazil, a fairly significant number of bulls were killed and injured by a rain of stones. On the other hand, there are also known cases of fires caused by falling meteorites. Let's add here the hot state of meteorites - to such an extent that you cannot touch them with your hand (id., pp. 229 - 230, 227. - Here are the details and an example). To what extent these falls are similar to a thunderstorm, see eyewitness accounts. Id., pp. 245 – 247. NB NB NB Read. This shows how similar meteorite falls are to thunderclaps. Reflecting on the fact of the excellent depiction of deer by the cave dwellers of France, while the drawings of people are very poor and there are no plants, Popov comes to the conviction that primitive works of art “were not intended simply for decoration, they were not also a simple depiction of nature, but were a means of struggle against nature.” In other words, when the cave dweller of Dordoglia carved on the handle of his dagger the image of a reindeer - the animal most important to him in the whole world, he did not mean to decorate his weapon, but believed in this way to “influence magically his prey” - a point of view not very far from the one that was preserved in witchcraft for many centuries. The more the carving or design resembled a real living animal, the more likely it was to successfully influence it; This is where we should look for the very early and powerful nature of the rapid improvement of the art in question. Carving and related arts (painting inclusive) owe their origin, according to Popov, to the attempt of primitive man “to take possession of this animal in the image of an animal”: in the same way, a civilized person of our day seeks life itself in works of art. Therefore, magic is the mother of painting and sculpture, a thought well expressed in the song of an American Indian healer: “Painting makes a god out of me.” A. F. Chamberlap, - Child, part 1. Trans. from English [M., 1911], “Moscow Book Publishing House”), pp. 281 – 285: “Art and Magic.” Hindu interpretation of the symbolism of the chess game, recorded from childhood memories, from the words of an old Hindu hero of childhood memories “Jamma” from the Purr Cat (Tales, fairy tales and stories. T. 5. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 303 – 304) 159. One very famous Puritan minister published a work on the origin of gambling in 1619, in which he says that “since fate is undoubtedly an immediate and special creation of Providence, a sacred oracle, the judgment of God, it is a sin to use it for frivolous use, for example in a game.” (Taylor, - Primitive cult, Chapter II. Quoted from T. Ribot, - On the passions. Translated from the 3rd additional ed. M. Northern. Odessa, 1912, pp. 67 - 68, note). Appendix 4. Against evolution. The perfection of Egyptian linen Mikhail Khvostov, – Essays on the organization of industry and trade in Greco-Roman Egypt. Essay first. Textile industry in Greco-Roman Egypt. Page 6 – 9. (Uch Zap Imp Kaz University, part LXXIX, book 1, January Kazan, 1912) Egyptian canvas of the early historical era, i.e., the first dynasties, “amazes modern technicians with the thoroughness of processing, extraordinary even for modern technology. Thus, FL Petrie mentions the bandages of the mummies of King Tser (1st dynasty), which are distinguished by very high regularity of the fabric and very significant thinness: the warp here has 160 threads per English inch and the weft has 120, while in modern thin cambric there are 160 threads per inch; Thus, the product of hand weaving at the very beginning of Egyptian history (at least 3 thousand years BC) is almost equal in quality to the best product of modern complex looms with mechanical engines. Samples of Egyptian weaving from the Zny dynasty were recently subjected to microscopic analysis, and the results of the analysis showed the very high perfection of these fabrics. Here is the number of warp and weft threads per sq. inch is 48 x 80 (sample A) and 42 x 120 (sample D). The last sample (D) surpasses in fineness the finest Irish linen of our time 161. It is important that these fabrics were not taken from royal graves, but from a small cemetery in Upper Egypt (north of the Meidum pyramid) 162 . No less interesting in this regard are the fabrics of the tomb of the 5th dynasty in Deshasha, described by the same Petri 163; and here we have products not from royal graves, but from the graves of royal officials 164, and, however, we have to admit that here the fabrics are as thin as modern ones, and even thinner Interesting examples of the best types of fabrics from the Old Kingdom are, by the way, the bandages of the mummies of the kings of the 6th dynasty, Pepi I and Mer-ep-ra. Pieces of these fabrics are available in the Berlin Museum 165 and in the collection of Theodor Graf in Vienna. Samples from this last collection were subject to special research by engineer Braulik, who found that some fabrics from the Mer-ep-ra mummies were made of very thin yarn: the warp corresponds to modern numbers 140 - 160, and the weft even number 300, with 36 - 40 warp threads and 12 - 16 weft threads per centimeter. About the warp threads in the fabrics from the mummies of Pepi I, Braulik says that they are so thin that it is hardly possible to find a modern number for such yarn (the minimum number for them is 300) 166 . The fibers from which these threads are made show that already in this era the Egyptians were remarkable flax growers and specialists in flax processing 167 . In the era of the 3rd dynasty, the Egyptians knew how to prepare twisted threads for the warp 168. In the tombs of the Middle Kingdom we see depictions of the technique of preparing complex, twisted thread from several threads 169 . Already in the era of the first dynasties, the Egyptians distinguished many types of fabrics according to their density and thinness 7 . The terminology relating to different types of linen is even more detailed in the era of the 6th dynasty 170. It is also characteristic that in the era of the Old Kingdom the production of fabrics had already reached mass proportions: in one of the rich tombs of the 6th dynasty (the major dignitary Mena), the inscriptions noted 100,000 pieces of different types of fabrics 171. All known fabrics of that time were linen fabrics...” “As for the fabrics themselves, while for the Old Kingdom the available samples indicate a high technique of weaving ordinary thin fabrics, for later eras we can state the existence of much more complex fabrics that required more complex technical devices. Thus, already in the era of the 11th dynasty, weavers were able to produce fabrics with rather complex fringes 172. By the era of the New Kingdom, fabrics of this type, according to the definition of a modern specialist, could only be produced on a rather complex machine (with 3 Scharfte, i.e. with 3 healds, or threads - in Russian terminology) 173. In the tomb of Thutmose IV (18th dynasty) patterned linen fabrics were found, which also required special techniques. By the way, among these fabrics, now in the Cairo Museum (No. 46525 - 46529), there is a piece of clothing with a cartouche of Amenhotep II, with emblems of royal power and other hieroglyphs; This ornament is not embroidered, but apparently woven in a tapestry fashion with multi-colored threads (red, blue, green, yellow, brown or black and gray). And other samples of fabrics from this grave are distinguished by their delicacy and relative complexity of work 174. Some samples of 22nd Dynasty fabrics, also examined by Braulik, required even more complex adaptations. Thus, he found in the collection of Theodore G]eaf a sample proving that the Egyptians in this era knew how to weave bags and dresses without seams 175 . This type of fabric required complex adaptations, presumably reconstructed by Braulik 176 . The patterned fabrics studied by Braulik also belong to the same dynasty and require, in the opinion of this weaving specialist, a loom with at least 4 healds 177 . And Bissin notes that patterned fabrics with woven rather than embroidered patterns are found as early as the 18th Dynasty 178. Id. Page 14. About weaving looms (based on images). Page 16. Vertical machine of the New Kingdom, and even with footrests, according to Braulik, i.e. with foot pedals (Sarilte). 1918.V.11. Serg(iev} Posad. Among modern historians of philosophy there is no disagreement on the issue of the origin of philosophy: the idea that religion is the mother’s womb of philosophy has become a commonplace. The secularized myth has turned into philosophical constructs; proving this idea is an unnecessary waste of energy on what has already been done. Nowadays, no expositor of the history of ancient philosophy will begin closer than with the Orphics and Hesiod. In the same way, one will hardly forget to note only the semi-philosophical stand of the Ionian natural philosophers, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, the Eleans, Empedocles, etc. - their intermediateness between mythology and philosophy, their richness in purely mythological concepts and methods of thought. For their part, linguists consider it their duty to note the mythological structure of the ancient language and, thereby, the inevitability of the mythologizing habits of ancient thinking. General agreement also prevails in the recognition that the original philosophy differed only in the will to autonomous self-determination - in important ways - from the religion that gave birth to it, but not at all in its content, not in its presence. In short: the most ancient philosophy is the same ancient religion, but a self-denying religion, a religion that wished to be non-religion: thus, a pupil and student turns to his teacher and teacher the methods of struggle and skills borrowed from him and - through his struggle, methods and methods - shows even more clearly whose student he is. Philosophy is the runaway daughter of its mother; but even in wandering and fall, it carries within itself its own blood, traits, and manners, and in them we see religion, and philosophy cannot escape itself. And so: having outlived her passions, with her blood extinguished, she loses her ardor for independence, and returns to her native roof and, not finding her parent alive, old and living in the past, tries to arrange everything in the house as it once was, the old one, herself becoming like the previous mistress. Neoplatonism is now the name of philosophy, wise by the experience of life and awaiting natural death. In various refractions, this basic idea is, I repeat, is now in the public domain and I find no reason to prove it, especially since Russian science can be proud of the thoughtful and carefully developed work “The Gradual Development of Ancient Philosophical Teachings in Connection with the Development of Pagan Beliefs,” published in Kyiv in the late 50s - early 60s “in) 1861). There is hardly any need to add an explanation to this date that, of course, its author, professor of Kyiv University Orest M 179, was hounded and spat upon by Mr. Chernyshevsky and Company, so Novitsky’s excellent work remained little noticed. But here, in Moscow, Novitsky’s thoughts or similar ones, independently discovered, were developed over many years by the prince. Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy 180 and, therefore, need less proof. Unfortunately, another, perhaps much more significant side of the question has been much less explored, namely, the origin of philosophical terminology from theological terminology. This is because, to the shame of historians of philosophy, the history of philosophical terminology, that is, what historians of thought should start with, has been almost unstudied and there is still not a single passable dictionary on the history of philosophical terms. But we must admit: this is the property of modern science: not to notice the most important and shirk from the urgently necessary on the grounds that it cannot be carried out flawlessly and therefore... it is better not to do anything. Need I remind you that we still do not have a single dictionary on the history of theological terminology, nor a symphony for liturgical books and the lives of saints, nor translations of the Neoplatonists and even Aristotle, nor - it’s terrible to say - nor a historical dictionary of the Greek language, etc., etc. Everyone has to study the history of philosophical and theological terminology at their own peril, boldly venturing, for the sake of one word, to swim through the abyss of ancient writing and swimming, in order to often find nothing, many volumes, in search of one term. Due to the disorganization of the working forces, the same work is done hundreds of times. I'm talking about the lack of study of the question of how philosophical terminology arose. Meanwhile, attention in this direction, even if partial, not only accurately confirms the religious origin of philosophy in general, but also, in particular, forcibly leads to more accurate knowledge of where the feeding springs of philosophy actually are. Myth, though most similar to philosophy, is itself not primary, and reference to myth does not yet explain from which philosophy arose, for myth itself is already a kind of philosophy and, as such, itself needs a source of nutrition. Meanwhile, the question of the sources of nutrition of philosophy, which is essential in the history of philosophy, is not, however, only a historical question. Without it, nothing can be said about the nature of philosophical thinking, for it is not enough to hear the desires of philosophers, which are often anti-philosophical and tending to the destruction of philosophy, but it is also necessary to know that primary fabric of thought, which is degenerated into philosophy, but, even degenerating, nevertheless, in the essence of the matter, remains itself. In order to speak about philosophy in essence, you need to know what it is in essence: and this is learned from a histological study of its tissues - first of all, its terminology. Only by understanding this fabric will we be able to penetrate into the nature of its degeneration, which is often painful, in any case one-sided and, with its bias towards further change, obscuring its true composition from our attention. Meanwhile, just as ordinary speech is often a semi-conscious means of hiding a different, more hidden meaning of impulses and emotions, so in philosophy - the expressed concept, understood as its creator requires of us, in the majority 181 does not agree with the hidden meaning that it has, as existing in itself, and these underground energies are released and manifested in readers who have accepted her thoughts, but have not submitted to censorship prohibitions and orders author. Chain of indirect events 182 – but these “indirect events” are often precisely the offspring of the fundamental principle and more express the essence of things than what is directly said or even emphasized. With indirect vision you sometimes catch details and shades that are inaccessible to direct vision; By the way, you will often hear the most important things; with the sounds of laughter sometimes a secret of the soul breaks through that will not reveal itself in any confession; in the endlessly sweet, metaphysically native folds or turns of church hymns, such an absoluteness of meaning will often be heard that not a single dogmatist will be able to sufficiently emphasize. Likewise, in a philosophical system such a deep motive for its acceptance or rejection will often shine, such a ray of life and a smile of comprehension that cannot be expressed with either a pen or a word. It usually shines - in some detail, in the composition of a few words, in a subordinate clause, so to speak, or most often - simply in a separate term. And what flashes is often not only new, unexpected and unexpected, but even contradicts the direct formal statement of the author of the system; however, being in formal contradiction with them, one thing alone explains them, in their totality. An irresistible confidence seizes the researcher that the roots of thought have been found. Now he stands on the true, essentially - but maybe not formally - true point, from where the whole thought as a whole is contemplated, with all its omissions, contradictions, ambiguities and difficulties. Now it has become the researcher’s own, and he manages it as if it were his own, moreover, more accurately, more confidently, more firmly than in his own. And now he can see how those who relied on the formal declarations of the thinker got lost, and into what dead ends these false paths indicated for the profane led, often in order to take them away from the heart of thought, so that they, unable to understand, could be blocked from the path to profanation and led astray. If someone else’s soul is darkness, then even more darkness is the soul of a thinker who just as much wants to open up as, if not more, to hide from the hostile and intrusive curiosity of a crowd alien to him. But, along with this concealment, the thinker also leaves loopholes to his secrets. These loopholes are terminologists and, - and the original, hidden, but always immovable, CENTER of the term, on which the term lives and from which it is nourished, often explains why other terms in the same system are distorted and perverted - why, with immutable necessity, they could not help but be distorted, i.e., in other words, why the system is sick. It is also clear that such a center of crystallization of a system or a system of several such centers is the meaning that appears as an unconditional meaning, that is, the meaning around which the entire personality crystallizes. But in order to be unconditional, it must not be a thought of a separate consciousness, but a reality given to it: it must be a cult, an element of a cult. The cult, precisely it, cuts into consciousness with merciless clarity, breaking through psychologism and reaching the “separation of soul and spirit,” 183, to our noumenal will, and demands for itself either “yes” or “no.” Like a double-edged sword, it cuts through the cult consciousness, revealing all kinds of ambiguity. “Let your word be: to her, to her; neither, nor: I sow too much because I eat out of hostility” (Matthew 5:37) - from the evil one. Это лукавое, это лукавство не есть в грубом смысле хитрость: это психологизм, пытающийся запутать и затуманить сущую Истину, превращая ее в наше мечтание. Thus, the clarity of the snow ridges is erased by whitish steam. The Savior’s commandments are also echoed by His brother: “Let you not fall into hypocrisy” (James 5:12). For an oath is a secret evasion from the thing itself and clouding the matter with references and conversations about something else - something about the essence of the matter. But only reality can truly break through to this “yes” “yes” or “no”, “no” is reality, and not just a question of non-existent, lifeless, powerless meaning, but meaningful reality: embodied meaning can only require a decisive answer from us, and by our answer we are determined in the true sense of our life understanding. It is not thoughts, theoretical statements and demands, which are always fluctuating, just like meaningless utilities, things and machines, that determine our understanding of life, in its center, in its imprecise springs, but the cult - negatively or positively. Outside of a living touch to the cult - subjective dreams, like autumn leaves curling in windy whirlwinds; this is the boiling of the mind in itself - captive thoughts irritation 184, and I’m not talking now about the fact that they are false, but only about the insensibility of the thinker himself to the secret; under the heat of persuasion of others hides a nagging consciousness of arbitrariness and convention, for there is no vital support outside oneself - and all thought is drawn into itself and is agitated by itself - or rather, by vague remnants and fragments of past perceptions of such reality. But touching the cult awakens the soul from dreams, and, having risen, it is forced to self-determination. And no matter how secret philosophy may be, no matter how evasive it may be, no matter how hard it tries to say neither “yes” nor “no,” but something in between, it always has a point where it is forced to say either “yes” or “no”—by a cult. There is no system more evasive and slippery, more “hypocritical”, according to the Apostle James, more “evil”, according to the Savior, than the philosophy of Kant: every position of it, in its entirety, every train of thought is: neither yes nor no. It is all woven from contradictions - not from antinomies, not from courageous joint yes and no, asserted in their sharpness, but from mysterious smiles and ambiguous crawling between yes and no. Not a single term of it gives a pure tone, but everything is a howl. The Kantian system is truly a brilliant system - the most brilliant that was, is and will be... in terms of guile. Kant is a great deceiver. His appearances are phenomena - in which nothing appears; his intelligible noumena - which are precisely not comprehended by the mind and are in no way comprehensible at all; his things in themselves, which turn out to be not at all in themselves and not things, but only in the mind and concepts, moreover, false, ultimate concepts, i.e. special ways of considering the sensory; his pure intuitions are space and time, which precisely cannot be contemplated pure; their completed infinities - in aesthetics, establishing their intuitiveness and spreading out in an endless series of successive distributions - in dialectics - when refuting the metaphysical idea of ​​the world; its a priori elements of reason, which are comprehended only a posteriori, by the analysis of actual experience; his freedom 185 - in all reality only constrained by iron necessity, etc., etc. - all these slippery movements between “yes” and “no” would make the most crafty of philosophers invulnerable, and we probably would never have learned about the true meaning of his system if he had not been forced to speak out in the only place unambiguously - in the term autonomy. So in philosophy, but also in life: “the monotonous cycle of his life could not really have any other center other than himself,” let’s say about Kant in the words of Cuno Fischer (History of modern philosophy, vol. 4. St. Petersburg, 1901, p. 117). The pathos of self-determination is clearly directed against reality, against what forces one to decide. But the true reality - in relation to which only self-determination can be discussed - is one: this is realized meaning or meaningful reality, this is the embodied Logos, this is a cult. One can neglect, without obeying it, the meaning of the powerless 186; and having submitted, one can triumph in contempt for senseless power. But the embodied meaning cannot be neglected: it is strength, it demands; but you will not despise the embodiment of meaning: it is meaning, it requires an answer. A cult can only be opposed to a cult. But Kant, a Protestant to the core, did not know cult in its proper sense (for, of course, among Protestants, since they are truly true to their aspirations, there is no cult, but just talk, and not a metaphysical exit from their self-isolation to other supermundane realities, but only the titillation and excitement of their subjectivity - immanentism - in short, pressing so hard on us from all sides in a diverse and deceptive way) and to the core Protestant Kant - did not want to know the cult. The only meaningful reality for him is himself, and placing himself at the unconditional center of the universe ( - a being of the Western European spirit, of modern times -) excluded from his thought in advance the possibility of thought-determining realities outside of him, made him hostile to the entire cult in advance and prompted him in advance to give a system of thought according to which the cult would be impossible. This was achieved through the fundamental and eternal division of meaning and reality, spirit and flesh, truth and power - into two kingdoms: the kingdom of subjective truths and the kingdom of extra-true objectivities. The cunning philosopher tries in advance to avert the thought from objections: he divides the area of ​​the subjective into two sub-areas, calling one subjective and the other objective, thereby depriving us of the opportunity to use the term “objective” in its proper sense when discussing his system. Vain tricks: of course, the self-closedness of the Kantian spirit is entirely subjective, no matter what distinctions the Protestant philosopher builds for himself to hide his subjectivity - so, of course, the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist is also subjective, no matter what theological subtleties the theologians indulge in. And Kant, as well as Protestantism in general, needs subjectivity - for the sake of ensuring its autonomy - on the part of the cult. Kant thought of getting rid of the cult. But he proved that philosophy cannot exist except as a philosophy of cult: Kant loudly declares that his task is to explain how knowledge is possible, how science is possible. But of course, in fact, for the soul, so to speak, he does not need this explanation, for he believes in science as the initial and unconditional one in his philosophizing. But secretly his entire system speaks only about one thing - about the cult: how impossible it is. How and why a cult is impossible is the primary question of Kant’s thought. This is Kant’s pathos, perhaps even half-conscious of it, but nevertheless driving all construction. But, fighting against the cult, only he, although perhaps not consciously, relies on it: all the content of philosophizing, terminology and the meaning of basic concepts are from the cult and only in the cult are legitimate. And everything that Kant says is an axiomatics of the cult, however, expressed by Kant with the concealment of due limitations and therefore being false. The cognizable must be visual, given in experience - existential, - we will say. Yes, this is exactly what a cult is, this is its first requirement. Things are in themselves, but they are - in themselves - unknowable. Yes, these are sacraments. But the phenomena that are knowable are, of course, the phenomena of the sacraments, and these are the essence of rituals. The region of noumena is incomprehensible, but it determines life: that is precisely what the cult is for - the structure of life. In it - the realm of noumena - there is freedom, and there is no freedom outside of it: that’s it, only grace-filled participation in the cult liberates, but in the non-cult realm there is animal existence, unconsciousness and slavery to the elements. Etc. etc. We do not have the opportunity now to enter into the question posed, this would take us too far; some of it, however, will become clear gradually from what follows. But not as a paradox, but quite simply, I note that Kantian philosophy owes its existence to Protestant cult-fighting, that it has no content of its own and that with the fall of cult-centrism, that is, religion, Kantianism as such, in its aspirations, scatters without a trace - what remains from the destruction of Kantianism is significant and important, but it is entirely from the cult and, therefore, again stands and falls depending on the preservation or disintegration of the cult. In both its positive and negative parts, Kantianism depends entirely on the cult, on the fact of the existence of the cult. There is one very characteristic evidence of the cult-fighting impulses of Kant’s philosophizing: the philosophizing of Plato. Give yourself the trouble to compare the philosophical understanding of life of Kant and Plato point by point, and you will see a very simple recipe for Kantianism: while maintaining Platonic terminology and even the connection of concepts, Kant takes Plato’s understanding of life and changes the sign in front of it - from plus to minus. Then all the pluses change into minuses and all the minuses into pluses in all positions of Platonism: this is how Kantianism arises. Needless to say, with such a distortion of the natural signs of terms and their connections, the very content of the terms and judgments with them is distorted: everything turns out to be upside down, everything is contrary not only to Plato, but also to the meaning of language - the meaning of all humanity. Plato's thought is essentially cult-centric. This, in essence, is nothing more than a philosophical description and philosophical awareness of the mysteries. [Isn’t Plato’s very concept of dialectics and the dialectical method borrowed from initiatory rites? Indeed, in all cults, as it penetrates, the symbol deepens, it seems newer and newer, layers and layers grow. It is remarkable that Socrates' method was not dialectical in the proper sense, but dialectics appears along with ideas. This is the path to ideas, to the contemplation of heavenly essences. Initiation is clearly depicted in the Phaedo, under the symbols of dying. In the Phaedrus themselves αγία φαντάσματα, εϊδη] 187 . The so-called philosophy of Plato is the philosophy of a cult - a cult experienced by a deep and wise thinker. It is not without reason that Plato presents the most significant questions in the form of myths, many of which clearly hide experiences - for example, in the Phaedrus, in the Republic, stories about Ira, etc. These are Plato’s myths and parables. Consequently, Kant’s philosophical plan, i.e., the negation of Plato’s plan, is nothing more than a negation of the cult, and, therefore, Kant also departs from the cult and adheres entirely to the cult, but focusing on it not positively, like Plato, but negatively - not rushing towards it, but afraid of falling into it, like a pirate avoiding the harbor. Both lived long lives, a little over 80 years each; both gave everything they could give and outlived themselves; the last work of each of them is unfinished and bears the undoubted features of old age, talkativeness and impotence of thought; but Plato in his “Laws” always thinks about the organization of life for the sake of the spirit, and Kant in his “Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science” speaks of external knowledge, essentially for the sake of external life, for technology is the product of science. Plato scribens mortuus est - Plato died writing, according to Cicero, and Kant almost dies on his bed with pen in hand. Both were nodal points at which the philosophical currents of their time converged and diverged; both enjoyed enormous fame; both devoted their entire lives to pure thought. But Plato's gaze, turned to the depths of the human spirit, was occupied with the objective, and Kant's gaze, interested in external experience, devoted itself to pure subjectivity. The first is clear, the second is evasive. Plato is a rich man and an aristocrat, Kant is a poor man and a plebeian; but Plato moved in all sorts of circles, looking for the worthy, and Kant looked for wealthy and aristocratic acquaintances. Plato traveled all his life with the greatest risk and was even in slavery; Kant never left Koenigsberg and lived in comfort. Plato is a poet, completely permeated with erotic excitement and struggles with his sensuality, spiritualizing it; Kant is dry, alien to eros, eunuch, but very concerned about comfort, table and condition. In the limit, Plato seeks God-manhood, and Kant is a man-god. Plato is always and in everything noble, despite the riskiness of the plots and, mb 188. Let's try to approach this understanding of life a little more. To be aware of something means to relate it to the spiritual center of our being; what is not correlated means that it does not exist, because we can only say that there is something that is conscious. This is so because awareness is a separation and stopping from the continuous flow of existence; but in order for us to be confident in highlighting and stopping, we need to have a firm point in ourselves. So, in order to recognize the movement of external reality, you need to relate it to yourself. But aren't we ourselves moving? The changeable and diffuse content of our consciousness, the fluidity of ourselves makes the unity of self-consciousness empty: we talk about I, but I am only a thought among other thoughts. We still need to establish a firm point within ourselves. We usually have a vague and dark, but sometimes a dazzlingly clear and solid consciousness of our noumenal core. We have it; but what evidences us of its authenticity? If there is such evidence, it must be smart, noumenal, like our noumenality. Experience is noumenal with τ and oneself - a substance, and not a logical and psychological subject, - the subject of judgments about oneself - about one’s states. Absolute freedom - responsibility - noumenal fear for oneself - in the face of Eternity - the heavens are torn apart - when you completely - define yourself - and know that you will and do answer for everything, at least by heredity, by upbringing, by various justifiable motives for what you have done. Absolute freedom. But it, this evidence, this assurance of the noumenality of the Self - and this is its reliability - must be a thing among other things. The basis of consciousness and self-awareness must immediately be located outside as conscious and inside as self-conscious. And again we come to the same thing: the condition of personality is the unity of the transcendental with the immanent, the mental and the sensory, the spiritual and the physical. The condition of personality is a cult. They usually want to find such a condition in culture, since it is thought of not as the weathering of shrines, but as a primary and self-sufficient world of values. What is culture? One of the characters in “Three Conversations” by Vl. Solovyova (Och, ed. 2nd. T. 10, p. 155) in response to a similar question, perplexedly remarks: “Here are Voltaire, and Bossuet, and Madonna, and Nana, and Alfred Musset, and Philaret. How can we lump it all into one heap and put this heap for ourselves instead of God?” 189 – What, in fact, is culture? This is everything, absolutely everything, produced by humanity. There is a peaceful Hague Conference, but there are also asphyxiating gases; there is the Red Cross, but there is also jets of burning liquid dousing each other. Here is the Creed, but here is Haeckel with “World Riddles”. Here is the Gospel of John, but here is also the Luciferic “gospel” of Pike. Notre Dame is here, but Moulin Rouge is also here. In terms of culture, how can one distinguish a church from a tavern or an American lock-breaking machine from the commandment “thou shalt not steal”—also cultural heritage? How, on the same level, can one distinguish the Great Penitential Canon of Andrew of Crete from the works of the Marquis de Sade? All this is equally present in culture, and within the culture itself there are no criteria for selection, criteria for distinguishing one from another: it is impossible, while remaining true to culture, to approve one and not approve of the other, to accept one and reject the other: in his own way, that is, to achieve his goals, the Marquis de Sade is probably no worse than St. Andrew of Crete. To evaluate values, you need to go beyond the boundaries of culture and find criteria that are transcendental to it. Remaining in it, we are forced to accept it entirely, all as it is. In other words, we must then deify it and consider it the final criterion of all value, and in it we must deify ourselves as figures and bearers of culture. Wanting to make culture immanent, and only immanent to itself, the Western world, without noticing it, itself became immanent to culture. Actors dissolved in their activities, subjects - in their states; the mechanics disappeared into their own mechanisms, which they had invented; the man dissolved and went into the merging of the elements. The autonomy created by God itself became autonomous in relation to people and subjugated them to itself, and culture became self-legitimate in relation to the human person. Culture rushed along its own paths, conquering man. This is a legend about a sorcerer’s student who summoned spirits, but was unable to control them. The human personality has become transcendental to itself, the face has split off from the face, the face has ceased to shine in the face and through the face; the personality became lost in itself, lost and confused. This is how psychology arose without a soul and epistemology without an active center of cognition. Setting consciousness on culture, that is, on oneself, leads to the unconditional recognition of needs as such. But there are all kinds of needs. Having no criterion distinguishing needs, the man-god does not have “self-coercion”; and then, instantly, an animal’s face will look out from the man-god. But this is not due to personal shortcomings, but with fatal necessity, according to the laws of asceticism. And if the laws of mechanics are called iron, then truly the laws of asceticism - the teachings about the spiritual connections of our being - should be called diamond in strength. An attitude or orientation towards culture is not an orientation at all, it is not anything definite; nevertheless, the definite, in fact, goes beyond the boundaries of culture and finds transcendental criteria for itself, or idols that receive the appearance and power of transcendence - imitation of the transcendent and counterfeit. This is understandable due to the vagueness of the concept of orientation, although this concept is the highest asset of Western philosophy and should be the cornerstone of further reasoning. This concept and term were introduced into philosophy by Kant. In geography, “orientation” means using one given side of the world, especially the East (Oriens), to determine the others. In mathematics: to find oneself in a given space by determining the position of elements in relation to others already known. In logic: to have a clear understanding of the boundaries and content of our knowledge, that is, to attribute all its aspects to some recognized as known and reliable (Kircher, - Worterbuch der Philosophische Grundbegriff, 3-te Auflage, 1897, Leipzig, S. 284). According to Kant (Was heisst sich in D. Orient., Immanuel Kant's Kleinere Schriften zur Naturphilosophie. Abth. 1 – 2, Berlin, 1872 – 73 II 2, 149 ft. 150), “to be oriented in thinking” means: in the event of “the insufficiency of the objective principles of reason in recognizing what is true, to be determined by its subjective principle,” i.e. that is, to accept something on the basis of the theoretical and practical “needs - Bedurfnise - of reason” (id., S. 154 f) · In this definition, the whole of Kant is expressed: when there are no objective principles of reason, then one must be guided at least by subjective ones, but of reason. But why not make an attempt to move into the most objective region, that is, into the region transcendental to reason, but also reasonable - the most reasonable. Where does Kant's presumption come from that there is no Reason outside of Reason, no Law outside our actual λόγος? The presumption is from the will, the will to be alone, the will to autonomy and ontological independence. “There is no reason outside of me,” because if there were, as external to me, it would be coercive for me, it would deprive me of autonomy - this is Kant’s slogan. And therefore, he prefers to introduce the subjectively random into his mind, so as not to subordinate it to the objectively necessary. Not the mind is from the Truth, but the truth is from the mind - not I in the Truth, but the truth in me. It was this understanding of orientation that determined Kant’s philosophy. But it is obvious that in order to deny transcendental objects of orientation one must turn to one’s own products of the mind. However, among them there are those that lead to a breakthrough in his self-isolation, for example, the idea of ​​a cult. Therefore, it is necessary to select a part of the products of the mind and, by an arbitrary act, single it out as inviolable, as an object of orientation, in the confidence, however, that it, having nothing transcendental or abiding in itself, but being exhausted by its appearance, fluid and changeable, conditional and particular, is not inviolable. In other words, the criticism of Kant and the Kantians arbitrarily selects from all culture a small part of it - mathematical natural science - and, knowing about its historical variability, from year to year, and about its diversity - from scientist to scientist, about the differences in its methods, hypotheses, theories, terms, etc., proclaims it as an eternal and unchanging truth, for what else does it mean to be guided by the fact of science, in particular by the fact mathematical natural science, how not to deify the scientific opinions of a certain group of people of a certain time for all times, to all generations - and, having deified them, make them an absolute support in all further movements. From the fact of science, Kant, escaping the cult, makes an idol: being negatively oriented towards the cult, he is positively oriented towards the false cult, with the consciousness of its falsity, while the proper orientation is precisely the opposite of this - that is, it is established positively - towards the cult and negative - towards the false cult. And after him this dislocation of the spirit is repeated by his successors, especially the Marburgers. Fleeing faith, they fall into superstition, and having fallen into superstition, they distort all philosophy. But as soon as you discard the limitation of transcendence in orientation, which Kant slipped in as the purest petitio principii 190, the thought of orientation will become not only essentially acceptable, but also a long-known fundamental axiom of the spirit: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart also be” (Matthew 6:21, cf. Luke 12:34), δπου γαρ εσται o θησαυρός σου, έκει εσται και ή καρδία σου (Μφ. 6, 21). The heart - καρδία - is the focus of spiritual forces, the very center of our being, our noumenal Self. It is where it has placed its treasure, with its treasure, with the value on which it has decided to orient itself. But it is not the heart that builds its treasure - it only turns to it - but the heart is determined by the treasure. Our heart will turn out to be one or the other, depending on this or that treasure: Truth determines our mind. Kant, on the other hand, bows to the product of his hands. The nature of the critical method of research, which is essentially connected with the concept of orientation, can be expressed very simply, although not in the formulas of the critics themselves. Namely: If we consider something to be an unconditional value, then, obviously, this position of value is not made in isolation from our entire sense of life (in this case it would be aimless and useless in the general economy of life), but for the sake of determining the main lines of our internal, and then external life. In other words, a certain orientation presupposes a certain specific system of lines of movement of our life. If we have oriented ourselves by an act of will, then what is next required is recognition of our act, a “critical” analysis of those basic angles of vision that it certainly presupposes and requires, and the rejection of which would be at the same time – and the rejection of the orientation itself. We will call these main angles of view, expanding the meaning of Kant’s term, categories. They are accepted by us not because experience testifies to them, but because they are nothing more than the revelation of that basic structure of the spirit, which was expressed in the chosen orientation. By accepting categories, we only testify to the unity of our spirit. So, Consequently, categories precede any experience, they are a priori: these are the angles of view from which (and we know this in advance) from which any experience must be seen. But what if the experience does not fit into these corners? - Of course, it can be. But we believed only in a certain orientation and recognized it as reality. Consequently, everything that does not fit into the angles of vision from which experience is seen and from this position taken in advance by us is contrary to our faith, which means, as such, in advance, a priori 191, is recognized as unreal: we - even seeing - do not believe, for we believe in our treasure. And, not having categories for knowing it, we are not aware of it. An experience that does not fit into the angles of vision of our orientation is declared in advance not to be an experience. But in order to avoid any misunderstandings, we must really consider what can and cannot be recognized by us, that is, really reliably establish the connection of a given orientation with a given system of categories. I say categories, and not directly experiments, because we may not immediately see whether it is allowed by a given orientation or not. And if we don’t see it, we can allow an internal enemy into our experience, which will destroy our very orientation. This task of establishing categories - the deduction of categories - consists of a number of points: we need to list the categories, and that’s all, we need to prove that their system is exhaustive and, finally, that it really develops the orientation we have adopted, and not any other. I apologize for reminding you of this elementary information: however, you probably managed to notice that I tried to present Kant’s techniques in a general form, excluding from them, as far as possible, the characteristic features of subjectivism. Then, while maintaining their coherence, they lose their specific sharpness and can be applied to any attitude, and not just to the attitude towards the fact of mathematical natural science. No one can prevent them from being applied to a true orientation, that is, one that makes the object of faith not the work of human hands, but the true reality and understands this latter as superhuman, as a mountain or mental reality, although it appears concretely and clearly. No one can stop us from believing in the cult - we have our treasure in it, and therefore direct our hearts to it. Then, determined by the cult, our spirit lives in a special way, according to transcendental rules, and its categories are again special. Then he, our spirit, is different from the idolaters who turn to self-worship, is different to the world, sees and perceives all life differently, evaluates all reality differently, lives in a different reality, although they see him - who all see according to Kantian categories - living in the Kantian world. Our spirit is different; He has other categories. But those who believe in “mathematical natural science,” that is, according to Kant, do not see this and are not able to see. And if the cultocentrist for those around him, the egocentrists, seems immersed in the very world that is studied by mathematical natural science, then to him, the cultocentrist, the egocentrists are seen not in this Kantian world, but in different layers and spheres of another, super-sensory-sensory, mysterious - below or above reality. Then there is no monotonous plain of the earth’s surface, but everywhere there are stairs of ascents and descents. However, he who has completely deprived himself of the very concept of depth and height is not aware of his descents or ascents! He always sees only the projection of his trajectory - onto a plane. 192, where there are many types of increase, it is hardly possible to give a complete, monotonous system of categories. In the field of the spiritual category - not a mechanism, with its wheels and levers once and for all carved out, but a flexible and living system, purposefully adapting in a given spirit and in relation to its given experience - an organic system, not a mechanical one, and therefore allowing itself to be discussed only in general terms. In general, we can say that Christian philosophy is oriented towards the Lord Jesus Christ - the Eternal Logos, incarnate - and from it, from this orientation, it departs. [About John's criterion.] 193 The absolute meaning of this orientation is on Tom, “In Him all things were” 194, its absolute reality is in Tom, “In Him all things were” - gives confidence in its power, gives confidence in its universal completeness: every true experience will fit into this orientation, but if something does not fit, then it is truly and ultimately false and imaginary. It is not needed, we do not lose anything, if it does not fit into our orientation, it does not exist. In the Person on Whom Christian philosophy is oriented, the complete fullness of meaning is combined with the complete fullness of creative power. Nothing that truly exists existed without Him and apart from Him; nothing that is spiritual, that is smart, that is verbal can fall out of Him, the Meaning of all meanings 195. The Incarnate Meaning – the Face of the Lord Jesus Christ – is the true orientation of thought. A cult is a concrete dissemination of this orientation. The indispensable elements of the cult are Christian categories: they are both concrete and real at once, in accordance with the orientation itself. These are the Cross, blood, light, etc., etc. Now, I think, what was said at the beginning about the Cross will become somewhat clearer: yes, a thing among other things, it can at the same time be the meaning of all-existent understanding. Concrete - it, however, can be the support of any concreteness. Part of the world - it can be its type and idea. We are not embarrassed by such contradiction, for we have already recognized it and accepted it into our minds, believing in our orientation: after all, the Lord, Man among many other people, is, together, the Only Begotten Son of God and God Consubstantial with the Unconditional and Eternal. All values ​​of the spirit are such that they have the property of being larger and more significant than themselves, that is, that they are symbolic. [On the nature of a magical symbol.] 196 In spiritual experience it is visible - how. In the experience of the highest spiritual achievements, other “things” and “actions” of the cult are comprehended as indispensable and necessary conditions for this experience and the personality itself in general, and if so, then for all its experiences, at the lower, even distorted, stages of its life. We hinted that the content of Kant’s philosophy, anti-cult and hostile to cult, nevertheless rests on the cult that he himself distorts and suppresses. This self-destruction of Kantianism may seem to be only a historical detail, characteristic of Kant, but having no internal necessity at all. In other words, it would seem that there can be experience and understanding of life, and even more so - awareness of reality, without an attitude towards a cult, positive or negative. Or, to put it another way, it may seem that pure positivism is possible. But - only “can” - with the recognition of Kant himself as something accidental and incidental in the history of thought, - and, consequently, - the previous philosophical movements he absorbed into his thought, - and also - with a frivolous attitude towards the subsequent movements that emerged from Kant. But now: what current was not taken into account by Kant and was not included in it? What movement did not take Kant into account and did not emerge from it? And if so, then it means that in Kant everything that was outside the cult - and against the cult, realized itself, that is, all European thought, all the movements of Europe, not only philosophical, but religious and scientific, etc., forming in their totality “humanism.” And if Kant is unthinkable without the concept of cult, the denial of which is the task of Kantian philosophy, then it means that simply being outside of cult is generally unthinkable. Historically, this proves that truly every culture begins with “her-she” or “neither-nor” cult and on the cult, therefore, is oriented either positively or negatively. But I dare to express my belief in much more. To be understood, I will first express my thought figuratively. 197, reaches the North Pole and stands with excitement over the motionless point of the Earth. “The axis of the world passes here!” - he exclaims in delight, pointing his finger down at a point that looks no different from all other points. But yes, this point, which has nothing special in itself, is the pole of the world, and the words of Captain Itteras ring with ecstatic joy. These words and this image are engraved into the child’s thought and involuntarily flash in the mind - during the liturgy, over the Holy Gifts. You know, of course, that the serving priest, having placed a particle of the Holy Gifts in his right hand with his left hand, stands with them, bending over the Holy Altar, and thus reads the prayer before communion and, of course, reflects on the depth of what is happening. And among the Uniates, according to Catholic rules, in addition, it is prescribed, while contemplating the Holy Particle, to reflect for some time on the greatness of the terrible sacrament and on the immensity of God’s benefits - meditation on the Gifts. And so, when you stand above the Gifts, somewhere in the background, like an accompaniment, a thought sounds: this is the true place of the World Axis, the Earth’s pole. He, like all points on the earth’s surface, is nothing to the unreasonable eye. But everything revolves around him, including the universe itself, while he himself is motionless. So is this particle of the Holy Gifts: as if it were nothing special. But around this Particle the entire circle of existence completes its course; everything is near her, around her and for her: she is the A and Ω of the world. The cult itself - cultus - from collere - to rotate - is a cycle, a round dance, a circulation around the holy reality, around the shrine - in this case - around the shrine of shrines, Sacra sacrorum, τελετών τελετή - the sacraments of the sacraments - this particle of the Gifts. She herself, carried and carried in her arms, is motionless. Here is afr· the solitude of the world! And from these thoughts you move on. My position in the world is determined by my relationship to this particle. Not only metaphysically, but also geographically. In fact, to define yourself geographically - to give geographical coordinates of latitude and longitude or some other - this means to have some kind of strong points and to be aware of your place in relation to them. But how are they themselves realized? – So many degrees of longitude from Moscow. But what is Moscow? After all, this is no longer a geometric-geographical term, but a gsographic-cultural one. Cultural definitions are based on cult definitions, because a cultural definition requires that some meaning be established in the concrete reality surrounding us, and the recognition of meaning in reality is rooted in the depths of the cult. Or again: we navigate in space - in relation to other people and their activities. If they did not exist unconditionally, then there would be no recognition of places in space, for the natural becomes conscious when it is marked, when it has received a mark of the spirit - a certain notch, a notch - which, in its essence, is not only a physical, but primarily a spiritual note - a sign of human activity. After all, a physical cut or point has meaning for us only insofar as we recognize in it our cut, the point we have set. By itself, it is nothing and cannot serve any recognition. If, for example, we forgot what note we made and are unable to remember, then we will not recognize it. But even more so, the same must be said about less material signs. The very recognition of a phenomenon requires recognition of it, but this is already recognition of one’s spiritual mark on it. And if you say that we are recognized by the luminaries, then [the network of such luminaries must be indicated, named, highlighted - in a word, must be cultivated] 198. Historically, this culturalization of the luminaries and everything that follows is their penetration by the sacred principle: we realize, because we isolate, highlight them - which means we think in part as transcendental merging of the world - “created above the mundane merging” 199 . But this is already a connection of 200 of them to the cult: geodesy is based on astronomy, astronomy - on astrology, astrology - on star worship, and star worship - on the mystical feeling of the Unconditional and Eternal, which appears and in this sense is somehow embodied in star symbols. It cannot be otherwise. After all, to navigate in space means to establish your relationship to certain things in the world. But this attitude is not an external action, but an internal one, it is a certain act of the mind and, therefore, can deal not with the external as such, but only with that which is given to the mind as reasonable, worked out by the mind and, therefore, itself as accessible to such elaboration, not alien to rationality; and for this, it must ultimately be, by one or another chain of supports and links, correlated with infinite Reason, with the Logos of the world, with the total Meaning of Existence, Which is given only religiously. But, being given religiously, it must be precisely given, because otherwise it is impossible to correlate with it another given thing, the one that we want to define and establish. In other words, this last point of support of all supports must be a concrete object of cult, in the highest and full sense - the Absolute Theanthropic Person incarnate - the Lord Jesus Christ. But He ascended; therefore, He must be given by that which replaces Him in complete concreteness: this is the Eucharist. So, the cult is a condition for the ability to navigate in space. And we, clearly or unclearly, know this, but we use what the cult gives, and if we really could completely pump out our cult content from consciousness, we would not only lose the highest spiritual values, but also simply consciousness: for us there would be no recognition of places - we would not see space, it would be rolled up, like a scroll, into an indifferent environment that has no divisions in itself, no coordinates, no diversity and no stability - lying absolutely outside consciousness, inaccessible consciousness, truly on the other side of consciousness, because consciousness would have nothing to cling to in it, and, therefore, non-existent for us. This would be μή 6ν. Space exists because there is some division in it by rationality, some participation in the ideal world, but the rational and ideal in the flesh are given only by cult. There is space because there is a cult. The same is true for time. We live in the rhythm of the holidays. We count the days: so much from the Resurrection - so much until the next. We say: from Christmas, from Easter - so many weeks, so many months, etc. So many days from the New Year. So many years from the Nativity of Christ as an era of chronology. But what is this if not a cult time, the time of the Eucharist - and in other cults - its own, its own cult actions, but always cultic, for the calendar is essentially liturgical. Destroy in your mind everything, truly all cult times, and there will be no calendar: every calendar is certainly a month-speak or an implied month-speak, one or the other. But - night and day, seasons, - you say. Yes, but they are awareness of what experience so emphasizes mystically, which is determined in relation to religion. Truly and consistently - extract from them all their religious content - and you will see that you have nothing to recognize - and time will merge into an indifferent environment - into μή δ ν, and there will be no time. There is time, because there is a cult. All times are held together by liturgical anchors, and when religious foundations fall apart, “time comes out of its grooves,” in the words of Shakespeare 201. Time and space are derivatives of cult. Time and space are in the reality of the cult, but not vice versa. The world is in the cult, but not the cult in the world. The Talmud says that the sacrifice of the Temple of Jerusalem and the Torah pre-existed the world: of course, for with them - generally speaking, that is, with the cult - the world is born in the mind, and without them there is no world. And yet, the world was created for the sake of “circumcision,” say the Jews. Of course, by “circumcision” we mean all the laws in general - the entire cult - both centrally and ultimately - the Eucharist - for this is the meaning of existence, the entelechy of the world. This is the A and Ω of the world - and the philosopher, willy-nilly, takes this into account, for in order not to take it into account, he must not only not be a philosopher, but also not a self-conscious and unconscious being - simply not be. And then: Delphi is in the center of the world, the Greeks say, showing the omphalos of the Mother Earth (on coins Apollo is depicted sitting on the navel of the Earth, the center of the Earth); Jerusalem is in the center of the world, and there is also the navel of the Earth. Oh yes, yes, yes! Of course, because not figuratively, but truly, geographically, we are coordinated in space in relation to Golgotha ​​- the center of all centers, the origin of all coordinate principles. And then the coordinate axes of the world - the absolute axes of the world, in relation to which everything is recognized - truly the Cross of Christ - the Life-giving Cross on which the Lord was crucified. And, portable, it is motionless, because these are absolutely motionless axes-coordinates. And then: our crosses are therefore a category of thought, and that is why we see them everywhere, because they are moving axes-coordinates, in relation to which we understand all phenomena. Without going into further detail - we will return to these questions - we note: the more you reflect on the concepts of philosophy, the more obvious their π with τ o τ becomes when they are without specific content, and the muteness of the content when it does not have schemes that realize it. And if so, then either all philosophical concepts are worthless - and even as words should be excluded from the dictionary, or they are worth a lot, having a specific content - but the specific content of philosophical concepts can only be one - cultic. If there can be an account, then between types of cult, between cults of different confessions and different religions, but not between cult in general and philosophy in general, for philosophy takes everything from the cult, and not back, and if subsequently, at a comparatively later time, in cults, for example in the Christian, formulas and terms appear inspired by philosophy - for example, formulas and terms of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, then this is still only an apparent phenomenon: religion because took these or those terms and formulas that philosophy, which took them first, itself took them from the cult. Apparently borrowing, the cult takes only its own. Tracing the history of philosophical terms, one can be convinced of their cult source. But how can we prove this? It would be necessary to take a philosophical dictionary and analyze it word by word - confirming your analysis with parallels and comparisons of quotations - a task that takes a long time and is not lecture-like in nature, but would be suitable, for example, for practical classes or seminaries. This task is only outlined by me - it awaits its researchers. Not only historically, however, but also essentially, philosophical terminology depends on cult or religious-mystical terminology. By borrowing its terms from religion, philosophy tears them away from their nourishing roots and deprives them of meaning; Poor in meaning, they become discolored, fade, fade, and are often distorted and then - spoken as if in mockery - and cease to be needed. That is why, rich and rich in meaning, the formulas and terms of the cult are difficult to translate, or even not at all, into the philosophical language - infinitely poorer, and often simply false and crippled - they are even difficult, difficult to retell, losing shades of meaning, all living colors and beats during the retelling. It’s like rendering a mosaic with a cobblestone or depicting an orchestral symphony with one finger, and moreover, on a false instrument. For example, we have many terms with approximately the same content: spiritual, intelligent, premium [έιτέθιενος] 202, verbal, rational, heavenly, heavenly, heavenly, heavenly, mental, holy, etc., etc. How many of them are there! And all of them 203 are “transcendent”. But in any case, without waiting for any complete examination of the field of philosophical terms, we, if only for the sake of greater density of our thought about its cult source, need to review some of the terms as an example. But at the same time, this review, even a cursory one, will prepare us for an understanding of language, without which it is hardly possible to do without when discussing liturgical-philosophical issues and concepts. Communication, communion, participation - liturgical terms that literally came to Plato and Aristotle, κοινωνία, μέ$εξις, παρουσία, πάρειμι, παρουσία - presence. είδος – ιδέα – face, vision, divine vision. άνάμνησις - so calling part of the liturgy from the words: “having remembered all the saints... let us pray”, post mysteria, post sacre 204. Eternal memory - in Plato, for example, the memory of the heavenly. Remembering the dead... yes, yes... Holy), άγιος, kodesh – in Philo – transcendental... Transcendent-immanentism is a cult concept, a thing in itself (νοούμενα) and a phenomenon (φαινόμενα), έπιφάνεια “2 nrzb.>”. νους - I am transcendental, revealing mystically in the cult, absolute) freedom... not a subject, not a predicate, but a substance - absolute) will and responsibility. Metamorphoses and transubstantiation are two opposing concepts - both philosophical and both cultic - transformatio and transsubstantiatio. άλη$είη unforgettable, oblivion and unforgetfulness in the mysteries. Manfred seeks oblivion, Faust 205 - forgets the 1st part and is born again in the 2nd - and unforgetfulness - ιδέα (Helen) is derived from the noumenal depths. Etc. etc. Phenomena. Our knowledge of the phenomenon: δόξα, it seems, therefore) is not; it seems, therefore) and is. Appearance of the Mother of God to St. Sergius. Revealed icons. Manifestations of God's power. θεοί έπιφανείς - miracle-working gods who appeared, επιφάνεια; epiphany (Syriek, son of Heraclides, in Chersonesus - the goddess of the Virgin - on behalf of the city). Miracle workers. Timachides of Rhodes - epiphanies of the Dioscuri. There are epiphanies of Isis. φαίνεσθαι and έπιφαίνεσθαι - technical terms for the appearance of the healing gods according to Herodotus: Apollo, Athena, Zeus Τρόπαιος 206 .] 207 What an empty, meaningless word μή δ ν - “non-existence”! But in concrete religious thinking, how can we do without it? Μή ov – everything that is not part of consciousness, that is erupted from it, i.e., that does not relate to the subject of orientation of consciousness, i.e., non-cult. Non-existence is non-existence, external darkness, that is, outside of God - darkness, because it is not enlightened by the light of Truth - intelligent - is not recognized and recognized - and essentially cannot be known, and as having nothing intelligent in itself - Gehenna. Non-existence in the proper sense of the word, ultimate, is the last non-being, that is, being outside of God, in outer darkness. And this is only a negative orientation toward God. Relative non-existence - non-existence on earth - is an eruption from church life, an extra-church, extra-cult existence, an anathema. “Whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be damned! - Maranatha! 208 How can he not be erupted if he, having fallen away from the points of definition, lost contact with cult existence, fell out of it? Non-existence, separation from being – intellectual existence. If it were the latter, that is. An anathematized consciousness, divorced from any cult, would begin to build its own philosophy, then it, in turn, would anathematize the cult, focusing on it negatively, and would turn to itself, to its emptiness, making it the subject of a positive orientation. And then it would inevitably declare spiritual values as inexpressible, inembodiable, as “intimately personal” (Tareev) 209, as “meons” (Minsky) 210 or as Privatsache 211 (social democrats), for, asserting oneself against the cult that denies them, it is inevitable to deny one’s negation, the cult, or to repent and recognize oneself without the cult as weak and empty. In a similar way, the medieval doctrine of the degrees of being becomes clear; degrees of being - degrees of connectedness with the cult - for here, in concreto 212, is given the system of entium realium 213, surrounding and revealing, like symbols, ens realissimum 214 - the focus of the cult - the absolute center of the universe. Etc., etc. Our entire course is devoted precisely to this explanation of the cult basis of philosophical concepts and the philosophical meaning of cult. Therefore, for now we are content with these few examples in order to move on next time to a discussion of the cult itself, as a system of shrines in general that reveal the orientation of the cult, and above all the main shrines - the 7 sacraments. Kant and Plato (additions) Plato started from the question τί έστι επιστήμη 215; and keeping in mind mathematics as an indisputable example of science - exact knowledge - he builds his own system of thought. Kant also starts from the question - how is science possible - how is exact knowledge possible, and again has in mind, as an example of exact knowledge, mathematics. Answering the question of how mathematics is possible, Kant gives his structure of thought. Appendix 2. About orientation About John’s criterion 216 (whoever does not confess and Christ who came in the flesh is anathema) 217 ​​and other places in John’s epistles. About the magical nature of the symbol (from a notebook). Quote from the Uniat service book about reflection on the Gifts. In general, about meditations from Catholic books (note." The etymology of the word cultus is from collere - to rotate. Cult as conversion around a shrine: the law of choricity. About the navel of the earth. 'Ομφαλός 219 . About Jerusalem-centrism. About circumcision, etc., as the center and goal of the world. Medieval doctrine of the degrees of being. “Rejoice, the Foundation of the earth, in Your wombs, the Most Pure One, who did not bear it with difficulty” (Canon of God Mat, p 4, tr 3) 220. The Mother of God carried Christ incarnate in Her womb. Consequently, it is He who is the Foundation of the earth. The Savior, who appeared in the flesh, is the Foundation of the earth. Appendix 3. Philosophical terminology 1919.ΙΙΙ.2. Night. Serg Pos During the conversation - reading his article 221 about the Lavra, Fr. Diomedes 222, assistant sacristan of the Lavra, came across the word noumenal, and I wanted to explain it. But when I went home, on the way the explanation took the following form: noumenon comes from the word νους. We usually translate the word νους through the mind. But neither νους, nor the Slavic mind, which is equivalent to it, is expressed by the Russian term mind. Νους actually means: the spiritual focus of our being, focus, center, primary node of spiritual life; νους is the spiritual Self, the spirit, as opposed to external, random, scattered sensory impressions. Therefore, νοούμενον means that which is spiritual, that which is spiritually comprehended, spiritually comprehensible, accessible only to the spirit, and not to the sensory impression, sensuality. Noumenal means intelligible, that is, spiritually cognizable and spiritually existing, but not sensually cognizable and non-existent. “Glorify it [antimins] even more according to the law of purification: just as the sacred rites performed in it are holy. reach both your heavenly and mental altar, and bring us your most pure grace of overshadowing” (Rite of consecration of antimensions - Archbishop Official, l. 139) 223. “You have planted Thy holy churches and altars, O Lord of hosts, throughout the whole earth, to be offered to You in mental and bloodless sacrifices” (Bishop(ish) Official - Rite of the consecration of antimensions, l. 138) 224. To Holy Communion they say 225. The mind might be sweet, cheerful, “sun-like.” ΝΒ!!! Kan Ang to the Guardian, p. 7, (troparion) “And now,” Theotokos: [To the Mother of God, ] “smart ladder” 227. Akaf(ist) Iis the Sweetest). Ik<os) 9. “Enlighten my heart’s thoughts” 228. Wed. “Spend the proud thoughts of their hearts” (hymn to the Mother of God “Most Honest”) 229. Wed. “from the heart come [good and] evil thoughts” 230. So, thought is the property, the activity of the heart; heart = νους. 5) χάρις in later times 231 11) μεταβάλλω – offer (about the Holy Gifts) 12) sacramentum (see S. P. Znamensky) 232 13) ευλογία blessing, bless I) Were these terms (especially) νοητός, νοερός, etc.) a) before Plato and b) outside of Platonism, after Plato. (Introduction 233.) Christianity taken as a whole is a sacrament. The saints say that Christianity was the sacrament (Mac(arius) of God) - about the sacrament of Christianity. This is generally not in the sense of teaching, but in the sense of the very sacrament of God's cult. “Christianity exists [only] through sacraments,” testifies Archbishop Ignatius of Voronezh (On Church Sacraments. St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 7) 234. Hardly anyone would dare to reject this word point blank. But, maneuvering around it, modern thinking tries to somehow go around this underwater reef of its voyage and, by the force of external possibility, not think anything about it. Charity; perhaps some cultivation of integrity of spirit; aesthetics of worship; even church teaching, insofar as it speaks of mysterious things without a direct confrontation with them - or at least to modern thinking it seems to speak in exactly this way, that is, as a philosophical speculation among many other speculations - this is, approximately, an acceptable part of Christianity, and probably of religion in general. But the cult in its essentiality, and even more so the sacraments, are tolerated rather than affirmed, not to mention affirmed in their power. “Christianity exists [only] through sacraments”; but - let's be honest - isn't it felt, according to modern understanding, (that) they are a rudimentary organ of the Church, not yet enlightened by the light of Kant, Comte and both Mills? And yet: “Christianity exists [only] through the sacraments.” But then why doesn’t our thought return again and again to the very affirmation of Christianity? Why are the sacraments not made the starting point of Christian reflection? Why do the paths of modern philosophy lead not to them, but somewhere far to the side? Why are not only the internal meaning of the sacraments and their meaning, their vital effect on man not studied, but neither their rites nor their understanding by the holy fathers and thinkers of the ancient and medieval world have been studied even externally and historically? As you wish; but, really, it is impossible to understand this silence otherwise than as a hidden denial - well, even if not a denial - as a disdain for this rudiment of antiquity. In addition, there is a direct calculation to renounce before the enemies of our faith - before the enemies of religion in general, this most intolerable and most vulnerable “appendage” of faith. But the enemies of faith, like, for example, Tolstoy, who are particularly angry at the cult, and especially at the sacraments, know what they are doing: they have recognized the living center of Christianity, of religion in general - destroy it - and their work would be done: everything else would disintegrate by itself, without needing, rootless, refutation. But cult - I especially mean the sacraments - but cult is the true fullness of true life: you can reflect on the fullness and reflect on it, approach it again and again, without ever exhausting it. Sacraments are therefore secrets because they endlessly nourish every soul with the infinity of their meaning. There may be countless approaches to the sacraments, countless ways of understanding them, an endless fullness of experiences of thought that contemplate and absorb into themselves the λόγος that forms them and lives in them. The one truth, in its totality - I will say more - the only objective truth given to man, the sacraments alone deserve in the exact sense a predicate of truth: our approaches to them are rather convenient, successful, deep - or inconvenient, awkward and flat. The true approach to the sacraments is participation in them; thinking about them cannot be exhaustive; all of them, reflections, are one-sided, all of them, if desired, can be convicted of insufficiency; all of them are only a desire for Truth, but not the truth itself. But they are also needed: the mind needs to approach it more and more without laziness to comprehend the depth of the secret life of the Church: in this way our tight opposition to it is loosened, in this way we are more prepared for participation in it. This attempt is one of many, not only in general, but even among the speaker himself. 1918. V. 12. Night. Serg Pos. 1. Let’s start with one chant: “The funeral lament creates the song “Hallelujah” ...” 235 I choose it precisely as it connects many aspects of church life from one point of view - as giving some general picture. But I also know about many things that I am omitting now, in part, so that I can talk about them later. “The funeral lament creates the song “Hallelujah” ...” Here is a saying in which one can see the characteristic self-testimony of a cult - of any cult, extending a particular case, as an example, to other, broader areas. In our conversation today about the cult, let us proceed from this example. Moreover, we want to do this because thousands of reasons to despair tempt us. Let a thin stream of sermon flow into abstract discussions: the thinnest one, be lenient with it. “Funeral weeping creates the song “Hallelujah” ...” - we hear at every funeral service the call of the Church, thereby explaining the nature of the service. This means in translation: “transforming, transforming, transforming your sobbing at the grave of those close, dear and dear to your heart, your uncontrollable grief, the inescapable melancholy of your soul - transforming it into a jubilant, triumphant, victoriously joyful praise of God - into “Hallelujah” - into that song that is sung by the heavenly powers themselves, into that final word with which it crowns The Holy Spirit of the Father - as Father, and the Son - as Son, i.e. into the word of final joy, into the chant of the highest ascent. If you like, the funeral chant can be conveyed this way: “making the song “Hallelujah” - the song “praise God” with a funeral sob, instead of a funeral sob” 236. The inhuman, hopeless, untransformed darkness of despair becomes human when it is illuminated, when it is transformed, when it turns into outbursts of praise to the Almighty. The impenetrable cover of the cloud of the heart becomes light. Our grief is not canceled, not forbidden, not removed, not locked in the underground of the soul - no. This would mean tearing the soul, it would mean hardening it, standing with a stone on its heart at the funeral parade. This would mean leaving the dull pain of an animal in the animal—leaving a person as an animal. This would mean driving the heart underground. But something else is required: to transform it, grief at the grave, into the greatest spiritual joy; transform the blasphemy against the Creator that is about to break out into praise to Him; a curse swarming at the bottom of melancholy and despair - into a blessing, “let it not be” - into “let it be” - in a word - a funeral sob into a funeral hymn “Hallelujah”. It is necessary to heal the wounds of the soul - the traumas of the soul. Probably, some people managed to think: what is Freud doing here? But why not Freud, if he is relevant? In this case, however, it is not Freud, but the Orthodox Church; after all - the expression τραύματα της ψυχής - “wounds of the soul”, “ulcers of the soul” is found in many different prayers and chants 237. Thus, in the canon of the Sweetest Jesus (canto 4, tr 1) we hear: “heal the souls... of my ulcers” 238; 239); in the canon for Holy Communion we read: “heal the ulcers of my soul” (canto 4, last troparion) 240; in the 7th prayer for Holy Communion of St. Simeon the New Theologian it is said: “my scabs and ulcers... mine” 241, i.e., of course, scabs and ulcers of the soul; the same with St. Basil the Great, who speaks of “old wounds of the soul,” etc., etc. (St. Basil the Great. Works, vol. I, ed. 1917, p. 149 – 151) 242 . The purpose of the cult is precisely to transform natural sobbing, natural cry of joy, natural rejoicing, natural crying and regret - into a sacred song, into a sacred word, into a sacred gesture. Do not prohibit natural movements, do not constrain them, do not curtail the wealth of inner life, but, on the contrary, affirm this wealth in its fullness, consolidate, cultivate. The random is taken for granted by the cult, the subjective is clarified into the objective. The cult transforms the natural into the ideal. One could try to suppress the affect. But delayed affect will rot the soul and body. And where is the border between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? Who installed it? – What do you mean, conditional? By what right will it be imposed on me, shaken by passion? And if you take the path of fighting affects, you will have to radically reject the very nature of man - the abyss that gives birth to affectors and contains nothing in itself except affects. To enter into a struggle with affects means one of two things: if it is unsuccessful, it will poison humanity with “passions driven inside” 243, but if it is successful, it will emasculate and kill humanity, depriving it of vitality, strength, and, finally, life itself. The cult acts differently: it affirms the whole of human nature, with all its affects; he brings every affect to its greatest possible scope, opening up for it an endless scope of outlet; he leads him to a beneficent crisis, purifying and thereby purposefully της ψυχής. It not only allows the affect to come out completely, but also requires the greatest of its tension, draws it out, aggravates it, as if prompting it, inciting it to affect. And, giving him full recognition, affirming the passion in his truth, the cult transforms him. “Funeral lament” is transformed into a laudatory “hallelujah”, a sung sorrow, earthly - into heavenly. It is pretended, because the cult reveals affect, and reveals it even stronger and more powerful than affect can be revealed naturally. The cult lifts prohibitions and calls for the forbidden. Now our affect, caused from above, already exists supernaturally, more than naturally, and is subject not to its own, but to other, unusual laws, drawn into a heavenly whirlwind. And, drawn in, he spins in it, rising higher and higher, further and further from our earthly, subjective existence; now it has ceased to be our random state and has become an objective universal truth. Balmont has a slightly funny poem* It’s not enough to cry, you have to sob harmoniously and harmoniously. We must act calmly in order to create a beautiful face. There is little sincere torment, You are not alone in the world... 244 This, I repeat, was said - not either cutesy, not half laughing, but still correct. “We must sob harmoniously, harmoniously,” because we must transform life into harmony, throughout life, in all its manifestations. Isn't that what culture is all about? Isn't this what humanity is? But how can you cry gracefully when you don’t know how, when you don’t have the strength to cry at all? And I would like to sob, but there are no sobs, no words, complete confusion and darkness. Grief wants to pour out, but there is no way for tears: everything is petrified. Internal pressure, finding no resolution, shakes our fragile shell, wounds our soul, and is about to break our poor being into smithereens. But man is not left alone in his helpless subjectivity, in his own self-isolation, in his own conditionality. There is an area where simple states are elevated to norms: this is a cult. The cult gives an outlet to tears, prompts such sobs as we will never be able to imagine - so adequate, so personal to each, personal to each - cries with us and for us, speaks such words, which are exactly what we would like to say, but what we would never be able to say, in a word - gives our chaotic, randomly formed and, perhaps in our own consciousness, also unlawful, muddy individual grief a universal form, a pure form humanity, elevates the era in us, and thereby - and ourselves in it - to ideal humanity, to the very nature of human beings, created in the likeness of Christ, and thereby transfers our grief from us to Pure Humanity, to the Son of Man, while individually unburdening us, freeing us, healing us, and making it easier. He is the Liberator! And then, clarified and transparent, no longer subjectively personal, but objectively ontological, not accidental, but pre-established in Truth - our grief becomes the engine of life, the memory of the deceased, the source of our humanization. And we no longer know whether we have received more than we lost, whether we have not been rewarded a hundredfold: for the sources of the sweetest tears and the most fragrant words have been opened. And so - in everything. Words of love that I didn't say They burn in my soul and burn me... Here again is a vivid example of injury to the soul - injury caused by delayed affect: choked on a word - and the soul hurts. The Word should go out and act; it could ignite and inseminate another soul, for it is full of energy, like an overflowing vessel. But, unsaid, it is screwed into the soul that is pregnant with it, it burns, it tears, it wounds. An anathema, unjustly pronounced, falls, according to church teaching, on the head of the person who pronounced it. Occultists talk about a return blow during an unsuccessful bewitchment - involtation. Thus, every word that cannot enter, as intended, into someone else’s soul, that does not have room to be expressed to the end, crashes back into the person who expressed it or wants to express it and wounds him. But there was no human soul capable of listening to the word, however, there is the Soul of Humanity, Humanity itself, Humanity itself, which is infinitely more attentive than any individual soul, capable of listening to every human word, and not squeamishly, and not disdainfully, but willingly, for its own echo is revealed in it. Yes, man is above listening to my burning words; but the Purest Humanity - the Church - does not disdain even my most pathetic babble. And then the cult comes, takes on this word that burns me, transforms it - and my soul is healed. Whether anger, rage, boredom... the cult takes over everything and transforms everything and completely satisfies the affect: in the cult we drink to the dregs the very essence of our excitement, we are completely satisfied, without the slightest desire left unsatisfied - for the cult always gives more than we ask, and even more than we can want - infinitely much - and always, always this treasury of humanity is enough for us. In our Orthodox service there is something deeply, deeply close, something long familiar. Here and there you come across some particularly cute fold, something personal. Much is perceived as a half-forgotten note from a loved one, but only cleaner and higher, without the aftertaste of earthly dregs. In the service Plato's “remembering” is understood more clearly. For, indeed, our service is perceived as a remembrance of a loved one and a long-time acquaintance. And so it is. Our service is older than us and our parents, older than humanity, older than the world itself. It, in many ways, expresses the very essence of mental doing, the very essence of mental prayer. It is as if the service was not composed, but discovered, found; what happened a long time ago more or less expressed the essence of mental prayer. Orthodoxy has absorbed the very color of the world's heritage and freed it from the husks and shells: we have the pure, threshed and winnowed grain of religions, the very essence of humanity. Planted into the soul, this grain vegetates and cultivates humanity in a person: it is this that is the leaven of humanity. But it itself is not psychological, but smart. That is why it is indisputable that our service is not from people, but from angels, from the intelligent powers of heaven. Transmitted from the hierarchy of the heavenly hierarchy, this heavenly light reached the earthly hierarchies and became Heaven on earth. Yes, the cult is Heaven on earth. Thus, the destructive forces of our being are distributed by a system of springs, realized in the cult, among the aspects of life that need corresponding shocks. This is how our grief, our joy, our torment and our excessive impulses flow through the channels of the cult and irrigate the fields of our activity. So the dumb and wingless excitement of our soul finds a word and flies away into the world of highest satisfaction. 2. But for now we are only describing. It's time to think about the connection between this satisfaction and the nature of cult activity. We talked earlier about the activity of implementation and the activity of comprehension. The machine and meaning opposed each other, uniting in a cult. At the same time, we tried to understand that the existence of a cult is a transcendental condition for the unity of self-consciousness, that is, the Self itself. We were talking about human activities. But what are the roots of these activities? Where is the source of their duality? To trace where both come from, one should once again delve into the activities themselves. The construction of tools, since it is not comprehended, is rooted in the elemental nature of man. Continuing our body, this activity is essentially the same activity that built our body. She is the surf of the elements. This is a blind, pressing power that does not know any restraint - it does not know, because it really does not know it, it does not know it - it itself does not have meaning in itself. This is the beginning of termination. It was called the Dionysian beginning. I prefer to call it more accurately, or at least less ambiguously, the titanic beginning. Titanic means that it has grown from the earth. Titans are children of the Earth. Growing - it is emanative, it flowed out of the being. Therefore - faceless. It always hungers, it always presses, it always rebels. [v]... We, the Titans, know only the guilt of the eternal yoke, and the combustible flame, the consuming, malicious, hungry, and the Mother’s hungry melancholy... 246 Like the wave-generating abyss of the sea, it beats forever, a titanic beginning, against the coastal rocks that squeeze it, it rises, and again, and again. It rebels senselessly, because there is no meaning in it at all. The titanic can be suppressed, but it cannot be suppressed; it vigilantly rebels against every edge, against νόμος: [v] We do not bend our necks Under the yoke of Atlas, But we rebel with the fields of snakes; And we murmur and groan on the banks of adamant, Prometheus! Vyach. Ivanov. Sons of Prometheus 247 The faceless is pure power, where things begin; this is the birthing abyss; this is blind pressure. This beginning of the clan itself can itself be called a clan - γένος - not in the historical-sociological sense, not as a set of generations connected among themselves by the unity of origin, name and religion, family hearth, but purely metaphysically: it is the generative power of the clan. Tyutchev knew this dark underlying basis of existence. Theologically speaking, this beginning of realization, this fullness of existential potentials is called ουσία. Ουσία, i.e. έσία from ειμί – beingness. The faceless tries with its waves to break through every barrier - the entire “fence of the law,” in the words of the Talmud, for the law is a limit and certainty, the definition of the end: “to this point - and no further,” the limit of power: “You will reach this far, and your waves will be crushed within you” (Job 38, I) 248. But the essence of power lies precisely in revealing itself, until its very beingness dries up. The titanic creature is in pressure and in the fight against edges. Having surged, it presses, rises, beats - against the stronghold of the law. [v] We hate the shackles of the Light-created system, And under the roof of our beloved nights, the foundation of the World’s peace is shaken, The face, that is, the hypostatic meaning, reason, mind - I mean all this in the ancient and patristic sense - posits the measure of the faceless power of human nature, for the activity of the face lies precisely in dimension, in facetedness and in the imposition of definitions and boundaries. This activity of binding and restriction is called the Apollinian beginning. But I’m not sure whether this name is apt. The faceless claims to be the place of the face, because it does not know the face as a face, it is not able to understand what a face is and what it is. To the titanic, everything appears as itself - as an outflow of the Earth, as faceless. In the face it is supposed to face, it sees only the titanic oncoming, nothing more. The limit is felt by him as faceless Power, and as power that stands across. In the sense that the faceless only sees the oncoming flow. It cannot even imagine anything else, because it itself is faceless. This is where his blindness lies. Resistance only raises waves: like a mountain stream, the titanic rushes - always down; but build a dam and it will destroy the mountains. There is no restraint in it from within, and if this is so, then any restraint from the outside is useless—useless, that is. will not calm, but will only agitate the ever-liquid element of the titanic. The beginning is titanic, while it only wants to do something, but has not yet done it - heroic, majestic, enticing. But it’s wonderful: as soon as it, meaningless, realizes itself to the end, it turns out to be insignificant, rots and stinks. The impulses of an unsettled person, not permeated with meaning and light, not “smart”, according to the patristic expression, of a personality seem beautiful: but give them free rein - and, having messed up, the personality itself will run away from what it has done. The water at the mill roars and seethes like a majestic vent, but, having broken through, it spills over the water meadows into a shallow puddle, soon leaving a mosquito swamp. “Allons, enfants de la pa trie!” 249 in Dostoevsky’s “The Possessed” turns into a vulgar waltz 250. But there is nothing to gloat about the self-decomposition of the titanic: after all, it is human nature, the source of activity, the very power of man that has undergone corruption. With the titanic he dies, truly dies, and man himself, deprived of good - his first treasure - power, creativity and life, no matter what you call it. And therefore, it cannot be destroyed - it cannot and should not: “let us not learn to be body killers,” 251 says one saint (August month). You cannot destroy the beginning of power. But what then to do with it? The titanic, in itself, is not a sin, but a blessing: it is the power of life, it is being itself. But it leads to sin. Is it always? No. For good is also realized by the same elemental force – the titanic principle. Titanic – the potency of all activity. It is beyond good and evil. It is “a part of darkness, which in the beginning was everything, and produced both light and darkness” 252. It was this that captivated Byron and Lermontov. It was the ancient tragedy that grew on him. This is it - Rock, for, while immutably leading, it just as immutably destroys. [v] Know me, - so sang Death, - The concept of tragic guilt is connected with it, for tragic guilt is the guilt not of the individual-hypostasis, but of its generic basis, and, manifesting itself in all relatives, by birth itself, with life itself, flowing from father to son, from parents to children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, this existential guilt, this rebellion in the blood, this vice of existence itself leads - in addition to the evil decision, in addition to the intent - leads the individual to a fatal outcome, not knowing it conscious misconduct, but already feeling her doom and a sword hanging over her. However, to admit fatal guilt means to forgive a person, to forgive her means to transfer guilt, damage, rebellion from her to others, to spread it to the race, to the people, to humanity itself. To admit the tragic guilt of an individual means to condemn others, to condemn ourselves. And humanity, fleeing from condemnation, angrily rebels on its face, trying to convict it - of personal guilt, of a hypostatic offense against νόμος. Defending himself, a person rejects such guilt - or is ready to admit such guilt, just so as not to condemn himself in his very place, in the very source of his life. In the struggle for the imaginary hypostatic guilt - of the hero and the chorus - the essence of tragedy: every tragedy is a clash of concepts about ossia and hypostasis, - about the guilt of being and the guilt of meaning. But this collision is insoluble, and therefore the tragedy is hopeless. Even if a person admitted his deep guilt, there would be no outcome, because the consequence would then be self-destruction, and not only of one person, but of the entire human race in the primary foundations of its existence. This self-destruction of the primary will is proposed as the only way out by Buddhism, and after it by Schopenhauer and Hartmann. But we can also imagine the outcome: if a person, not stained by a single movement of hypostatic sin, took upon himself the fatal guilt of the human will, voluntarily, and enlightened the rebellious human will within himself with the light of meaning: then the tragedy of human existence itself would be exterminated at a single point, i.e. human nature would be saved from its vice of existence. And this alone would be the way out, for the titanic is not only the power of sin, but also the power of life in general, and without it there is no life itself. After all, this is it - the element of the night in which the light shines. There is no power - and there is nothing. Meaning is powerless, reason is pitiful, truth is vain. If there is no spontaneity, there is no activity of realization, and without it, there is no reality: for we get to the roots of being only through our ousia (ουσία). In power is the truth of the titanic, the primordial and irresistible truth of the Earth. For the first truth of every being is it itself, its givenness, and the first untruth is non-existence. And the first good is existence, the first evil is non-existence. The existence of power is already the first stone of Truth, and everything else that joins here must accept it, for, having rejected power, it itself will be rejected by power. Νόμος, from the outside putting a barrier to the titanic pressure, is itself wrong, as suppressing this pressure, but not brightening it, as showing the pressure only the power of resistance and therefore not introducing anything new into the titanic. And, satisfied or not satisfied, the titanic in both cases will rage again. Squeezed in one thing, it will reward itself in another; Having decomposed now, it will gain strength and manifest itself later. The insatiability and indestructibility of the titanic is a reflection of the divine in this; the bad infinity of human desire is an image of the positive infinity of God’s essence, just as Time is a moving image of Eternity. But God is not only ούσία, but also ύπόστασις. Not only the Essence, but also the Face. And a person is not only a ουσία, but also a υπόστασις, a person. It is impossible to understand religious anthropology without thinking through these basic concepts of patristic theology. Man is not only a dark desire, but also a bright image; not only a spontaneous pressure, but also his face, which shines through in reality, clearly protruding from the saints, artistically shown on the icon. This is both in meaning and literally: είδος ιδέα means “human form.” Man is not only being, but also a soul, not only life, but also truth, not only power, but also mind (νους), not only flesh, but also spirit. In God there is harmony in this and hypostasis. The Face of God fully expresses His Being, His Being is fully expressed by His Face. In man, on the contrary, the antinomy of the poles is not in harmony; the dark underlying basis of being rises to the face, demanding realization from him; the face enslaves elemental excitement, seeking its truth from it. There are two truths in man: the image of God and the likeness of God - the truth of being and the truth of meaning. Discussed theoretically and epistemically, we called them the requirement of givenness and the requirement of proof of knowledge. Now, in a metaphysical consideration, we will call them exactly that: the truth of being and the truth of meaning, the truth of ousia and the truth of hypostasis. There are two of them. And, not combined, they contradict each other: the spirit fights against the flesh and the flesh fights against the spirit. But these are exactly two truths. Their unity cannot be achieved through mutual concessions. Infinite in their aspiration, both principles of the human being require the infinity of their disclosure, they require their ultimate affirmation. It is not in the limitation of each by each, but in their mutual recognition of their unconditional truth - the truth of their god-like infinity - that their harmony, that is, the integrity of man, can be realized. Not directly in themselves, but within their absolute limits, only after exhausting their infinite possibilities can they find each other. Every stop they make on the road is a lie. The search for beingness must be exhausted - by achieving the final divine beingness; the search for meaningfulness must be exhausted - by achieving final divine meaningfulness - otherwise both principles of man will be satisfied. Having reached these limits of theirs in God, in different ways, all diverging along the road, both principles of man will come to One, in Whom from all eternity the whole fullness of reality has been combined with the whole fullness of meaning - in God. In epistemological terms it will be: the unity of givenness and evidence, the unity of intuition and discourse. In ontological terms, this will be the Absolute Person. In concrete religious terms, the absolute point of religious life is the absolute concreteness of the cult. We have defined cult as the activity of combining meaning and reality. Now we come to the same point again, proceeding, however, no longer from an external indication of human activities, but from the internal forces of human ontology on which these activities are based. 3. In order to satisfy his hunger for boundless reality, a person must, in the limitless expansion of his titanic basis and in overcoming with his pressure every boundary, every norm, every meaning, finally reach the Absolute Meaning, the Meaning of all meanings, the Face of all faces, the very foundation of Meaning as such. And, having had enough, ever sated with one’s impulse and victory, to encroach on it too - ... to make sure that the Supreme Meaning is Power itself, the Supreme Power - that is, that in the name of which, in truth, man has overthrown all meanings. Having reached, in his expansion, such a Meaning, which, having given him the satisfaction of absolute victory, at the same time turns out to be absolute defeat - for the truth of the Earth at its peak is no different than the truth of Heaven, but that same truth - man, having satiated the affect of his titanic anger, becomes brightened and pacified. In order to satisfy his demand for unconditional Truth, a person must, in the steady liberation of himself from everything - only the existential, from all reality - finally reach the Absolute Reality, the Reality of all realities, the Being of all beings, the most basic Reality as such. And then, satisfied) 254 with your ascent, demand from it, from absolute Reality, its evidence, its right to being... in order to make sure that the Supreme Reality is the Meaning itself, the Supreme Meaning, i.e., that in the name of which man rejected all givens. Having reached in its ascent to such a Reality that would give to him reliability, as an absolutely solid point of being, having reached the decisive point of his path, the mind is convinced that this fullness of reality is also the Absolute Meaning, that is, the truth of Heaven - it is also the truth of the Earth, with which he fought. And then the languor of the spirit will fade away and despair will be warmed by the joy of the acquired Truth-Reality. Both ways are necessary. We understood them 255 [formally: but how to translate them into a specific language? ] 256 How can we translate our reasoning about this and that path into concrete language? 257 First of all, for greater clarity, let us depict what we found schematically. But before doing this, it is timely to pay attention to the very terms ούσία and ύπόστασις in their anthropological application. These terms have long been forgotten; even those who have gone through theological school are perplexed when they hear them applied to anything other than the doctrine of God. Thus, one critic, zealous beyond reason, was indignant at my “quadrupling” of the Trinity, on the grounds that I called Sophia, the wisdom of God, a hypostasis in the Trinity 258, although, according to the definition of the fathers, for example St. John of Damascus, the hypostasis is singular, μερίκον, individual, ατομον, and this term is applicable not only to people, but even to animals (Philos chapters, Χ, XI, XII. 1913. T. 1. Trans. Bronzova) 259. Meanwhile, from the oblivion of these terms, many confusions and misunderstandings of religious and philosophical thought are born. Our modernity in its thought simplifies the chaka, forgetting about its polar, antinomic structure, and wants to see in it either only one personality, ύπόστασις, without existential roots, or - naked spontaneity, ούσία, devoid of personal self-determination. And hence - either Tolstoyan or other moralism, which stubbornly does not see spontaneity as an essential side of a person, and therefore, every time it makes itself felt, it considers it as some kind of unfortunate accident that, through a misunderstanding, violated the purity of moral plans, or, on the contrary, Rozanovsky immoralism, which does not allow the moral personality as a force of self-determination, and therefore sees in any moral norm only empty and harmful constraint of spontaneity from the outside, an obstacle alien to the person himself. But with all the opposition of both signs of human nature, Tolstoyism and Rozanovism, and moralism and immoralism, equally cannot recognize and accept the existence of the original sin and damage of human nature, and this is understandable, for corruption is not in the unfitness of the ουσία or hypostasis, as such, each separately, but in the destruction of their connection and correlation, in their inconsistency with each other, in decomposition a whole piece into two, which have not since been reduced to the unity of the beginning. Existence is a good thing, Rozanov is right; moral will is good, Tolstoy is right. But the fact of the matter is that these two goods oppose each other, each living in its own way, with its own life. None can be suppressed, none can be destroyed, but they are not brought into balance either. Yes, Zwei Seelen wohnt auch in meiner Briist... 260 Yes, two souls, two principles, and each in its own right 261. So, we want to discuss the ways of sanctification of ousia and hypostasis, the path of anthropodicy and the path of theodicy. Let us begin, for the sake of convenience, with the last path, that is, theodicy. Its essence is the constant requirement of proof of any given fact. Not a single being is accepted as such, as a given: everything must confirm its π ρ and in about being, that is, appear to our spirit in its meaning, in its λόγος'ε. Nothing is given in the truth of it. This path, therefore, consists in constant slander of being - in slandering its truth, although in fact its untruth has not been proven and, on the contrary, it is required to prove its truth, that is, it is secretly assumed that justification is possible, for being is in truth. But it is secret, like a premonition of hope. But clearly being in itself is not yet recognized as meaning and therefore is methodically slandered, in the demand for justification - in the demand to present one’s meaning. The devil is a slanderer, διάβολος 262. But since there can be no justification for the finite as such, every finite meaning is conditional, i.e. itself requires a meaning that substantiates it, some sufficient reason, then the path of slander continuously leads from reality to another reality in search of the solid meaning and then turns abruptly, with a break in its continuity - to absolute reality, to ουσία par excellence. This transition on the devil’s path is by no means necessary, for the devil’s path can be continued as far as desired, without hope of meeting absolute being; Having rushed along this path, a person is free to continue it forever. If it breaks, it is also by will, an act of faith, in the hope of giving a decisive battle. Then he turns from the finite to the infinite, trying to slander it as meaningless. But this ούσία absolutely proves itself - and then it turns out that it is proven to the utmost, to the end, for it itself is the absolute meaning, the face, the ύπόστασις, ιδέα, λόγος. This is the Holy Trinity. How can the Most Holy Trinity be given on the devil’s path? This path - the path of evidence - is the theoretical path. Consequently, everything that is given here is first of all given to the mind - it is an intelligent, logical essence (not from logic, but from logos), - a verbal essence; the realities given here are given not in themselves, but as patterns of the mind - as concepts. And the supreme essence as an absolute essence is encountered here first as a concept, as a clever scheme, as a formula of dogma, in order then, accepted as such, to reveal its perfect existence - as Light. So, the considered diabolical path - a one-sided affirmation of human hypostasis - is the path of justification of God, theodicy, leading to the intelligent light of the Most Holy Trinity. The devilish path of science, torn by faith, leads to the Light of Truth. At its peak, it is the same as what is given in the cult, but from the side of its meaning, as spiritual. Such is the theodicy, which has the task of overcoming the devilish, or Ahriman, principle in man. The source of reason, in itself it is not evil, not good, and in the right aspiration leads to good. Evil is like an isolated self-affirmation of the mind, but it deviates from God and therefore does not reach the absolute meaning. The devil is smart, but only smart, not an existential spirit. Angels are also wise minds. Let us now turn to the path that was outlined schematically first. Its essence is in an irresistibly expanding grip, in the greed of boundless freedom, in an irrepressible hunger for reality. Insatiability with being and non-recognition of meaning, since it is weak, is the engine of this path. Every meaning must be able to be realized: what is powerless is also untrue. What is strong is what holds the pressure. Therefore, the path under discussion is in testing everything, in overcoming everything, in dissolving every obstacle, every half-reality. The titanic burns with anger at the truth - for the truth strives to stop the pressure - and cannot, it is powerless. And the surf rises higher. Nothing can be higher than it - for it is infinite. And he roars, breaks, carries away everything he comes across - because there is no value for him in meaning, because he does not see and does not know the meaning. He, the Infinite, would like to measure himself against the power of the Infinite - he recognizes it. And he strives for the Meaning, which stands before him as the final boundary. This meaning is Logos, God the Word, absolute Meaning. Not meaning, as meaning, but its powerlessness, its non-existence - in the name of the Earth. And, having attacked him - having defeated him - he is convinced that It is this meaning, causing rebellion, that is absolute Power, absolute strength, absolute ούσία, before which one humbles oneself. Meaning and Power are one. The Easter Gospel, declaring the triumph and victory of the Power of Existence over Non-Existence, proclaims this power as the Power of the Word - Mind - Spirit, as the infinite essentiality of the infinite Meaning revealed on the night of victory. “In the beginning was the Word... [for] all things were by Him, and without Him they came into being as nothing. In Him was the life and life of the light of man” (John 1, 1, 3 – 4). Έν άρχτ) ήν ό λόγος - in the beginning there was precisely Meaning, Spirit, Reason, Word; but This Word is not a powerless, immaterial word, but a creative Word, more: everything is creative; by means of, through him, he became everything that has become, everything that exists. It was the Word - in which there was Life, the fullness of being, the fullness of being: έν αύτω ζωή ην τό φως. But this life was not just being, not just the power of reality, but spiritual meaning, light, truth: και ή ζωή ήν τό φως. On the path of the devil it is revealed that meaning and power are one. And, having fled, the ascendant satisfies his greed with endless prey, and his impetuosity with an endless path. And the winner is conquered, because the meaning is not what he took it for - but. He is also life, the fullness of life, victorious, and not only refuting the meaning, refuting, and therefore victorious. But in order to get enough, you need to make a leap on this path of overcoming reality, on this path of spontaneity, on this path of denial of meaning - on the titanic, or Luciferian path. He needs to make a leap, because reality moves toward reality in a continuous sequence, and one can move endlessly along these finite realities, never reaching the absolute reality and the meaning of the absolute. What is needed again is an act of faith leading to the absolute - an act of faith enlivened by hope. Humanism can become infinitely refined - from Lammeter and Holbach to Marx and Feuerbach. OK. 10 words). How can the Supreme Meaning be given on this titanic path? This path is the path of potentiation of givens, the transition from real givens to more real givens, is a very practical path. Everything that is given here is given to the life’s relation to it, is given as a visual, concrete essence. The meanings found here are given not by concepts, but by visual contemplations, embodied images, things. And the Supreme Meaning will be encountered here as corporeality, so that later its perfect spirituality will be revealed - so that in σάρξ we will cognize λόγος. “The word became flesh” 263 according to the titanic gaze. So, if the goal of the first path is the Most Holy Trinity in His Unapproachable Light, then the goal of the second is the Incarnate Word, the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him, the Son of God, the rage of our spontaneity is extinguished, our anger at God, who gave endless possibilities and did not give absoluteness itself, cools down, the infinite in mystery and development in the finite. We are angry and not out of anger. OK. 10 words). On this path we justify ourselves before God; this is anthropodicy. 4. Contemplation of the heavenly light is the pinnacle of theology – the pinnacle of speculation, the limit of theoretical paths. Communication with the Incarnate Word is the pinnacle of practical achievements, the limit of actual activity. Both are cults, one cult – but acquired from different sides. Both theodicy and anthropodicy lead to one goal: the goal of this cult is Divine service, Communion with God. But what we are talking about is the metaphysical essence of the matter. What is the vital concreteness in which this essence is clothed? Guilty before God for the corruption of His image in himself, for the rupture of face and essence, meaning and power - a rupture in the name of unity not in communion, but in self-essence - man, however, has within himself a reminder of his loss: this is the infinity of aspirations, whether Prometheus, Faust, Manfred, or... does it matter what symbol it is depicted with? In the One Source, where the unity of the Essence and Igustasie is, there is quenching of thirst, but there is no access to it for those who have fallen and disintegrated. The straight path up is locked. In the specularity of consciousness, the imaginary focus of one’s own absoluteness teases with proximity. Irritated by himself, but precisely by himself not allowed to realize his falling away - for his reality is genuine - and good, just as the face is genuine, also good - a person becomes angry. Inflamed, he turns his anger towards God, the further he falls away from Him, in a secret feeling of guilt and in the obvious consciousness of his own, even two, truths. And he becomes even more angry and moves even further away from the Source of Satisfaction. In a frenzy of anger, ever growing, he receives new wounds - he wounds himself: but the Eternal is inaccessible to him. For in himself he builds an obstacle to the Eternal. How to save a person? How to pacify his anger? Inaccessible to persuasion, an angry heart, relying on its own reflected truth, will not make peace - without betraying its truth. The titanic cannot give up its rebellion - for it is not obedience that is needed, but inner peace, and there cannot be a world where either one or the other truth will be betrayed. Affect, once it has arisen, must be revealed - to the end. Anger at God will be satisfied only by victory over God - His torn to pieces, His murder, His blood. Titanic fury can be defeated only by granting it complete victory: it must outlive itself. Incarnation, torment, deicide... Only then does silence fall. In the suffering and death of Christ on the cross, humanity vented its anger at God - and only then did the anger dry up and the wounds of the soul were healed. And then it was reconciled with God - and therefore God with it. The service of Holy Week - the so-called Easter of the Cross - is permeated with the shock of the terrible passions of Christ. Here - in every hymn it is depicted as the King of glory, the Creator and the Savior, tormented by the hands of mankind - and with His blood he extinguishes anger, and man tenderly glorifies the saving passions. Great Friday is the mysterious time of the slaughter of God - a sacrament par excellence. “Today he hangs on a tree, even as he hung the earth on the waters. Like the King of angels, he is crowned with a crown of thorns: he will clothe himself in a false scarlet robe, clothing the sky with clouds: he will accept strangulation, who freed Adam in the Jordan. The Church Bridegroom was nailed with nails: the Son of the Virgin was pierced with a copy. We worship Your passion, O Christ. We worship Your passion, O Christ. We worship Your passion, O Christ. Show us also Your glorious resurrection" (troparion of the 9th hour Vela heel, to "glory") 264 - that day when the Divine power of This Pre-mundane, but torn apart by man, Meaning-Word will finally be revealed ("Now the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of a sinner") 265. There is no liturgy served on this terrible day. But this is so that the mystery of the sacraments, the Calvary sacrifice, which is directly visible to us on Calvary itself today, will appear more clearly before our rebellious heart. The sacrament is performed there, on the heavenly Golgotha, in the upper tabernacle, on the smart altar. And it [the Calvary sacrifice] always takes place there. But we see it as covered by the church, and on this very day this cover is also removed. The removal of the shroud liturgically replaces the Eucharist and serves as its equivalent. Historians tend to downplay the significance of the shroud, reducing it to a simple bedding for the Holy Gospel. But, despite their speculations, which clearly contradict the living consciousness of the Church, I have a strong confidence, which I did not try, however, to verify from sources, that the rite of removing the shroud, like many things in our service in general, originated from the spread of the following of the Jerusalem Temple of the Resurrection, where the greatest of the miracles of the world was previously kept - the Shroud of Turin with a genuine image of the deceased Lord, and that initially the shroud was taken out not written an artist, but this one is genuine - that is, this service comes very close to the removal of the most pure Body of the Lord. This is my guess, my feeling, if you like. Maybe it will inspire someone to do some research. But, without imposing this opinion or premonition on anyone, I want to tell them about my firm belief that the removal of the shroud is by no means a historical accident, a liturgical accessory that does not have any significant meaning, as theologians think, but a great mystery of the cult, which has not yet received an exact formulation, but is perceived exactly as such by the living consciousness. I repeat: through the Great Heel the Living Sacrifice is directly contemplated in its historical concreteness, which, however, is not only historical, but also eternal, not only was, but also ever exists - forever and ever. 5. On Great Friday, the mystery of Christ’s death pacifies the human heart. In Christ - by Christ, through Christ and about Christ, our titanic aspiration is brought into its place, straightened into its articulation, realizing its createdness. The Divine Word - the Son of God - here becomes passive, and the affect of power - the affect of “sorrow, anger and need” 267 - of power before God and over God is satisfied. Yes, precisely affect, for the titanic thirst for shedding Divine blood and tearing apart the Divine body is insane and faceless, and there is no way for the human heart to explain this madness. It is not explained, but humanity is convinced of it when it sees it with its own eyes. Having torn apart their Lord, humanity lost its unrighteous, not hopeless, anger at Him - and in Christ it was reconciled with Him. And the Church then humbly sings: “By Thy Passion, O Christ, we are freed from passions” 268. St. Apostle Paul has a truly terrible - and equally indisputable formula - an axiom of any religion. It is found in the Epistle, where there is so much material on the philosophy of religion - in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This formula reads: “According to the law, almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). Blood is “a special kind of liquid” 269. According to the Word of God - “in his blood is his soul” 270 - blood is the very soul, the very life of a living being, and the shedding of blood is the shedding of life. It is not worth even starting to talk about the mystical feeling of blood in all times and among all peoples, but among religious peoples - especially - this is an endless topic. We can say that the degree of religiosity is directly proportional to the degree of sensitivity to the mysticism of blood. Bloody sacrifices are the basis of any religion, except, of course, the professorial one, but this is not a religion, but just self-indulgence; the ritual slaughter of animals, including tearing them apart alive and eating smoking pieces of raw meat - human sacrifices, with thicker, so to speak, and hotter blood, which have always existed among most peoples, when they were more fiery and more sensitive to the call of other worlds - if you start talking about this, it will be difficult to find the end. But the essence is still the same everywhere: sacrifice, through dedication and sanctification, is no longer res profana 271, is not an earthly being. She has become mysteriously secluded from the earth, she is here - but she is also there, she has ascended to other regions and is with us, as if looking from there - as otherworldly and divine. In some religions, a sacrificial animal is directly a god-animal, God himself in the form of an animal, seeking to sacrifice himself to himself. The priest, the victim, the deity - they are all combined in the animal being slaughtered, they are all mysteriously combined: this combination is served by the laying of hands on the forehead of the animal, one of the most significant moments of the sacrifice. (I believe there is no need to remind that we owe the clarification of many of the issues related to the mysticism of sacrifice to Vyach. Iv. Ivanov.) 272 And, shedding his blood, the voluntary sacrifice is for the most part consumed by the prayer books receiving forgiveness: Οεοφαγία - God-eating. This quest for peace with the divine world through the shedding of sacred blood and eating sacred meat is ancient - like peace. This is probably the most ancient religious quest of humanity - the seed around which religion developed. I would be surprised if this were not so: for the death of Christ, which satisfied everyone, redeemed everyone, saved everyone, could not but be the answer to the quest of all mankind: it completed all the partial and preliminary attempts that could not satisfy the titanic hunger for the holy blood. All the bloods were too thin - only the Blood could pacify the titanic anger to the bottom, and therefore unrepentance, the inability to repent of falling away: this is the Blood of the utmost, so to speak, thickness, the Blood par excellence, the Blood of the Righteous, the Blood of the One Sinless One, the Blood of the Only Begotten Son of God. And after that, the shedding of blood ceased to be necessary: But it is not enough for a person to know what has happened and is always happening in the Heavenly Tabernacle; he needs not to know about reconciliation, but to truly be reconciled, to see the deicide himself, to participate in the titanic tearing apart of the Most Pure Body, to drink from the Terrible and Life-Giving Blood, to contemplate the unity of Power with Meaning - in the Resurrection. Golgotha ​​and the Resurrection must be shown to him - not in copies, but in the originals themselves, but shown not only intelligently, but also sensually, so that he himself truly participates in the events that shook heaven and earth. And at the same time - you need to see, but in such a way as to withstand it, to see the sensual, but not sensually, but mystically-fearful, so that the sensually-fearful does not turn his mind away from its mysterious depth to mere sensual appearance. Golgotha ​​and the Resurrection must be given - given for his good - not only intellectually, but also sensually, however, the sensual should not be in its historical horror, but in moderation - in forms that can be accommodated by all consciousness without external horror and shudder, in symbolic views, but not with symbolic, but with intellectual-mysterious reality. In a word, there must be a Eucharist. Only the Eucharist - allowing one to eat the Body and Blood of Christ, but under the guise of bread and wine - only it can bring into balance the opposing hypostases and ousia of the human disintegrated, disintegrating being. The Eucharist, that is, the periodically returning deicide, the slaughter of God and the shedding of Divine blood and God-eating and drinking God, is a condition for the balance of the titanic principle in humanity: the rebellious anger is satisfied by God and then, pacified, we can see in God - Him, and not the Tyrant and Despot who oppresses us. “Let all human flesh remain silent, and let it stand with fear and trembling, and let nothing earthly within itself think: the King of kings and Lord of lords comes to swear and be given as food to the faithful. And before Him come the faces of angels with all principality and power, many-eyed cherubs and six-faced seraphim, covering faces and crying out the song: Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah” (Cherubic Song of Great Saturday) 273. This is the main task of the cult. Everyone else is located around her. 6. We are redeemed and saved by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The entire cult is based on His Blood, for His Most Pure Blood is life itself, combining what is above and what is below. Everything else in the cult is not in itself, but it is here, in the Blood of the Lord, that it finds its sacred source. And no matter how much it may seem unconnected with this extremely strong, absolutely reliable sacred focus of the cult, it cannot exist without being correlated with it. I repeat, the Blood of Christ flows throughout the entire cult and determines and irrigates everything. In the Church of the Baptist in Yaroslavl 274, in the deacon of the southern ship, on the ceiling there is a wonderful painting of the 19th century, directly related to our conversations. This painting depicts the seven sacraments of the Church of Christ. Seven groups - I don’t remember the details, but they are not important - depict the performance of seven sacraments: a baby is baptized there, young people are married there, the blessing of oil is performed there, etc. In a word, all seven sacraments are depicted. In the middle of the ceiling there is a depiction of the Crucifixion - Golgotha. Streams of blood flow from the five wounds of the Savior. Then they are divided, each into 7 parts, and these parts, joining 5 at a time, form 7 jets, each of which, therefore, includes jets from each of the 5 wounds. These seven streams fall on the above-mentioned 7 groups - 7 sacraments, one for each, washing and sanctifying the sacraments themselves. In other words, what is depicted here is exactly what we said above: 7 sacraments - 7 pillars of the church - 7 points around which the entire cult is formed - they live by the Blood of Christ, they feed on it, they hold on to it, they come from it. All sacraments are the environment, consequence or vital revelation of the sacrament of sacraments - Golgotha. In essence, there are not 7 sacraments, but one sacrament, but in 7 it is made available to us. But the Eucharist, the slaughter of God and the eating of God, more directly, more focused, more immediate, closer, so to speak, expresses Golgotha ​​than other sacraments. And therefore, it is possible, somewhat conditionally, to consider all the sacraments as the frame of the Eucharist, and it as the heart of all church life. “And these sacred sacraments would not have been performed [- testifies the holy clergyman Dionysius the Areopagite, –] and they themselves would not have had any power if the sacred meal had not been offered” (Nicholas Kavasila. Seven words about life in Christ, p. 81) 275. The Eucharist is a terrible and terrible sacrament (Zlat), she is the consummator of the sacraments - τά τελεωτικά μυστήρια (Dion Areops, cf.: the end and head of all sacraments (Simeon of Thessalonica and Dion Areops (agit)). That is why, if the Eucharist 276 is primarily aimed at softening precisely the titanic principle of man, then it means that the whole hierarchy has no other goal, even if this was not immediately visible, with complete clarity. 7. “Do you see what’s the matter, my friend? [ – Alexander Matveevich Bukharev wrote to his bride. – ]For our salvation or, if you like, for us to achieve our essential purpose, it is necessary to uproot in us everything that is spiritually lifeless, contrary to truth, goodness, everything rebellious and discordant, in which there is no reflection of the favor of the Heavenly Father; but instead, it is necessary to plant or discover in us the beginning of everything good, true, vital, harmonious and beautiful, on which the fatherly love of God is clearly imprinted and rests” (A. Bukharev, - Letters on the grace of the Holy Sacraments of the Orthodox Catholic Church. M., 1864, p. 3). “To uproot everything that is rebellious and discordant” and to “plant” or “discover” that which is imprinted with the love of God—this means transforming our titanic nature. This is the task of the sacraments, based on the mystery of the incarnate economy of God. But their entire consonant chorus is about one thing and for the sake of one thing - for the sake of our salvation, that is, for the sake of “our achievement of our essential destination.” The sacraments save us, for all the sacraments are one Blood of Christ, satiating our insatiable hunger. The incomprehensible mystery of how this blood can be the Blood of the God-Man is a living and greatest contradiction between what is above and what is below. But the philosophy of the cult is not intended to explain—that is, to blur—the contradictions, but to sharpen them, showing their essential necessity. However, since the latter has been revealed, it has also been proven that the greatest mystery of our faith is not only mysterious, but also a sacrament, in the technical sense: it is not in thoughts, but in earthly reality that contradiction is realized. Golgotha is not a concept, but a reality, something that can be seen, touched, tasted... “For from the first we have heard, we have seen, we have seen, we have touched our hands by sight, we have touched the words of the living” (1 John 1:1), - περί του λόγου της Ζωής, writes St. John 1:1) - and in Whom “the life and the life was light of man” (John 1:4). We have defined the cult as a combination of what is above and what is below, as a living contradiction of both: what more living and greater contradiction could there be than the manifestation of this Word of Life in the flesh. This is the cult par excellence, the focus of the cult—the sacrament par excellence, the foundation and primary source of all sacraments. And it is an activity, for the performance of this cult belongs to Christ Himself, “the bishop of the good things to come” (Heb. 9:11), who enters through His Blood “not into things made with hands... holy, antithetical to the true [i.e. that is, not into a reflection of what is above], but into Heaven itself” (Heb. 9:24) - into the heavenly tabernacle. 8. So: what is a cult? A cult is a system of secret actions. To understand a cult means to understand what secret actions make it up and why these particular ones and not others. But to do this, you need to understand where the beginning of their system is - where the knot that connects them is. To put it somewhat importantly, it is necessary to deduce from a certain general principle the division of the cult into secret actions, and in secret actions - the ways of their manifestation in space and time. We see that such a center is the Epiphany, and in the cult it is most closely projected by the Eucharist. Our reasoning does not shy away from the East of Christian orientation - from the Eucharist. And this is the main criterion for understanding life. The thought expressed on a private occasion by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the most deeply and consistently cult-centric witnesses of the Christian faith, has, however, a general significance for all aspects of life understanding, for all philosophical speculation. This is precisely the orientation towards the Eucharist. “Ημών δέ σύμφωνος ή γνώμη ttj ευχαριστία, και ή ευχαριστία βέβαιοι την γνώμην - our teaching is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, in turn, confirms [this] teaching,” the Holy Father verifies the truth of the path taken (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, - Against heresies, IV, 18, § 5) 277. Truly, the Eucharist, as the last point contemplated on Earth, as the strongest and most ontological foundation of the Earth - and the basis and criterion of all teaching. Having established and “firmed” our thought on the same “immovable stone” 278, we can move on to the next step - try to understand the dismemberment of the cult. With the words: “Not by theft of Nepshchev” 279 apostol) Paul limits the measure and significance of the mysticism drawn out of the earth. Knowing no measure for itself, this mysticism becomes a titanic and God-fighting principle, opposing its achievements of a high order to Heaven itself. But she, when she knows her limits, is a condition of spiritual life. With this view developed here on the concept of admiration, 280 is made. “Let us withdraw from the world, turning our minds to heaven 281 – ξενωθωμεν του κόσμου, τον νουν εις ούρανόν μεταθέντες.” Συνέκδημος, σ. 666. This is metaphysics - transcendental intuition. Kan Ang Hran, p 7, And now. Theotokos, “a smart ladder, with which God descended and ascended” 282. This is the definition of a sacrament. What is a sacrament? Mother of God. She is the Church. Kontakion of the Ascension of the Lord “Having fulfilled your concern for us, and having united us on earth with the heavenly, you ascended in glory, Christ our God, in no way departing, but remaining persistent and crying out to those who love You: I am with you and no one is against you” 283. Connection of the high and the low. Letters to a person in St. Petersburg. 10 k. 284 The central meaning of the Eucharist. She is united with all the sacraments. For information about the Hellenic origin of triplicate and the meaning of this ritual, see Zh M (Ministry) of Enlightenment), 1911, Jan. n ser, part XXXI, in the article by V. Bogaevsky - A ΕΩΝ ΚΡΗΝΟΦΥΛΑΞ. G. Spencer, - The Beginnings of Sociology (Ritual Institutions). Translation from English edited by I. V. Luchitsky. Kyiv, 1880 [MDAk. 8, 276]. Page 9: “If, having eliminated purely personal actions, we consider only those of them which represent direct intercourse with other persons, and by the word “government” we mean all control over such actions, wherever it may arise, we must conclude that the earliest and most general type of government, always renewed spontaneously, is the government of rites, customs and public ceremonies, which we call by the general name “ceremonial” government." Even more. We can affirm that this type of government not only always preceded all others, not only exerted a comprehensive influence in all places and at all times, but almost always, always before and now, had the greatest share of participation in the regulation of human life.” “Blessed Theophylact, in the 95th conception from Luke, “on Christ’s parable about the trichy priesthood”: [...] depict these three words by grace in the Church: These three actions are inherited by ranks. Deacons are purified by the announcement of doctrine, presbyters are enlightened by baptism; Bishops confer sacred ranks, which means ordination.” "1. The Equal-to-the-Apostles Holy First Martyr Thekla herself baptized herself and others (Min Starop, Sep. 24). 2. The martyr Drosida, daughter of King Trojan, baptized herself (Prologue, March 22). 3. Martyr Porfiry himself baptized himself (September 15). 4. The Monk Theophan himself baptized the harlot (June 10). Zechariah the God-wise, the Kiev-Pechersk archimandrite (Book 2, Chapter 35), will testify to this baptism himself, saying: “And during these hours of persecution for the filthy kings, they themselves were baptized, as he writes in the synoxari of the month of March, day 22: Drosie, or Drosida, the daughter of King Troyan, who, having been thrown into a watery ditch, was baptized, saying: The servant of God Drosie is baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Shield of Faith, l. 13 vol.) 286 Baptism with sand. Prologue, August 28 “Theodore the Jews, for lack of a priest and water from the common people, was quickly baptized with SAND” 287. “Every heresy does not impudently have its own wickedness towards the Divine, but has a certain cover: both the holy teachers will carry out exact judgment on it.” (Shield of Faith, l. 54 vol.) 288 [v]Darkness and light as substances The Venerable Martyr Maria Golendukha came to Jerusalem, and venerated the holy places, and came to a certain monastery, where the evil Sevier lived heresy. And having asked from God, it was revealed to her if it was possible to come to their communion. And in the form of an angel holding two chalices: one is full of darkness, the other is light, showing her how the holy Church is full of light. Behold in the Prologue, July 12." (Shield of Faith, l. 27 vol.) 289 St. Ephraim the Syrian - “Sermon on the Life-Giving Mysteries of Christ” 290. St. Dmitry of Rostov, vol. V, About those who doubt... 291 1918. V. 19. Saturday. Serg Pos 1. I think I’ll say a few words about the seven sacraments. What a ridiculous statement, you thought, of course: about the seven sacraments - a few words 292 The fullness of life and meaning, the cult allows for an infinite number of life approaches to oneself and an infinite number of philosophical understandings of oneself. But the essence of the matter is to bring into the cult your own life experience, as well as to permeate your understanding of life with the cult. The task is to cultivate in ourselves a line of thought that is directly opposite to the one we follow: not from a neutral thought to look at the cult when approaching it, but from the cult to understand secular thought, or in other words, not to express the cult in terms of philosophy, but philosophy in terms of the cult. And we tried to understand that only this attitude towards the cult is a true and expedient attitude. Nevertheless, we are forced to take the opposite path, conditional, if you like, one of many paths. Namely, the anthropological path was chosen, because its starting point represents, that is, the least common multiple of many different life views and therefore requires less preliminary evidence and explanation than others. By this chosen line of thought, we understood the cult as a condition for the balance of personality and, moreover, as a transcendental condition for self-consciousness itself, and therefore for consciousness and all experience. In this sense, we could say that cult, not only historically, but also logically, is a precondition for all culture and even the world itself. The very concept of the world, including the need to coordinate the world with that which is “in the world, but not of the world and above the world” 293, presupposes a cult. As I have already said, religion is right when it affirms the pre-existence of the church - in the form of the heavenly tabernacle, seen by Moses and which served as the prototype of the earthly tabernacle, further seen by the prophet Ezekiel, affirmed in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in the "Epistle to the Hebrews" and, finally, expanded into the Heavenly Jerusalem in the visions of John the Theologian - into the "holy city Jerusalem, new, coming down from God from heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:2). She is right, a religion that affirms the pre-existence of the throne of God, the altar, the liturgical scroll of the word of God; deep meaning in Jerusalem-centricity, etc. The world was created for the glory of God. The purpose of human life is the glorification of the Creator, and therefore His manifestation in Himself and in His deeds. The roots of the visible are in the invisible, the goals of the sensory are in the insensible. The cult is this solid point of the universe, for the sake of which and on which the universe exists. Religion cannot think otherwise. But for now we will talk about only one thing - man. 2. The dual unity of man, his meaning and his being - ύπόστασις and his ουσία - lead him to two truths, the truth of meaning and the truth of being. Split, both of them force to justification, each - special: the truth of meaning - to the justification of being, through unconditional meaning; the truth of being - to the justification of meaning through unconditional being. The first justification is achieved theoretically, through theodicy, the second - practically, through anthropodicy. In the first case, a person turns to absolute Being - and finds it not just existing, but existing Meaning; in the second - to absolute Meaning, and it turns out to be not just meaning, but meaningful Being. If on the first path a firm support for thought is given - the thought ceases to be empty, and existentiality is obtained, then on the second - life finds itself a strong affirmation - its elemental pressure finds its Λόγος. From now on, the dull lust for life has ended, the inflamed lust has cooled; greed and thirst for the immeasurable in measure found the immensity of meaning - and humbled themselves. From now on, the greedy insatiability and rage and anger of the will are satisfied: in the Meaning, the will saw itself as a measure, and then it was moderated, and having moderated itself, it was pacified - it understood its infinity - as the infinite truth of the meaning of its finitude and - on the contrary, it understood its finitude - as the unbridled untruth of its infinity. The titanic impulse towards everything was limited into true action over a few, but this little became a contemplated infinity, whereas everything was insatiable hunger and nothing. “Everything that is immeasurable is from the enemy,” testifies one holy father 294, canonizing the Hellenic veneration of measure: yes, from the enemy, for the enemy divided measure in the human being - ύπόστασις from power - ουσία and made the first empty, and the second immeasurable. And therefore, the restoration of the disintegrated, in the sacrament, its consequence is the penetration of the human being by the principle of dimension, not external subordination to measure, but internal permeation by order: from now on, aspirations are also characterized by maintaining the norms of their disclosure: not “as much as possible,” but precisely “what is required.” This is a natural need, a need corresponding to the nature of things and expressing this nature. 3. We associate this ordering of the human being by cult with the term grace. But like the very concept of cult and, in particular, sacrament, the concept of grace has two sides: invisible, the one that produces the sacrament, and visible, the one that is produced by the sacrament. Our word “grace” is somewhat vague, but its Greek names make this distinction more clearly: I mean the names of grace by the Holy Spirit and χάρις. An older name is the Holy Spirit. Here the Source of mysterious renewal, the Face, is noted. But the degree of perception of His Personality is different in different cases, from vague and vague hope and joy in the Lord to the feeling of the hypostasis of this “Feminine” Hypostasis of the Divine 295: let me remind you of the conversation of St. Seraphim with Motovilov 296. A later time assigned grace primarily to the term χάρις. This was and is necessary, for Holy Scripture distinguishes between the expressions αγιον πνεύμα, τό πνεύμα αγιον, αγιον τό πνεύμα and τό πνεύμα τό αγιον 297 - giving some expressions a less personal meaning, and others, on the contrary, more. The meaning of the word χάρις is largely preserved in the name Harit. Χάρις - comeliness, grace, beauty - in short, what is given to a person by his regularity and balance 298. 4. So, life is blessed by the cult - that is, its movements, hitherto impetuous, passionate, inharmonious, come into unity, with their diversity not denying, but affirming the unity of the personality. Individual states and drives are no longer masters, dictatorially taking possession of the personality, trying to abolish it and making it, each in its own way, its silent slave, but messengers of the spirit - manifestations and manifestations of the spirit. The personality doesn’t want it, but it wants it. She became charismatic. But what does this mean? This means that each phenomenon of life occurs not on its own, not as an independent phenomenon, but in harmonious relation to others. But this is possible if there is a beginning of their unity, a center of their correlation. However, it is impossible to correlate heterogeneous phenomena. The direct attribution of each life movement to the Absolute Center of the cult, to the East of its orientation, would be a search for a common measure for heterogeneous quantities. It is not only difficult, but simply impossible. In order for a cult to be possible, it is necessary to attribute each sphere of life, in its unique peculiarity, to the Blood of Christ, the mysterious source of all cults. And this requires that not only does the cult give life as a whole an absolute point of support in the center of the cult - Golgotha, but also repeatedly reflect Golgotha ​​in the spheres of life, so that in each area or side of life there is an absolute point of support. One God, one Golgotha, one Holy Spirit, one - the sacrament of sacraments, the Death on the Cross and the Resurrection of the Son of God. But man is diverse, and his diversity refracts the Calvary sacrifice in various ways. Like a white ray, decomposed by a prism into seven, its totality equivalent to that original white one, the mystery of Golgotha ​​in the complexity of the human being disintegrates into separate sacraments. Their number is determined not by Golgotha, but by human nature - the presence of a certain number of irreducible, unique sides in human activity and, therefore, the same number of directions in which a passionate principle can flare up - a fire of immeasurable will, a titanic rebellion against one’s own norms. The number of such directions determines the number of sacraments: this is the number of those typical groups in the Baptist Church in Yaroslavl 299 that are washed by the blood of Christ and according to which the life-giving streams are divided. 1918. V.20. After the liturgy 5. All life should be determined by the cult, turning around its unconditional Center - Golgotha ​​and the Resurrection. From the cradle to the grave, all states, all ages, all events of life, all actions, all movements, all aspirations, all words, everything, even the smallest and most insignificant actions, must be cultocentric, gravitating towards its center, just as every weighty particle is attracted to the center of gravity of the solar system. And, just as there is no difference in essence between a huge planet and a microscopic speck of meteoric iron, both equally belonging to the solar system (-if you believe Newton and Co.), so there is nothing so small in the cultocentric system of life revolving around the Sun of the Life of Christ that it eludes the central drive, and nothing so great that it violates the law of cultural existence. In cultural life there can be nothing, neither large nor small, that is not determined by cult, nothing simply secular, nothing worldly, nothing frivolously self-inflicted. Atheism and crimes are more likely to fit into a system of cult than the concept of privatsache 300: privatsache does not exist in a life defined by a cult, just as there are no parts in the body that are not involved in life, and even something inimical to life, for example a tumor or an abscess, lives and serves as an arena for life’s collisions. To admit in cult life the possibility of something, even the slightest, not sacredly molded, not statutory, not measured - but simply in itself - means recognizing that there can be a cultural life, but not based on the unconditional foundation - not oriented on the unconditional. And this would mean rejecting the very idea of ​​cult. According to Kant, there can be nothing in experience that is not connected with all experience, and to admit such something would mean to destroy all experience as a whole. But true experience, as we tried to show, is experience not transcendentally, that is, on the structure of the mind, but transcendentally, i.e. on the external reason of its condition, it is justified, and therefore everything that claims to be independent thereby fundamentally destroys the very possibility of transcendence about 301 - the unity of everything and the unity of all, a truly common cause. The defection of individuals, or their individual actions, is an attempt to shake the foundations of human culture - and if it were actually crowned with success, it would be the destruction of man. But of course, while we are talking about cult in its principle, not these or other forms of cult, the diversity of which may not only be acceptable, but also necessary. Now we are not talking about the methods of implementing the cult, but only about the beginning of the cult, as such, and, therefore, about the possibility of action that is not fundamentally oriented towards the cult; specifically, an action directed independently of these cult forms, against them, or even to destroy them, can itself be cult: and the beginning of the cult, as such, can only be affirmed with new force by this clash of cult forms. 6. Meanwhile, in theology itself - I will say more - in the very theologies of different confessions or different faiths, sometimes cult-hostile views arise, which, without suspecting it, often undermine the foundations of the cult. This especially includes attempts at a conciliatory tone, the true spirit of which is a misunderstanding of the very idea of ​​cult. These attempts, dictated by secret indifference, are much more destructive than the most cruel and merciless hostility. Antinomy in resolving the dispute between forms of cult, that is, yes to different forms, affirming each in its exclusivity, or no to both, they replace with reasoning about the indifference of the forms themselves, as if cult is not precisely the implementation of specific forms and as if with the abolition of form in cult its very essence is not destroyed - the combination of form and spirit. Here, as an example, it seems appropriate for me, an ignoramus in our unfortunate dispute with the Old Believers, to bring something to the question of finger formation. I don’t dare solve this mysterious question, but I could roughly say: the system of rituals forms a closed whole, and in the system it is impossible to replace one ritual with another without shaking the foundations of the entire system; It is impossible to arbitrarily replace an organ in the body with the same one of a different type, because with a change in the organ, all the others must change accordingly. But this does not mean that the presence of one system of cult forms, one style, so to speak, excludes the possibility of a system of other forms, another, but equally specific style. Both the one and the other, each closed in itself, can achieve their goal, while simply mixing them - mixing styles - will upset both one and the other. In this sense, it is quite possible that the Catholic five-finger, and the ancient one-finger, and the Old Believer two-finger, and the Orthodox tripartite, in the context of other rites, respectively different and, so to speak, one-style, is, each in its own way, a true addition of fingers, perhaps most adapted to the mystical nature of this or that time and this or that people, or, finally, to the unique tasks of the spirit set this or that church community. Without having the data to assert that one sign is more true than another, I can fully assume that all of them, in their own way, in their tasks and their cult environments, are exactly what they are recognized for using them, and therefore they are true sign. But to my ears, the assurance of some theologians that it is not a matter of form, but of mood, that by folding one’s fingers in every possible way, one can pray both well and badly, and that this or that addition is a matter of indifference, sounds deeply godless and hostile to life. I understand that a well-known musical theme can, depending on special tasks, be developed in one or another key; but to say that tonality is indifferent, and that it doesn’t matter how you develop the theme, and that there is therefore no need to maintain the chosen tonality, would mean showing your deep indifference to music. In the same way, tolerant conciliators also display deep indifference to religion, equally offensive to both the Old Believers and Orthodoxy, for under the guise of the breadth of their hearts they abolish the religion they despise, as such: wouldn’t it mean to despise if, in response to a question about a cult, this or that, one said: both are trifles, and therefore it is not worth quarreling over these trifles? 7. Another example. As you all know, the acceptance of Catholics into the bosom of the Orthodox Church is accomplished in the Church of Constantinople through baptism, contrary to the 10th article of the Creed (“I confess one baptism”) 302, but in our country they are received not only without baptism, but also in their “real rank,” i.e., a Catholic priest, for example, is made not a layman, but a priest. I don’t want to say that this contradiction particularly worries me; perhaps an antinomian answer is also possible here, although I personally don’t see it now. But I find it strange to refer to the simple will of the Local Church to act one way or another as it pleases, an opinion coined by the Greek theologian Ikonomos, who argued that due to the “economy of leniency,” Catholics need not be baptized. The “economy of indulgence” in the sacrament is tantamount to the denial of the sacrament itself. This was well stated by Metropolitan Philaret: “If those who are baptized by showering, according to the opinion of Constantinople, are unbaptized, then how can the “economy of condescension” make them baptized without performing baptism on them?.. If it were not for a reliable witness, it would be difficult to believe that the learned Ikonomos considers “Western baptism to be both valid and not valid,” depending on whether “is it the will of the Church that the baptism of the shower be baptized or unbaptized." Is not the power of baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity and not in the mysterious grace given to this action by the institute of Christ God? Can the will of man, even if it be the will of the Church, make baptism a simple washing, or a simple washing through baptism?” (Letters from Metropolitan of Moscow) Philaret to A. M. Muravyov]. 1832 - 1867. Kyiv, 1869, No. 236, p. 369.) 303 8. But in liturgical textbooks there is something that seems innocent, but in fact destroys the very way of church life and introduces a Protestant principle into the very idea of ​​the Church. This is precisely the usual division of worship into private worship and public worship. It may seem that, made for the sake of simple convenience, this classification does not even deserve criticism among questions about the essence of the cult. But it would be a mistake to think so, and this mistake has already sufficiently distorted the “common cause” of the Church. In fact: Can there be anything in the Church that concerns only me, that needs one or another “private” worship, and that does not concern all other members of the Church? Can there be anything in the Church that is not the work of the whole Church? The absence (“out of need”) of some members of the Church at a given divine service—“private”—is as little evidence of the particularity of this service as the absence (again exclusively “out of need”) of its famous members at the liturgy or all-night vigil—about the “privateness” of the liturgy or all-night vigil. Each church service is the work of all members of the Church. The impossibility of all water churches gathering and being as “close” as possible (πυκνότερος) to each other, according to the word of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer 304, encourages division into parishes, into dioceses, into metropolises, into Local Churches, etc. So, with a large gathering of communicants, part of the Holy Blood with particles of the Holy Body is poured into a special bowl, and two clergy commune from two bowls, even in the same church. But does this really negate the words of St. Paul: “There is one Bread, and we, who are many, are one Body; for we all partake of one Bread” (1 Cor. 10:17) - yes, we partake of one Bread and one Cup, even if they seem to be separated. So many liturgies are one liturgy, and many churches are one church. The absence of Muscovites in the Kiev church does not mean that the Kiev service is a private matter for the people of Kiev. In the same way, the absence of some parishioners at baptism, for example, does not mean that the subsequent baptism is a private service of the baptizer and his family, and not public, not common to the entire parish, the entire diocese, the entire Local Church, the entire Ecumenical Church. Let's take the same baptism. Is it really that the entry into the Church of a new member, the new birth of a child of the Church, is indifferent to the members of the Church and is not a public, general, universal matter? Is the baptism of an infant really a private service? Is it really indifferent who is accepted into church communion and how? The same applies to any so-called “private” worship. Marriage is a spiritual union of two members of the Church for the sake of forming their “home” church; burial - leaving the earth and seeing off one of the members of the Church; A requiem service is a commemoration of a member of the Church, namely the Church, and not just a member of a family or a circle of friends, for in order to commemorate a family member, as such, there can be no need for a priestly service, etc., etc. Is all this really not a public matter, not a common one? Are these celebrations, regardless of the number of people gathered, in their meaning not carried out publicly, but somewhere in the margins, so to speak? Everything in the Church concerns everyone, and every divine service is a public divine service. Burial, marriage, baptism, commemoration, etc., etc., including the uncorking of a new barrel of wine, or the renovation of a house, or the cleansing of a well into which a mouse has fallen, concerns in the field. And if the concept of absence “due to need” is infinitely (and unfriendly, not churchly) expanded, if now almost all members of the church are absent from baptism, then this should be regarded as a deplorable busyness of all, as a sinful inattention to church affairs, but not at all as a church charter and testifies to the infrequency of the listed and other similar services, but only about the incredible disintegration of church life and the terrible the separation of souls from each other and from the Church. Everyone knows that initially it was not like that. And as a result of this departure of everyone from supposedly “private” divine services, the very rites began to be curtailed, shortened, disintegrated and weakened in strength. Baptism, which takes a year to complete, began to be performed in villages in 1/4. hours. They want to blame the clergy here: but who, if not the church society, with its attitude towards “requirements” emphasizes their significant difference from public services and, therefore, the possibility of an easy attitude towards them on the part of the clergy. 9 . I repeat, nothing can be done in the Church that is not common to the Church; the same thing that happens covers the entire life of each member of the Church, in all its needs. It is not for nothing that one of the most necessary church books is called the Trebnik or, more correctly, as it was called in ancient times, the Potrebnik. “As the name itself shows, [this] is a church liturgical book in which everything that is needed for every son of the Orthodox Church from the day he is born to his last breath on earth is collected and contained. With the Breviary in hand, writes one famous liturgist, the shepherd of the Orthodox Church welcomes into the Christian home the birth of each new member and consoles the sick mother of a newborn who has suffered the mortal pangs of birth; when performing the rituals and prayers laid down in the Breviary for “a woman in labor for fourty days,” the newborn is introduced into the assembly of believers “who are called in the name of Christ,” is churched, and his mother is given access to the church of the glory of God, where, for natural reasons, she was deprived of the right to appear; prayers and rituals in the rites of the sacraments of baptism and confirmation of the same Trebnik, the newborn is made a son of the Orthodox Church and receives the grace-filled gifts of the Holy. Spirit, strengthening his spiritual powers for every good deed; in the days of our moral failures and sincere heartfelt contrition about this, with the prayers of the Breviary, the pastor of the Church consoles repentant sinners by pointing out the all-forgiving love of God and His immeasurable mercy for them; when a single member of the Church changes from single to married life, the Christian shepherd calls upon him the blessing of God and in the prayers of the Breviary gives such an abundance of good wishes and instructive examples of a truly happy married life, which the most enlightened and wise father and the most tender and ardently loving mother cannot express; at the moment of determination to devote oneself to celibacy and service to the Church in a monastic form, breaking ties with the world and everything that is close and dear to man, consisting of flesh and blood, through the Breviary, to encourage himself, he hears a reminder of the commandments of the Divine Teacher [... ] and receives a whole series of indications of the greatest and most amazing examples of asceticism and anchorage in the history of the Christian Church [...]; in various circumstances of our life, public or private, at the beginning of any good and useful work, in times of joy and severe grief, the shepherd of the Church with the Breviary in his hands with his prayers, filled with sincere good wishes and true promises of success, with deep, of course, on our part, faith in God, as the source and giver of all good, instills a full consciousness of the need not to lose heart, not to become despondent in the event of failure or failure, always remembering that everything comes from the will of the Provider, without Whom not a hair falls from our head; in illnesses that befall a believer due to his sins, the priest, through the prayers of our Breviary, ardently urges him to confess his sin before God as the cause of the illness, and with the joyful hope of a speedy recovery, with the help of God and through the prayers of the Church, he keeps the spirit of the sick person and the loved ones around him cheerful; in the hour of terrible anguish of the spirit, when in front of the eyes of relatives and friends, who have already used all their efforts to save the life of a dear patient, a terrible struggle of life and death occurs, when there comes a painful moment of separation of the soul from the body, in which horror freezes the blood in the veins, and the mind of those surrounding the dying bed refuses to control thoughts and feelings, the Holy Church, according to the Breviary, begs the Immortal Father and the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit to “allow unbearable illnesses and the bitter infirmities that contain it,” “the body, from them, will be formed, worn out, but the soul will settle there, where it was accepted to be, even before the general resurrection”; after the death of an Orthodox Christian, with touching hymns, touching rituals and sublime prayers of our Breviary, the Holy Church, paying honor to the ashes of the deceased, as the organ and conductor of the grace of the Holy Spirit into the living soul, prays to God for the remission of the sins of the deceased and “for the dwelling of his soul in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, where the righteous will rest” and consoles those who remain in the living, overwhelmed by a sorrowful feeling of separation, hope in the mutual communication of the living and the dead in prayer and in meeting with the deceased in the next world, where, over time, we will all go, as pilgrims of this life for a short time" (A. Dmitrievsky, - The Book of Trebnik and its significance in the life of an Orthodox Christian (Concerning the latest views on this book). Publication of the Kyiv Religious and Educational Society. Kyiv, 1902, pp. 4 – 7). 10. But we must return, after these digressions, to our main topic, the sacraments. We say: all life is determined and sanctified by cult. But simply consolidating all life actions is not only impossible for reasons that will be explained below, but also harmful. By becoming all the same, they run the risk of turning in our consciousness into something completely ordinary: a continuous sacrament for consciousness ceases to be a sacrament - it would cease if it were feasible; but it is not feasible. The definition of all life by a cult is the orientation of all its movements and manifestations on the sacrament, but not the conversion of all of them into a sacrament: correlative with each other and therefore unconditional, but, however, interconnected, the phenomena of life would be determined unconditionally if their coherent system had some points of support. You can figuratively imagine life as a complex system of hinges that form something like a network. This network, as a whole, can slide in a variety of ways along a certain plane located under it. This plane is the support of the unconditional with absolute coordinate axes. The points of our network do not have any specific coordinates, because everything is changeable. So our life, although connected within itself, not having a definite relationship to its unconditional support, is not itself definite, that is, it does not exist for consciousness. Everything slides in it, everything is unstable, everything is arbitrary. But where everything is arbitrary and fluid, there is no freedom, for freedom lies in setting oneself on a goal, and with the capricious and arbitrary invasion of all sorts of unaccounted for and unaccounted for factors, more precisely, with the composition of the fabric of life entirely from such factors, there can be no talk of any self-determination: this is how an army can move towards the enemy, because unexpected movements of each individual soldier are excluded in it, and a crowd scattering in different directions cannot perform any expedient movement, because no one knows what each of his neighbors will do in a second and where they will push him. The question arises - we return to our system of hinges - what is required to determine its coordinates? Obviously, the definiteness of the relationship to the motionless plane, the carrier of the coordinate axes. Simply put: you need to secure the hinge system so that it stops fidgeting on a fixed plane. But, due to its connectivity, there is no need at all to fix all its points, just a certain, finite number is enough, and then this system will perform the already defined movements intended for it by its builder. What is the number of anchor points? It depends on the number of freedom of the system 305, speaking mechanically, or on the number of its arbitrary parameters, speaking mathematically. Translating these terms into philosophical language and moving from comparison to what is being compared, we will say: the number of necessary fixations of life on the plane of the unconditional depends on the number of directions of life activity that are irreducible to each other - generally speaking, necessary in the very organization of human life and, by their totality, revealing life in its fullness. If life is likened to an organism, then these main directions of life activity should be called tissues of life: tissues are not organs, not divisions of life, but materials that are irreducible to each other from which organs are built. The number of such fabrics of life, generally speaking, is small: it is this that determines the number of images of its consolidation necessary for life. These strengthenings of life are called sacraments. 11. Thus, the sacraments are those points of life where its main directions, its fabrics, its parameters, if you like, are not determined by the unconditional, but are themselves directly connected to the unconditional and, by unity with it, should themselves be called unconditional. The sacraments are the unconditional points of our life, the unconditional points of the conditional, the mountainous points of the earthly, the spiritual points of the earthly, the logical (from λόγος) points of the elemental, the holy points of the passionate, the moderate points of the immeasurable; they can be likened to nails nailing our network of hinges to a motionless board; these nails are simultaneously in the system of hinges (conditional) and in the board (unconditional), they are both conditional and unconditional at the same time, they are realized antinomies. In short, they are the essence of the cult itself, the roots of the cult, if you like. Everything else is around them and for their sake, but they are in themselves. In the sacraments, the constitutive functions of human life that form the very structure of human life are consolidated and made absolute. The sacraments are the very first functions of the human being, in their typical and fundamental beginnings, introduced into the sphere of the unconditional. Thus, the nutritional function is raised to an unconditional level in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and the sexual function - in the sacrament of marriage, etc. Having received emphasis in the “immovable) stone” 306, by the representation of its clearest and most complete expression, the function itself is completely determined, and then that immeasurable, passionately-desirable, lustful-predatory, ever-greedy beginning of the restless and angry will, which is inevitable characteristic of any function, since it actually does not have the beginning of measure and a solid scale of comparison, this beginning of bad infinity already acquires the norm of self-restraint: the fire of Gehenna is flooded with the sacrament, and it depends on the individual whether it will flare up again or not, whereas without the sacrament it could not help but flare up, for in fact the personality did not have a norm within itself, but only outside itself, as a pure concept and abstraction. Man formerly pop potuit pop ressage; now the potest pop ressage 307. But not just one function, but all functions received their own point of support and each one received its own internal measure. In other words, all types of passion can be curbed and moderated and pacified. And this means that man has become completely, with his whole being, on solid support. Let the titanic element rage around him, close to him, showering him with salty spray and foam; but under his feet he has a rock and knows that on it he is saved: he is saved - from all the fury of the watery abyss - he, wet and cold, is not powerless yet: he is now free to define himself. No matter how small the solid ground, it depends on him whether to beat the waves on the coastal rocks or stand and walk here on the island: now for the first time he can say to himself: “I decide,” and not “I am drawn by an unknown whirlpool into unknown abysses” 308. The dominance of the elemental principle over him ended, man found himself 309. 12. We say: there is a certain number of sacraments, and this number depends not on the grace of God, not on the very unconditional basis of the sacraments, united in themselves, but on the constitution of man. The color scattering of light - dispersion - does not depend on light as such, but on the final coarse grain of those material media through which light passes: ultimately, even thinking of light as a wave-like process in the ether, we can say with Goethe: colors - from the turbidity of the medium, although not in the direct understanding of this turbidity that Goethe had 310. Likewise, the plurality of sacraments does not depend on the nature of grace, but on the complexity and limitations of the human created being, on which grace acts and which it restores to primary unity. In short: there are many sacraments, because there are many aspects of human life: and man, and not God, is the reason for the multiplicity of sacraments. This is the thesis. But behind it is an antithesis: however, man himself is created in the image of God, and his whole being is created “according to the type of Christ - κατ' ίδέαν του Χριστού” (Nicholas Kavasila, - Seven Words...) 311. Consequently, it is not man who is the cause of the plurality of sacraments, but Christ Himself, the image and type of man, must be recognized as such. This is the antinomy - constantly encountered in different forms in the philosophy of cult - an antinomy that one could not help but expect ahead of time, taking into account the basic antinomy of the cult itself, as a mountain-down, God-human, infinite-finite, unconditional-conditional activity. We will encounter these antinomies more than once. But for now, for the sake of convenience of reasoning, we will proceed from the thesis, that is, from man as the reason for a certain division of the cult, for the entire path of our reasoning goes from earth to Heaven, from man to God, from the finite to the infinite, from the conditional to the unconditional. 13. Perhaps we should add to what has been said an explanation of how the strengthening of what I called the color of the function and its typical manifestation can relate to the improvement of the entire function. How can some parts and moments of a certain life activity be connected with all other aspects of it? The answer to the question posed is the general trend of modern psychology (James) 312 directed against fragmented psychological atomism, which turns mental life into the dust of isolated states, and seeks to understand it as a continuous background, and from which and on which, so to speak, splashes and folds arise, which, however, do not break away from the background. In this sense, we can say that there are no separate parts of a function, but there is a whole function in its connection with others, and, therefore, an action on one of its points is thereby an action on the entire function. But the modern doctrine of functions in biology, which developed hand in hand with the concept of functional neurosis, answers the question we have posed more accurately. Freeing themselves from the hypnosis of pathological anatomy, psychopathologists finally understood that the function of organs is by no means something simple and devoid of structure, that “it is necessary to distinguish in a function its various parts, located hierarchically ...” and that “it is necessary to distinguish between lower and higher parts in each function. When a function has been carried out for a long time, it contains parts that are very ancient, very light, represented by organs that are highly differentiated and specialized: these are the lower parts of the function. But... in each function there are also higher parts, which consist in the adaptation of this function to more recent circumstances, much less familiar, and are now represented by much less differentiated organs. It is self-evident, for example, that in the process of eating there is a grasping of food, which occurs in a person with the help of the mouth, hands, i.e., with organs that can serve many other purposes, and thanks to reflexes that are much less simple and correct than the secretion of the gastric glands. But we can go even further... In each function there is a particularly high part, namely, which consists in adapting it to a particular circumstance at a given moment, at the moment when we need to use it in a more or less complete adaptation to the totality of external and internal conditions in which we are placed at this very moment. To take the same example, the function of nutrition must take place at the moment when I must take food on this table, among these new faces, that is, in the presence of whom I have never been in such a position, put on a special costume and subject my body and my spirit to very special social customs. This is, in essence, the same function of nutrition, but it goes without saying that the act of dining at a party is not at all the same physiological phenomenon as the simple process of separation of the pancreas. This difference and these degrees exist... in all functions... Physiology may not be interested in this, since it studies the organized, correct, simple part of the function, and the physiologist, of course, will smile if you tell him that when studying the process of nutrition, he must take into account the work of eating in a black frock coat and conversations with a neighbor. But medicine cannot ignore this, because the disease does not ask us and does not always affect those parts of the function that we know best. Of course, we will have simple functional suffering if the patient does not walk because he broke his leg, or does not eat because he has stomach cancer. In these cases an ancient and simple part of the function is affected, and the suffering affects a very specific organ. But the disease can affect the higher parts of the function, those that are still in the process of formation, organization; there are subjects who do not walk, although their legs and even the spinal cord are completely intact; who do not eat, although their stomach and all lower nutritional organs can function perfectly. Some patients lose only this higher part of the nutritional function, which consists of eating in society, eating under new and difficult circumstances, eating while knowing what you are doing. Although physiologists do not suspect that these phenomena form part of the process of the sexual functions of mankind, nevertheless there is a pathology of grooming and a pathology of honeymoon travel. It is precisely this highest part of the functions, their adaptation to given circumstances, that is affected by neuroses, and this concept should be included in the definition of these diseases... And a certain part of all human functions, the most sublime part, is always on the path of transformation: the phenomena of the will, or at least part of them, the perception of a changing reality, the formation of beliefs can only be compared with the phenomena of organic development. They should not be compared with the mechanisms of the heart or lungs, but with the phenomena due to which the embryo evolves and transforms, creating organs that did not yet exist. In the parts that predominate in these acts, the brain not only functions like the heart, putting into action an already created organ, but the brain itself is constantly being formed. Until the last day of life, the brain continues the evolution of the embryo, and consciousness manifests (demonstrates) this evolution. Neuroses are diseases that attack this evolution, since they affect a part of the function that is still in the period of development, and only that; neuroses should be classified as a group of developmental diseases. All neuropathic manifestations are presented as disorders relating to the highest part of the function, its adaptation at the moment to new external or internal circumstances... Neuroses are disorders of various functions of the body, characterized by a stop in the development of the function, but without the destruction of this function itself" (Pierre Janet, - Neuroses. Translated by S. S. Vermeule, edited by L. S. Minor. "Cosmos". M., 1911, pp. 306 - 309, 313). I apologize for this long selection from P. Janet's book. I wanted to tell them that our reasoning about function in its organic unity of different layers is not very far even from modern psychological views on the nature of functions. But in my reasoning, the concept of an organ’s function is not genetic, but ontological, and, moreover, some extreme layers of function are conceivable, very subtle, but so important that the soul of the function seems to live in them, so that the defeat of this peak of the function leads to a disorder of the entire function and, most importantly, the bearer of the personality function. Thus, prayer before dinner seems to be an unimportant moment in the function of nutrition, or the offering of panagia. But, belonging to high levels of nutritional function and being disturbed, they can lead to important personality disorders. The Holy Eucharist can be even less noticeable in this sense. But its perversion or neglect can lead to the complete destruction of the entire personality. Here we should also add the existence of very significant, but elusive by crude methods of psychological analysis, occult layers in the composition of each of the functions, the violation of which often leads to a perversion of the entire function, and thereby makes it inconvenient to accept the corresponding sacrament. Thus, let us summarize what has been said: violation of the cult charter in general, and the sacraments in particular, can introduce such changes, damage and destruction into the functions themselves that, not noticeable in themselves, like cracks, destroy the function itself and lead to peculiar spiritual illnesses. Psychological diseases, as well as physiological ones, can only be special cases, special incidents of a more general concept of spiritual diseases, the essence of which is the perversion, decomposition and disintegration of the personality, and the cause is the convention and therefore the unbridledness of all manifestations of a function that has no support. The food of people who do not receive communion, the marriage of unmarried people, the treatment of those who do not resort to the blessing of oil, etc., etc. are already spiritual illnesses that bring rattling and strain, and then internal devastation in the corresponding aspect of life, and therefore disrupt the balance of the entire personality. I will say more decisively: the food of those who do not receive communion is already a kind of disease of the nutritional function, a cancer of the spiritual roots. this function; civil marriage is already a sexual disease, a disease of the spiritual roots of sex; treatment without consecration of oil is already a disease, worse than the disease itself for which one is being treated, etc. And all these diseases of spiritual roots, undermining the balance of the personality, sooner or later, one way or another will make themselves felt - it may very well be that it is in the sphere of psychological (neuroses), and then physiological and anatomical diseases of those very functions and even organs, in the spiritual roots of which some invisible but terrible “wrong” happened 313 and where, something cracked. Consequently, if you like, the sacraments themselves can be defined as limits, as peaks, as roots, as absolute foundations of human functions. Then we can, returning to the previous antinomy, say again: human nature determines the sacraments by its functions; sacraments - the roots of human nature - define man. Man is a reflection of the sacraments, and the sacraments are the primary realities. But the sacraments are reflections, rays, sources of the one Golgotha, Christ Jesus. Consequently, man is a derivative of the sacraments, is a reflection of his Lord - that is, he was created κατ' ΐδέαν του Χρίστου 314, which we have already seen otherwise. 14. The question before us now is to finally calculate the very functions of man and show the correspondence of the sacraments to them. The task is not easy if you approach it with all care and do not rush into systematization. This difficulty is not only due to the non-existence of philosophical anthropology and historical fluctuations in the calculation of sacraments, but also more significant, lying in the organic relationship between both sacraments and human functions, due to which, forming a single whole, neither one nor the other can be separated with an immutability that satisfies the taxonomist, and this explains the historical fluctuations when it came to the list of sacraments. Indeed, in the history of the dogmatic doctrine of the sacraments we come across an apparent strangeness. On the one hand, all the sacraments were known and had certain names already in ancient times. All current sacraments “are found separately among the fathers, and even among the same ones, “and each of them” is called a sacrament by one writer or another” (Historical and Dogmatic Review of the Doctrine of the Sacraments. From the academic lectures of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow) (1819). M., 1900, p. 16). Thus Tertullian mentions baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist and the laying on of hands at dedication (L. de praescr. 40), repentance (L. de poenit.), consecration of oil (de praescr. 41), and marriage (L. 2, ad uxorem 8) 315. St. Augustine speaks about baptism, the Eucharist, consecration of oil (L. 5 de baptis. 26) 316, confirmation (L. 11. Contra R. 317, priesthood (L. 2. Cont. Epist. par P. 13 and L. 2 de nupt. et concup. 12) 318. But usually it is not given exhaustively, a clearly delimited list of them, and the term “sacrament” - μυστήριον, sacramentum, also refers to many other things. We have already spoken about the word μυστήριον. By the word sacramentum Cyprian calls, for example, the dogma of Christ, sacramentum Christi, the fundamental truths of Christianity - sacramentum fidei, deep. The meaning of the prayer “Our Father” sacramentum oratorius Dominium. Augustine calls the sacraments: the sign of the cross, the preparatory rites for the catechumens. St. John Cassian calls the Holy Scripture sacramentum Divinum. In the definition of the Council of Reims (393), the salt given to newly baptized people on the day of Easter is called sacramentum salis. Sometimes the washing of feet, the blessing of water, monasticism, the consecration of the world, the consecration of the church, the altar, priestly burial, etc. were called sacraments. It is worthy of attention that, however, Patriarch Photius already in his library gives a list of sacraments, quite in line with the modern one, given by the monk Job (VI century, 530) (Sod. 222). But only from the 12th century the term and the number of sacraments were firmly established in the West, while in the East, around the 10th century, consolidation began. In the 17th century (1638) at the Council of Constantinople, which was held to discuss the Reformed aspirations of Patriarch Kirill Lucaris, an anathema was pronounced against all those who did not recognize the sevenfold number of sacraments. This definition of faith was repeated by subsequent Councils. “We believe,” it says, “that there are gospel sacraments in the Church and that there are seven of them. We do not have in the Church a greater or lesser number of sacraments than seven, and the assumption of a non-seven number of sacraments is the product of heretical madness. The sevenfold number of sacraments is established in the Holy Gospel and can be proven by citing and comparing passages of divine Scripture, like other dogmas of the Catholic Church” 319 (chapter 15). – This is how the number of sacraments and their list are finally established: baptism, confirmation, communion, repentance, marriage, consecration of oil and priesthood. This list and its historical destinies are very instructive precisely for our purposes: from attention to what could have historically been included, but was not included in it, the very nature of the sacraments becomes clear. First of all; we have already seen that in the proper and most direct sense the Incarnation, Life and, in particular, the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Son of God should be called a sacrament. But this is not a sacrament among other sacraments, but the focus of all of them and therefore not among them. This also includes the sign of the cross - a condition for all sacraments. Further, many cult actions, such as the consecration of the world, the throne, the church, the Epiphany water and the blessing of all waters in general, have the indisputable nature of sacraments, and it is impossible to free oneself from such a direct impression, especially for clergy. But they were not included in the sacraments. Why? It is very clear why: they are indeed sacraments, but not any special sacraments, but the same ones, from among the 7, begun and intended to end in an indefinite time, like the consecration of the reserve Gifts separated by time and the communion with them. Thus, the consecration of the holy world is the beginning of the sacrament of confirmation, the consecration of the church and altar is the beginning of the Eucharist, the blessing of water is the beginning of baptism. This follows not only essentially from the very rite of the Blessing of Waters, but also historically: the Epiphany Blessing of Waters was initially performed precisely for the sake of the subsequent baptism of the catechumens. Consequently, the blessing of water is related to baptism in much the same way as proskomedia is to the Eucharist, betrothal to a wedding, and Chrismation to Confirmation. The preliminary rites of a sacrament sometimes do not receive a final point, remaining in a state of potential sacrament and magnificently growing into something that clearly exceeds a simple rite and just as clearly does not grow into a sacrament. Thus, the consecration of a church is a preliminary to the liturgy, which must be completed by the liturgy, but outside the liturgy it does not yet achieve its goal, for it is important not in itself, but for the sake of the liturgy. Let us recall that, according to the views of the ancient Church, liturgy is possible where the bishop is with his flock, that is, even if not in the church, but according to modern practice, out of need, it is also possible to celebrate the liturgy outside the church - for example, on a camp table, as long as there is an antimension. Consequently, the consecration of the church, no matter how majestic it is, is not absolutely necessary - that is, in its own way, it does not serve as an independent milestone towards Eternity. This is - αντί τύπον, a reflection of the type of heavenly essence, but not the most heavenly essence in its manifestation, the sacraments are the very essences. Speaking figuratively, one can imagine such semi-sacraments as mirror images or portraits of a face, but not the face itself; the sacraments are the face itself, visible from its different angles. The same must be said about monasticism. According to the canons of the church, monasticism does not add anything qualitatively new to the usual celibate state and only quantitatively increases the demands of asceticism and renunciation, which are essentially inseparable from Christianity itself and therefore taken upon oneself by a Christian in baptism itself. Consequently, monasticism cannot in any way be equated with marriage, where something completely new is revealed, compared to celibate life - childbearing. The visible sub specie aeternitatis 320 of monasticism is also baptism, but closer, more distinct, that is to say, more conscious, but marriage is a completely special thing. In the church understanding, in addition, monasticism is sanctified as repentance. All Christians must repent; monasticism is a deliberate inclusion in a special category of repentants, a more conscious and more definite undertaking of the feat of unceasing repentance; in this sense, it can be compared with different types of repentance in the ancient Church - kneeling, crouching, catechumens, etc., with the only difference that belonging to those classes of penitents was forced, at least in most cases, but here it is taken freely and voluntarily. If so, then in monasticism, as such, one can see an incomplete, long-growing preparation for the sacrament of repentance (-aka - second baptism -). Monks are penitents of a special category, joining the ranks of penitents not due to disciplinary action, not due to external signs given by the canons, but due to a personal aggravation of the feeling of guilt, from an increased level of responsibility. 15. These considerations negatively explain why we have precisely the seven church sacraments counted and why something that stands on the way to the sacraments is not included in the Church’s list, however. The seven sacraments correspond to the seven main layers of our life; one grace is poured into seven streams, not because, as someone put it (V.V. Rozanov) 321, that there are seven holes in the sky, but because we have precisely seven mouths that receive grace. But here it should be noted that these seven mouths - seven functions are the mouths or functions of a living organism, and in a living organism “the whole is before the parts” 322 and all the parts are contained in itself, so that each side of life, clearly testifying to itself, contains, however, less vivid evidence about others, about all other aspects of life. This is the property of the living, that each function is not simple, but in addition to its main tone, it has all other functions as overtones, each overtone has its own overtones - the same initial functions, and therefore all the functions echo each other in a variety of ways, reflect each other in a variety of ways, so that, starting from one, you can come to any other, and in it again find the original one, and again, etc., etc. That is why the sacraments, forming a dismembered The seven, however, respond to each other, are reflected in each other, each can be found in each. Let's take baptism for example. It, like negation of original sin, is repentance. As a union with Christ - it is a marriage - and among the Gnostics it was even directly considered as a marriage of the soul with the Guardian Angel, and the baptismal chamber was called the bridal chamber. As an accession to the Church, the “royal priesthood,” baptism is π about consecration. As the healing of ailments that depended on sin, it can be equated with the blessing of oil. As unity with Christ, co-crucifixion with Him, co-dying with Him and co-resurrection - the Eucharist must be seen in it. As the receipt of spiritual gifts, it in itself, that is, regardless of the anointing performed with it, can itself be considered as anointing. Or, let's take marriage. Like the readiness to accept the martyr's crown of marital patience (troparion "Holy Martyr...") 323, it is dying to a sinful life, that is, baptism and repentance. How to receive spiritual gifts - anointing. Like the formation of a home church - where two gather in the name of Christ - this is the Eucharist. Like the unceasing prayer of spouses for each other - consecration of oil. As an image of the relationship between Christ and the Church - the priesthood. Etc., etc. This is in ideological order. But it is worthy of attention that in the real-mystical order in each sacrament, according to the faith of the Church, all others can be given, if necessary. Thus, the unmarried marriage of a baptized person with a pagan in the ancient Church was considered sacred: in the baptism of a Christian wife, her wedding was already given. When it was impossible to perform baptism, the Holy Church spoke of baptism with the blood of martyrs, that is, in their repentance and confession it saw baptism and all other sacraments. It is worthy of attention that in modern times there have been cases when, due to negligence or an accident, the natural order of the sacraments was violated: for example, in the 19th century there was one priest who did not receive baptism. Metropolitan Philaret, who examined this matter, explained it precisely in the sense that his priesthood already includes baptism 324. In short: in the second and third organisms, the destruction of a certain organ does not necessarily mean the destruction of the function itself, because other organs can take over its function. Thus, when some areas of the cerebral cortex are cut out, the activity of this area is distributed in compensatory-adjacent areas. In the same way, the impossibility of performing a certain sacrament can, sometimes, be compensated by others: the sacraments are divided, but not unconditionally separate, and their unconditional separation would mean the destruction of the unity of the human being. This is all probably self-explanatory, but it was necessary to note their holiness in order to once again explain why in the development of church formulas, which have the sacraments as their subject, only gradually could a solid pattern and final lines be found. 16. So: the main aspects of life are imprinted in their truth by the sacraments, as a result of which the sacraments are types, patterns, directions of life, so to speak, virtues ούσία and our true being in its diverse and indissoluble unity. The organism of the sacrament is our true organism. Being from the inside by the power of God, each sacrament from the outside is some external action, but one that has unconditional value and holiness in the consciousness. What is the Eucharist? – Food, but food that has absolute significance, that is, true food. The Eucharist, according to the word of prayer, is “true food” and “true drink” 325. This means that bodily activity - eating - can have unconditional significance. Adjacent to this “God-eating” are, as its preludes: eating artos, consecrated prosphora, blessed bread - meals that have a sacred, but not unconditional meaning, that is, divine eating, θειοφαγία, and sacred eating, ίεροφαγία. Next comes, adjacent to this, eating food in a Christian family, in a home church and at a monastic meal, which is considered by the Church as a type of worship. Next - food in society, but with prayer. Next - a prayerless, perhaps, but blessed feast in the soul. Even further - devouring a buffet pie while eating a newspaper. Food has hierarchical degrees: communion, eating, eating, table, devouring. These degrees are supported by one another and all together rely on the unconditional holiness of the communion of the Holy Mysteries. Likewise, let’s take baptism. What is baptism? Bathing is βάπτισμα, ablution is lavacrum, but ablution is true) 326, absolute ablution. Blessing of oil is a treatment. Wedding is a sexual combination. The priesthood is power, and in it the function of management is sanctified and raised to its unconditional beginning. What is Confirmation? As an external action, this is anointing - perfume - an fragrant ointment poured or smeared on the body. But what is incense? Does this, such a random side of our life, deserve to be elevated to absoluteness? Can perfume really be put on a par with the functions of nutrition, reproduction, power, or even healing and ablution? Let me give you a little information. All nature is fragrant, everything emits odors, one way or another, everything is enveloped in an atmosphere of fragrant vapors. Is this an accident, or is there something significant hidden here? You can understand the meaning of aromas only by delving into the properties of odors. But it is known that the odors of essential oils and other substances, despite their extreme rarefaction, are characterized by thermal opacity and impermeability to heat rays. Surrounded by an aromatic atmosphere that thickens towards night and especially in the pre-dawn cold, the plant is not metaphorically, but literally shrouded in a warm coat that protects it from excessive heat loss and from freezing. A clear example of the density of these fumes will help this idea to be expressed more firmly: one of the common plants of the mountainous part of the Crimea and the Caucasus - Dictamnus Fraxinella, star anise, or Moses bush, is surrounded by such a thick layer of essential lemon oil that if on a dry day you bring a match to the bush, these fumes can ignite. So, the smell is clothing, true clothing, if you want, for it wraps, protecting from the cold, and decorates - without, however, hiding what is wrapped and decorated - that is, it adds to its beauty, but does not push it aside. Smell is true clothing and true adornment. In plants, it attracts insects from afar. He is protection. That is why the sacrament of confirmation is also performed in another form - apparently having nothing in common with the first - as the laying on of hands. But the laying on of hands is still the same warming - like “the cocosh that gathers its chicks under its wings” 327 - protection-environment. This is why the mystical endowment with Christ—the clothing with the gifts of the Holy Spirit—is associated in the sacrament of anointing with the clothing of fragrant clothing, with mystical protection from hostile winds, with the adornment of the Holy Spirit. Like a bird, the Holy Spirit hovered over the abyss, hatching the primeval world; like a dove, it covered the baptizing Savior with its wings. Adam and Eve, according to church teaching, saw that they were naked - not because they knew something that they had not known before, but because they were truly not naked before, for they were dressed in the Holy Spirit, who left them after the fall: having fallen, they were exposed, which is why they needed other clothing, made with hands. The glory of saints is their luminosity, and often a fragrant environment is their clothing. In general, without going into related mystical and occult issues, we should note that the concept of clothing, shell, cover has immeasurably greater significance than it might seem at first. And from the subtlest surroundings of our body, including the house, the city, the state, the universe, we essentially have a series of clothes of different types and densities. Let us explain with one more note about the smell of mental states: “According to the teachings of Dr. Gumm, he is from New York, the smell of holiness is not just a rhetorical figure; it is an expression of a sacred neurosis in which the skin emits more or less fragrant vapors in moments of paroxysm of religious ecstasy. Gammond himself observed a hypochondriac whose skin smelled of violets; possessed by chorea, smelling of bread; the hysterical woman who smelled of pineapples during her fits; the other was fragrant with iris. D Okhorovich observed a hysterical patient whose fingers smelled of vanilla. Probably, every physiological state corresponds to a certain smell; and since every physiological state corresponds to a mental state, we can assume, together with Okhorovich, that every emotion, every feeling and even many ideas can have their translation into the language of smells” (M. Loyo, - Art from a sociological point of view, part 1, chapter 1. Collected works. T. 5. St. Petersburg, 1901, p. 37, note 328 - testify to ancient exorcists. This explains the constant use of the word “clothing” and equivalents in relation to the spiritual energies that clothe the personality; St. Barsanuphius, for example), interprets the Lord’s command to take care of one robe as caring for “the robe of virtue” (John and Barsanuphius, - Guide to the Spirit of Life. St. Petersburg, 1905, answer 238) 329, ann 330; Church hymns, especially the great canon of St. Andrew of Crete 331, constantly repeat about the tearing of clothing by sin, about the nakedness of the sinner, and about the clothing - with grace, of course - of the repentant. In short: smell - beauty - decoration - clothing - protection - cover - house - home - grace - Holy Spirit - True Light - Truth, etc. - these are series of interconnected symbols and concepts; Therefore, the consolidation of the most subtle of external things of this kind - fragrance - by the sacrament of anointing establishes on an unshakable basis the entire function of housing, clothing, decoration, anointing, and in general - protecting the body from external incursions. Confession is the disclosure of one’s soul and conscience before the Church, initially before all its members, subsequently - secret confession, before a single witness - the priest, for external reasons, but, however, in thoughts - before Christ himself and His Church. From the external side, this is a word, a word about the innermost of one’s soul, an unconditionally truthful word, an extremely serious word. Confession is the communication of the Church in the word by the word, through the word. Confession is a word that is unconditionally approved, a word that is extremely sincere. Every word - if it is not rotten - is a relief to the soul, a confession of the innermost things of one’s soul, a means of communication; it serves unification, like-mindedness, like-mindedness, and teaching. Confession as a sacrament includes not only repentance of sins, but also confession of one’s faith - starting with the symbol of faith, one’s doubts, one’s hesitations. In the sacrament of repentance, the very function of the word is thus sanctified. The priesthood is the affirmation of the function of authority. Power is power because it belongs to the one who is above the rules. Power is certainly: either transcendental to society, or false-transcendental, that is, it holds itself, recognizes itself as transcendental, without being so and, therefore, being self-proclaimed, not true. Gaining power thereby means separation from the environment. Ultimately, this separation is thought of as complete removal from the environment, as a sacrifice to God, that is, death in relation to the public. The initiate is a sacrifice - a sacrifice to God of his, so to speak, firstborn, his chosen one, his beloved from the side of the community, from the side of the Church. The Church sacrifices the dedicatee, a sign of which is the laying on of hands, consecration, in exactly the same way as the hands of those who offered a sacrifice were laid on the sacrificial animal. After this laying on of hands, it ceased to be earthly and became special, coming from the environment of earthly society and a bearer of unearthly energies. Thus, the initiate ceases to obey the laws of secular society, its court, its way of life, its demands and lives in the guilt of the environment, under different laws - different in everything. He lives with everyone, but something has broken in his hiding places, and he looks at everyone from another world. He became the firstfruits of power, the principle of power, and all earthly power is possible as having its nourishment in that small and invisible spring; just as luxurious attire is based on the invisible clothing of the incense of the holy world, like nutrition is based on a barely noticeable partaking of the Holy Gifts, washing is based on triple immersion in holy baptism, marriage is based on the mysterious union of two beings in the sacrament of wedding, healing is based on the prayerful healing of holy oil, and all words and speeches are based on the deep word of secret confession, so is all the fullness of power, existing in society, its source and support is the church hierarchy, which in itself, in appearance, is small and imperceptible. Thus, the seven sacraments are associated with the seven functions - the foundations of the human being. For the sake of simplicity, we are talking only about the lower limits of these functions. But, being complex, they include, in addition to these lower limits indicated by us, the most visual and tangible, so to speak, other layers and relationships among themselves. But they can only be discussed specifically, in detail and subtlety; and this discussion would require a lot of time and therefore could not be given in the present few hours. Therefore, leaving the question of the sacraments outlined by those few features that give only its contours, and even then only from one side of our approach to the sacraments, we will move on next time to discuss the issue of ritual, which will force us to look a little into the phenomenology of the cult, into the “how” of its implementation. Application. Deduction of the Seven Sacraments Thought out 1919. ΧΙΙ.24 – 25. Night In man there is ουσία and there is υπόστασις. Usia, the elemental, generic sub-base of man, is established in him as his individual beginning. Through the individual the race gathers into one point. Usiya is a beginning in itself, gathering to itself, from the world, coming from the clan, but heading towards a single point. Usia, being worldly, being generic, affirms in the world, affirms the individual as such in the genus. Orfa is centripetal. It is the thesis of the individual, establishing him in society as an independent center. On the contrary, hypostasis - the rational, personal idea of ​​a person, his spiritual appearance, his face - is established in a person as his general, supra-individual beginning. This is a beginning from oneself, emanating from oneself, coming from the individual, starting from the individual, but spreading into the world and illuminating the world with itself. Hypostasis, being personal, affirms the race and the world in the personality, i.e. it is the beginning of the individual’s self-denial, a breakthrough in his solitude, a way out of his isolation. She is centrifugal. It is the antithesis of the individual, affirming the world and society as the actual conditions of the individual’s existence. Usiya is, as has been said, the thesis of the individual or, in other words, the antithesis of the world, the antithesis of society. Hypostasis is the antithesis of the individual or, in other words, the thesis of the world, the thesis of society. The spiritual balance of a person - and the cult is called upon to maintain it - spiritual balance is preserved with the strength of both the thesis-ousia and the antithesis-hypostasis - and their unity. Neither thesis nor antithesis should suppress one another, to mutual detriment. But they should not be separated from each other, losing coherence and mutual conditionality. Along with ousia and hypostasis, there must be something, such ousia, which is also hypostatic, or, if you like, such a hypostasis, which at the same time is usiy. In other words, the balance of the human personality, along with its strong thesis and antithesis opposed, requires an equally strong synthesis. The opposition between thesis and antithesis creates a strong pulse of inner life; and by the connection of both of them by synthesis - the integrity and unity of this life. Consequently, the first, not yet dissected scheme of personality balance, or, what is the same, the first, not yet dissected scheme of the cult, is the application of the scheme of fundamental anthropological functions. This diagram is given by a sign: The specific meaning of these groups is clear. Man is confirmed by his generic sub-base, as an individual, through his body: his body is a symbol, a point of application, a manifestation of his axis. With his body, according to the law of impenetrability, he excludes from the sphere of his existence any other body, opposing other individuals - opposing society. But the body is a process, the body is a series of acts, a series or, rather, a continuous stream of actions, organ-building actions of a person. The human body is its organogenesis. The process of body-building and acts of exclusion by the body from the sphere of existence of an individual of all other individuals, of the whole society, the process of division by the body, is opposed by the antithetical process of uniting society, gathering it, mutual penetration of individuals, acts of self-denial of each for others and in others; this gathering is achieved through the individual leaving himself and entering into another - through understanding. It appears in the word, in the word, through the word. Speech is the process by which a hypostasis declares itself. Society is made by speech or through speech. Phe-formation is associated with stele-formation, logogenesis with organogenesis. The body gives beingness, speech - meaningfulness; The individual is affirmed by the body, and society is affirmed by speech. These are the thesis and antithesis. But, as has been said, for a personality to be balanced, there must be a synthesis of both processes; this synthesis must be the formation of a society in which the individual does not lose himself, but affirms, and such a new individual, in which the public is an essential condition of his existence. This synthetic process is, therefore, a fundamental affirmation of society, united from within, and of the individual, a new individual, who has a public within himself, i.e., therefore, this synthetic process forms the molecule of society, which itself is individual and in which individuals, mutually reflected in each other, only strengthen each other, only strengthen each other. As a synthetic process, such a process must be based equally on the elemental-tribal side in man, and on the rational-personal side; on the side that secludes the individual, and on the side that contains access to society, to another individual, but at the same time abiding in the individual and strengthening the individual. This synthetic side in a person’s existence, the auxiliary-hypostatic side, is sex, and the process, the synthetic process that follows from it, is marriage, matrimony, that is, the pairing of two together and the emergence of each from oneself to the other - the family. The body-thesis and the speech-antithesis correspond to a synthesis—marriage. Then the personality equilibrium diagram can be presented in specific terms: Consequently, if the cult must maintain the balance of the individual - and this balance is achieved, as was clarified earlier, by fundamentally raising to the level of unconditionality the basic life activities of a person in the sacraments - then there can and should be three types of sacraments: firstly, thetic sacraments, making the individual unconditional through the sanctification of the process - the body, (secondly), antithetical sacraments, making society unconditional, in the same person, through sanctification process - speech and, (thirdly), synthetic sacraments, making the family unconditional, through the sanctification of the process - sex. But both body and speech, or, in other words, both the individual and society, are, as said, processes, that is, they are based on the mutual opposition of their thesis and antithesis and on their balance in their synthesis. Consequently, not only the three aspects of human existence - body, speech and marriage - form a turner, but also the very thesis and antithesis of this turner, in turn, form their own turners. How? If the principle of polarity between ousia and hypostasis is in the centripetal and centrifugal forces of man, then within these forces themselves, within both ousia and hypostasis, one must distinguish between one’s centripetal and one’s centrifugality. This can be expressed differently by saying that in ousia there is ousia ousia and hypostasis ousia, and in hypostasis there is ousia hypostasis and hypostasis ousia. Schematically, this addition of a larger turner from smaller turners can be expressed by a sign: The thetic process of the body is nutrition, the bare affirmation of the body as such; the antithetical process of the body is separation, liberation of the body from everything that is not the body, purification; their synthesis, that is, the very process of bodily life, is based on vital energies that surround, envelop, and protect the body, in particular, the warmth that represents life and surrounds the organism. So - in the area of ​​bodily life. In the area of ​​verbal life, it is thematic - listening to the word, accepting someone else's word into oneself, and antithetical - speaking the word, isolating the word from oneself, freeing the soul from the burden of the word that requires release. Synthetically, in the area of ​​verbal life, the balance of both, the acceptable word and the expressed word, that is, a certain verbal place in society, with a certain speaking and a certain listening, or, in other words, a regulator of verbal, mutually understanding balance in society. This is power in society, like a node into which words enter and exit – currents of mutual understanding among members of society. This is how the seven basic functions of the human being are established, and only the immutability of all of them, affirmed by the cult, is the guarantee of human balance. This immutability is achieved by the utmost sanctification of functions - in the sacraments. There are seven sacraments because there are seven foundations of the human personality, and not only are there seven, but there must be seven, no more and no less. In particular, the sanctified function of nourishing the body is the sacrament of communion, the sanctified function of excreting or purifying the body is the sacrament of baptism, and the sanctification of the synthetic function is the maintenance of bodily balance, i.e. the function of warming, covering, clothing, decoration, as explained earlier, is the sacrament of anointing. In the area of ​​verbal life, the function of accepting the word, listening to the word, feeding the verbal in a sanctified form is the perception of the prayer of society for oneself, feeding on prayer; the sanctified function of hearing is the sacrament of unction. The function of speaking, relieving and purifying the soul of the verbal, sanctified, is the sacrament of repentance. Finally, the synthetic function of balance, listening and speaking, that is, the function of power, sanctified at its source, is the sacrament of the priesthood. Thus, the seven church sacraments are outlined: baptism, confirmation, communion, marriage, consecration of oil, priesthood and repentance. The scheme of their relationship, according to what has been said, appears as follows: This scheme, together with the previous one, establishes a number of analogous relationships that make the structure of the seven sacraments more understandable as a single system. We can write these relationships in the form of analogous proportions, using the equivalence sign of Prof. N. V. Bugaeva 332 These and other analogous relationships derived from the found diagram can be confirmed by numerous indications in church writing of echoes, of mutual reflections of sacraments in each other, and often one sacrament is called by the name of another, but with some limitation. However, this is not the place to go into these details, for what is important is the purity of the lines of the basic relationship. We have arranged the sacraments in logical order, placing the theses first and the antitheses behind them. But, in the order of the statute, in the order of performing the sacraments and using them, the opposite happens. Baptism precedes Communion, and Confirmation is wedged between them; in the same way, first repentance, and then, through the priesthood, consecration of oil. At the same time, it should be noted that repentance and communion are inseparable in ordinary consciousness and are connected with each other by an actual connection, a unification of practice, and not by an internal connection, for, in essence and according to ancient practice, repentance should not be immediately followed by communion, and communion should not necessarily be preceded by the sacrament of repentance. In the same way, the entire group of sacraments of the word is superior to the group of sacraments of the body: in order to perform the sacraments, one must say the words of prayer, and in addition, the sacraments presuppose the Priesthood. Speaking more deeply, every sacrament, from one point of view or another, according to one or another scheme of their mutual connection, can be considered as the first: they form a wreath in which everything is connected with everything, and only from a certain point of view part of the connection is left without attention, so that the rhythm and pattern of the others appears more clearly. I repeat, these rhythms, these patterns can be diverse: in this case, our diagram represents the rhythm that is determined by the anthropological approach to the basic idea of ​​religion - the idea of ​​salvation, understood in an anthropological context, as the balance of the human personality. And so, according to this scheme, according to the logic of the human being, the thetic sacraments precede the antithetic ones, but in practice the opposite happens. Why do antitheses precede theses? According to the scheme, theses precede antitheses, because first the spiritual world is affirmed, and then it is purified or isolated from what it is not. In life, meaning the life here, this is what happens in relation to the given here, which is first affirmed and then purified. But in the matter of faith, considered not abstractly, in itself, but in its manifestations among the givens of this world, it happens, and it should be, the other way around. After all, faith, during our continued stay in this world, transfers us to another reality, and therefore what is an affirmation from there will be a negation here, and what is a negation here is an affirmation from there. By faith we see this world not from here, but from there, we look at it with the eyes of eternity, or, if you like, we see not the world, or more precisely, not ourselves together with the world, but it and our mirror reflection. And that is why, in the matter of faith, the givenness of this world is first denied (antithesis), in order to then affirm the reality of that world (thesis) by pointing to another reality, which in this world is revealed as givenness. In empirics, we start from the givenness of the world and develop it; in the matter of faith, we deny the givenness of the world and affirm another reality, empirically appearing as a given. In empirics - first affirmation, and then denial; in faith, on the contrary, there is first denial, separation, breaking, purification of the empirical flow of existence, and then the perception of another reality, its affirmation, ascent to it, life in it. This is why antitheses should be prior to theses in the life of faith, although for dogmatic contemplation theses continue to be logical first, compared to antitheses. So, there are seven sacraments and there should be seven - no more and no less. In critical philosophy the construction of our scheme corresponds to the transcendental deduction; but since we are developing a transcendental philosophy, our deduction, if it were necessary to give it a name, would have to be defined as transcendental. The essence of this deduction is that the sacraments, in their totality, express the structure of man. The diagram of the seven sacraments is a diagram of the life activity of man himself, a table of the relationship between his primary forces and primary activities. But here the question arises: can’t our process of replacing each of the incoming terms in our scheme with a new turner of polarly related activities and combining them be continued? - Undoubtedly, yes; There is no doubt that in each of the poles one can always see a new polarity. In this sense, one could discern the polarity of the primary functions of man that we have noted, and then, consequently, the internal polarity of each of the sacraments. This is what we will do next, but then we will go beyond the morphology of the cult and move into the area that could be called its histology. That such a thing is possible and even necessary is evident, first of all, from the duration of the sacrament itself: this performance is a process, and, moreover, a complex process, and not an instantaneous action without an internal structure. To penetrate into the laws of this structure and find the general principles according to which each of the sacraments is built, that is, to discover homonomy - the unity of the individual sacraments - is the task of one of the nearest transitions of our thought. VI. Features of cult phenomenology My Vasenka's seventh birthday 1. We talked about the seven sacraments, trying to understand their “what?”, in order to now understand for ourselves the method of performing them, their “how?”. Let us ask ourselves again, what does a sacrament do? What it does determines how it does itself. The sacrament distinguishes a phenomenon from the environment surrounding it, from among other similar phenomena, isolates it, separates it from the everyday. But life flows as one whole, in a continuous stream, spreading out like a fabric of many phenomena, none of which stands apart. In order to isolate the fiber of this fabric, it is necessary to pull it out of the whole, it is necessary to break the everyday connections of phenomena, the usual relationships. The phenomenon stands out. If metaphysically the sacrament is above the world, then phenomenologically it is a separation from the world. This would say everything if it were not for the connection between such an answer and other areas. The phenomenon thus distinguished is an aesthetic phenomenon. Isolation is synonymous with the aesthetic. What, then, is the difference between the religious and the aesthetic? Let us answer not phenomenologically yet. The aesthetic singles out for the sake of highlighting, and its meaning lies precisely in the activity of highlighting, in the enjoyment of highlighting. Therefore, the aesthetic is an illusion: although isolated, the phenomenon does not differ significantly from the environment from which it is isolated, does not differ from the environment in its essence and, therefore, is the same environment, but with a special form given to it. This means that what is special here is not what is shaped by form, but only what is given to the environment. In other words, the aesthetic phenomenon, if we take it to the extreme, as a purely esthete, is certainly outside the cult, it is only, as it were, highlighted by a hairdryer, but in fact is not highlighted - it only claims to be special, without having any special power. Here the separating act is everything, but the separating act is nothing. The sacrament distinguishes in a completely different, even opposite, sense. The religious phenomenon, the act of separation, is only the first moment. The aesthetic in the religious is only the beginning, a precondition. What is distinguished is not only distinguished and kept as such by the distinguishing force: it is essentially special. And therefore, the effect on a person is directly opposite - the realm of the religious and the realm of the aesthetic. Aesthetic phenomena, being secluded from the environment and from each other, being certainly within the framework and therefore self-sufficient little worlds, fragment attention, unleash internal coordination, giving the appearance of unconditionality to individual acts, and thereby destroy the integrity of inner life, while religious ones, forming unity, strengthen and unite the integrity of mental life and thereby strengthen the will, while aesthetic ones relax. The religious strengthens the coordination and self-assembly of the individual, while the aesthetic destroys it. Selected elements of life are singled out by cult - in order to enter into a new connection and become centers of unification. The fabric of worldly life is torn so that the fabric of a new, spiritual life can then be woven from these threads. The faces decay, and from their ashes faces are formed: from the natural - the supernatural. Then each series of life phenomena rests on its embodied idea, on its absolute root, on the “τό” of the phenomenon: τό βρώμα, τό βάπτισμα, ή μίξις 333, etc. 2. The aesthetic, without being special, passes itself off as special: μίμησις 334. And it is clear that we immediately recognize it as - if not special, then as claiming to be special. But the sacrament, being special - special - about itself - is not, except for rare miraculous signs that disrupt the general course of cult life, such as the appearance of fire in the Eucharist or the Child Christ. The sacrament, as such, does not seem special. Not only does it not appear: we are convinced that this is not only the case, but also should be. We are convinced that not only a cursory glance at the sacrament, but also a careful study of it, chemical and physical analysis of it - if such blasphemy has been committed - and other external studies will not be able to discover in it - I repeat, nothing special in it 335. What, one wonders, allows us to identify him? Taken by itself, a particle of the transubstantiated Holy Gifts is in no way distinguishable from a particle of prosphora, even unconsecrated, a drop of Honest and Life-Giving Blood from a drop of wine with water, a smear of holy chrism from a smear of aromatic oil of the same composition, Epiphany water from simple water, a word of frankness from confession, etc. In general, a sacrament in itself is in no way distinguishable from the same non-sacrament. Thus, a straight line segment from which an infinite set of densely located points, for example, all rational points, has been removed is in no way distinguishable from a segment with points not removed, although it differs significantly from it. And if we nevertheless distinguish them, then not in ourselves, but only in the process of their divergence, in the activity that establishes their difference. [Cantor's theorem on the removal of points from space – an everywhere dense countable group; I have extended the theorem - in the space of π dimensions, formations in the strict sense continuous with dimensions 1, 2, 3 are possible... p-2, the ability to maneuver a lot.] 336 A sacrament is distinguishable from the corresponding non-sacrament only in that the sacrament prepares, surrounds, reveals. This is a ritual or a set of rituals. “Sacraments and rites” has become a stereotypical phrase; but it seems that in this stereotype there is no definite, stable meaning attached to it. “Sacraments and rites” means, firstly, sacraments, secondly, rites; the first in order are the sacraments, the second are rites. It is affirmed, as self-reliable, that someone once made a division of the area of ​​cult according to its specific gravity and, accordingly, its division into sacraments and rituals. But what rituals are is not essentially explained. In a ritual they usually see a cult action of lesser significance than a sacrament, of lesser, that is to say, strength and importance, something secondary, second-rate. It is sometimes pointed out that the sacrament gives grace that saves into eternal life, and the ritual serves only as help in earthly things. It is also indicated that the sacraments were established by Christ himself, and the rituals were invented by people. But with all such reasoning, you involuntarily ask yourself: if so, then why, along with the sacraments, also rituals, why then this cluttering of church life. However, such a judgment would be just as wrong as the above answers to the question about the nature of the ritual. Both these and this do not take into account the relationship of rituals and sacraments with each other, with their metaphysical coherence. Ordinary discussions about rituals are likened as if someone, when asked about the structure of the human body, answered that a person has a head and a torso, and there is a difference between them: the head is more important than the torso, but at the same time would not show their connection with each other. Obviously, if in church life there are both rituals and sacraments, then, consequently, they must be correlated with each other internally, and not just by how we evaluate them, and, therefore, in the understanding of rituals we must proceed precisely from their subordination to the sacraments. In a certain sense, it is correct to say that the current combination of “sacraments and rituals” is a figure of ένδιαδυοϊν 337, meaning CULT in its concrete integrity. In religious reality, in life itself, there is neither one nor the other, but there is life itself (=cult): there is no sacrament without ritual, nor ritual without sacrament. Both can be talked about only in abstraction, but when making an abstraction, one must not forget about its abstraction. In Old Russian, the word OBRAD meant “row”, “agreement”; so: “to establish a ritual” meant to conclude an agreement (Sreznevsky <I. I.), - Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language, T. 2, St. Petersburg, 1902, column. 556); ritual meant the same thing as PORAD - routine, agreement, congress for negotiations; agreement, condition; work for hire (id., column 1225). So, a ritual is a routine, an agreement, a condition - if you like, a rule. What? Obviously the sacraments. Rituals are the conditions or method of performing the sacraments. "How?" sacraments, while sacraments are “what?” rituals The word “rite” contains the preposition about-, i.e. around, cf. go around, go around, go around. A ritual is a series around, around something. What's all around? - There are mysteries all around. They administer the sacraments. The latter are the focus of church life, but in themselves they would be indistinguishable from the environment in which they are located, and therefore should be about them, that is, have around them layers, shells - rituals that prepare oneself for the awareness of them. Rituals are a series of liturgical actions, the meaning and purpose of which is not in them themselves, but in the sacraments they serve, dress, and dress. These are conditions necessary for the perception of the sacraments, but not necessary in themselves - fingers pointing to the sacraments. Rows of such fingers, their successions, - without which we cannot approach the sacraments and apart from which we are not able to perceive the sacrament, but which, in themselves, do not yet make a cult - would not be done without the sacrament indicated by them. 3. Let us explain with a comparison from the mathematical field. A series of points accumulating, as they say, near a certain limit, gives us the opportunity to recognize this limit, invisible to us, but the series itself is not this limit and may not be important to us. However, without it there is no limit. Thus, Dedekind’s “section” 338 defines an irrational number - there is a ritual of this number, for it is dressed up, but does not include it, the number does not belong to the section. But without the cut we would not know irrationality. The sacrament can be compared with irrationality, and its ritual can be compared with a section corresponding to this irrationality. The sacrament is given to the consciousness through its rite, but the rite is important precisely as existing for the sake of preparing our consciousness to perceive the sacrament, but not in itself. Consequently, in church life, rite and sacrament are inseparable from each other: a sacrament without a rite would not reach consciousness, a rite without a sacrament would not be anchored in the realm of the unconditional, it would be a wingless rush upward and a vain dream of firm support in the ether. 4. We say: a sacrament without ritual would be unconscious; this implies the exclusion of the case when the sacrament does not reveal itself by signs - for such a sacrament is no longer a sacrament, but a miracle, violating the rules of life and therefore subject to evaluation precisely as a miraculous event, and not as a norm of church building. The norm is that the sacrament, invisible in itself in its mental essentiality, should be indicated by its rite, bringing our consciousness closely to it and then - leaving us before the feat of faith or the sin of unbelief - on ourselves: for in a sacrament, as such, one can only believe or not believe, but it cannot be proven or disproved - except for the above-mentioned miraculous cases, which, to be honest, prove only the most a miracle, a miraculous phenomenon, but not a sacrament at all; a sacrament is only witnessed, noted as an object of faith, but there may still be no faith. Consequently, in the structure of the rite we must seek an answer to the question of what, in fact, in the rite leads us to the sacrament. In other words, we have come to the phenomenology of the cult, to the “how” of its implementation, and in this “how” we must seek an understanding of the metaphysical questions posed above. Let's approach the same idea somewhat differently. Sacrament - connects the above and below, earthly and heavenly, transcendental and immanent. To be such, it must necessarily have an earthly moment in itself; and since only it is visible sensually, then sensually the sacrament is indistinguishable from other phenomena and things of the world. Μυστήριοι, mysterious things, do not have an external sign on themselves and therefore, although distinguished metaphysically, however, remain united empirically. But a cult is a metaphysical-empirical phenomenon, and therefore in its very empirical composition there must be something that not only metaphysically, but also in our perception separates it from the world, makes it “exceeding the mundane fusion” 340. In other words, a sacrament must not only be transcendental, but also appear as such: a sacrament - a thing in itself - must in its phenomena - rituals - reveal itself precisely as a thing in itself. At the same time, the sacrament must appear to the public consciousness in this way irresistibly (for the consciousness of the sacrament is a condition for the very existence of society); for personal consciousness such awareness of the sacrament should only be possible; i.e. the rite of the sacrament should only predispose the individual consciousness to believe in the transcendence of the sacrament, but not force it, for then the feat of faith is excluded - and the sacraments will be understood not as “invisible things” 341, but as a variety of things visible and placed among other visible things. The required manifestation of the sacraments is achieved by repeating the first stage from which the sacrament begins - the beginning of separation, the principle of isolation. Isolation is repeated so many times that our thought and our entire inner being assimilates this process of isolation and itself - in itself - continues it, continues it in itself: extrapolates, mathematically speaking, moves from η to n+1, from w+1 to n+2, etc., until this continuation is interrupted by an act of faith in the transcendence of the sacrament. The ritual is a stimulus of faith, sufficient, but not necessary. Or again: a certain number of terms of isolation must be given: a 1, i 2, a 3, ... a n > where η is so great that the one receiving the sacrament with it has already understood the law of formation of this series, its meaning, understood how a n + 2, d n + 3 ... etc. should have been formed and that the series is infinite; This series “converges”, defining a certain limit; but the transition to the very limit is possible only by faith. The limit of a series of separations from the world is the transcendent. But the limit, generally speaking, may or may not belong to the series of its approaches: empirically there is absolutely no difference between one and the other case, but mystically these cases are different by the very nature of their existence: the first series is completed, closed, as they say, the second is incomplete, not closed. And if, epistemologically, the transcendent is determined to consciousness as the limit of a series of definitions, then, psychologically, it is given as a system, as a series of isolations, generally varying in the number of isolations, depending on at what time, to whom, with what degree of sensitivity, and what kind of transcendental and under what conditions is given. Of course, the higher the contemplator of the sacrament himself, the less isolation there can be; The more firmly he has grown into the world, the more of them there must be. In a desert, less insulation is required than in a village, and in a village - less than in a provincial city, and in a provincial city - less than in the capital. A sick person needs them less than a healthy person, and a dying person needs them less than a sick person. In danger less than in prosperity. A hermit is less than a worldly man, a saint is less than a sinner. But the principle remains the same: the repetition of isolations, as a scheme immanent to the earth of what is transcendental to the earth. 5. Thus, the sacrament in its rite receives a shell-like, layered structure, made like Easter eggs nested one within the other: then that last one, which is inside all of them, being, let’s say, the 30th or 40th and practically inaccessible, lying beyond the reach of the believing consciousness, turns out to be a scheme of the absolutely inaccessible, but embodied in the accessible. The whole point is to stop at the proper number n in time, because if η is too large, then too great a difficulty in reaching the end a° creates in the soul a feeling of an indefinitely long series of these members, and therefore the sacrament will recede in our consciousness into infinite distances and, therefore, will be recognized as non-embodied; if η is too small, then the scheme, too light, will not give us the impression of an infinite perspective, a sense of distance, like an overtone of a n, and then the sacrament will be too accessible, familiar, and seem simply immanent. N should be determined by the general consciousness - the conciliar mind of the Church and, so defined, meets normal human needs - normal vision, an eye, so to speak, not short-sighted and not far-sighted, but in individual cases, at different times and among different peoples it can change somewhat: the changeability of the ritual does not indicate at all its conventionality, unimportance or randomness, but to necessity - namely the need to adapt it to local, temporary and personal conditions - a necessity carried out not at all out of laziness, arbitrariness or opinion, but in accordance with needs. That is why the size of this n, serving as a diagram of the transcendental condition of the existence of society, is defended by the conciliar reason of the Church, as the beginning of life, and an attempt on the ritual, on changing it at a given time and in a given country is necessary and naturally considered as a shock to the FOUNDATIONS, the deepest roots of society 342. 6. But it’s time to explain what exactly I mean by the shell-like, layered structure of the ritual. The question, in fact, is whether we are talking about its spatial composition or its temporal one, is it concentricity, stratification, intra-conclusion and sub-position, or rhythm, pulsation, after-following? Outwardly, approaching the cult positively, we, of course, must answer: both. In the church - the spatial aspect of the cult - the principle of isolation is repeatedly maintained, and what makes an aesthetic phenomenon is here raised to a degree by repetition itself. The carpet laid out for the clergyman during the reading of the Holy Gospel in Polyeleos, during prayers and memorial services and other liturgical activities, the carpet in front of the Holy Altar, episcopal eagles, the episcopal cathedra, etc. are not signs of honor and not conditions of comfort, but insulators, seclusion from the environment and, therefore, have nothing in common with carpets laid out by an overly servile clergy to the patron, eminent pilgrims, or occasionally to sick parishioners. The priest, as a hierurg, is withdrawn from the sphere of the people and is isolated. Underfoot, the carpet insulates from the floor; Around the entire body, a vestment - a chasuble, the same as the frame of an icon - isolates from others, and the vestment can be of different degrees of isolation. In other cases, this π ρ is also combined with an iconostasis and a curtain. Thus, removed from the world, the priest becomes “transcendent to the people” - “in the world and not of the world” 343, and in the transcendence itself many steps and degrees are possible. But, having been ascended, he, visible from below, is seen not as himself, but as a meta-height of his ascension, as a banner of the higher regions - that is, he is transformed: he is now not so-and-so, our acquaintance, who has left us, but a representative, bearer and implementer of other forces and other regions. Isolation, visible empirically on a plane, should mystically be regarded as ascension, advancement, ascent along other coordinates of reality: this is ascension. Likewise, the pilgrim receiving the sacrament, perceiving the sacred energy, is also temporarily withdrawn: - the so-called “pillow”, i.e. a piece of satin, laid out during a wedding, entry into the pulpit and onto the carpet during communion, onto the carpet during confession, etc. - these are rites of mystical separation of the pilgrim from his environment. Laying a carpet on honorable persons is not only an expression of preference, that is, injustice, which is not a problem, but also, moreover, a distortion of the meaning of the Christian rite. This, in the church, is the same “admiration of the ungifted” 344 as if a priest stood in a high place or laid out an eaglet for himself, which a bishop not only can, but should do - that is, he acquired for himself the highest degree of his isolation and thereby exceeded the degree of transcendence granted to him. These isolations of the hierurg are the essence of the ascension of his grief, some kind of spiritual soaring of him. But each one contains only to the extent of what is allotted to him, and each one flies only to the sphere he has assimilated. An attempt to penetrate a certain circle beyond him introduces his air so rarefied, into an environment so fiery and refined, that he will suffocate there and, with scorched wings, be cast down into the pleasures of the earth and into the depths of the sea. Like Icarus, he will fall into the abyss of chaos and spiritual formlessness. This would not have happened to famous parishioners! 7. We started with particulars. But it’s easy to generalize it now. The beginning of solitude is maintained everywhere in the church. The church, separated from the vestibule, the pulpit, the iconostasis - all this introduces division, isolation, isolation: these are gateways. The throne, on it there are two vestments - the lower one, the saccharine, the shirt and the upper one, indium, on top there is also a covering, as if a head covering, on it there is a special cloth, the oriton, on the iliton there is an antimension, on the antimension there is a paten and a cup - and on it and in it there are only the Holy Gifts. These are rows of barriers between the above and the below, with which the above is indicated and therefore revealed: every garment is also an insulator - it hides as much as it reveals - it wraps up in order to reveal it, clothes in order to expose. Any clothing is a phenomenon, a phenomenon, because it is the hidden in its energies and manifestations. By isolating distance, the sacrament approaches: approaching it, we experience the ever-increasing pathos of distance, the fear of God, which testifies to us more vividly of our lowness, the higher we ascend, the more immutably elevating our creatureliness to us, the more divine our place. The sequence of entry and ascent gives us some adaptation - not to be burned by terrible secrets. Thus, we even stand at the altar and even ourselves perform sacred rites and acts of God, but due to the gradual ascent we are not overwhelmed by horror. But if you were immediately transported to this height, it would probably be impossible to withstand it. The high potential of grace in the church is little felt, due to its gradual increase. But it is worth not being at the service for several weeks and immediately entering the church during the service, especially the altar, especially during the liturgy, so that the spiritual atmosphere of the church seems red-hot. But the shelliness and layering of the cult is much wider than has been indicated so far. A Christian state, isolated from another state by its border, is the first isolation. Then comes the isolation of places of residence - cities, villages, hamlets, i.e. parishes or several parishes: they are secluded from a relatively indifferent religious environment - forests, fields, swamps, etc. - nature in general. In a city or village, sacred land is isolated - a church and cemetery site, through the sacred (I emphasize) fence of the church and cemetery: περίβολος. As sacred, it can be symbolic, not representing a physical barrier: thus a cemetery is inviolable, although it was often fenced only by sacred plantings of trees and a moat. Within the site, the church is isolated from it, as relatively indifferent, by its walls. In the church - from the vestibule - the church itself, ναός, then, as said, the pulpit and soleya - the place of the church hierurgy proper. Next - the iconostasis and the altar - the place of the altar hierarchy. Next - the throne, etc. So - in space. But so does time. A sacred era is distinguished in history by its epoch, i.e., the beginning of counting time. If space is divided by a series of partitions that separate one part from another, then time is divided by a series of temporary formations that rhythmically separate one part of sacred time from another, more sacred one. A number of prohibitive measures have been adopted in order to separate the most sacred times from the sacred, and the sacred from the worldly, and the worldly from the sinful. In essence, the entire service, considered in time, is a system of such temporal layers. 8. Just as in space the church is composed of a series of steps successively approaching the most sacred center, the Holy Blood, and in principle there is a tower, a stepped tower, similar to the Babylonian one - or, for example, the tower of the Kazan station under construction - so the service in the church by successive elevations in time, a series of increases, leads to the communion of the Holy Body and the Holy Blood. Blagovest - blagovest and ringing are considered in liturgics precisely as parts of the divine service, actions are not utilitarian-worldly, but liturgical, therefore, in response to the blagovest it is required to cross yourself, and in the old days, in addition, to greet it with the words: “The Archangel’s voice cries out to Thee, O Pure Virgin: Rejoice, Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee” 345 - blagovest, which, according to the charter, occupies until the hour time, which is observed in the villages, then the Trisagion, Cherubim, Our Father - these are the insulators, stratifying the church service over time into more and more transcendental times. Everyday moods, everyday, earthly thoughts, aspirations and feelings at the sound of the gospel (εύαγγέλιον), - i.e. good news about the coming of the sacred and heavenly time, they stop their current. Inner life is directed in a different direction, along a different channel; it is still everyday, but is already directed towards moving away from the realm of everyday life. With reverent thoughts, reverent feelings, and with a will directed toward grief, we enter the church. And our good disposition to accept spiritual content into ourselves is satisfied. We hear the words of saints about holy words; we see images and symbols revealed by saints, of holy events. This is the first page. The Trisagion takes us to the mountainous region. Angelic singing, speaking about the Most Holy and the Strong and the Eternal - the holy words of mental powers - are no longer earthly words, but heavenly ones. The holiness of God is his transcendence to the world, otherworldliness, otherworldliness. God is because he is holy, because he is transcendental, because he is not the world and not from the world, by this he is the Mighty, by this he is the Immortal. And God is both Mighty and Immortal as holy, as supreme and supermundane. These words are sung to the deceased - for he is no longer in the world, for he has become the fault of the region. But we, too, in order to hear holy words, unearthly words, must die to the world. “Holy God...” is sung to us, as those who have died and are still dying in Christ. And so, when they died, we hear heavenly stories - mysterious words that are themselves the essence of events - the Apostle and the Gospel. This is no longer a human word, but the word of God, the word of God, a new being, a new step in being. These are first holy words about eternal words, about words from Eternity, about the words of the Word Himself (Apostle), and then - (the Gospel) and the very words of the Word, life-giving and spiritualizing. Then we ascend to a new level of transcendence to the world. The Cherubim leads us through all the heavenly spheres to the throne of God, to the cherubim themselves, these mysterious lives and springs of lives on which the Lord, the King of life, sits. And we, carried away by an invisible current, a current, a subtle breeze, a subtle cold 346 blowing from the feet to the head, a subtle whirlwind spiraling from bottom to top, separate from the earth, and soar, and no longer stand on the earth, but soar. We are with the cherubs, we, mysteriously depicting the cherubs, taking their image, transforming into cherubs. Then the events of Divine Life take place in the heavenly space, and a terrible Sacrifice is accomplished, and the Divine Blood is poured out, and the Divine Body is broken, and the Spirit - pacified Joy - the Comforting Oil and the Softening of our rigidity, descends - and forms our being, forms our body “with fingers as light as a dream” 347, with their gentle touches, and we rush on the clouds of heaven into heaven to meet the Heavenly Bridegroom - we meet Our Lord on the clouds, delighted, and stand before the Terrible and Life-Giving Body and Blood of the Lord. Then the Most Heavenly Lord - incomprehensible - on earth, invisible visible - reveals himself as the Father. The veil of heaven has been torn - and we see Eternity face to face: Our Father - the last transition - the word of the Word - we dare to speak as our own, from ourselves, calling the Father father - with mortal lips. And then, at the last stage of transcendence, we partake of the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Word Himself, the One and Consubstantial with the Father - the Source of Mind and Life. 9 . As in space, the system of insulation resembles a system of sluices that gradually raises the water level, and without too much force. If the final difference in levels was not crushed by a series of sluices, but was carried out immediately, then no insulating partition would withstand the water pressure. So it is in the sacrament. The soul cannot endure too great a leap in the direction of the mysterious environment unless it begins to move towards it gradually: mystical isolation serves as these gateways. But in the small, the same as in the great, and in the greatest, again, the same as in the great. The service is rhythmically divided into a number of steps. But the service itself as a whole is itself a step. With the initial exclamation of every service, and the liturgy in particular, the priest tears the fabric of time, and in this rupture sacred time is exposed, the image of Eternity - the noumenal basis of time. “Bless, Master” 348 or “Bless, Father” is a call to dissect time - the call of the earth awaiting what is above: “Bless, Master” - the beginning of the service, i.e. “tear apart time”, “tear apart the continuity of its fabric” And it breaks: time is torn, the connection of time disintegrates 349, and the Kingdom of the Most Holy Trinity begins, like a certain age historical, but holding history within itself. The divine age begins. 10. This in the strict sense is a holiday, for a holiday means unoccupied, empty, free, empty, empty - a holiday, that is, a time not occupied by everyday things, a time that has died for the everlasting, a special time - idle from the worldly, transcendental, holy. And the week begins (not the week), which in church language means Sunday, i.e., the time of not doing: “six days you shall do... on the seventh day, Saturday, to the Lord your God” 350. This service is a pause of great silence, just as in the service itself the greatest is marked by unseeing, unhearing, silence - like the great entrance of the presanctified liturgy - like the empty and dark Holy of Holies. A church is a non-doing from a utilitarian point of view, a holiday is a non-doing. But by this non-doing and non-doing, the affairs of the entire week and the entire universe are maintained. 11. Holidays, breaking the monotonous flow of time, give a sense of duration and allow you to realize and measure time with your inner sense. For us, there is time because there are holidays. Time is constructed by the calendar, the rhythm of the holidays. And by the way, the modern equation of holiday services, the equation of all of them according to one template, the weakening of the individuality of the holidays, leads to the fact that the holidays themselves lose the sharpness of the break of everyday time, lose their novelty, their salt - making time. Erasing, they turn, or rather tend to turn into a monotonous and colorless series, not representing bright and noticeable points. A holiday is a pause in the everyday flow of life. But what exactly is a holiday? that is, whether there should not be a holiday of a smaller size than is usually supposed. Time must be rhythmically dissected in order to be recognized as time. Then only time can be considered as a single thing, then only it is embraced by one act of attention, as one whole, as a cycle, as completeness, as a church year, when it is formed by dismemberment, decomposing it and, conversely, combining it. Otherwise, consciousness, without being delayed by time-dividing patterns, will itself flow away along with time, and will not give itself an account of its movement. Time limits must be set, καιροί 351, as limits, boundaries, boundaries and milestones. But these time-dividing terms would not be such, that is, I want to say, would not fulfill their purpose of being support points for consciousness, if they were only terms of time as a homogeneous medium - only parts of fluid nature. We would then not have the opportunity to pay attention to them, for they would not stand out in any way from the fluid nature surrounding them. When we want to be recognized in space, then in its extended nature it is necessary to make some division and establish fixed limits, boundaries, boundaries and milestones. But these divisions would be useless if they, as such, did not have special properties and characteristics that distinguish these divisions from the environment of all extension, that is, if these limits did not have a qualitative originality. Only the qualitative distinction of the boundaries dividing space makes it possible to recognize them as such, and therefore to recognize the space itself and be recognized in it. It is similar in time: the deadlines set in time must be qualitatively unique, each in its own way, must be individualized. Otherwise, if there is not this qualitative separation of each period from the entire temporal environment and, therefore, further, if there is not a qualitative separation of each period from the multitude of all others, they will be confused with each other and with all time and therefore, having become conditional, will begin, so to speak, to slide through time, dangle in it and, therefore, will not provide support for thought for the awareness of time. Each term, in order to adequately carry out its function, must necessarily be one of a kind, extremely unique, in the proper sense an individual term. But the most unique, in the precise meaning of the word individual, is a person, and only a person. To be individually isolated, a term, each term, must be associated with a person, must be confined to a person, must be filled by a person characterizing him. Yes, only a person can qualitatively separate a period from time and make it stand out, not merging with all the others. Only the face, filling one or another part of the time with its energies, releases it on time, and then it receives its certain quality. What is the content of this activity of the person allocating the corresponding period? What is stable in time, that is, not current over time, is above-temporal. The terms that divide time must themselves not flow away with time, they must remain in its flow, although standing in time. They must be phenomena of eternity in time, lights in the time of the super-temporal. In order to exist for consciousness, time must be permeated by a higher-temporal principle, covered by the net of eternity, allowing us to stay in the flow of time and therefore, without floating away with it, not to cease to notice its flow. By holding on to the designated supertemporal periods in time, we ourselves become involved in supertemporal existence. But this requires that the person who defines the supertemporal term in time, who himself is actively rising above the flow of time, has already discovered eternity in himself. The creation of time belongs to this person. And for this, for time-creative activity, it must testify to eternity from direct experience, it must be a living witness to eternity, accessible to it, μάρτυς. It must speak of eternity and proclaim eternity to us. But why would we believe his testimony? Why will his words be convincing? Because we will see on it a reflection of eternity, because its very face has changed from touching eternity, because it is not only a witness, but also a living testimony of eternity. In the world - and not from the world 352, transcendent to the world, cut off from the world and shining in the world, such a witness-testimony gives us a premonition of eternity in our own experience. He is a saint. Time periods are sanctified through their connection with holy persons, and the appearances of saints give firm support to consciousness in the flowing nature of time. The totality of such supports, tightly welded and internally fastened, is the memory of saints, or months. It is to the Word of the Month that we owe the fact that we have time, this truly “moving image of eternity” 353. VII. Sanctification of reality 1918. V.31. Ascension of the Lord. Night 1. A sacrament is determined by consciousness through its framing, through its ritual: invisible, it is outlined through ritual, indicated by ritual. The index fingers direct attention in the direction where the mystery is found as an invisible intersection of these directions or also as a radiant from which streams of meteors, guests from heavenly spaces, emanate. The sacrament is higher than its rite, located on a different hierarchical plane. And therefore, being above the rite, the sacrament can be defined as that which is not a rite, as a non-rite. But rite is a part of earthly reality, its structure elevating the spirit to the contemplation of the sacrament: rite is Jacob’s ladder, along which human understanding ascends and descends from the earthly to the above and from the above to the below: it is along it that the mind scurries between heaven and earth. A rite is an organized area of ​​the world, with its organization directing our spirit to the feat of faith in the sacrament corresponding to this rite - the ascending plane of take-off during heavenly soaring. A non-rite, a sacrament, is thereby a non-world, separated from the world, isolated, removed from the world, strange to the world, transcendental to the world. In short, the sacrament is holy. In our everyday use, this word has long worn out its corners, with which it was pressed into the flesh of the world, it has long been weathered. Isn’t it identified in the minds of the majority with the concept of moral heights? Hasn’t its use in a different sense become conventional in the understanding of our modern times, adding nothing to the content of those words to which it is added as a decorative epithet? And yet, the original meaning of the word “holy” is least of all, or last of all, moral perfection, but, on the contrary, ontological perfection, the superiority of being, the height of the hierarchical plane. When we talk about the holy font, about the holy world, about the Holy Gifts, about holy repentance, about holy marriage, about holy oil (that’s what the consecration of oil is called: the sacrament of holy oil), etc., etc. and, finally, about the priesthood, which word already includes the root of the holy, then we first of all understand the non-worldly nature of all these sacraments; they are in the world, but not from the world: they act on the world and can be assimilated by the world, but their existence is not in the world, not worldly, not dissolving, not spreading in the world, not identifying with the world. And this is precisely the first, negative side of the concept of holiness. And therefore, when, following the sacraments, we call many other things holy, we mean precisely the specialness, the cut off from the world, from the everyday, from the everyday, from the ordinary - that which we call holy. When we say: a holy church, then first of all it means that this building is not an ordinary house, that it is not appropriate to live in it; when we say: holy cup, we mean by this a cup that stands outside the entire row of cups and cannot be used in everyday life; holy cup means, first of all, not a cup. By holy icons we do not mean just images and not ordinary people, not for ordinary use, for example, not for decorating rooms; icons are not paintings. Here I cannot resist recalling the reasoning of one of our aesthetes in the explanatory introduction to the catalog of the exhibition of ancient icons. “In former times,” he argues approximately, “they thought that icons were intended for worship and that one should pray to them; Now we’ve cleared it up, and it turns out it’s just painting.” So, this is precisely what does not “turn out,” and whatever the quality of the painting that serves as the aesthetic material of the icon, this latter is precisely the holy icon, and never, even if not only the drying oil and paints, but even the gesso are scraped off from it, will it turn out to be “just painting.” Holy robes, we continue with a series of examples, are not clothes for permanent use, for worldly use: in short, they are not a dress. The Holy See is not a table for lunch or for work, etc., etc. d. Just as when in the Bible the people of Israel, the Sabbath, the church, the priesthood, the year of jubilee, etc. are called holy, this marks their chosenness, their solitude, their exclusion, their cutoff from everything else of the same kind. The Israeli people are holy - as isolated from other peoples, as removed from ethnography, as having to be different from other peoples; and whenever Israel wanted to fall from this hierarchical plan of hers and become a people among other nations, she was scorched by God's jealousy about her exclusivity; in the narrative of the Book of Kings about the anointing of the first king 354 the emphasis is placed not on the sinfulness of the principle of royal power as such, but on the desire of Israel, having left its immediate theocracy, to be “like other nations”; in this “like other nations” was the sin of Israel’s descent from a higher, supra-historical plane to a comparative-historical plane, although still holy in. comparison with various other planes of government, to which Israel was later given. In the same way, the Saturday is holy, because it is set apart from the sequence of the week, according to the commandment: “six days you shall do... all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath to the Lord your God” 355; yes, to God, that is, not at all like the other six days, these six days do not dare to flow in or even leak the slightest trickle of their worldly cares into a day that is cut off from the other six, which, although flowing in time, is, however, not ordinary time. The priesthood is holy because it is placed outside of confusion with the rest of the people of Israel. And, examining other cases of the use of the word saint in the Bible, we will notice that it always contains in the first place an indication of the existence of a phenomenon of a certain kind with all its kind, of the removal of something from the area similar to it. A saint is first and foremost a “not.” This “not” in the concept of holiness corresponds to the very production of the Hebrew word Kadosh – shrine. Bare root kdsh bring together (Hofmann, – Schriftbew . I, 82 Sf.) 356 with the root hdsh, so that both are attributed the meaning of “other being - Anderssein”: the first - in contrast to what is usual, the second - in contrast to what was. Therefore, when God in the Old Testament is called Holy, this means that we are talking about His pre-mundaneity and His supra-mundaneity, about His transcendence to the world, which is why Philo, in his philosophical transcription of the biblical revelation, directly translates the idea of ​​God’s holiness into the philosophical concept of transcendence. And in the New Testament, when many times in his epistles the Apostle Paul calls the Christians of his day saints - δγιοι, this means in his mouth, first of all, the separation of Christians from all humanity; Christians are the New Israel, spiritual Israel, the very essence of the Israeli people. They are holy because they are chosen: holy roughly corresponds to our concept of sanctified, or, to put it more specifically, consecrated. The word saints, άγιοι, was also called in the ancient world those initiated into the mysteries, for these initiates were thought of as isolated and special, forever above worldly torments and sorrows. And Christianity itself, on the other hand, was understood, of course, as a kind of mysteries, as a kind of mystery of mysteries, or, in other words, as an absolute mystery, before which all other mysteries are only a shadow and likeness. This is the general use of the word άγιος. And one more example, among many others, will be useful to give here. According to the ancient rite of royal anointing, after performing this sacrament of the Tsar, as a special being, removed from the environment of society, super-national, super-legal and mystically unapproachable, the Patriarch exclaimed: ““Αγιος!” (holy) 357. According to the same Simeon of Thessalonica about the Tsar, “he... is counted among the sanctified persons in the Church” 358. This isolation of the Tsar from among the people, his “holiness” was noted on the image of the Tsars with a halo, a halo around their heads: this happened in Byzantium 359, and it also happened with us; for example, this is the painting of the upper vault near the entrance to the porch of the Transfiguration Cathedral of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery, representing the family tree of the Russian Grand Dukes and Tsars of the Rurik House: “all sovereigns are depicted at full height in a small size, with halos around their heads” 360. Also depicted, with a radiant environment around their crowns, are Tsars Michael and Alexei on the icon on the right pillar inside the cathedral of the Novospassky Moscow Monastery 361, in the Archangel and Annunciation Cathedrals 362 and on the porch of the Novospassky Church; as Snegirev notes, “they are presented in all the glory of the earth and in the glory of heaven, combining the royal crown with the crown of the belly” 363; but the royal crown is not at all just “earthly beauty”, being an instrument and symbol of the sacred removal of the Tsar from the people, and itself should be considered as a kind of materialized halo. After all, the circle and the sphere symbolically signify the specialness of the spiritual space of the being that is contained in them, and the incomparability of this self-contained area with the surrounding extension: the symbol of the circle and the sphere isolates and concentrates the forces that isolate and isolate this area from the worldly elements. This is what holiness is. 2. But the pure negation of the world, necessary in defining the sacrament, is not yet sufficient - for, being a pure negation of the world, and only such, the sacrament would turn out to be simply nothing. If we said earlier that the sacrament should be thought of as the limit of a certain series, as the limit of a ritual, then it was noted that the limit itself can be thought of either as an ontological reality, or as just a way of mentally unifying a series, as a unique structure, as a law of constructing a ritual, as an abstraction, as an ens rationis 364. Consequently, in e ρ and in the ontological reality of the sacrament corresponds in the cult to what in the field of abstract thinking is called the postulate of existence. A special act of faith, not deducible from any psychological conditions, is the act of leaving one’s subjectivity and moving into the transsubjective, an act of faith that testifies to us about the very existence of the sacrament. The sacrament is here and there, and down and down. It is immanent-transcendent. As such, it also requires an act of subjective-transsubjective, consciousness - taking place, but beyond the limits of consciousness extended: this is faith, vouchsafed in the existence of the sacrament, “exposing invisible things” 365. 1918.VI.1. Serg Π os. Morning 3. Being an object of faith, a sacrament is an invisible thing. “Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma” - sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace, - according to St. Augustine (L. 2 de doctr. ch. P. 1) 366. “Sacramentum est sacrae rei (i.e., grace) signum” - a sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing (i.e., sacred, grace), he says in another place (L. 10 de civit. Dei. P. 2) 367. But this invisible shrine, in order to be, must be something, something: being “not” in relation to the worldly, it must be something in itself, in its realm of the spiritual. The sacred is allocated, but allocated for the sake of other, new definitions; Thus, holy time is a holiday, that is, idle time, or, in other words, free from everyday worries, a pause in everyday life. But this break in life, this pause, freed from the noise of the world, is not emptiness in any sense of the word: it is occupied with its own content, a different, supramundane sound sounds in it. And about every holy thing we should repeat accordingly the same thing that was said about the holiday: everything holy is a holiday of everyday life. Otherwise, the sacred would simply be nothing, a logical negation of the world, i.e. the same world, but with a sign of negation, or ours, only ours, nothing more than a subjective meaning, a gesture from the world; - would be the powerless fluttering of wings remaining in the same place. Undoubtedly, in the concept of holiness, after its negative side, a positive side is thought of - the reality of another world revealed in the saint. Our modern thought is inclined to equate this reality with moral strength, meaning by holiness the fullness of moral perfection. This is Kant’s bypass of the cult from the rear, so to speak, for morality is conceived as a force of this same, lower world, and, moreover, subjective; If one were to listen trustingly to Kant’s whispers, one would have to admit that in the sacrament there is no breakthrough into other being, that the sacrament only regulates “phenomenal” life - in Kant’s terminology, however very unsuccessful, while remaining immanent to it, and that, therefore, consciousness, even in the presence of the sacred, is still enclosed in itself and has no support outside itself. But the powerless attacks on the concept of holiness on the part of the “philosopher of Protestantism” are in vain. The very usage of words testifies against such attempts: when it is said about holy clothes, about holy utensils, about holy water, about holy oil, about a holy church, etc., etc., then it is clear that here we are talking about not ethical perfection, but ontological one, and, therefore, if in these cases the positive side of holiness is ontological superiority over the world, ontological stay outside of this, then therefore, in general, the connection point of this concept of holiness is not in ethics, but in ontology. This says that those cases of the use of the words “holy”, “sanctity”, “shrine”, which, taken separately, could be interpreted in two ways, in relation to the above, can no longer be interpreted in two ways, but should be interpreted only by one - ontological; holy prayers, holy words, holy chants - can no longer be understood as lofty in their ethical content, but - as having a different reality, remaining on the plane of existence than ordinary words and ordinary chants. Attempts at such a reinterpretation of the concept of holiness are attempts to replace the “songs of heaven” with “boring songs of the earth” 368; but it is clear that the word “holy” refers specifically to the “songs of heaven.” And if we call a person a saint, then by this we are not indicating his morality - there are corresponding words for such an indication - but to his unique powers and activities, qualitatively incomparable with those characteristic of the world, to his transcendental nature, to his presence in spheres inaccessible to ordinary understanding, to his admiration to the “third heaven” 369, to the music of the heavenly spheres that accompanies his words and his movements; The morality of such a person, without itself being part of the concept of holiness, partly serves as one of the favorable conditions for his transcendence, and partly manifests itself as a consequence of such, but the connection between these two concepts must be established with gentle and very flexible threads, because, if we are to put it bluntly, then “the law does not lie for the righteous” 370. So, therefore, if it is said about a moral act: “a holy deed,” then what is meant here is not its Kantian, immanent to the world, moral orientation, but its anti-Kantian, transcendental to the world, co-essence with non-worldly energies. Calling God Holy, and Holy par excellence, the source of all holiness and the fullness of holiness, which is expressed symbolically by three words: “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts!” 371 – together with the heavenly powers, we sing not His moral, but His Divine nature - the nature of glory, greatness, and the fullness of creative power is glorified and exalted: “Fill heaven and earth with Your glory” 372 - for the glory of God is not the restless and fluid opinions of people about Him, not ours or anyone else’s, albeit good, but subjective judgment about God, but the energies objectively inherent in Him - the ever-present Divine Light, revealing His ineffable greatness. The glory of God is the objective self of God, His living self-testimony of Himself by being and action. In the rite of consecration of the antimension, the essence of consecration is spoken of in this sense very definitely: “Send down Your Most Holy and worshiped and All-Powerful Spirit, and about this altar, fill it with the ever-present Light” 373, etc. (Bishop Official, l. 139). To consecrate the altar means, in the words of the prayer, to “fill it with the ever-present Light” - an equality that is all the more expressive because it refers not to an animate person, but to a thing, and, therefore, “the ever-present Light” cannot in any way be interpreted in a psychological or moralistic sense. So, we note that the starting point, the indisputable point in the understanding of the word “holy” is not in the holiness of a person, which in itself could be interpreted in different ways, but in the holiness of a thing - which, due to its simplicity and less flexibility, is interpreted more definitely; One can say somewhat aphoristically: it is not a thing that is holy, like a face, but a face that is holy, like a thing. 4. The same is evidenced by the etymological consideration of the Hebrew word - kadosh, shrine. The most probable etymology is considered to be one that brings the verbal root kdsh to the biliteral root ==, - from which the root == dsh (dasha) also comes - turned green, covered with greenery - and recognizes its main meaning as enituit - “shiny, put forward” (Ohler, Orenek, in Hezog's R. - Encyclop. 19, 618; Gesenius. Thesaurus linguae hebraicae, Z) 374. Consequently, this etymology establishes more definitely what exactly is the peculiarity of the holy: it is that which is above the ordinary and which in the ordinary appears, protruding from itself, as its light, its radiations, its luminous energies. “God is Light” (1 John 1:5) is the New Testament expression of God’s holiness, repeated many times in the Holy Scriptures in various combinations. But according to the mysterious, heavenly host of the trisagion hymn, God is Holy - Holy primarily and above all - and therefore “God is Light” can be replaced by: “Holy is Light.” Here is a judgment - almost analytical, because light and holy are co-root words, at least in Slavic languages. “Everything heavenly is eternal Light” (Palestinian Patericon, issue 19, p. 14 375; Acta Sanctorum, Mart, I, 870 – 822, § 12). “Faith is the conviction of invisible things 376 (revelation - έλεγχος), but “everything... that is convicted - τά δε πάντα ελεγχόμενα - appears from the Light, for everything that appears is Light” (Eph. 5:13). In other words: the invisible, the object of faith, is exposed by faith, that is, it receives appearance or, moreover, takes on form, becomes visible; and, exposed, is Light, appears as Light; Light is that which is given in the invisible object of faith to the contemplation of faith as visible: the invisibility of the object of faith is its isolation as a saint, from carnal sight, a negative moment of holiness; the sacred, comprehended by the eyes of faith, is revealed as Light: a positive moment. Combining both definitions together, we say: The Holy is invisible Light. This is the Light, which is called in liturgical books, in the lives of saints and among the holy fathers, the Great Light, unapproachable, ineffable, endless, premium, heavenly, radiant, most radiant, heavenly, eternal, blissful, strange, incomprehensible, etc., etc.; this is the Light of Tabor, the Light imperishable, divine, uncreated. This is the Light about which we can and should speak, according to the teachings of the holy ascetics, and St. Gregory Palamas in particular, that he is Divinity and God Himself - of course, God in His manifestation, God as contemplated. This is the same Light about which at five councils of almost universal significance there were fierce disputes, on the outcome of which the truth of Orthodoxy depended whether or not it existed: here there was a decisive battle between East and West, between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. And it was affirmed that truly this Light is the ontological foundation of the world and history. This is the Light that can be perceived as divine warmth, as a heavenly sound, as an indescribable fragrance, as an indescribable sweetness, as evidenced by the experience of ascetics, which is proclaimed countless times in paternal writing and liturgical books. 5. The concept of holiness has a lower pole and an upper pole and in our consciousness constantly moves between these poles, ascending upward and descending back. Taken in its inner movement, the concept of holiness can be represented as a ladder with approximately the following steps: non-existence – world – exclusion – election – purification – redemption – Light – God, and this ladder, passing from bottom to top, is thought of as the path of negation of the world, as via negationis, as όδός £νω 377, from the world to God, as milestones of apophatic theology; but it can also be considered as passing in the opposite direction, and then it will be thought of as the path of affirmation of world reality through the sanctification of this latter, as via positionis, as οδός κάτω 378, from God to the world. A cult is a shrine, and as a shrine it immediately realizes in itself both etymological word scope === – kadosh – both negative and positive significant: after all, in the cult, the things of the world ascend to the kingdom of Light, and the kingdom of Light fills the bowels of the world, soars higher, while the higher is shed - the earthly is given life by the spirit, while the heavenly is clothed with flesh. The meeting points of both are the sacraments. The sacraments are a divine-human reality, where the earthly is enlightened and receives its own content from the Heavenly Light. Sacraments are sections of everyday life removed from everyday life, excerpts from life. These clippings are no longer what they were. They became different to the world, strange. They are like visible images of the invisible reflected in the plane of life and in the world. Sun. The Platonic image of the cave, which invariably nourishes the mind, appears. But Plato speaks only of shadows contemplated by prisoners, and we could continue Plato’s myth and imagine mirrors through which prisoners in a cave contemplate, while still in the cave, the sun invisible from the cave. Not without a secret hint of a similar thought, a mirror was revered in Eleusinia, and to this day it is revered in the Far East, where, in the Land of the Rising Sun, it is directly related how the sun, having hidden itself in a cave, was lured out of there by its own image in a mirror brought to the cave entrance. The sacrament is greater and deeper than the mirror - that’s true; but the mirror image should not be belittled, for it shows us not a likeness of reality, but reality itself, in its original, albeit mediocre. 6. But a sacrament that transforms life in sections, that transforms only sections of life, would introduce a complete rupture and breakdown in our personality if it were only closed in on itself. It would not heal the “ulcers of the soul” 379, far from it, but it would ulcerate the soul, tearing off pieces of its flesh from it and making it foreign to it. The dazzling light of the sacraments would even more darken the darkness surrounding them, if, only concentrated in them, it did not pour out beyond their boundaries. Invading our life and transforming individual, quantitatively insignificant areas and moments into isolated, incomparable, immovable, absolute points, the cult would tear apart our living body and thereby bring about not a strengthening, but a disintegration of the personality: it, conditional, fluid, earthly, would have nothing to do with its places elevated to eternity, it would not find the scale to compare its fluid content with these areas of absoluteness and would have to reject either one or the other part of oneself, either enlightened or not enlightened, because both together - as opposed and therefore antagonistic - they could not live in one personality. This would be so if - if the sacrament only elevated the places of consecration into eternity and did not strengthen everything surrounding them, so that each function of the human being not only received an absolute point of support, but also, as it approached this point, itself, with all its volume, used some reflections of the sacraments, itself would have holy imprints and the bright illuminations of the sacraments. In other words, the sacrament would scorch the person if he did not have his own body around him. In the negative order, rite is necessary as a path of ascent to the shrine; and without him we would not have reached the shrine; in a positive order, through ritual we return from the shrine to life, and without ritual we could not enter life again. 7. Thus we come again to the question of ritual. On the path of the ascent of the earthly to the heavenly, the ritual was understood by us as a ladder of separations, as a gradual dying of the earthly. Now, on the path of descent of the heavenly to the earthly, it must be understood as a ladder of incarnations in the earthly - of the heavenly, as a gradual resurrection of the earthly - in the heavenly. The steps of the ritual lead from earth to heaven, but they also bring heaven down to earth. This is the enlightenment and spiritualization of the world, this is the transformation of earthly matter, the comprehension of inert flesh. These are the descending stages of culture - from the Logos, the culture-cult, in the highest and perfect sense of the word "True Light" 380, which is Christ who came in the flesh - to the sacraments, and from the sacraments - to radiances of diminishing strength. From the rites, the light of the shrine is transmitted to other rites: thus, the heavenly hierarchies transmit to each other the light of divine revelation, always true, always self-identical, but diminishing in its brightness with each successive transmission. Rituals can thus be compared to the basalt ledges of a waterfall bed, along which life-giving moisture falls in order to reach the valleys without destroying them and without eroding the land on which the fields will grow: thus, the gradualness of rituals moderates the unbearable blow of divine grace to creatures; Doesn’t John of Kronstadt say, following others who learned from experience the intolerance of the descending waves of grace, that if the contents of the Holy Chalice appeared in its own form of greatness, then the eyes of no creature would be able to withstand the unbearable brilliance 381 . The ritual adapts us to the perception of grace, and grace to our perception of it: this is its function. 8. In the sacraments, the very roots of our nature receive the highest measure of sanctification. But further, from the roots - to the branches and from the branches - to the offshoots, the activity of divine grace, divine energy is transmitted, and not only the roots of our existence, but all of it, in all its manifestations, receives new life, and therefore - a new system and a new temper: the ritual is the realized orientation on God, who has come in the flesh, of our entire life. In this sense, we can say that there are no definite boundaries of the rite: starting with the sacrament, it descends, branching and dismembering, into the life of the church, from here - into the church life, then into everyday life, into the structure of culture and further, like the thinnest hairs and tendrils, sometimes barely or completely invisible, it digs into the bowels of the earth, into cosmic life, no longer being a ritual only human, a rite limited by the limits of the human society, but capturing all creation, all being, the very elements. I repeat, there are no definite boundaries of the rite: in essence, the rite is everything, for everything that is not a rite should not exist and does not form a single fabric of cult-centric experience. In fact, we always call the border of a ritual the border of our knowledge. For example, we bow on the street, taking off our hats - what is this, a ritual or not a ritual? Probably, the majority will say that this is only a custom, that is, they will not introduce bowing within the boundaries - known to them - of the ritual. But St. John of Damascus asserts that we take off our hat before passing acquaintances and must take it off, for by this we express religious veneration of the image of God, which is in man: man is the same icon, the icon of His Lord 382. And that means bowing to someone you know on the street is no longer a “custom,” but a ritual. We are preparing food. Historically, the kitchen is the sanctuary, and the hearth is its altar. The kitchen is not only the spiritual center of the house, but also the seed from which and around which the whole house grew. The kitchen is the church of the religion of the clan, the connecting principle of generations, and it is through it that generations are sacred to each other and form a sacred unity, the clan. So it was, so it was for a long series of centuries. But the historical roots of the all-human religion have never been abolished by anyone, and cannot be abolished, for they are not anyone’s invention, they were not established through contrat social 383, but are an expression of our very nature. We did not abolish them, we did not dare to abolish them, but we were only frivolous in relation to them. We do not think about them and neglect them, thereby madly rejecting our own law that lives within us. And by encroaching on this law, we thereby renounce our own humanity, killing ourselves as people. The family hearth, we said, was the center of the home; but not only was - and is, invariably is, just as our own nature invariably is. And until now, in pious houses and monasteries, the fire of the kitchen stove is certainly lit from the lamp, and that means there is a holy fire, holy, and not simple utility; new dishes are rinsed with Epiphany water, which means there are holy dishes - utensils of this church of all-human religion; household supplies are blessed, oil is poured in a cross shape, salt is poured in a cross shape, bread is marked with a cross shape with a knife before the owner of the house begins to cut it. Everything happens around the sacred fire with prayer and the sign of the cross. Obviously, the preparation of food, as it was, is a form of worship, a lower one, perhaps, but still sacred, in its own way, statutory. Kitchen is a collection of rituals. Gross insensibility of life and great impiety to say and think: “just a kitchen,” “just a kitchen,” losing sight of its sacred depth. But this is not the case only with the kitchen: all life is permeated with ritual; it becomes vulgar, meager and boring when the ritual of life is lost. Then a bored person tries to replace this quality, this coordinate of the depth of life with an intensification of life impressions, moving only in the plane of life; but there is no internal limit and completeness in this sharpening, and the spices of life, following the spices, lead to the boundaries of what is permissible by human nature - and destroy. Every new work requires prayer about it, special consecration of its first fruits, and the allocation of a certain tithe from oneself: the first fruits of every work are offered to God. Let them often resort to a prayer service before the opening of a new institution not entirely sincerely, but perhaps even out of simple decency. But after all, something says about the existence of such decency, that is, in someone’s consciousness, which means that there is also a requirement in essence, to violate which would be an insult to decency. What do these prayer services and these prayers mean if not the sanctification of those deeds and undertakings before which the prayer services are served? What do these prayer services mean, if not the lower degrees of dedication to God of the first fruits, that is, the introduction of affairs, apparently entirely secular, into the area of ​​cult - placing them at the cult, near the cult, in the cult? Nowadays, with the general worldliness, discoloration, and impoverishment of cultural life, such prayers and prayer services are becoming colorless, more monotonous, and Protestant-style, more egalitarian in relation to the uniqueness of cultural affairs. But even modern Trebniks provide a much greater variety of rites than are usually used in modern life. The ancient breviaries were replete with unique rites, highly differentiated and specific, often associated with local conditions, sometimes therefore unique in other places and, for natural historical reasons, little known. 9 . Let us remember, for example, about the special adherence of the Church of Alexandria, which comes from ancient times, but has not spread beyond the boundaries of this Church and is applicable in the very essence of the matter only here - namely, the consecration of the waters of the Nile. It is known how much the prosperity of Egypt depends on the height of the rise of the Nile waters. “To this day, Egyptians of all religions see in the Nile the greatest benefactor of their entire country, at certain times of the year they perform various magnificent festivals to raise the waters of the great river and, in addition, like the ancient Egyptians, they personify the Nile, performing its betrothal every year, with great pomp, and turning to it with various prayers” (Papadopulo Keramevs) 384. According to the testimony of Rufinus, Sozomen and Socrates, the sacred cubit for measuring the rise of water at the summer solstice was solemnly transferred to the church in Khoistian times. At the same time, a special service was performed, and it was performed until the first quarter of the 19th century; Unfortunately, I don’t know whether it is being carried out today, but its order, in different editions, has been published and is intended to be carried out. The consecration of the Nile waters should occur after the liturgy. The most important or at least the most characteristic part of it consists in the alternate proclamation by the deacon and the people, that is, the face: “Ανω τή προνοία και τή προστάξει του Θεου Νείλε - woe by the providence and command of God, Nile! (three times) and other similar ones, interspersed with special verses of petitions. These exclamations of the deacon and the people become more frequent, then the deacon shortens them: ““Ανω Νεΐλε - woe, Nile.” And the people: ““Ανω Νείλε - woe, Nile.” The deacon: “"Ανω, ανω Νεΐλε - woe, woe, Nile", the people: ""Ανω, ανω, ανω Νεΐλε - woe, woe, woe, Nile,” and proclaims this three times. Next - entrance, blessing of water, reading of the Gospel, etc. A similar kind of ritual of a local nature for sacred bathing in the Blachernae monastery. Within the Orthodox Church, one could point out many such local rites that have survived to this day. But in ancient times there were incomparably more of them, and each locality consecrated the special conditions of its life with special rituals. But apart from extraordinary phenomena, even ordinary life in the church order is subject to sanctification in its details. Look into the Trebnik, even the modern, truncated Trebnik, and you will see that even small details of life, even private aspects of it are subject to special consecrations, that is, they are included in special rituals: all life is permeated with cult, all of it, like a network of arteries, is fed by grace, all of it, one way or another, is connected with the cult focus - the sacraments, and therefore the focus of all focus, with the center of the cult, which was already mentioned said before. Here it would be natural to begin listing all objects, phenomena, actions, functions, elements, creatures, etc., which are sanctified in the Christian cult. But I consider it inappropriate to spread the word with a dry list - everything, it seems, that can only be thought of, and the rites for the consecration of which are contained in the ancient, and partly new, Trebniks. It's more useful to look at something more specific. Everyone knows that wax is consecrated - on the so-called “candles”, i.e. on the eve of Epiphany, then on the “Twelve Gospels” on Maundy Thursday and on Easter, that fire is consecrated - on the same days and on others. But it is less known that sound can also be sanctified and infused with grace. Meanwhile, in the “Rite of the blessing of the campan, si is a bell or ringing,” it is clearly stated even about the cosmic effect of the sacred ringing. In the litany: “For the hedgehog to bless this campan to the glory of His holy name, let us pray to the Lord with His heavenly blessing... For the hedgehog to give grace to it, so that all who hear its ringing in days or nights will be awakened to the praise of Your holy name... For the hedgehog with the voice of its ringing be quenched and calmed down and stop all the green winds, storms, thunder and lightning, and all harmful winds, and evil-dissolved air... For the hedgehog to drive away all the power, treachery and slander of invisible enemies, from all my faithful, the voice of the sound of those who hear it, and to arouse me to do my commandments, let us pray to the Lord” 385. In the psalms and proverbs read at this consecration of the bell, as well as in the stichera sung here, it is recalled that all the elements, all creation praises the Creator; one is also reminded of the sacred sound of timbrels, harps and trumpets and that the voice of the Lord rules all world life. In the prayers of this blessing - the type under which the requested blessing of the bell ringing is summed up, this type is based on the miraculous blowing of trumpets that destroyed Jericho. “And now,” the priest prays, “Master Most Holy, this campan... bless and sanctify your heavenly saints with your blessing and the grace of your all-sanctifying Spirit, and pour into them the power of your grace: so that when your faithful servants hear the voice of his sound, they will be strengthened in piety and faith and courageously with all the devil’s slander They will resist, and with prayers and constant praise of You, the true God, this will win, but to the church, to prayer and praise of Your holy name, hastily, day and night, as if they are leading [i.e. e. drawn by a mysterious force, by a force poured into the sound of a bell, and not just by a ringing signal, awakened by a ringing sign]: may the attacking windy storms, hail and whirlwinds and thunderstorms and lightning, and the evil dissolution and harmfulness of the air by its voice cease.” [This, according to the Orthodox faith, is the cosmic effectiveness of ringing; and that we are talking specifically about his miraculous powers is emphasized by the following]: “For You, O Lord our God, are not exactly Your intelligent and animated creatures... but also soulless, like the rod of Moses, and the copper serpent in the desert, you do all the glorious things you want and work miracles: for all things are possible for You, but nothing is possible...” 386 And in the subsequent prayer of adoration: “Fill this campaign with Your heavenly blessing, for the voice of its ringing Having heard, the opposing air forces will retreat far from the fences of Your faithful, and all their fiery arrows, like those against us, will fade away, the cracking of lightning, the attack of hail, and all the harmful airs of evil dissolution, will be driven away and restrained by the omnipotent and strong right hand, so that they will be quenched, subside and retreat...” 387 And then the bell consecrated by prayer, holy water and incense - outside and inside 388. 10,389. All life is sanctified by the cult. But to sanctify all life evenly would mean making it all homogeneous, and thereby splitting it off from the sacraments, by which sanctified life should be a ladder of gradual ascent, that is, again fragmenting life. I see an image that has little reverence for the cult, but with its, perhaps, rudeness explains the most expressively expressed thought. This is a metro, either built in reality, or just designed for one of the world exhibitions. It consisted of several concentrically located low platforms, covering the exhibition area and constantly rotating at different speeds: the rotation of the outermost ring occurred at a very high speed, the rotation of the inner one adjacent to it was somewhat slower, and, finally, even more internal concentrations had a slower speed the closer they were to the middle. Now it’s clear: it would be impossible to immediately jump onto the fastest moving plane without danger to life; but it was quite safe to step from the stationary earth onto the slowest internal concentration, from there to move to the next one, which also had a small relative speed, and so on, until the fastest, each time during the transition receiving a relatively small increase in speed. The full increase in speed, from the immobility of the earth to the outer circle that bounds it, was thus distributed, and, therefore, it was possible, without breaking on the rapidly rushing moving “ground,” to ascend to it from the stationary ground, and then begin to walk on it, as before walking on the stationary ground, but at the same time rushing forward with great speed to the designated goal. And when this outer circle in its movement brought the traveler to the desired place in the inner area of ​​the exhibition, in the same order as when entering this circle, the traveler could safely leave it without crashing on the inert ground. Thus, the entire internal region, embraced by this circular movement, like the universe by the sky eternally revolving around it, was enlivened by it. Institutions and places of internal spectacle, separated from each other by the difficulty of transitions between them for a slowly walking and tired pedestrian, were internally connected and correlated by this circular movement covering the entire space. What could not be covered by one synthetic view became united and holistic for consciousness. And, consequently, the very life of the internal region, possible only through the unification of its individual aspects among themselves in the administrative mind of its leaders and through the communication of these sides with each other, was determined not by the simple presence of certain institutions and things of this region, but by the movement flowing around it. So - in a relatively small exhibition, where the very insignificant ability of movement of an unarmed person still has something in relation to the passive mass of the space being viewed: here the time of each individual transition is commensurate with the rhythm of internal life and with all the time necessary to view the entire exhibition, and therefore the ring road somewhat changes the nature of the internal area in its relation to the observer, but probably does not introduce anything completely new and unexpected. But, as the passivity of this area of ​​contemplation grows, the activity of the contemplator remains the same, the synthesis of what is contemplated, that is, the temporal-spatial unity of the contemplated spectacle, becomes increasingly difficult, and the contemplator is increasingly oppressed by the consciousness of his powerlessness before this mass awaiting his work. Finally, there comes such a correlation between his strength and the significance of the weight lying in front of him, in which his activity turns out to be suddenly, discontinuously, abruptly - it turns out to be no longer small, not weak, but pure zero, powerlessness in the full sense of the word. A moment comes when the observer of this inner region, moving only on his own feet, is certainly not able to embrace the region as a whole, and, if he must control it, is decisively unable to permeate it with his will. Then the individual sides of this area lie heavy, like dead things, alien to each other, impenetrable to each other. Then one cannot even say that they are in space and time: since there is no unity, then there is no form of unity - space, time; there are things here, but there is no reality. And if the magnitude of this passivity of things is brought to the limit, then there will be complete fragmentation, complete fragmentation of this unknowable and unrecognizable region, dark, not illuminated by a single ray, absolutely inaccessible to control. This will truly be being, no different from non-being, pure possibility, matter in the Platonic-Aristotelian sense; like τό μή ov, just not non-existence. However, as soon as the opportunity is given to move quickly around this non-existent being, the possibility passes into reality, the dark area is enlightened by consciousness and knowledge of it and becomes the area of ​​control and creativity. This accelerated movement of the sphere, ever rotating around it, enveloping it, unites it into a temporal-spatial unity, that is, it turns out to be its form in the Aristotelian sense, its appearance, or idea. Heaven, which always goes around the world, is the engine of all the life of the world, is the soul of the world. And it is with this soul of the world that the sacraments are compared here. They unite all manifestations of life and direct them - according to the Gospel: “observations 390 >, they provide a point of connection to the impeccably correct direction in life’s actions. But there must be another approach to them, to these trailers. The circle of sacraments, covering the area of ​​all life and leading it to a coherent unity, to integrity, which gives the form of life, must be connected with life in successive steps, or otherwise it will remain on its own, again outside life, just like life outside this spiritual form of its own. For the observer of the 391st exhibition, it is practically indifferent whether there is a roundabout road or not at all, since only one cannot enter this road except by destroying his body, and in both cases he would equally remain powerless and insignificant; Only ascent along successively accelerating paths introduces the traveler to increased vital forces, without separating him from life itself. “In the world and not of the world” 392, he is in the world and above the world when he is given the steps of ascension. And the sacrament would not be saving in life when the recipient of it was broken by its unconditional ontology - unconditional, but in no way correlated with everyday life. A sacrament constructed in this way would be a whirlwind, tearing one out of life, delighting, but not saving lives. And then in life there would be only those who are immersed in the mire of everyday worries and in whose inert darkness a ray of heavenly light has never flickered. Those who approached the “consuming fire” of the 393 sacrament would not exist at all: the sacrament would be their death. “No one can see the face of God and not die” 394. Having resolved earthly ties, we will be face to face with another world; this is a sacrament in its original sense - a sacrament - a mystery, the mystery of death. However, the task of the cult is not to show us the sacrament by incinerating our frailty, but to save this frailty, to introduce it to the heavenly world, which would enlighten, guide, and sanctify it. The Eucharist is called “the communion of the Holy Mysteries - κοινωνία <άγίων μυστηρίων).” This name is most often applied to the “sacrament of sacraments,” for this latter is the root of the communion of the heavenly from the side of life. But such a name, of course, is quite appropriate to apply to any of the sacraments, examples of which are repeatedly found in church literature. After all, each sacrament introduces life to divine secrets, which is the other world of the ever-present divine light. Thus, it is the sacrament that brings about our salvation, the salvation of us living in the world, with the concrete fullness of our vitality, and for this purpose the sacrament is articulated with life, although it does not cease to be supramundane. The task of the cult can only be fulfilled by a hierarchical organization of life - so that all life is sanctified, but so that in its very sanctification there are its own steps, its own layers, its own concentrations, its own degrees of transformation of the earthly - the heavenly. From now on, everything must ascend to the heavenly, but in different ways, to different levels; not everyone ascends to Tabor equally. And accordingly, to meet the one who ascends below, for the sake of his salvation, what is above must descend, but also in different ways. The degrees of ascent of the first correspond to the degrees of descent of the second; and the higher the ascent of the earthly, the lower the descent of the heavenly, the closer they are to each other, the closer their connection, the more interpenetrated they are, the more complete the transformation of life, the transformation of the world, the transformation of matter. The task of the philosophy of cult would be to deduce these degrees from the very idea of ​​cult as an organization of our salvation. But such considerations require the most subtle metaphysical analyzes and the most careful study of patristic and scholastic terminology, and perhaps the creation of new terms. Without going into these subtleties, let us explain with just a few examples exactly how these ladders of consecration are put together. We will not pretend to be complete in the list of steps. But, one can hope, a non-exhaustive enumeration of some of the most important phenomena, so metaphysical, will provide an opportunity to delve deeper into the structure of the cult. 11. Let's start with the most common substance, water. Already in its natural state, as a gift from God, water was filled with spiritual significance. The feeling of water, a cold spring, which we encountered while wandering under the hot sun, is, of course, something deeper than physiological self-interest. Or when swimming: water here is perceived not only as useful or as pleasant. In both of these cases, as in many others, bodily need serves to sharpen our impressionability, and then we see and understand the significance of water in itself, 395 and not just because we need it. Even more than that: we realize that we need it not because we want it, but because water is reality and value and, as such, is objectively needed, including by us. The conditions of our life - drinking, washing, a necessary part of many types of food, a means of transportation, a means of cooling and refreshment, the moisture of life 396 - water is recognized as living, feeling and responsive, “sister water” 397, and in it, as its soul, special angels live and act, assigned to it and watching over it. There is a vile word “personification” 398: with this word the intellectual consciousness distorts and replaces the living reality of water, felt by peoples at all times, and by our people, until the “reasonable, good, eternal” 399 has not yet been sown into them. And this feeling of water as living is not only affirmed, but also brought into understanding by the Church. Let's take 400, at random, the service to St. Alexander Nevsky. In it, the water element lives its own life, taking part in the events taking place. The entire service is permeated with an appeal to Lake Ladoga and the Neva as beings capable of rejoicing with holy people and grieving with them, beings who feel the importance of historical destinies, capable of being excited by them and promoting their flow in a certain direction. he is also amused by the river’s aspirations”) 401. Or again, let us remember the prokeimenon of the day of Epiphany. “See the sea and run, Jordan return back” 402. The sea ran and the Jordan sent its jets back - from the sacred fear of the event of the Baptism of the Lord, they trembled with the same excitement that prompted the Apostle Peter to exclaim: “Depart from me, Lord... I am a sinful man” 403. This Epiphany prokeme talks about the sea and the Jordan precisely as animate beings, capable of seeing, fearing, trembling, capable of changing their usual behavior, thereby marking extraordinary incursions into nature by spiritual forces. Ancient iconography very clearly demonstrates this understanding of nature. In this case, for example, i.e. on the icon of the Baptism of the Lord, Jordan is depicted as an old man with an urn, and the sea is also in human form, both fleeing 404 from the unbearable majesty of the Lord standing in the water. And this was done not once or twice, not at the whim of the artist, not according to the individual understanding of anyone, but according to the collective reason of the Church: this is the iconographic canon. Christian angelology speaks of the angels of the elements, including the water angel, and of the angels of even individual sources as spiritual forces assigned to the corresponding elements and natural phenomena. Apoc. 14, 18. Interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea: “...we learn that some of the angelic forces placed over creatures control the waters, others control fire, others control any other part of creation” 405. “The third angel poured out his cup into the rivers and springs of water, and it became blood. And I heard the Angel of the waters, who said: You are righteous, Lord...” 16, 4 – 5. Interpretation of Andrew of Caesarea: “And from here it is clear that over the elements, as mentioned above, Angels are placed, one of whom, ruling the waters, praises God for bringing a worthy punishment on criminals...” 406. They are assigned to guard natural phenomena. But the symbolic worldview does not allow for simply external presence in a phenomenon without some correspondence of this phenomenon to the spiritual force that guides it. Here there must certainly be some internal connection between both, so that there is a hierarchical dependence between both, so that spiritual power can truly be manifested by its manifestation and so that this latter is really at least partly a phenomenon, in the sense of universal philosophy, and not in the Kantian sense. And if the Angel of Water watches over the water element, this means that he himself is not alien to some wateriness, in the spiritual sense. The usual intellectual talk in such cases about the animation of nature as “personifications” 407, as poetic personifications, is empty. In essence, perhaps, it would not be worth objecting particularly to the word personification: since this word only marks the very fact from the history of literature, this word is not yet completely unacceptable. Folk poetry, the poetry of antiquity, used such personifications not at all as embellishments or seasonings of style, but quite simply and efficiently said exactly what it wanted to say. Just as in the mouth of a botanist gender terms in relation to plants are not an embellishment - although, who knows, maybe someday there will be an intellectual who will see only metaphors in this - so for the ancient poet the life of the elements was not a phenomenon of stylistics, but a businesslike expression of the essence. In modern poetry, these personifications are based on rudimentary feelings that live in the semi-conscious depths of the spirit, not yet corrupted by an abstract worldview; in moments of the poet’s inspiration, these deep layers of spiritual life break through the crust of the alien worldview of our time, and in intelligible language the poet tells us about a life that is incomprehensible to us with all the creatures of our own soul. So does a true poet. Of course, along with this, rhetoric is also possible, as a mechanical borrowing of someone else’s speech patterns that have earned recognition. But we evaluate such rhetoric as soulless falsity: theft is possible only because there is property, counterfeiting is from the original, compilation is from the original. And we distinguish between both. The very ability of this distinction is a reaction to the life still living in each of us, the readers, with all of nature; If Goethe is a poet for us, then here is direct proof of our knowledge that he wrote the truth. By erecting a monument to Goethe, humanity thereby throws off the pedestal the abstract worldview of modern times. It’s time, finally, to understand that praise for Tyutchev is not a non-binding word, but, when said sincerely, it implies innumerable world-class consequences. And it is said, at least in the overwhelming majority of cases, from the heart, and, therefore, in the soul everyone affirms the emptiness and falsity of current stories and theories of literature, when by personification they mean a perversion of the true order of world existence, a dreamy and therefore vain substitution of reality for fiction. In church literature, everything is filled with “personifications” of nature; to speak of them as poetic personifications, or, to put it more bluntly, as rhetoric and, therefore, untruth, would be a complete misunderstanding of the believing soul. Where, where, and in religion, a person seeks the truth, the final, extremely solid, not at all embellished truth. He is looking here for support for himself, for himself specifically, and everything that decorates, without being the actual thing, is here not only unacceptable, but also hateful. Here there can only be “she-she, neither-nor,” ontological “she” and “neither,” and everything beyond that is from the evil one 408 . When the soul yearns for the Truth and thirsts for it, like a deer of water springs, 409 then religious creativity arises; and if something else is created, then the less inspired it is, the more timidly it adheres to the forms and expressions of another, inspired one, and, therefore, outwardly it completely resembles it. So, both there and here there can be no untruthful speech. In the Church there may be a lot of mysterious, incomprehensible, enigmatic things, but there is not and cannot be anything empty - empty decorations, elegance that does not correspond to any reality. Now let's return to the prokeimna and the iconography of the Epiphany. In this case, perhaps, the details of the view of the Jordan, or the sea, or the angels of the waters are the work of an icon painter, but even then they correspond to something genuine, somehow depicting it, but in no way the very existence of what is depicted, which would have been invented by a church poet or icon painter. The composition and order of speeches - of certain elements - may be a poetic conjecture, if we assume that this or that verbal work is written according to a template - not the inspired penetration of the thing being sung. But in no way - not the very essence of the matter, the thought about the life of the elements, about their participation in history, about their responsiveness to events from the spiritual world. Before the most important action of the great Blessing of Water, the priest prays: “And by the elements, and by men, and by angels, visible and invisible, Thy most holy Name is glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit” 410. So: if the glorification of the most holy Name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the elements can be interpreted in this case as a poetic metaphor, then where is the basis for a different interpretation of the same action, the glorification of the Name, both on the part of people and angels? After all, they are placed on the same line with the elements. And if we reject the glorification of the Name, then what is the meaning of the entire consecration of water, which is performed - “yes,” - that is, so that “the Most Holy Name is glorified by the elements, and by people, and by angels.” The freedom in denial is apparently negligible; but by allowing this small loop to unravel, we inevitably unravel the entire fabric. But, of course, here, as in many other prayers, of course, there is nothing more than a literally taken glorification of the Name of God by the elements; in other words, consciousness and animation are recognized and affirmed in the elements; the elements are recognized and affirmed to participate in the life of the entire Church, or, to put it another way, this indicates the boundaries of the Church not at all where school theology is inclined to see them. Only those who have a secret cult-obsession in their hearts, who do not dare to fully reveal themselves, have the taste to deny this - a secret non-recognition that the spiritual can be in the natural, that the natural is not outside the spiritual, but in it, its subordinate moment, its instrument, the environment of its phenomena and therefore the very manifestation of the spiritual. But then this Kantian position, this hostility to the idea of ​​incarnation must be consistently maintained and every religiously concrete possibility must be consistently rejected. In other words, then it is necessary to reject all religion, turning it into a subjective excitement about the earthly and near-earthly, as such, that is, to make of religion a purely subjective, and therefore false and harmful, as not corresponding to reality, taste of life, recognized precisely as my subjective taste. This is the real consequence and limit to which the intelligentsia's worldview strives 411; it is difficult not to be surprised how this is not recognized to this day, even in the circles of the church intelligentsia. 12. But we have moved away from our 412 direct task. All that was said needed to be reminded that water, already created by God, as participating in cultural life, is thereby, albeit distantly, a participant in the cult. Water is sacred as such, although in the church understanding it is not naturalism, not the natural, existing in itself, in itself, outside and apart from the grace-filled energies of God, the existing sacredness of water; no, it is sacred because of the participation of water along with everything that “was” 413, that is, Christ, the mystery of God’s construction, aimed at the salvation of the world. All cosmic water is no longer thought of as existing in itself, but, according to the understanding of the Church, is included in the first concentration of the cult, in the economy of God. In Christian life, this “natural” of it, that is, without deliberate 414 actions on our part, sanctification is increased by the signs of the cross performed over it - over a tub, over drinking water, over water for food, keeping it in consecrated vessels, drinking it from consecrated dishes, etc. In the Christian well 415 there is no ordinary water: already the “digging of the well” is sanctified by a special rite. “Give us water in this place, sweet and tasty, enough for consumption, but harmless for acceptance,” 416 the priest prays, and the first begins to dig a well. Over the new fossilized well, a special prayer is again made: “To the Creator of the waters and the Creator of all... You yourself sanctify this water: eat your holy power against every resistance force, and give to everyone who receives from it, for drinking or for the sake of washing, health of soul and body, for the change of every passion and every ailment: for let there be healing water and peace, to everyone who touches it and accepts it...” 417 Water of healing and peace! How little does this resemble the intelligentsia’s utilitarian use of water, and how clearly does it introduce it, “simple” well water, into the realm of cult. Even such an apparently worldly thing as ordinary well water is, let it be repeated once again, an object of worship and, moreover, a miraculous object. The next level of sacredness should include the waters of special, “holy” springs that appeared through the prayers of holy ascetics or from the wells they dug and created. The source drawn from the rock by Moses flowed, of course, not ordinary water 418, but special water, and it was not without reason that patristic writing from ancient times interpreted it typologically; The water in the source of the Samaritan, dug by the forefather Jacob and still sanctified by the Savior’s conversation with him, 419 was not simple, and even became forever an image in which the highest spiritual truths were embodied. And not simple water, according to the belief of Christians from ancient times to this day, in the Jordan River, consecrated by the divine body of the Savior 420. It is not simple water in the miraculous wells of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra 421 and in the miraculous spring of St. Seraphim 422 and others like them: it is marked by miracles. This is once and for all consecrated water; it is always water, carrying spiritual energies with it, healing, strengthening and sanctifying. People with increased sensitivity, demoniacs, cliques, sensitives are able to distinguish such water and other similar consecrated substances from ordinary ones, which is confirmed by the experience of centuries and in modern times by special studies, both in the West [ ] 423 and here, for example, the doctor Krainsky 424, with oil from the chapel of St. Panteleimon and others like that. Next, you should put the water, which is sanctified in the strict sense for special rituals to be performed over it; such, for example, is the water released from the prosphora seal; As a mysteriously healing, it is well known in rural life. Behind it comes the already established church in the Trebnik - water, lowered from the proskomedia copy by the priest when pronouncing a special, deliberately prescribed prayer. <“I crucify myself to You, Christ, the power is destroyed, the power of the enemy is quickly trampled: below is an angel, below is a man, but You, Lord, saved us, glory to You. Glory: Thou hast redeemed us from the legal oath with Thy honest blood: nailed to the Cross and pierced by a spear, Thou hast extinguished immortality as a man, Our Savior, glory to Thee. And now, the Mother of God: Let us dig into the ribs, O my Christ, Thy awakening, created from the rib of man, Thou hast freed the destruction of all man from the former guilty oaths") 425. Next comes the water of small water blessing, or small agiasma, τό μικρόν άγιασμα, according to Greek terminology, i.e. water blessed by touching the honorable cross, during the rite of the water blessing prayer: “By the communion of sowing water and sprinkling Thy blessing was sent down to us, washing away the filth of passions,” the priest prays, and further asks: “Here, we pray, visit our, O Blessed One, weakness and heal our mental and physical ailments with Thy mercy,” that is, he asks for healing - along with the consecration of water, and further: “And grant us to be filled with Thy consecration of this water by communion: and may it be unto us, Lord, health of soul and body" 426. The small blessing of water is similar to the great one, that is, performed on eternity and on the very day of Epiphany - similar, but there is a weakening and reduction of this latter. The Great Hagiasma 427 is consecrated, in addition to the threefold immersion of the honorable cross into it, by the sign of the cross, a blessing performed in it, within it, and by stronger and more complex prayers and chants. “Thou Thyself, Lover of Mankind, come now by the influx of Thy Holy Spirit, and sanctify this water. And give her the grace of deliverance, the blessing of the Jordan: create with her a source of incorruption, a gift of sanctification, a resolution of sins, healing of ailments, destructive of demons, unapproachable to resisting forces, filled with angelic strength...” - after all, it is said about water that it is asked to be filled with angelic strength, and if it is asked for, then it means with faith that the acquisition of such mysterious power by water is possible and there will be. How far we are from the water of positivism, with its poor, only physical properties, and even then, upon closer analysis, turning out to be subjectively illusory. But we continue the prayer: “... I am filled with angelic strength, so that everyone who draws and receives communion may have it for the purification of souls and bodies, for the healing of passions, for the sanctification of houses, and for all good benefits... You yourself and now, Master, sanctify this water with Your Holy Spirit. Grant to all who touch it, and who partake of it, and who are anointed with it, sanctification, health, cleansing and blessing” 429 - such strong and responsibly authoritative words pray the hierurg. And before this, the deacon makes approximately the same petitions: “For the sanctification of these waters by the power and action and influx of the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord. About the hedgehog descending on these waters to the cleansing action of the Insubstantial Trinity... About the hedgehog being granted to them the grace of deliverance, the blessing of the Jordan, by the power and action and influx of the Holy Spirit... About the hedgehog sending down to the Lord God the blessing of the Jordan and sanctifying these waters... About the hedgehog being given to this water, the gift of sanctification, the deliverance of sins, for the healing of soul and body, and for all considerable benefit... About the existence of this jumping water [leading] to eternal life... About this hedgehog appearing to drive away all slander from visible and invisible enemies... About those who draw and receive m for the sanctification of houses... About this hedgehog being for the cleansing of souls and bodies, to all who draw with faith and partake of it... About the hedgehog we are granted to be filled with the sanctification of these waters by communion, the invisible manifestation of the Holy Spirit, to the Lord Let's pray" 430. These are the prayers at the consecration of the great hagiasma. Grace - the energy of God here, as can be seen from the above expressions, has a very great degree of embodiment. Turning to our previous words, let's say: God's energy here descends deeply into the nature of water, or, more precisely, in the nature of water, and this latter rises high into the sky, is embedded high in the azure firmament, or else, in the angelic fortress; in other words, water and the energy of God closely grow together, mutually permeated. And the degree of interpenetration is so great that, according to the faith of the Church, from ancient times, testified by St. John Chrysostom, Epiphany water receives, even on the physical plane, a special property - not to bloom with mold, not to rot 431. This property can no longer be reinterpreted as “healing faith,” although the latter, ultimately relying on the body to which it gives healing, should not at all be interpreted as something closed and subjective; but in this case of the Epiphany water, the action of grace is recognized by the Church as clearly and directly related to the substance, that is, it is recognized as indisputably objective. In this recognition, of enormous metaphysical importance, the authority of Chrysostom has especially great weight as an extremely balanced church leader, sober almost to the point of prosaicism, and in any case not a “mystic”, as this word is understood in the community. But this authority grows to the degree of conciliar consciousness of the Church when we see that Chrysostom’s words about the Epiphany water are included as a note, one of the few notes, in the service of Epiphany contained in the Menaion. This, therefore, is a factual statement, carried out through the test of the conciliar experience of the Church for at least twenty centuries. But for the dualistic theology of our time, such authority, of course, is nothing, as long as the matter is about essentially overcoming dualism, about recognizing God as a true power capable of “defeating the rules of nature” 432. It is not worth mentioning those, if I may say so, gods bob, who, without hesitation, make outright castles in the air, powerless and illusory mirages of life, out of the Spirit and His life. But, behold, a zealous defender of the truth of Orthodoxy, proclaimed by another zealous defender to be a “teacher of the Church” 433, declares that he does not recognize “periodic miracles”, such as the incorruptibility of the water of Epiphany, for in every objectively manifested action of grace he sees magic and the “Cushite principle”. Without going into a discussion and condemnation of Khomyakov, let us only ask ourselves: does this denial of him really not express the basic character of the religious thought of modern times and the extraordinary confusion of concepts that dominate it? After all, the testimony of Chrysostom, the Menaion and the general belief of the Church, a belief that has the deepest antiquity, is denied by the testimony of Chrysostom, the Menaion, and, moreover, denied not on the basis of any new experience, but only on abstract considerations of his personal concept, is the same Khomyakov, for whom it is so easy to solve the most enormous dogmatic issues, with one stroke of his 434 pen accusing all those who deviate from the teachings of the Greek-Eastern Orthodox Church of pride and in the absence of brotherly love 435 . And yet, what a deep understanding of the fundamental error of his thoughts about the world was given to him by God twice - and he did not understand anything from it and did not take anything out of the double vision of a dark impenetrable curtain that separated him, in his fervent impulse of prayer, from the region of light, so that the powerless prayer fell, contrary to God's omnipotence, to the ground and remained only one subjective impulse. Khomyakov’s thought, like the thought of modern times in general, is a fundamental affirmation of this black impenetrable curtain separating all creation from God’s omnipotence. But Khomyakov did not see anything from this amazing vision other than the banal thought of his sinfulness, and did not correct himself precisely where correction from him was required by the Church and was so strikingly indicated by the visions 436. The general idea of ​​school theology is not corrected either. Meanwhile, in addition to the indicated properties of the Epiphany water, if we return to the discussion of this particular issue, we have heard observations from many believers that the Epiphany water, especially now after consecration, has a peculiar taste - some special incomparable freshness, some pleasant pungency and sourness. I personally also had to make this observation more than once, and if it was necessary at all costs to find some kind of at least approximate comparison, then, perhaps, it would be most accurate to liken this taste to the taste of ozonated or oxygenated water. Agiasma, especially the great one, is felt, yes, it is felt, by the lips, the palate, the tongue, the throat, the whole body, like living water, full of vital strength, life-giving, according to the strong word of the rite - like water “jumping into eternal life,” and ordinary water, even the very water that served as the substance for consecration, is felt somehow stagnant, dead, polluted. And the Savior’s conversation with the Samaritan woman about living water - what direct and literal meaning it receives, what density in its first layer, which then serves as a support for further meanings! Many people know this special, spiritual-physical sensation from the great hagiasma, and it comes from experience. But since I have not yet come across written evidence about it, I have to limit myself to the note about the holy Epiphany water, which is made in the January Menaion after the rite of the great blessing of water: “About this heavenly water, this verbal gusset, the golden-speaking ecumenical teacher, John, Patriarch of Constantinograd, in his word, “About the coming of a Christian into the holy Church of God and about Baptism”... testifies, saying: But why is it not the day on which [the Savior] was born, but on the day on which he was baptized? This is the day on which one is baptized and on which one’s nature is sanctified. For this reason, at midnight on this holiday, everyone, having drawn water, takes it to their houses and observes it, and preserves it completely through the summer. From now on the day of the consecrated waters and the sign is clear, the waters thereof do not corrupt the nature for a long time; but for a whole summer there are two and three many summers, today the drawn water remains whole and new and in the amount of time now equal to the earthly waters from the sources” 437. This is the evidence. It is clear that, according to the belief of the Church, in agiasma we have not simple water of spiritual significance, but a new being, spiritual-physical being, the interconnectedness of heaven and earth, grace and matter, and, moreover, a very close one. That is why the great agiasma, according to the canons of the Church, is considered as a kind of lower degree of holy communion: in those cases when, due to sins committed, a penance and a ban on approaching the Holy Body and Blood are imposed on a member of the Church, the usual clause is made to the canons: “Let him drink the agiasma exactly” 438 - i.e., agiasma serves as the closest replacement for the Holy Mysteries, however, at its core, the great blessing of water is almost a sacrament and is adjacent to the baptismal rite, representing the same degree of weakening of this latter as the small blessing of water is in relation to it itself. Water is sanctified in Baptism by blowing on it three times - crosswise, - by blessing it three times - crosswise - with the hand in the water itself, and by anointing it three times with the cross, like the person being baptized, with consecrated oil: every sacred action is performed by the cross, as Simeon of Thessaloniki notes 439. In ancient times, a ritual was also added here: the consecration of water with holy fire - with a candle extinguished in water, as a sign of baptism with water and fire 440. The litanies and prayers read at this blessing of water are similar to the litanies and prayers of the blessing of water at Epiphany, but some more are added here; in them, baptismal water is called the “bath of rebirth” - λουτρόν παλιγγενεσίας, i.e., the washing of new life, and the “clothing of incorruptibility” - ένδυμα αφθαρσίας 441, that is, the actual new incorruptible body born of the Spirit, clothing the former body, giving it life and, as it were, tightening it, making it formed and elastic. “We pray to You, Lord, that all airy and unmanifest ghosts may depart from us: and may not this dark demon hide in the water, may the evil spirit descend with those who are baptized, bringing darkness of thoughts and rebellion to thoughts: but You, Lord of all, show this water, the water of deliverance, the water of sanctification, the purification of the flesh and spirit, the loosening of bonds, the remission of sins, enlightenment of souls, bath of rebirth, renewal of the spirit, sonship of gifts, robe of incorruptibility, source of life” 442. These and other similar expressions are full of deep and piercing meaning, not that sluggish and dull meaning with which they are perceived in everyday word usage and their everyday perception, but with fiery energy. It is not for nothing that the cultural-historical body, adopted by the Church to embody the new spirit, was the same universal symbolism that, according to Herodotus, 443 all the magicians 444 of Asia, and, more precisely, not only Asia, but also all other cultures, worked hard on for five thousand years. So, this water of baptism is filled with mysterious power - power, and therefore meaning. She is the grave of the old man, the place of his incorruption and the place of conception and formation of a new spiritual organism. “We,” testifies Patriarch Gregory Mamma, who ruled the Church of Constantinople from 1445 to 1450, “we immerse them (i.e., baptized infants) in the font, which is an absolutely necessary and wonderful thing, since the font represents false motherhood and through this means rebirth” 445. Famous ascetics, teachers of the Jesus Prayer, monks Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulo in the 446th century, and with them many others, again call the baptismal font “divine vaults” 447. There is only one way to understand cult, and therefore culture, - to grasp the literalness of these and similar expressions, to recognize their massiveness, their ontological weight; and the path to this is through overcoming the concentration and conciseness of ancient speech, alien to our modern verbosity, where nothing was said at random, every word, even every sound was most subtly verified by what Nietzsche called “the conscience of the ears” 448. But the dishonesty of our ears can be pierced, if at all possible, only by quantity. And in order for what was said about baptismal water to be noticed, it is necessary to increase the mass of similar evidence. Many holy fathers and church writers taught that baptismal water is not ordinary water. Thus, Clement of Alexandria calls it verbal immersion - λογικό ν βάπτισμα, - rational water - λογικό ν υδωρ 449. Tertullian says that water was chosen as an instrument of the Spirit because even at creation it was awarded the privilege of being the successor of His actions, that now through prayer its ancient sanctification is renewed, and it, filled with the Holy Spirit, absorbs into itself the power to sanctify souls. At the font of Baptism, as at the font of Siloam, there is an Angel 450. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus taught that between water and the Holy Spirit there is a mysterious union 451 similar to that which exists between the two natures in the Person of Jesus Christ, as a result of which water has a supernatural power to purify the soul and make it impregnable to demons 452 . Gregory of Nyssa clearly denied that water after consecration remains simple water, arguing that something similar to what happens to bread and wine in the Eucharist 453 happens to it. In this water the sacred word is mysteriously united with the substance, St. Augustine taught: “Take away the word, what then will this water be if not water? The word is added - and it becomes a sacrament" 454. This is the highest sanctification of water. In the ladder of ascent, we omitted something else - the consecration of water with wine at the proskomedia, the consecration of the warmth added to the Honest Blood, the consecration of the warmth of the drink, as uncharacteristic. But there are still some sanctifications to be noted. Let us note that in the rites of the blessing of water - great, and small, and baptismal - sanctification consists of two different actions: from purifying water from impurity, sinfulness, filth and dark forces and from blessing it, i.e. imparting spiritual energies to it. These two actions, negative consecration and positive consecration, are linked together in the rite of baptism, mutually reinforcing and strengthening each other; but this does not prevent them from being logically different and therefore in the rite of baptism, that is, the lower stages of the consecration of water, from breaking up into two independent actions, although in each of them, of course, there is another. Hitherto we have been talking about positive consecrations and it was through them that the ascent to the highest steps of the entire ladder was accomplished. Now we can also note negative consecrations, i.e. the purification of water. The lowest stage of purification, established in everyday life, is ritual, although it is not prescribed in writing by the church charter 455. More powerful ritual cleansings can be used according to the Trebnik. This is, for example, “The order that happens, if something bad happens, that someone likes to fall into a well of water” 456. On the other hand, the rite of baptism is accompanied by preliminary cleansing of the person being baptized - “Prayer for the Catechumen” 457 with forbidden prayers. These prayers, as you know, do not enjoy sufficient recognition among us, as something “backward” and “outdated.” Without entering into many conversations, here it is possible to suggest only then not to be baptized, for what remains of the doctrine of original sin - of the sinful ossia, and, consequently, of baptism and I, if Christian demonology is rejected? In the Protestant world, where this process of weathering the ontological arrays of faith occurs not only in fact, but is also established in principle, the denial of baptism has, of course, gone further than with us. Not without reason and not without inner truth, one of the Protestant pastors openly began to use the formula at baptism: “I baptize you in the name of goodness and progress” 458 . Let him who denies original sin and the power of the devil, instead of baptism, be washed in the name of goodness and progress 459. But it doesn’t hurt those who are still hesitant to remember one piece of information - a small certificate that will explain that either one must simply reject the entire cult as a whole, or accept it closely, but one must not approach it with a condescending half-smile, in the Renan way or [... like a scientist] 460, in the Harnak way. I repeat, here we mean the prohibition of the devil. This is what we read from one of the greatest authorities of liturgics - Blessed Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who died in 1430: “The priest is obliged to perform sacred prayers and say them with attention, without haste, unless absolutely necessary, and to read aloud. We heard from the fathers that those who are often frightened by ghosts suffer this because the priests who baptized them did not carefully pronounce spells (άφορκισμούς - prohibition) and other sacred prayers. So, if it is convenient, then you need to read the spells and other prayers at the beginning (the Rite of Baptism) not just once, but several times. For in the Trebnik [meaning, obviously, some ancient Trebnik] it is written to read them eight or ten times, since in ancient times it was the custom in the Church for the catechumen priests to read them over those being baptized on each of the seven days, and on the eighth day again for the bishop, or the priest who was to baptize, after which the baptism was performed by the bishop or priest. And we also know reverent priests who read these (prayers) three times and then baptize” [Conversation on holy rites and church sacraments, ch. 29. “Writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church relating to the interpretation of Orthodox worship,” vol. 2, p. 50] 461. So, it is required several times a week every day - according to ancient practice - to read spells over the catechumen, anointing him, again according to ancient practice, from head to toe with consecrated oil. In our country, embarrassed and swallowing words, under the mocking gaze of those gathered, but not praying, although waiting for refreshments, the priest is forced to somehow conduct the first part of the baptism, the necessity of which he himself is not very sure. Is it surprising if Dostoevsky’s prophetic word about us in “Demons” turns out to be not metaphorical, but literally true: demon possession (- not in the abusive sense, again, but in the literal sense of the word -) is a characteristic phenomenon of our time, and who knows whether we, especially we, and especially in the present time, should take a closer look at the reference of Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica to the experience of those whom he honored with the name of the fathers. Take a closer look at people, and you will notice many phenomena related to obvious obsession 462. To these same negative consecrations, united around baptism, one should include some purifying rites, although in them it is not water or water pools that are purified, but certain places; Let's say a few words about these rites, for the sake of rounding out the concept of purification. These include, first of all, “Prayers for the deliverance of the ailing person from the overwhelm and violence of unclean spirits” and “Prayers of exorcism by Basil the Great, Gregory the Wonderworker, John Chrysostom, Hieromartyr Cyprian - terrible and powerful words - not at all funny, but full of mysterious power. This also includes “Prayer service against sorcery and enchantment (i.e. bewitchment) of people and animals, houses and places haunted by evil dreams”, “Prayer service during the destructive pestilence of cattle, which is either God’s allowance for sin for our sakes or multiple evil tricks of the devil through wicked people, sorcery occurs” 463 and others similar to this cleansing rituals. Only a small part of them is published in the newest, already intelligent Trebniks, but they were part of the indispensable composition of the more ancient Trebniks. This also includes prayers against desecration and other similar ones, as well as the meaning of sprinkling homes and other premises with holy water. All of these are, as it were, elements of baptism, applied separately and little similar to each other, but in baptism united into one rite, forming a sacrament. 13. But, without dwelling further on the rituals surrounding baptism, let us move on to the sacrament of confirmation, so that here too we can quickly run through some of the steps of the ladder leading to this sacrament. And here the lowest degree of sanctification should be recognized for natural odors, some of which are pure, others, on the contrary, unclean. Everyone knows that there are odors that are refreshing and chaste, just as there are odors that are contrary, that there are spiritual fragrances, while others lie down. And this is not only in the sense of one or another effect they have on the human body, and sometimes even not at all in view of such an effect; no, fragrances, they themselves, have one or another characteristic. This is well known, and therefore it is self-evident that one or another use of odorous substances, in accordance with this characteristic of them. It is natural to burn incense in the church and anoint icons with rose oil; in the same way, the use of wax, but, of course, real, amber-yellow, honey-scented wax for candles and fragrant oil for lamps, is meant to be natural and appropriate. To put it bluntly, burning tobacco, anointing icons with sweet peas or patchouli, and burning kerosene in a lamp would seem just as inappropriate and internally impossible. In tobacco there is, beyond all reasoning, something directly unclean, and the smoke of a cigarette defiles - in exactly the same way as uncleanness, however, not “in the same way,” but much deeper, more essential. Why? – There is no need to stir up this complex, even physiologically complex, subject: but a sensitive person cannot help but feel that this is so. Tobacco is damn incense, by popular definition; “With the damn incense, can you really remember God,” I heard from one peasant who, by the way, himself smoked. This says it all: damn incense, that is, mystically, something as unclean as myrrh is pure, or other resins, especially as pure spikenard, that is, the boiled, but not yet completely consecrated composition of holy myrrh. One could talk a lot about the mystical effect of tobacco dope, which cuts off from reality, as if annealing the mystical roots of existence and locks us into pure subjectivity: it is not for nothing that the “Critique of Pure Reason” was written, as we know, on cigars 464 . Tobacco damages and, as it were, burns away what is invisible in its secrecy in our spirit, but the most important thing is the mystical connection of being; he separates, he makes a monad that has no windows or doors for communication with external reality, he cuts the very roots through which we feed from the depths of existence. Outwardly and superficially, nothing special happens, in contrast to wine, which acts more crudely physiologically, more superficially and therefore unseemly. What is characteristic here is the very difference in the effects of tobacco and wine on the intellect: while wine, at least in certain stages of its action, makes the intellect heavier and thereby humbles it, tobacco, on the contrary, seems to sharpen thought, but this is achieved by artificially simplifying problems, taken out of their vital complexity, and by excluding everything real and irrational, reduced to the simplest schematic formulas. In a tobacco stupor, arrogant in its power over the subjective and abstract patterns of life, the mind deals with problems instead of solving them. As one smoker put it, his mind is immersed in clouds of smoke: these are ghosts, generated by him and then recognized as ghosts. And then, of course, in this subjectivity, which has no milestones outside of itself to which it could be guided, those forces that hate reality begin to act, because they themselves are deprived of true reality. Remembering the parable of the swept room 465, one can see, without further explanation, what the effects of tobacco stupor lead to, and that is why in literature, from folk tales to Tolstoy, the connection between smoking and demonic suggestions has been so firmly established. I repeat, a lot could be discussed on this topic. But now it is only important for us to note that there is a direct feeling of this spiritually harmful effect of tobacco smoke among the people, especially when they were mystically more sensitive, and among ascetics. “Whoever begins to dare this demonic and God-hating and renounced by the saints - tobacco, then that person’s brain will be twisted and instead of that brain, a stinking stench will fall into the head of his head, ruin his entire brain, and such a stinking stench will begin to remain at the head of him, and not just at the head of his one, but in all his bones that stinking stench will settle instead brains And if any person, by means of cunning, begins to do such a demonic work, it is not proper for such a person to enter the Church of God and not to kiss the cross and the Gospel and not to give communion, a candle, or a prosphora, or an ephiman and any offering, and not to wash or eat with people, until he ceases from such insolence.” ["People's Benefit", 1903, No. 40, p. 20]. In government decrees against smoking, it is this view of tobacco as something mystically disgusting that finds legislative reinforcement. So, for example, we read: “By the grace of God we are Sovereign and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Decree. We publicly announce and punish Orthodox Christians and damned tobacco. Let me know. It was discovered by Archimandrite Gennady that in Orthodox Christians there is a cursed tobacco not only in the male sex, but also in the female sex, a mortal sin involved. But Gennady Archimandrite came to me, the Sovereign, Alexei Mikhailovich, and also to the entire priestly and royal sigklit with a petition and with a desired heart to eradicate the cursed tobacco and mortal sin. Tako announced in his petition. There are Orthodox Christians who have cursed tobacco in small vessels and hold it with them and sniff it in their nostrils and put it by the lip in their mouth and defile their lips, and others take a pipe and put a full amount of tobacco and take it into their mouth and suck it in themselves, emitting it from their mouth, like the devil emitting sparks from himself. This is what Orthodox Christians do, and many other things written in Gennadieva’s petition, which they ask the Emperor for, cursed tobacco so that Orthodox Christians would not have mortal sin. And so I did at his request. Sovereign Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ordered that both the cursed tobacco and mortal sin be publicly announced, how the people are falling into mortal sin, and ordered his sigklit to have suspicions about where this cursed tobacco came from. And whoever drank it, ordered them to be seized into the courtyard and brought to the royal chambers, and the bolyar was brought to another suspicion, in the reigning city of Moscow and by which the secret vision was caught: the merchant Yakov Sisman, and he traded in damned tobacco, and also the bolyar Semyon Pushchin, his servant Yakov Sidorov, Anton Pavlov and the clerk Yegor Barin, and they were brought to these royal chambers and they showed it right during the interrogation. They, having bought it, showed that the Poles brought him tobacco and bought from them, and the clerk also showed Yegor Barin, drinking in the nostrils, and the boyar, Semyon Pushchin, the servant showed that they drank by the lip, and for that they were executed as Christians: those who drank on the lip, had both lips cut out, and those who drank in the nose, had their nose cut out, and sent that news to the people. And he punished the merchant on his body. But most of all, I confirm and pray to you for Christ’s sake, that we may not be deprived of eternal blessings. The Great Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich and the entire priestly rank pray to you so that there is no cursed tobacco in you. Tsar and Sovereign Alexey Mikhailovich. Bishop present Eustathius of Vologda. Cleric Semyon Yakovlev. 1650 April 2nd day." [Manuscript collection No. 1050, l. 173 – 176, in general representing the Vologda Chronicle, from the handwritten collection of I. A. Vakhromeev. – A. A. Titov, – Slavic and Russian manuscripts belonging to I. A. Vakhromeyev. Vol. 5th. M., 1906, pp. 134 – 135.] This is the old assessment of the mystical toxicity of tobacco by our ancestors. The newest views on tobacco, on its complete incompatibility with the sacred, on its unattractive ability, due to the loss of connection with reality and, consequently, due to spiritual loneliness, confirm ancient judgments about it. In a conversation with one hermit, I had to talk once about the degree of authority of a certain person who bore the highest rank of the Orthodox Church - authority in matters of high mysticism. A hermit, resolutely convinced: “He can’t understand anything here.” – But why not just “doesn’t understand”, but precisely “can’t”? “He smokes,” was the answer. This was followed by an explanation about the incompatibility of spiritual experience with smoking tobacco. There are numerous stories about the incompatibility of tobacco and shrine. There is no reason to doubt the historical authenticity of the basis of these stories; but it is not this foundation that is important in this case, but the popular belief in the mystical defilement of tobacco, revealed by such stories. So, they told me about a Little Russian, a Caucasian monk. He was once called to consecrate a grain field, and right next to it there were several rows of tobacco. When sprinkling the field with holy water, he did the same with tobacco: after a few days, the tobacco beds dried up completely. I have heard more than one story about how the miraculous icon of the Mother of God stopped while going around the field and there was no way to lift it and carry it through the tobacco fields 466. I also heard from eyewitnesses a number of stories about miraculous admonitions that prohibited smoking for some people; in particular, several significant pages can be read about the mystical defilement of tobacco in the memoirs of I. A. Slonov 467 . All this, together with psychophysiological studies of nicotine poisoning, confirms that the direct feeling of some kind of spiritual impurity from tobacco is not wrong. 14. So, there are pure odors and unclean odors. The first, naturally, are allocated to a special category, the lowest level of natural sanctification, to the junior members of the ontological hierarchy of the world. In Christian life, as a gift received from life, used in a prayerful atmosphere, they are elevated to a new level of sanctification. Next comes (“any) [any] fragrant potion”, consecrated in a special order intended for this purpose and sprinkling with holy water. “You Yourself, All-Blessed Master, bless these seeds, with various potions brought to this holy church, and sanctify with Your Holy Spirit, and cleanse these Thy servants who receive these potions with seeds from all filth, and fill their houses with every fragrance, in this being and to all who hold on to faith, and to those who incense them, in obedience and deliverance from all the enemy’s excuses and to drive away all dreams from the work of the devil, day and night, for the blessing of souls and bodies, your faithful people and livestock, houses and places. For may all who receive this potion receive the protection of soul and body, and may the healing of Thy grace be a Sacrament for our salvation; let it be placed in any place, or on which it will be used, in order to receive a blessing, may Your right hand cover all (against the opposing force driven out from there)..." 468 So, an fragrant potion intended for home use is called "the sacrament of the grace of God." And so from the aromas surrounding the body there is a continuous transition to the cover and then to the blessed cover, protecting from the evil actions of dark power. How alien to the rationalistic worldview - grace here is thought of as almost material and matter as spiritual; here, when it comes to smell, this phenomenon, it is no longer known whether it belongs to the material order, the very border between the material and the spiritual becomes elusive. Essential oils, poured into the sacred oil from the lamp in front of the festive icon to anoint the faithful with it at polyeleos matins, seem to be the next stage of sanctification, and for immediate consciousness there is a continuous transition from the smell to the grace-filled action. In a dream, when spiritual sensitivity is extremely heightened, this continuity appears before the consciousness with irresistible clarity: smells then permeate the entire organism, it floats in them, they flow and flow through it, like a stream of air through a stretched muslin, and the spiritual quality of the smell is then indisputable and obvious. And from these “ordinary” smells, such as, for example, mint, incense, rose, etc., there is a direct transition to mysterious fragrances, in which their spirituality appears for every consciousness. This is the well-known fragrance of holy relics, the receptivity to which varies depending on the spiritual state of those who apply themselves to the relics, although the fragrance itself, undoubtedly, begins on the physical plane. Of impressions of this kind, I especially remember the opening of the relics of St. Sergius, carried out in 469. I entered the Trinity Cathedral late at night, much later, after the autopsy was performed. There was acrid smoke in the cathedral from the magnesium flares used to take photographs. But, despite this strong-smelling air, sometimes some blows brought waves of an inexplicably pleasant fragrance from the crayfish several fathoms away, which overwhelmed all other odors. This fragrance filled me with a majestic joy, in which it was impossible to draw a line between actual spiritual satisfaction and a feeling of pleasure. Venturing the relics, I became convinced that the fragrance came precisely from the shrine and was incomparably stronger here than to the side. I find it difficult to compare it with, it is so subtle and unique. I can only say that there was absolutely no element of sweetness or stickiness in it, which is more or less characteristic of any smell of earthly origin. If you associate smells with the elements, then this one was of an airy-fiery nature. One can, perhaps, find in it a distant resemblance to the smell of a real mountain violet, but it is subtler and more mobile; You can even more accurately imagine this fragrance of the shrine of St. Sergius if you recall the aroma of a flowering vine brought from afar by a warm wind. It is not for nothing that in the Song of Songs the subtlest life of nature at the peak of its spirituality is marked by the same smell: “The vine has already blossomed, and its flowers emit a fragrance” 470 - such is the call of the Bridegroom by nature. It has long been noted that the entire Bible is covered with fragrances; but of these, the smell of the vine is most memorable, and with it the fragrance of the relics begs to be compared, which, however, in the sense of sophistication is itself immeasurably higher than the flowering vine. After venerating the relics and spending some time in the Lavra, late on a cold night I went home. It was the night of Lazarus Saturday. There were no signs of spring yet. But, walking down the street, I wondered why it smelled like spring. At first I couldn’t give myself an idea of ​​what exactly spring was about here, but then I remembered that there was undoubtedly the smell of poplars blooming after the May thunderstorm, and I even began to peer into the poplars, although, of course, there were no signs of a smell from them. But suddenly, unexpectedly for myself, I realized that this smell was coming from my lips and mustache and that, of course, it smelled not of poplars, but of the relics of St. Sergius. Another time, I had to hold in my hand part of the relics of the same saint, wrapped in several thick silk ilitons, tied with a wide silk ribbon and enclosed in a thick bag from the monstrance. Warmed by the warmth of the hand, part of the relics began to smell so strongly that its smell, again this smell of either spikenard, or poplars, or vines, passed through all the covers, and the hand itself became so odorous that for an hour or two I was afraid to attract attention to myself with this aroma, although the relics were no longer on me. I am talking about all this here in detail, partly for evidence, and partly for the sake of concreteness of presentation; but phenomena of this kind are well known to all who have dealt with the sacred remains of saints. I would like to consolidate here two more stories that I heard from eyewitnesses. The first concerns the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov. When the relics of the monk were taken out of the coffin, they were first laid out on sheets of white paper; the fragrance was so strong that this paper smelled strongly in a very short time and continued to smell a year after the glorification of the monk. One such piece was in the family of Archpriest Zvezdinsky, who participated in the opening of the relics and took part of this paper for himself; as his son, now Bishop Seraphim, and then my younger friend at the Academy, told me about six years after the glorification, the paper continued to smell fragrant. I heard another story in August 1905 in Optina Pustyn. It concerned the death of Elder Ambrose. As is known, contrary to the expectations of his admirers, Ambrose’s body showed traces of decomposition and when one of the monks, wanting to consecrate a clean handkerchief by touching the deceased elder, took it away from the body, then, to his embarrassment, he saw it stained with pus. Then he put it in his pocket and stopped thinking about it. But some time passed, and a distinct fragrance began to spread in his cell. When it made me think about myself and a search was made for its source, it turned out that the scent was from one of the cassocks, and precisely the one that was dressed for the elder’s burial, and that the primary source of the fragrance was the handkerchief lying in his pocket. I was further told that the smell continued to linger on the scarf a year later. These are extreme cases; and the intermediate steps that bring them closer to a more frequent experience can be seen in the absence of a corpse smell and some kind of not only spiritual, but also physical pleasantness near the coffin of highly spiritual people. I personally remember, for example, this impression, very definite and forever remembered, near the bodies of Elder Isidore from the Gethsemane monastery 471, Bishop Anthony (Florensov) 472, less definitely - about one old woman, sister of mercy Stefanida Katalikova, and some others. Death, “the end that crowns the work” 473, the work of life, served too little as a subject of observation and reflection, except for moralistic races on the topic of the frailty of everything earthly. Meanwhile, it is a sharp reactant to the life lived; it has its own stages and degrees, its own light and its own shadows, many different shades, boundless richness and variety of content. Both literally and figuratively, death has its own smell, which in some cases is no longer the “stench of death,” a sign of decay and the victory of hell, but, on the contrary, the spirit of a vegetating life 474 . The smell of relics, which was discussed here, should least of all be considered as an outlandish exception, as a kind of miracle, but in it one must see the norm of a correct, so to speak, death, with which ordinary everyday death is connected by countless intermediate phenomena, as is from the ordinary average death of the link and towards the lower limit, to a terrible, stinking corpse, compressing the heart and material and its spiritual ugliness. But we are now talking about positive phenomena, and these include the obvious release of fragrant substances by some relics. For example, the so-called myrrh-streaming heads are known - the skulls of ascetics, emitting a special aromatic substance. In the notes of Academician O. G. Solntsev, who worked in Kyiv, there is an important message about this rarely discussed subject. “In that part of the [Kyiv] caves that are accessible to all pilgrims, myrrh-streaming heads lie on dishes, covered with special caps,” writes Solntsev; - from the heads, myrrh oozes drops onto these dishes, something like a colorless and tasteless oil, seemingly thinner than an ordinary wooden one, with a delicately pleasant smell. Once there was such a case with me: my friend Doctor Savenko did not believe that myrrh could flow from the heads and, moreover, continuously. He thought it was a trick of the monks. Therefore, as soon as he happened to be in Kyiv, he did not fail to make an experiment regarding this, of course, with the permission of the monastic authorities. The experiment consisted of Savenko taking one of the myrrh-streaming heads, wiping it dry with cloth inside and out, wiping the vessel in the same way, tying it all up with leaking paper and sealing it. The door of the room where the chapters were left was also sealed. The next day Savenko came, opened the chapter himself, and there was ointment in the vessel” [Φ. G . Solntsev, – My life and artistic and archaeological works. VI. "Russian Antiquity". T. XVI, 1876, p. 291] 475. 15. The fragrance of relics participates in the cult and in this sense belongs to the cult, one might even say it belongs with necessity, since holy relics are necessary in the cult as a material connection with the Church of Saints and as a place of penetration into the afterlife. But nevertheless: a cult is performed on the relics, but the formation of relics is not a matter, at least a direct matter, of a cult. The individual will, in its individual uniqueness, must come into contact with the will of God in order for the relics to appear; but they cannot be considered as an establishment, a repeating act of the conciliar will of the Church, to which the will of God responds. This relic is a miracle, it is a sign, it is in a sense an exception, something independent of the established order of church life, an extraordinary gift of God to the Church, an unexpected joy, while the cult and its actions, in the proper sense of the word, is a joy, although great and greatest, but expected, intended in the circle of heavenly gifts; a benefit to us, but known to us in advance, the charter and framework of life, without which it cannot proceed, cannot help but rot. And therefore, although the fragrance of the relics was discussed here, for the sake of firmly establishing the thought of the fragrance of the spirit and the spirituality of the fragrance, this discussed fragrance of the relics actually violated the consideration of the cult in the narrow sense of the word. Continuing the interrupted thread of this last discussion, the next step in the sanctification of the smell should be called holy incense - “censer” 476. “We offer the censer to Thee, O Christ God, into the stench of the spiritual fragrance, which we accept into Thy heavenly altar; bestow upon us the grace of Thy All-Holy Spirit,” prays the bishop or priest, blessing the censer before each censing 477 . This is the prayer with which almost every cultic action begins. 478 quantitatively, that is, by the number of repetitions, it is characteristic of the cult; but it is even more expressive for the cult internally, outlining in a compressed outline the very foundation of the cult. But no matter how characteristic it is of a cult, it is just as, and precisely because it is characteristic, deeply unacceptable to modern cantized thought. And how could it be otherwise? Of course, this particular censer, with burning coal and fragrant incense, or, as it is even more materially said in the Greek text: [θυμίαμα] incense, fragrant smoke, - we bring, we offer, we lift up - into the stench of fragrance - it is clear that into the stench of fragrance - but not just fragrance, but spiritual fragrance [εις όσμήν εύωδίας πνευματικής]. How can incense be a spiritual fragrance? - asks Kantian thought. Isn’t the spiritual – the moral – something in common with incense, that is, with a substance, even if dispersed in the air, and has nothing in common? Here it is necessary to strike a thought so that at least once, at least in (one) 479 corner of life, we think through Kantianism or counter-Kantianism in all its sharpness, and not cover it up with uncertainty. So, there is a censer: let’s say, silver, on chains, of a certain spherical shape with a cross; coal burns in it; The heat of the coal heats and evaporates the well-known fragrant resin, and its vapor spreads through the air and hardens here in the form of tiny particles. And the Church calls this incense the stench of spiritual fragrance. But what is spiritual here? And isn’t such a combination of concepts complete nonsense for modern thought? Is it possible to regard it differently from the Kantian point of view? But not only that; we ask for the acceptance of this stench of spiritual fragrance, the above-mentioned incense smoke, no more, no less than into the most heavenly altar of God, or the highest heavenly - εις τό ύπερουράνιόν στου θυσιαστή ριον, that is, into the intelligible world, into the environment of noumena, into the realm of the transcendental. So what next? Next, we ask for the sending down from there, in return, instead of [αντί] this incense - the grace of the All-Holy Spirit of God. Let’s think for a second like Kant: isn’t it strange? In Granzbegriff 480 we want to transfer the smoke, and in return for the smoke, as something that balances it, we hope to receive the ability to make a categorical imperative. Can you think of anything more meaningless? And, on the contrary, if we accept this, then what kind of nonsense should those premises be recognized, from which the conclusion is necessary about the complete nonsense of this, which we have accepted. But the situation is even more acute. After all, we see when we pray for the sending down to us of the grace of the All-Holy Spirit in place of the incense offered to the altar above heaven and in thought, i.e. intelligible, - we see, with our eyes, again the same incense smoke. Consequently: we see “simply,” as they say, that is, in Kant’s way, incense incense spreading in streams and clouds through the air, we must, in accordance with the Kantian worldview, recognize the trajectory of each molecule of incense vapor as a continuous line, expressed by an analytical function; in Kantian terms, this line from the censer to us cannot, in principle, have the slightest break, just as it cannot have the slightest break in the time in which this movement along the trajectory takes place. In the continuity of these processes, in the Kantian way, or more broadly, in the Renaissance way, nowhere is there the slightest violation of their analyticity (in the mathematical sense), where it was possible to insert even the tip of a razor or scalpel, and therefore in this completely reserved “here” the slightest “there” will never sparkle anywhere and in principle cannot sparkle. However, the point is not in magnitude, but precisely in principle: either it cannot at all - due to honest revival, or it can in every possible way - with courageous overcoming of its first premises. Here it is impossible to dull the cutting edge between these “yes” and “no” as a quantitative easing of “yes”; here it is impossible, dishonest and destructive for spiritual life, a sour half-acknowledgment of the possibility of a break, in some vague cases, but while preserving, also sour, the Renaissance premises. It must be repeated that otherwise the ontological commandment of the Savior about the craftiness of everything that is beyond “she-she” - “neither-nor” 481 is violated. So, the Church firmly speaks about the possibility of a breakthrough, about “hey.” Ontologically, incense smoke flows into the heavenly noumenal spheres and descends back to us, down below, no longer incense incense, but the grace of the Holy Spirit in the form of incense - as incense. The path of incense particles is mysteriously broken; there is no ontological continuity in it. For a mathematician, this does not happen in violation of the law, but quite naturally and even more naturally than with the Kantian continuity of the path, for discontinuity itself is a general law, so the assumption of continuity everywhere would be a hope for an infinitesimal probability, for a “miracle”, in the everyday sense of the word, as some ontological fact. Formally, if you are honestly guided by that supreme principle to which, although not sincerely, positivism refers, as the subject of its orientation, to lawfulness, then, of course, the whole truth lies with the Church, and not with revival, for lawfulness as such, that is, without ulterior metaphysical thoughts, is discontinuity; if in fact the struggle was over the principle of order and law in being, then there could be no dispute with revival: formally, from the angle of these principles, we are, of course, right. And our dispute would not be with them and not about whether the incense of the earth can ascend somewhere to other regions, for this would go without saying due to the discontinuity of the law as such, i.e., the functional connection. But this does not mean that the dispute is over altogether: undoubtedly, here, with the understanding of the formal possibility of all kinds of gaps, it should arise, but now with those who understand this possibility, and about what exactly the gap is in this particular case. A grain of incense is thrown into the censer; its evaporation escapes somewhere from the earth, from the lower region. But where? The last question contains all the difficulty and all the spiritual responsibility for the fate of this incense, because incense can ascend, generally speaking, not only to the heavenly altar of God, but also to various other unearthly places, for example, to the underworld. And if it were not for the clear consciousness of this, would the hosts of martyrs be counted in the Church of Saints? Wouldn’t each of them, with full consideration, throw whole handfuls of fragrant substances onto the idol’s altar instead of one grain of incense, as the authorities demanded of him, if at the same time the confessor called to account had the slightest opportunity to see in such burning incense a kind of etiquette and think of the incense as being carried throughout the streets and streets of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.? But this positivistic simplification and alleviation of a difficult issue for the martyrs was opposed by a clear contemplation of the further trajectory of incense particles following the incense, falling to the throne of Satan and from there being sent back, yes, also sent, that is, in return, αντί, black grace. Seeing this with spiritual eyes, the martyrs preferred what martyrs generally preferred. So, ascending to one or another stage of the mountain ascent, the empirical descends from there no longer empirical, but noumenal, by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit of God. This is the general scheme of the entire cult, and in particular this is the scheme of incense. But even in the incense smoke, in itself, one can discern a number of steps and degrees of spirituality: the evening incense is not the same as the morning incense, and the morning incense is not the same as the proskomedia incense, etc., up to and including the first incense of the just transubstantiated Holy Gifts. Here, grace-filled sanctification rises in level, dare I say, in spiritual potential; and this term is much more appropriate here than it seems at first hearing. After all, potential is the work that must be expended to bring a single mass from infinity to a given point in space, and, therefore, for the spiritual work done to bring a single inertia from non-existence to a given point in the smart place of reality, it is natural to apply the same term “potential”. 16. Rising to one or another from the heavens and at the same time being sent down from there to us, or, in other words, being both there and here at once, incense incense turns out to be a phenomenon - using this word in the true sense, anti-Kantian - a phenomenon here there, like a branch of heaven on earth, a spur of a cloud descending to touch the earth: it is not “like heaven,” but heaven itself. In other words, the surface of the level, expressed in terms of physics, the equipotential surface makes a deep convex here, a funnel towards the earth, and therefore we can move to the surfaces of great spiritual potential, that is, enter into the depths of heaven not vertically, but almost horizontally, along lines of force that almost spread along the lower level, in some specific place, in other words, entering the incense cloud, we are with the tiniest movement and the tiniest effort, i.e. In the course of our earthly efforts, the exertion of will, the work of earthly diligence, we ascend to dizzying heights, and this, one might say, for nothing, in the most decisive discrepancy between what we have spent here and what we have acquired. Having taken, one might say, a step, we spiritually pass threshold and thresholds, and now we are already walking with this condensed step, this royal road, crossing the circles of Dante’s paradise, as in another case, in the one that the martyrs were so horrified by, or, more specifically, with black magic and other dark actions - we also cross Dante’s circles, but already descending to the funnel of the underworld. One way or another, but, however, in all cases, incense is an environment conducive to mutual rapprochement for the spiritual forces and beings of this and other worlds. In the smoke other beings appear to us, just as we appear to them: in the smoke we see each other. Hence the importance, almost the necessity, of incense when remembering the dead: one can say that in streams of incense smoke flows to them that active love for the Church, which they can no longer show personally, with which they feed, live and grow spiritually, unless they are stillborn, but were born alive, even if barely breathing, frail babies, passing through the grave. And through the sent streams of grace of the Holy Spirit, suggestions of internal movements, spiritual quests and demands of the departed flow to us. This mediating function of the censer is especially prominent 482 in the Epiphany and the Apparition of Angels - a matter that has long been known since ancient times, just as the significance of smoke, especially sacrificial smoke for pagan theophanies, was well known since ancient times, if we talk about them here without discriminating shades and without taking into account their positive or negative spiritual value. Spiritual phenomena are not impossible in extreme cases without incense - because then this cloud, in a sense replacing incense, is produced by the spiritual forces themselves; but, speaking about phenomena that are more ordinary and, most importantly, more determined by activity on the human side, with greater arbitrariness in the call from the earth, more statutory, in incense one should see precisely necessity and, in any case, an extremely favorable condition. 17. The highest degree of sanctification of fragrance is represented by holy myrrh, complex in composition and smell and mysteriously effective through the grace of the Spirit united with it. “This is the seal of Christ and the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” [Sim Sol, 38] 483. During anointing, it is said: “The Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit” 484, which emphasizes the special connection of the Holy Spirit with fragrance. And conversely, the Holy Spirit is the source of “holiness, and unevening light, and divine life, and the most fragrant dispensation” 485, as is proclaimed on the day of commemoration of the extraordinary Descent of Him, the Completer Spirit, which is why the sanctification of the world is called the lofty term of the ancient mysteries τελετή, i.e. completion, completion, indicating the highest degree of initiation. In the natural fragrance, hands reach out to meet this fragrance of the eternal Holy Spirit, and grasp each other into a living connection between the dust of the earth and the Being of beings. In the Holy Spirit, the earthly fragrance is transformed, and on this latter the seal of the Spirit is applied, so that what is above is reflected in what is below, and what is below participates in what is above. Myrrh, this closest combination of both, is called in the ancient prayer for the sanctification of the world “the garment of incorruptibility and the sacred seal, imprinting on those who receive the divine bath” the Holy Name of the Most Holy Trinity [Sim Sol, 41] 486. Those imprinted by it have the seal of the Most Holy Trinity on themselves, become churches of God - this is how the degrees of ascension increase - and, finally, they come to the absolute realm: the Spirit Himself is Joy, Decoration, Fragrance - Beauty, Anointing is clothing in the robe of the fragrance of the Holy Spirit. Focusing on one or another part of this judgment, on the word “fragrance” or on the word “clothing,” the thought of anointing branches out along two paths, and therefore that series of ascents to the holy world through the blessed aroma, which has just been outlined, does not exclude, but even presupposes the existence of another series of ascents - through blessed clothing. To make this clearer, let's start with the top step. The highest levels of consecration illuminate the garments of the throne and altar - srachitsa, indium, cover; and sacred vessels - covers and air, and then priestly ones. All of them are consecrated by censing, special prayers and sprinkling with holy water. To understand the symbolic nature of clothing, one must turn to the one that is considered as a typical representative. And one can recognize as such the one without which there can be no sacred rite: this indispensable condition for liturgical action is the epitrachelion. From it, like from a leaf in Goethe’s metamorphosis of plants, all other clothes are formed. And therefore, the prayer said when putting on the stole should be the key to the symbolism of the clothes. This prayer is as follows: “Blessed be God, pour out His grace on His priests, like ointment on the head, coming down on the bard, the bark of Aaron, going down on the sweepers of his garments.”487 In other words, the stole signifies the most priestly grace - in the Old Testament not by the laying on of hands, but by the outpouring of peace. And in the ancient Christian Church, according to the testimony of St. Simeon of Thessalonica, myrrh was poured on the head of the dedicatee - in commemoration of the grace of God [T. II, p.22] 488. This replacement of the visible sign of the sacrament with another sign already reveals the mystical equivalence of the two signs, and, consequently, their affinity in the plane of symbolism. If St. Simeon of Thessalonica reports that myrrh was poured on the head of the person being initiated in commemoration of the grace of God, so that, consequently, anointing was a sign not of the sacrament of confirmation, but of the sacrament of the priesthood, or, otherwise, if in the sacrament of the priesthood the external sign of the laying on of hands was replaced or accompanied by a sacred anointing, then, conversely, we know about the laying on of hands applied instead of the anointing applied now, in the sacrament of confirmation: this is the practice of the Apostolic Church. If in ancient times the sacrament of anointing over a newly enlightened person - the bringing down of the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon him - was performed by ordination, through covering with hands, and not by smell, then, consequently, ordination itself should be considered as the same anointing. This is confirmed by Old Testament practice, where ordination - initiation into sacred degrees - was accomplished through anointing with myrrh. Consequently, the current consecration of the priesthood should be understood as the same anointing, but in a unique form. 489, why the Tsar is given a sacred wedding only after confessing the Orthodox faith. We can say that the Tsar is destined for a special noumenal place in the Church, by virtue of which he is given entrance to the altar through the holy royal doors and communion of the Holy Mysteries according to the priestly rite, separately under both types and above the throne. That is why the royal robe, crown, scepter and orb, and in ancient times also barmas, are not secular decorations at all, but sacred vestments and insignia. That is why, further, the Tsar, like every sacred person in the Church, in relation to his dignity is an object of faith, but by no means external worldly law, something invisible, which, according to the Apostle, can only be revealed by faith 490. You can believe in the Tsar with the Orthodox Church or not believe with her enemies, but you cannot reduce him, according to his rank, to the populist plane. This rank is similar to the episcopal rank, but, as belonging to a different order of ordination, it cannot be quantitatively compared with the degrees of this last order, so that there are both more and less of them. According to the very structure of the Orthodox Church in its deepest foundations, earthly manifestations of power, i.e., bishopric and kingdom, are antinomically linked to each other and are mutually subordinate, not being reduced on earth to any visible unity that outwardly gives a resultant; rather, it is what is called a pair of forces with a resultant at infinity. And therefore, returning specifically to the kingdom, any restriction from outside the positions of royal service cannot be considered otherwise than violence not against the Tsar, but against the Church 491. So, the laying on of hands is a symbolic substitute for the holy world. But what is the laying on of hands in its specific meaning, if not a covering over the one being ordained, i.e., like a roof, clothing, protection? And if so, then ordination, instead of anointing during the sacrament of confirmation, the “clothing” moment: the moment of covering, surrounding, vestment in the holy world is only emphasized and brought forward, but is not created anew. “The world is clothing” is a judgment that is more analytical than synthetic, if we accept such a classification of judgments at all. The sacred vestments bring forward this moment of the world in a crudely material way, while in the world itself this materiality of it as clothing and cover is also given materially, but in a more rarefied substance: what is the fragrance of one anointed with the world, if not the main and emanating garment that envelops him, a veil that envelops him from head to toe? On the other hand, what is sacred vestment if not a thickened and condensed smell? There is no significant difference here, the symbolism is the same, and it signifies the Holy Spirit, whether we talk about Him as a fragrance that descended on a person, or as a garment that clothed him. And now we can again return to the main vestment - to the epitrachelion, wearing which we say as if grace was pouring out on us at that time with peace, “coming down on the brad, the brad of Aaron and on his brooms,” that is, enveloping us from head to toe. 19. When putting on the vestment it is said: “My soul will rejoice in the Lord, for He has clothed me with the robe of salvation, and has clothed me with the robe of joy, as you put a crown on me as a groom, and adorn me with beauty as a bride.”492 This tunic, therefore, is the robe of salvation that gives joy. But joy comes from the Spirit, from the Comforter, the exceeding fullness of Joy. Here again is the equation of grace, the spiritual joy that clothes us, with clothing - a symbol of this joy: we put on the Spirit of Holiness. In the same way, the clergyman puts on other sacred and consecrated clothes with prayers, in which the clothes are interpreted as gifts of the Holy Spirit, that is, as a rite, as an approach to the sacrament of anointing in its revelation through the laying on of hands. After all, anointing gives the royal priesthood to everyone, but not revealed, but it is revealed in the priesthood, in the kingdom and in prophecy - the eldership - along three lines emanating from the Center of being, “By Him all things were” 493. Taken in depth, clothing leads to the body as the closest garment of the soul, or one of the closest garments; extended in the opposite direction, to the periphery, the clothing is cast over the entire universe, for the entire universe is the body of the soul and its outermost clothing. Hence, the desire of liturgists to explain the sacred vestments in more detail is understandable, deriving them either microscopically - from the body and structure of the personality, or macroscopically - from the structure of the world. An example of a microscopic interpretation is found, for example, in the “Tablet”: “The five senses are the senses of the perfect body: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. And the powers of the soul are five: mind, thought, opinion, dreaming and feeling. There are five sacred garments, which the priest wears: surplice, stole, belt, armlets and felonion. In comparison with sanctification, the five human feelings and the first spiritual powers are sanctified” [Tablet, pp. 126 – 127, chapter 38] 494. We read an example of macroscopic interpretation in Josephus [Antiquities of the Jews, book. 3, ch. 7, no. 7] 495: the sign of the clothes of the high priest is described by him as follows: “the high priest’s robe, made of linen, represents the image of the earth. With and not with which it is embroidered, airy means the sky... The epimid [amice], decorated with four flowers... represents the image of the universe... The breastplate is hung in the middle of the epimid in the image of the earth, standing in the middle of the world. The belt with which they gird themselves symbolizes the ocean that surrounds the entire earth. The two sardoniches, used instead of clasps on the high priest's robe, represent the sun and the moon. Through twelve stones, one can understand either twelve months, or a large number of heavenly signs, which the Greeks call the zodiac.” [Historical, dogmatic and mysterious explanations of the liturgy. M., 1823. Pre-notification, p. 76] 496. In these and other interpretations, only a small range of clothing is considered; but just as they themselves have different degrees of sacredness, different hierarchical places, so the boundaries of this circle are not limited, and sacred-symbolic clothing goes beyond these small limits, to the lower levels. Special rites of consecration of clothes that are no longer liturgical, although clearly symbolic, such as cassocks, kamilavkas, etc. also belong to the circle of vestments, although outwardly concentric with respect to what was noted earlier: this is the nearest lower level. But just as in general the category of phenomena of life, sanctified to the highest degree, at its root, by the sacrament, carries sanctification beyond it, descending from the top and ultimately spreading to all the phenomena of this category, so here, in the category of “clothing”, from the holy world and to the most everyday, apparently, phenomena of the same area, one coherent descending hierarchy stretches, which is not limited to clothes that are clearly and emphatically symbolic. Thus, an experienced confessor advises clergy to consecrate every part of their clothing by embroidering a cross on it and sprinkling it with holy water; there is also a prayer for the sanctification of every thing 497 - this is another step. But further, many villagers, observing the general custom of a more statutory, but still very recent life, when putting on a shirt, consecrate it with the sign of the cross, just as this is done by a clergyman when putting on vestments; the belt is considered so sacred and necessary, as a protection, that it is not removed either at night or even in the bathhouse: it is correlated with the baptismal belt. But all our clothes, if we are in the stream of church culture, and have not become worldly and have not fallen out of spiritual balance, should be considered as a distribution and complication of those consecrated clothes in which the newly baptized person puts on. Finally, clothes in Christian life, even without special prayers, but gratefully used in the general way of blessed life, are again involved in the area of ​​cult, sanctified by touching the Christian body; But a Christian’s saliva, says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, is sacred and even miraculous (which, by the way, is what he justifies the lack of reverence and the prohibition of spitting) 498 . Here, by the way, it doesn’t hurt to note that that invisible, or at least invisible to the untrained eye, thinnest shell that surrounds our body and which, perhaps, due to its subtlety, is especially sensitive and plastic to the subtlest changes in spiritual life, this shell, permeating clothes, deposits on it some traces of the personality, imprints the spiritual coordinates of the personality in clothes. And therefore, almost everyone directly feels that it is not at all indifferent to put on clothes that were on another, especially a non-Christian. This feeling, firstly, is not at all a distrust of other people’s clothes as such: while some other people’s clothes make the whole being shrink, especially the soul, and are felt with hostility, like an enemy invasion of our personality, others, on the contrary, are desirable and kind, enveloping us in spiritual warmth and well-being. Secondly, this feeling is not based on unconscious hygiene or prevention, although dirt and infection to a certain extent can also have a mystical flavor, as symbols of a deeper spiritual meaning; but in the widespread fear of using someone else’s thing, even clean and obviously disinfected, the internal difficulty of giving away one’s wearable thing to another, even without returning it, lies a vague but quite vital feeling that with this kind of communism there is some kind of absorption of an alien spiritual principle or the devoting of one’s spirit to trample upon a hostile spirit; on the contrary, where there is spiritual communication, such an exchange of things seems acceptable, even desirable. Thus, one of the rites of twinning, that is, the establishment of brotherhood in spirit, is the exchange of crosses and shirts, and in more ancient times - and blood - a spiritual and physical inoculation of each other. A phenomenon of the same order is the statutory requirement for common clothing in cenobitic monasteries, the baptism of infants in the same shirt, shroud, etc. etc., the ancestral transmission of some clothing or thing used at especially important moments in life, for example, during a wedding, etc., in short, spiritual communication through clothing, starting from the prohibition of elders experienced in spiritual life from putting on the clothes of passionate people or sitting on their seats, and inclusive to the leaders and Ubrists of Apostle Paul, who gave healing 499. 20. For a deeper understanding of the sacraments, one should take a closer look at the symbolism of clothing, which is very important both in philosophy and in the religious worldview. In the realm of high generalizations, clothing has always signified external appearances of the innermost essence, the very discovery of a being, and therefore embodiment in the external environment. Using the word body, which some associate with “whole” in the sense of the Greek σώμα, i.e., as the integrity of externally manifested aspects and moments of the internal integrity of life, we can say: clothing is a symbol of the body. Therefore, it is clear in sacred and secular symbolism this mutual transfusion with different shades of the concepts of body and clothing. Different clothes, or clothes in different senses, are called the body, just as, conversely, the body in different senses is equal to clothes. This mutual equating of the words “body” and “clothing” is also facilitated by the fact that every body as a unity of diverse manifestations is certainly thought of by us - in order to preserve the individuality of each manifestation, its own form and not to produce a simple confusion of all of them - it is certainly thought of as woven from these individual manifestations, because only in the image of weaving are the signs of the individual definiteness of their elements and their mutual connection, each with each, united. So, every body is thought of as tissue-like. The idea and expression that the physical body of the fetus is woven in the mother’s womb, and in general the image of tissue in relation to the physical body of living beings, is immemorially ancient and extremely widespread among the most diverse peoples; and Plato, with his consistently developed image of the body as clothing worn by the soul in the Phaedo, was not the first to begin this series, and Bisha did not finish it with his teaching about the tissues of the body 500. In particular, the symbol of clothing in relation to the body appears repeatedly in sacred chants. Thus, “thou hast blanketed me, O Savior, into a mortal body” is sung at Compline on the heel of Vai [Canon, canto 6] 501. And then this image is applied to the entire human nature, that is, with the soul and body of the Incarnate Lord: “He who created all things in wisdom, O Jesus, clothed himself in all things with the Virgin...” [Compline heel Vai. Canon, canto 9] 502. Further, behind the anatomical body, the image of clothing was constantly applied and is applied to various other self-manifestations of internal activity connected in unity; each concentration of the stratification of the personality or, if you like, its “empirical” character, can be called the body, and therefore clothing. This empirical personality is meant by the Apostle Paul when he expresses fear that at the last fiery trial we might find ourselves “naked,” that is, stripped of the clothing of everything created in life 503 . And the Savior, speaking about wedding and non-wedding clothing, uses this image, signifying with it the vital self-disclosure of a spiritual being 504. In church hymns and prayers, as well as in church writers, they constantly talk about the “robe of repentance”, as about clothing created by spiritual feat, or about the spiritual body: “from the eyes of the tears flowing incessantly, give me endless currents, washing me all over, from top to foot, as if I have clothed the robe whiter than snow with repentance, into the palace of God below” [Canon of prayer to the Guardian Angel, p 8, tr 4] 505, - we read in the canon to the Guardian Angel; and in the canon for holy communion the unrepentant tunic of the soul is noted: “In communion of Thy Holy Things, how dare I, unworthy? If I dare to approach You with those who are worthy, the tunic convicts me, as if I were not wearing the evening [i.e. e. corresponding to a supper, a feast], and I intercede for condemnation of my many-sinful soul. Cleanse, O Lord, the defilement of my soul” [Poslection for Holy Communion, troparia, chapter 8, on Glory: The uneven tunic is a soul in defilement 506. Thus, the uneven tunic, which exposes the unworthy, is the defilement of the soul as an empirical character, woven from many bad discoveries. As an example of the patristic use of clothing, we will give an extract from the instructions of the Monk Barsanuphius the Great. This saint once did not bless one hierodeacon to sew a special cassock (νμάτιον άφωρισμένον), especially for going to church and serving. “Concerning clothing,” he wrote to him, “(I will say): acquire spiritual clothing with which God is pleased [...] Tell me, brother: if a person puts on silk clothing and is a fornicator, does that clothing cleanse him from fornication or other passions? What should those honored with the ministry of St. 507 do? But virtue cannot be achieved by one’s own strength, and its spiritual basis is grace. Therefore, Christ Himself is especially called spiritual clothing, in Whom, according to the word of the Apostle, the one who is baptized 508 is clothed and in Whom the ascetic is clothed in a more obvious, more definite manner 509 . And vice versa: the Fall, as the withdrawal of divine grace, is constantly called in church hymns nakedness: only in God and by God does man find himself and reveal himself. “Before we were stripped of our charms, we clothed ourselves in the robe of incorruptibility with Christmas Yours [the Mother of God, i.e. Christ]” – is listed in the canon of the Most Holy Theotokos [canto 8, troparion 3] 510. “Jesus, clothing of gladness, clothe me who perishes; Jesus, cover of joy, cover me, unworthy,” reads the akathist to the Sweetest Jesus [Ikos b] 511. “Let us clothe ourselves with Him who is clothed with light, as with a robe” - is sung at Matins on the fourth of the sixth week of Great Lent [on the verse it is self-according] 512. Here, along with the symbol of clothing, as God clothing a person, the same symbol is applied to clothing the Eternal Light Himself, the Light of Tabor or the eternal glory of the Divine. This application of the image of clothing to the uncreated energy of God, as the activity of God’s self-manifestation, is repeated very persistently and, moreover, not only in church literature, but also in almost all religions, not to mention the individual experience of individual mystics. 21. This is a series of clothes. But clothing as a cover, as a solitary shell, as a form of a sphere filled with activities, has a connection with the home: clothing is a mobile home, a home is immovable clothing. However, the very distinction between one and the other is conditional: thus, a shell can be called with equal right both clothing and a house; or a diving suit is usually called clothing, and a diving bell, perhaps, would rather be called a type of dwelling, although the distance between the two is very small; or again: how close is a yurt or a hut to a blanket, although the first would rather be classified as a dwelling, and the second as clothing. But be that as it may, the idea of ​​cover, protection and protection, expressed by the sacrament of anointing, has its own ladder of ascension in a number of rites that consecrate various kinds of architectural work (buildings). These are: “The order of foundation of a house”; “The rite of blessing a new house, whoever wants it first (i.e. for the first time) to move in,” with the four-sided anointing of its walls with consecrated oil and sprinkling with holy water; “The rite of blessing the new oven, built for baking”; “The order and succession of the foundation of the city”; “The order of founding a new monastery and its fence”; “Blessing and consecration of the newly created monastery”; “The rite observed at the founding of the church and the veneration of the cross”; “Prayer rite for placing a cross on top of the roof of the newly created church”; “The rite of blessing a new church or iconostasis, this is a special prayer book, through the priest, from the bishop for this blessing and the power given to the one who has it, to perform the divine liturgy in it until the time of perfect consecration” 513; many rites for the consecration of individual liturgical accessories - utensils, icons, arks, vestments and the like 514; finally, the consecration of the church itself 515, more precisely, and first of all, the throne, with washing and vesting it, with the anointing of itself and the church walls, and in general with rites very close to baptism: the consecration of the throne is a kind of baptism and its anointing. The throne is seen as a being, as something not only for another, but also in and for itself, oncologically. And this is characteristically reflected in the church’s understanding of the sides of the throne: for the worldly subjective-phenomenalistic understanding of reality, it is established in space only in relation to the subject observing it; and for the church’s realistic understanding, its position in space is independent of this subject and is taken into account based on itself. Thus, the right side of the dining table, for example, according to subjective understanding, is opposite the right side of the person standing in front of it, because only through his presence does the table receive a place in being; on the contrary, according to church reason, we must understand the throne as standing before us in the same way as we stand before it, even more real than ourselves, and, therefore, the right side of the throne is opposite our left hand. This rule of the real, and not the subjective sides of things-beings extends to the entire area of cult, and when it is said about the right side of the altar, iconostasis, icon, paten, etc., etc., it is always meant that they are looking at us, that they are frontal, they are themselves, in their organization, in the meaning of their spiritual structure, and it is not we who do them honor by communicating this meaning to them and, therefore, communicating from our point of view, i.e. e. from myself. This is the general ontological character of the entire understanding of life, in which a person recognizes himself not as a contemplator of the ghosts of his own subjectivity, unresponsively and soullessly submitting to his arbitrariness, and therefore irresponsible to them and for them, but as a member and link of a spiritual whole, which with its organs directs and determines him and among which he himself must act. Truly, he lives in a full-bodied and viscous environment, because he deals with living beings. So, “baptism” and “confirmation” of the holy throne are possible precisely on the basis of the ontological understanding of the throne; and if you do not attach dogmatic law and catechetical precision to your words, if you take them as preliminary and still awaiting final coinage, then, relying on spiritual experience and symbolic movements, is it not correct to think of the throne as a hidden cherub? But one way or another, the series of consecrations in construction, like the earlier series of consecrations of clothing and fragrance, again leads at its peak to anointing; and this indicates the analogous nature of the lower consecrations of the same series. Close to the series of consecrations just mentioned is the consecration of water vessels, boats, ships and (water) vessels (military) 516, i.e. the same houses, but mobile, and the not yet compiled rites for the consecration of trains and other land crews 517 should also be included here. As for airplanes 518, we have more than once heard from pilots the firm conviction that airplanes stay in the air not without the participation of evil spirits, so that sprinkling them with holy water or even approaching a hierurg to them drives away and irritates the “spirits of air power” 519, who patronize the flying business, threatens to overthrow the projectile, and therefore, when in pre-war times, according to official requirements, a newly built When the airplane was being blessed, those interested in its integrity in the air tried to place the priest away from the apparatus, so that drops of holy water would not reach him. By the way, pilots, dealing with the pinnacle of modern technology and, apparently, completely imbued with faith in the mechanism, are in fact very superstitious, wear special talismans in the form of bracelets, and others have little figurines, airplane gods on airplanes and live in a kind of psychic world, with their acute ecstasies, the habit of anesthesia of death and cannot escape from the addictive dangerous passion. To a much lesser extent, but somewhat similar to that, is the psychology of car drivers, usually sharply anti-church, but at the same time highly superstitious; With the growth of Americanism, the medieval atmosphere in which pacts with the devil and Sabbaths were possible also thickened. Dwellings, ships and the like belong to the category of shells, containers, fences; the rites of blessing “the threshing floor, or the granary, or the new cloister”, “new nets built for catching fish” 520, etc. should also be attributed to the consecration of things of the same category. All of the listed categories of things: perfume, clothes, homes, etc., at the same time have one more common feature - to be an ornament, and beauty itself, as a phenomenon outside of some internal meaning, with high abstraction, fits into the category of shells, being, if you like, a shell par excellence; after all, the highest shell, the glory of a being, is its light environment, and light, according to the teachings of Plotinus and St. Basil the Great, is the purest beauty. And one more thing: the Holy Spirit is the highest measure of the luminous robe of a spiritual person, and He is Beauty and the Source of Beauty, decorating everything with Himself. From this it is clear that clothing and other shells, now like decorations, lead to absolute decoration, to the sacrament of the perfecting and consummating Spirit - anointing. As types of sacred decorations, this also includes sacred banners, consecrated banners 521, etc. This also includes weapons 522, the subject of attention from the cult in all organic cultures and, in particular, the medieval one. Iyr weapons were not only consecrated, like any other thing, but also contained particles of relics and other relics. The sword, at least in the West, was baptized and given a personal name; he was sung as a special creature - just remember Durandal - they swore by him, they felt a spiritual connection with him, so the words of the song “saber, faithful friend” then did not at all seem like a metaphor; losing a sword was not only material damage, but was a moral loss, some kind of infidelity or negligence towards a loved one, it was dishonor; one of the greatest concerns at death was to ensure that the sword passed into reliable hands or to destroy it; the sword participated in almost all the most important life events of its owner, and even during prayer, stuck in the ground, it stood in front of the kneeling knight. It was not a weapon in the everyday sense, it was not a useful tool of military equipment, but rather a sacred accessory to this cult, thoroughly and always cult life; and therefore, to draw a sword, contrary to the rules, not ritually, would be the same dishonor and even a sin as for us today to enter into a fight with an altar cross. Yes, this could not be otherwise, since the sword had the signs of a spiritual being with a certain ontological place, almost a rank, in the theocratic system. In some special cases, these ontological features of the sword thickened into an even more concrete idea, and then there was a belief about some, especially famous swords, as about lurking non-human creatures, and news like: “such and such a sword was a fairy” 523 was preserved. What has been said about the sword, modifying and partly weakening, should be repeated about other types of weapons. For ancient thought, weapons are theurgic or, in other cases, and sometimes “also” magical: they strike not through the connection of mechanical causes and effects, but on the plane of spiritual causality. This range of concepts is implied, although not taken absolutely in an ontological worldview, and faith in the judgment of God, which, in fact, is carried out with weapons in hand, is a direct expression of this faith. A weapon is actually a spiritual organ, a conductor of spiritual power, by which it is, as it were, collected and directed. In this sense, a weapon is a manifest Shergia of the inner being, the same body or continuation of the body, the same clothing, the same decoration. That is why in the military rank - and warriorship, knighthood is precisely a theocratic rank, a special line of theocratic rank of government - in the military rank, the weapons correspond to the vestments of the hierarchical rank, and these two categories of clothing sometimes transform into each other in such a way that it is not possible to draw a boundary separating them. You understand: the cross and the sword are one 524 But if in some cases the two lines of theocratic weapons simply merge, then even if they are separate, there is a symbolic parallelism between them, and therefore, in the order - both ontological and historical - the symbolism of sacred vestments as weapons is not at all a strained retroactive interpretation: rather, they would have to be regarded as remnants of an ancient culture. Thus, the gaiter and the club are interpreted as a spiritual sword, and the very prayer for putting on the girdle: “Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Mighty One, with Your beauty and Your kindness, and attack, and prosper, and reign (for the sake of truth and meekness and righteousness, and Your right hand will admonish You marvelously, always, now, and ever, and forever and ever. Amen) 525 "- shows the main symbolic meaning of what is being worn. In a similar way, the kamilavka has been considered since ancient times as a helmet, etc. d.; these interpretations in the history of the Church go back to the symbolic words of the Apostle Paul: 526 - and with their general historical roots they are lost in ancient times, like other moments of the cult, but, also like other moments, unlike the roots, as they descend - they thicken and increase the number of lateral hair connections that unite these roots of the cult with each other and with the depths of all life that feed them 527. 21. There is also a category of life devices, related in function to clothing, architectural buildings, weapons, and decoration: these are dishes. In some cases, it has a function primarily, so to speak, defensive, and then it is closer to clothing and to the home; in others, its functions are offensive and the utensils are directed towards weapons, partly decoration. In the field of dishes, as in all areas of true culture, there are its own levels of spiritual dignity, its own hierarchical ladder. On the lower step there is low-purpose utensils, not fashioned “in honor,” according to the words of the Apostle Paul 528. Then comes the kitchen utensils; then there is the dining room, and in the dining room there is more and less honorable, everyday and festive; further – dishes associated with the “house church” of the 529th clan, with the memory of departed ancestors, used in exceptional cases, already with a clear shade of ritualism. In the order of sacredness we further have church utensils, starting from the sacred ladles, dishes, containers for water, then the mystical font and, finally, the arks for the Holy Gifts, holy relics, etc., tabernacles, censers and the most sacred paten and chalice. This entire row of dishes, starting from the lowest and ending with the highest, is sanctified. At the lower levels, in everyday life, any newly acquired utensils are sanctified by sprinkling with holy water or rinsing with holy water. At higher levels, this consecration is supplemented by “prayer for the consecration of every thing” 530, and then there are special prayers and special rites of consecration 531 To the series of positive consecrations of shells - clothes, dwellings, dishes, etc., there must also be a series of negative ones that remove spiritual filth, which, however, does not exclude its materiality, miasma, and prohibitive nature. These are: “Prayering over a house or place enchanted and deceived from evil dreams” 532, “The rite of opening and cleansing the church from godless tongues, or from heretics, or from defiled apostates” 533, “The rite of opening and cleansing the church or tsmintar, where it happens to a person to die the necessary death, or by blood human in the sedition of a certain church or tsmintar dill" 534. This also includes 535 cleansing vessels from defilement. If something foul or unclean happens to fall into a vessel of wine, or oil, or honey, or anything else”, “Prayer over a defiled vessel.”) 536 22. These are some of the ritual series, little directly connected with each other and, at first glance, even very heterogeneous, but converging in one center, from which they proceed radially. True, these series have, as partly already slightly outlined here, lateral weaves and their own tributaries that unite them, but their main unification is their center - the sacrament of anointing, the perfection and completeness of all these above-mentioned series - in short - their entelechies. 537 Here, in order to dispel some misunderstandings, we should recall what has already been said about the organic connections between individual rituals. Many types of consecrations can be distributed, it will be objected here, in another way, and, moreover, they can be counted among other sacraments. Not only do I not argue, but I also accept other proposals in advance; after all, every action in cultural life is something complex, organically diverse, relating at once to several, not to say more precisely, to all human functions, in their unity. Already in the most primary functions, in each, one can discern all the others. Even the sacraments, these types and fundamental functions of humanity, in their purest form, mutually reflect each other and, in the words of St. Simeon of Thessalonica, “are performed mutually through each other,” forming an inextricable unity in which each member presupposes all the others. Thus, in order to celebrate the Eucharist, one must be consecrated. To be consecrated, the consecrating bishop must be consecrated and, before that, baptized and confirmed. In addition, for the possibility of ordination, it is desirable or almost necessary to be born in a church marriage, which requires someone dedicated. And in order for him to be anointed, there must be a throne on which the Eucharist is celebrated. Proceeding from the Eucharist, we came back to it. The Eucharist presupposes the Eucharist, and in general, from any sacrament, through the mediation of others, the connecting link extends to itself: the sacraments “are performed mutually through each other” 538. This is a single organism of sacraments, in which each organ is unthinkable without the other, but on the other hand, or precisely because of this, each contains all the others. Organic connection of the sacraments “As the sacraments are given among one another, and performed among one another. Chapter 25. May the inheritance of grace from Christ be in us; below is chrism without peace, below is ordination without peace. For this reason, the priesthood exists in the world (the world), and this is known from here. The ointment is placed and applied to the top of the altar, for without the altar it is impossible for the world to eat. The altar is once again anointed with myrrh and consecrated. The world seems to be on top of the world. And again the bishop performs the sacred myrrh. And without the bishop it is impossible for the world to exist. This one is anointed with myrrh, when he is baptized, he is also ordained by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Between themselves, gifts are given, since only the One God Himself in the Trinity makes gifts and ordinations, just as there are rivers in the world, and the same ordinations are performed in the altar. The altar is anointed with myrrh, and without the altar no Orthodox is ordained. In the world, even the ordination of priests happens before they first take myrrh. The same ordination, and invocation, and naming of the Spirit at the hands of the bishop is only performed and there is peace...” (Tablet, pp. 92 - 95) 539. So about the sacraments; the same should be said about less expressive and more peripheral, and therefore more mutually complicated actions, sanctified by rituals. And if certain lines of connection are drawn here, this does not mean that others are denied; on the contrary, the possibility of many is affirmed here, although those given seemed more convenient in the course of the presentation. Speaking in detail, having built some diagrams and thus bringing the thought to some questions of the cult, one must cross out everything that has been said, erase these auxiliary lines from the living drawing, remove the scaffolding and most decisively repeat that the cult is a coherent unity, repeatedly and variously permeated with reflections, correlations and mutual similarities, so that everything is seen in everything; It is possible to highlight certain lines, so to speak, veins of relationships only for methodological purposes, for the sake of systematics, for the sake of convenience and deepening, but under the indispensable condition of remembering this convention of divisions, and invariably adhering to the organic unity of the entire cult. A more accurate diagram, or rather a general picture that combines various schemes, is presented in the drawing. 23. Let us now turn to the rites, which, as they become ontologically enriched, go back to the sacrament of the Eucharist. The ladder of this kind of consecration is directed to food and drink, to the functions of nutrition in general, and first of all it is necessary to consider the different degrees of consecration of that typical kind of food and that typical kind of drink, which can be called actually human food and actually human drink - food and drink par excellence. This is wheat bread and grape wine. Let's start with wine. Already wine as such, as a work of human labor, as a product of culture, as a gift of God, 540 [with thanksgiving] 541 accepted, participating in the life of prayer, has a share in the cult, receives, albeit a lower, degree of sanctification. By its nature, it is a symbol of blood, the carrier of life, which means it has something significant in it. It was recognized as such as “the blood of a bunch of grapes,” like the blood of Dionysus in ancient times; The one to whom the injunction to “mix the blood of Dionysus with the tears of nymphs” says nothing more and no less than dietary advice to drink wine with water understands nothing in the life of humanity. For ancient man, there was no “just wine” - like a well-known mixture of chemical compounds. Moreover, this apothecary wine does not exist in Christian life, and even cannot exist, not only due to the Christian idea of ​​the life of all creatures, common with every religion, but also for the deeper reason that in Christian life there is simply no wine, even like the natural blood of Dionysus, the soul of the plant world; what exists has already been sanctified several times over. There is a special “Rite of planting grapes with prayer and blessing” 543, with sprinkling the moat under the vine and the vines themselves with holy water. “Grapes” appeared - they are again blessed and consecrated on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord 544. New wine is pressed and again it is blessed with a special ceremony. “Thou shalt eat Thy Holy Spirit upon this wine, and bless it in Thy Holy Name,” the priest prays, and again: “Thou also now visit from Thy holy dwelling, and bless this wine, and cause it to be for goodness and health to everyone who drinks it; 545: We ask for the Holy Spirit (yes, the Holy Spirit), which means we receive it, not for any wine drunk in church, but for table wine, the wine of everyday life. And if “some nasty animal” falls into the wine, then again a special rite of blessing and consecration of the wine is performed 546; in a specific religious worldview, defilement is not thought of positivistically, in an external order only, why spiritual cleansing is necessary from animal pollution, but also not in an abstract moral order, why “some animal”, indifferent to the categorical imperative, can cause spiritual defilement; this defilement is understood here spiritually and physically, as in ancient times μίασμα, and by spiritual and bodily cleansing, we repeat, the defilement is also expelled; and the purifications from it would be equally distorted, both when interpreting them externally hygienic and abstractly moral. 24. At the next level of consecration, one should place something that is directly involved in the church service - wine with warm water as a “drinker”, or “warmth”, after communion - corresponding in the series of consecrations of bread to the antidor, that is, instead of the gift, the bread given in exchange for Communion. One must think that in ancient practice such antidorin wine was given after the liturgy to all those present. Next comes the blessed wine, consecrated after the litany, at vespers, along with bread, wheat and oil - a combination of the noblest substances of culture, leading from Eleusinia, unless in Eleusinia it came here from even more ancient sacraments 547. In the prayer read during this consecration, the Savior's blessing is requested (“Bless the 548 offered substances, their multiplication, similar to the miraculous multiplication in the miracle of the five loaves, and the sanctification of those who eat from them, as a certain, so to speak, approach to the Eucharist, a pre-sanctification that raises the spiritual-bodily level above the level of prayerful life. Consecrated bread and wine after all, they are eaten in the church during the service for matins, that is, they serve to sanctify those who eat for the upcoming liturgy: this is a gapa - the supper of love in the early Christian Church. Contrary to current opinion, ancient Christian agapes should not be imagined as a kind of supper, meaning satiation; reproaching the Corinthians for such a bias in their thoughts, already Ap 549 And, consequently, these meals were primarily symbolism of theurgic power, although the real moment, bodily nutrition, was not completely excluded from here, and the amount of what was eaten was not made less than any given value, which necessarily happens whenever, with a Protestant bias, a meaning is recognized behind the rite, but abstract, powerless to act and be embodied. Here it is appropriate once and for all, in relation to all rituals, to the entire area of ​​cult, to recall the absoluteness of measures and quantities, which cannot, without qualitative changes, go beyond certain limits, depending on the essence of what the cult is dealing with in this case. Likewise, all rituals based on eating must not increase this eating quantitatively, beyond the measure that no longer adds anything to the symbolic underlying basis and further has a physiological character, but, on the other hand, and to an even greater extent, must maintain that lower limit, beyond which eating ceases to be perceived and recognized as an act of nutrition and is felt in relation to it as indifferent, as a neglected quantity, from the presence or absence of which nothing happens in a given function. I repeat, there is both a lower and an upper threshold of the receptivity of a symbol, corresponding to an upper and lower threshold of the mass of its concreteness. And if antiquity was tempted to go beyond the upper limit, thereby somewhat deviating into naturalism, as an exaggeration of the natural mysticism of matter, then modern times were tempted to go beyond the lower threshold; but the first only rounds out religion, and the second eradicates it. When the blessed bread is eaten with such crumbs that, due to their insignificance, are not capable of being perceived as food, which do not give a taste sensation and, when placed in the mouth, simply disappear there, then this clearly pulls out the ground from under agape as a sacred food, namely food, and not anything else: after all, for any ritual there must be one or another specific basis. It cannot be called eating bread if this bread in its presence can only be proven by a microscope or chemically. In relation to modern practice, one could paraphrase the apostle’s words: “Don’t you have dictionaries at home to read the word “bread” there?” Suppressing excessiveness, which only burdens the symbolism of the agapes of antiquity, the church charter took its own measures against modern abstraction: by establishing an exact measure in agapes, it thereby shows us the degree of greatest sensitivity of our spirit to the symbolism of the blessed bread and wine. “The cellarer (i.e., the head of the storeroom [of the monastery]), will take from the bread of the blessed,” as the Typikon prescribes, “and crushing the “i.e. f.) cut into slices) on a platter, he distributes to the brethren and draws from a single cup - ποτήριον - wine (blessed). - everyone is the same, from the abbot to the last who are in the monastery... When the cellarer distributes the bread to the brethren and a single cup of wine, labor for the sake of the vigil (due to fatigue from the [all-night] vigil), as from the beginning the father received from the saints, and the shed makes the usual bow with those who served with him, two in a row in front of the holy doors (thanking God for the fulfilled service), and for both faces one by one (asking forgiveness for omissions), and goes (to their places).” “The blessed ones have the bread of the gift - χαρίσματα - different: rekshe (i.e.) they give fire (fever) to those who drink with water, and they drive away tremors (fever), and every ailment and every disease is healed; By this they will drive away mice from their lives and drive away any mischief-makers” [Typikon; Skaballonovich. Tolk Type, 550. So, let’s say in the words of the service book: “Blessed bread is helpful from all kinds of evils, if it is received with faith” 551. The “Spiritual Meadow” tells how Abba Sergius of Sinai, having given such bread to a lion lying on the road and preventing his mules from passing, ordered him to get off the road, which he did [chapter 125] 552. In the prayer for the blessing of the loaves, they are asked to multiply them. Regarding this and other similar cases, starting with the gospel miraculous feeding or, if you like, those mysterious multiplications of food and drink, which the ancient followers of Dionysus narrate, and about other similar ones found in the religion of all countries and peoples, something must be said: “Multiply this loaves in all your world” - both in Christianity and in religion in general it would be a powerless, complacent euphemism if faith were not presupposed in the fulfillment of the request. Meanwhile, the two-thousand-year experience of Christianity, repeated countless times in countless churches, not to mention the experience of religion in general, would seem to be sufficient to convince us of the futility of such petitions. “Multiply,” the believers pray, but the bread does not multiply. But a cult is a cult because it presupposes an internal lawfulness of what is happening, a regulation, which, in fact, is the basis of the worldly concept of the constancy of the laws of nature. The cult does not assume a miracle as some kind of exclusivity, does not wait for extraordinary events, for it is itself a permanent miracle. On the other hand, being such, he is confident in the power given to him, and therefore does not doubt the fulfillment of what he asks; This is least of all a nervous expectation - it will work or not - an intensification of subjective human efforts, in which the boundary of the possible and the impossible is erased. On the contrary, it is a systematic increase in the level of the possible, which belongs to a person with a sense of calm possession. The minister of the Church does not exaltly shout “multiply”, but calmly asks, in the conviction that what was asked has always, unless there are extraordinary countercircumstances, been fulfilled and will be fulfilled until the end of time. And so, in this case, to the pointed out consideration that as if “loaves, wheat, wine and oil” were not and are not multiplied, the believer responds by contrasting this experience of the world with the experience of faith, namely, the fulfillment of what was asked. This opposition, however, does not at all require the height of faith that at first seems necessary: ​​one only needs to remember the principle of relativity. After all, the main measures by which, in fact, we could find out whether the loaves are multiplied or not multiplied - measures of mass, weight, volume, etc., and here we should also add a unit of counting - these measures cannot be considered constant. The magnitude of the measures themselves depends on the system in which they are considered, and therefore anything can be said about any thing, that it is constantly decreasing or increasing, and, moreover, according to any law, you just have to mentally attribute it to an appropriately selected system. This applies to all the physical characteristics of any thing, and our statement about their immutability, or about this or that change, from the point of view of the modern scientific worldview, expresses our belief that this thing belongs to a known system; but this belonging is not at all a passively perceived data, which we must take into account as some final stop of our research, but is determined by a living and creative act of faith, which in turn depends on the integral system of our thought or, more precisely and more deeply, on the structure of our spirit, determined in the last depth by the absolute reality on which our “heart” is oriented 553. And therefore, any statement about the magnitude of the parameters that characterize a thing, taken separately, cannot be called true; it becomes one way or another only in the connection of this statement with the spiritual whole, built by a given person on the basis of a certain spiritual value. If, in relation to our particular case, this “treasure” serves as a single world as a solid system with an absolute center - a given person, absolutely self-closed - then the statement of (imaginary) “experience” about the non-multiplying of loaves, of course, should be accepted, but not in the sense of some kind of discovery, but only as a development of the basic premises about the closedness of human subjectivity - as the spiritual self-identity of this faith of a person in himself, who has become "self-image." On the contrary, with other faiths, that is, with other treasures of the heart, posited outside of itself, the absolute self-closure of the world is denied: the world ceases to be considered as one solid system, it becomes internally mobile, and thereby it is fundamentally recognized that things belong to different systems, can move or be transferred from system to system, and then what seemed previously unchanged will have to be spoken of as changed, and what was considered changing, sometimes speak out in the sense of constancy. The truth or falsity of this or that statement is taken into account only in the context of an integral understanding of life, and the world understanding itself is hung on the scales of faith. What can we say about a cult, all of whose activities are aimed at snatching a thing, or more broadly, reality in general, from one system and transferring it to another? Of course, only that as soon as such activity of the cult is recognized, then it also has the ability to one way or another evaluate the characteristics of a thing, and judgments from the outside about this subject are not only erroneous, but simply fundamentally empty, fundamentally not valuable. The main question - about the transfer or non-transfer of a thing from system to system - is resolved in the order of internal, but not external experience. So, our idea is not at all to challenge the “experience” of non-multiplying of sanctified substances, when such is requested, but to show the complete immunity of the faith of the Church from those understandings of life that are differently oriented and, in particular, that affirm the self-closure of the world. We believe that as soon as multiplication is asked for in the cult, it happens, and at the same time I insist that we are not alone, with our such faith, in the exceptional position of being refuted by worldly experience, but any statement, taken anywhere in isolation, has no more evidence than this statement of faith. And if someone considers it necessary, apologetically, to talk about the multiplication of blessed substances, then in an inter-confessional, inter-worldview order, no less apologetically, one should talk about their non-multiply. More precisely, neither one nor the other should be said apologetically, but with the consciousness of the deep responsibility of the words spoken and their inextricable connection with the holistic worldview, standing on its inherent foundation. 25. The next step in the sanctification of wine is the common cup of brotherhood, as well as the common cup that is blessed at the wedding and drunk during the celebration of this sacrament, as a sign of the complete unity of the spouses that has already taken place, and at the completion of the marriage sequence. “God... give this common cup to those who are united in the communion of marriage, bless it with a spiritual blessing,” 554 the priest prays, blessing the wine. This wine participates in the sacrament, but, while receiving a spiritual blessing, it does not itself reach the height of mystery, complete sanctification, for it does not relate directly to the sacrament and enters into it indirectly. Here it is appropriate to say a few words about the rudimentary rituals in the sacrament. Just as in works of literature, when processing a literary plot that has already been previously processed, previous forms of development are often included in the new one, but not directly carrying out the direct function of expression, 555 indirectly contributing to this expression, and they are introduced as possible, but not realized courses of action, as hypotheses, thereby sharpening the main, actually occurring action - so in liturgics, with the new development of some liturgical theme that has already found Once expressed under a different aspect, the main points of the previous rite are not simply canceled or destroyed, because they also expressed something essential, although not the most important from the point of view of this new liturgical development, but are introduced into the new rite as a frame, addition and revelation of its main spiritual action. Thus, in the marriage rite that is subject to discussion, it is not difficult, in the order of comparative liturgics. learn the basic rite of the ancient wedding of the Roman sacred marriage per conformationem 556, the common cup of wine of the ancient Jewish wedding, etc. With the eating of food, the community of the table for pre-Christian antiquity was the primary sign of marriage, as establishing the mystical unity itself. Christianity does not deny this idea, and therefore the corresponding rite is left by the Church in the Christian rite. But ontologically, this unity in Christianity is derivative and secondary in comparison with spiritual communion, including up to the crowns of martyrdom, which, with the corresponding rite, naturally takes the central place in the rite and pushes aside the common cup, this church conformatio 557, towards the end of the rite. The indicated rudimentary nature of the wedding wine does not give it the right in the proper sense to be recognized as the wine of the sacrament, although it is the wine in the sacrament. Such, that is, a higher level of sanctification, direct participation in the sacrament should be recognized for the wine mixed with oil in the sacrament of consecration of oil. Here it constitutes an essential condition of the sacrament. (Petition from the litany: “For this oil to be blessed with the power and effect and influx of the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord.” Prayer of the oil over the candile, when “wine is put into the candile with prayer oil”: “...You yourself, Vladyka, consecrate this oil, as if you were anointed with it for the healing and change of all passions and defilements of the flesh and the spirit and all evil...") 558 Even higher is the mysterious chalice of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts; and it is strange that the dogmatic teaching about it has not yet been expressed with complete certainty. Namely, the cup in this liturgy, as well as the Bread, does not receive Eucharistic consecrations: Bread, watered with the Holy Blood, is like having already received them at the previous full liturgy, so that by Eucharistic consecration the Bread is already transubstantiated; in the cup there is poured wine and water, not transubstantiated. What should we think about the cup of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts? This question has a long and complex history, but it still cannot be considered resolved, at least not formulated generally in the Church. In order to emphasize the unfrozen state of Orthodox theology, in need of work and inspiration, we should not avoid this question on our path. Its sharpness will be clearer if we remember that into this cup is placed, just as it is done at the full liturgy, but without the corresponding words (“Filling of the Holy Spirit”) 559, a part of the consecrated Lamb with the inscription k. However, this time it is filled with the Holy Blood. The modern Missal publishes the article “Statement of Certain Corrections in the Service of the Presanctified Liturgy,” establishing the order of some of the most important actions of the Presanctified Liturgy. The starting point of both these actions and the entire “Manifestation” is the idea that in the holy chalice at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts there is only “wine” consecrated by the “investment of a Particle” of the Holy Mysteries, but not the Holy Blood: the wine here is not transubstantiated into the Divine Blood, “since there are no sacred words above it, as happens in the liturgies of Basil the Great and John Zlatoustag about" 560. In accordance with this basic view, the “Proclamation” prescribes that at the great entrance both the chalice and the paten should be carried only by the priest, so that the deacon does not have more and the priest has less, - to omit the words when placing a part of the Holy Body into the chalice and pouring warmth into it, - to combine the words of communion of the Holy Body and the Holy Blood, - to silently eat from the chalice, - and for the one, deacon or priest, who has to consume the Holy Gifts from the chalice should not be eaten at all; in practice, this results in the non-communion of the Presanctified Gifts of infants during the liturgy, as incapable of receiving solid particles of this Body. This is the “Proclamation”. But its direct evidence is contradicted by the image of the celebration of this liturgy - the high reverence that appears to the cup placed on the row (and even to the right) of the Holy Gifts on the antimension, and, if you like, even the incomprehensibility of why this cup with supposedly simple wine, which cannot be received, is needed; Metropolitan Peter Mogila even says: “There is simple wine, and not the Sovereign Blood, which is used for ceremonial purposes on the go, instead of rinsing the mouth” 561 [Christian Thursday, 1915 July - August, 562]. But if, in fact, this cup “is used only for ceremonial purposes for the sake of everyday life, instead of rinsing the lips,” then what does it mean that it is on the throne, and not where the place for drinking during the full liturgy is? To anyone (one can be sure) who has served himself, such expressions cannot help but seem scratchy, not reverent, detonating with the structure of liturgical experiences. And if these expressions are correct, then the equation of the Holy Body with this cup of “simple wine”—the very course of liturgical actions—cannot help but seem mysterious. And finally: the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is usually declared an “incomplete liturgy.” But what kind of liturgy is this, even if it is incomplete, if nothing is transubstantiated in it, but only communion is performed with the already consecrated reserve Gifts? After all, the communion of a sick person will in no way be called a liturgy, and this service of St. Pope Gregory the Dialogue, which we are discussing, is essentially, in the Eucharistic sense, no different from the farewell of a sick person, unless there really is an error in the “Declaration”, and further, in essence: if the contact of water with the cross sanctifies it with a high degree of sanctification, then is it really in the wine that permeates the Honest The Body, washing Him and dissolving part of the Honest Blood from Him, can you still see a simple mouthwash? Really, the living Body and the Blood of the Lord do not liken this wine to themselves, do they not transform it into Honest Blood? The material holiness of the Holy Mysteries and this imaginary inactivity of them in the closest contact with wine stand in a blatant contradiction, violating the entire structure of liturgical thinking. These questions, which inevitably arise, are further aggravated if we further recall the insignificant authority of the “Declaration”, on the one hand, and the ancient Orthodox view of the cup of the Presanctified Liturgy, on the other, namely: throughout the entire Ecumenical Church until the 9th century, the belief in the cup of the Presanctified Liturgy as the true Blood of Christ, transubstantiated by contact with the Body of Christ placed into it, prevailed, why the spare Lamb for the Presanctified Liturgy was not drunk on the Holy Blood. According to the ancient, our and Greek missals, the Presanctified Liturgy was celebrated according to the full type, with the exception of the Eucharistic canon, and even in the Kyiv editions of the missal of the above-mentioned Metropolitan Peter Mogila, the following of this liturgy follows the model of the full liturgy, inclusive of the partaking of the deacon (- and he has to consume the Holy Gifts and therefore cannot in any way wash down the Holy Communion before this consumption -), inclusive of the deacon’s partaking of the cup, but partaking once, instead of the usual three times. From the 11th century there is evidence from the Patriarch of Constantinople 563 that the spare Lamb is not given the Precious Blood to drink and that “The presanctified liturgy is performed only for the sake of the consecration of the cup” [Chronicles, 1915, June, p. 740] 564 why, we add, is called precisely the liturgy, although incomplete, and why during it there is an altar curtain twitches, although only half its width. But since the 9th century, a contrary view has arisen in the Roman Church, and it gradually finds supporters, first in the West, and then in Russia; and in the middle of the 17th century he gained victory in the Russian Church, although the Old Believers, according to old printed books and manuscripts, still adhere, like the Greeks, to the views of the ancients. At the beginning of the 19th century, this view of the cup of the Presanctified Liturgy was brought to Constantinople and then to the Church of the Kingdom of Greece; finally, recently the Old Believers of the Austrian Concord have also begun to embrace it. Thus, the infection of a degraded ontology gradually spreads and takes root in various religious societies, which, however, have the unfortunate common factor that they are all immersed in the environment of neo-ontological revivalist thought, which relaxes and creates favorable conditions for spiritual illness. Of course, it would be wrong to claim a solution to the important church-wide question about the cup being discussed here. But at the very least, there is no doubt that even a simplified reprisal against him sins against the truth. No matter how the church teaching about the cup of the Presanctified Gifts is formulated, one should in any case see in it the closest approach to the Honest and Life-giving Blood of Christ, here already, at this highest and final stage of the consecration of wine - transubstantiated. 26. Parallel to the consecration of wine, a series of consecrations of bread takes place. Without repeating here what was said earlier about the natural holiness of bread and the lower degrees of its consecration in everyday life, we will only note that in the series of blessings of bread there are special rites that spiritually prepare the very reception of bread as a matter of culture. These are the rites for the consecration of sowing, for the blessing of the threshing floor and granary 565 and further “the new oven built for baking” 566. Consequently, the entire production of bread, from its very first actions, proceeds in a cultic way. When kneading, the dough is blessed with the sign of the cross, and is kneaded in a consecrated vessel, and prosphora is kneaded in holy water; the cave is lit with sacred fire from the lamp, and in the lamp they try, or at least tried, to maintain the holy fire of Maundy Thursday and Holy Week, or, even better, a miraculous fire brought from the edicule of the Church of the Holy Resurrection; bread is cut after first drawing a cross on it: the eldest in the house, i.e. the priest of the “house church” 567, with the blade of a knife, scratches the image of a cross on the top crust of the loaf before beginning it, and performs cutting the bread as a kind of sacred rite; a fallen piece of bread should not only be lifted from the floor or from the ground, but also kissed, and if it is found lying on the ground, dropped by someone, then it should be moved to a higher, clean place, wiping off dirt and dust from it. These and other similar rituals, such as the offering of bread and salt, etc., clearly show that in the life of the Church - not as it is presented according to abstract schemes in theological textbooks, but in concrete, rich and actually embodied life - bread is thought and felt as something fundamentally sacred and therefore, precisely because, capable of being the point of application of further rituals that potentiate this sacredness. Among such promotions, one can place untaken prosphora, like bread, consecrated with a “seal” imprinted on it, with sacred images and a name, reverent production of it and, finally, the high deed intended for it. Next comes dough cookies in the shape of crosses; in the past, these crosses were consecrated in the church and placed in bins, one at a time, to protect grain “from reptiles,” that is, mice and insects; and in the spring, when they first went out into the field to work, these crosses were given to the horse (also for its sanctification and spiritual strengthening). Here the emphasis should be placed on this participation of animals and, in general, all creatures in the church cult, that is, on the participation in the life of the Church not only of people, but also of creatures, both higher and lower than people. For a secular worldview, an animal is only labor force or a possible roast, and even with the persistent defense of the soul of animals on the part of a representative of a naturalistic worldview, the true meaning of the corresponding statements is not at all to establish the correct feeling and spiritual connection with animals, with all creation, but to spite religion - to belittle man himself; when the mouth says: “animals have a soul,” then know that the mind thinks and the heart feels: “man has no soul.” On the contrary, the cultic attitude towards creation prohibits utilitarianism and self-interest towards it, prohibits the coldly violent use of animals and creatures in general, as mere soulless and impersonal material, but requires the control of nature, since this is given to us for the sake of higher goals, for the sake of the Church, of which the animal, the plant, the angels, and the elements are members, each according to its rank and in its place. Man uses and can use animals, but these latter also have their own protection and their rights and, in particular, in turn receive something from the Church through man. Various consecrations of animals and plants and, on the other hand, their spiritual protection, prescribed by the charter, from all pests - these are only a very few, book-established relations of the cult to the creature; but the vital connection of the cult with creation is immeasurably richer, and, starting from everyday life and to the heights of spiritual achievement in the lives of saints, one can point out countless threads along which communication of heavenly energies occurs with both animals and plants as younger members of the Church. Here an objection sometimes arises: “But why, in this case, are animals not allowed into the church, and especially to the sacraments, and isn’t this a clear sign of their “filthiness,” their complete incompatibility with the integral life of the Church?” But this objection overlooks the hierarchical nature of the entire structure of theocracy, and not only animals alone do not have all the opportunities and roads generally existing in the cult, but also people - everyone receives this or that, in accordance with their place in the body of the Church and, therefore, in accordance with their spiritual capacity, i.e. according to need, how much and what they can contain. Therefore, a positive view of animals should not at all imply spiritual outrage, and animals in the statutory structure of society receive what they can perceive. The above-mentioned feeding of a horse with consecrated crosses made of dough belongs to the number of such church rites for these younger members of the Church, as does sprinkling them with holy water during special prayer services performed for their sake, especially in the case of any illnesses, during cases of death; chasing them on Yegoryev's day with blessed willow and so on; and their presentation to the patronage and care of special animal patrons - Saints Florus and Laurus, Yegoriy, the “wolf shepherd”, and the recognition of some holidays as days of special celebration of certain animals 568 Test crosses are given not only to horses, but also to their owners, and here they are baked in a slightly different shape, not in the form of a four-pointed cross, but in the form of a cross, with splits and pairs joined ends, so that the cross turns out to be in a circle. Such crosses are baked on Wednesday of the Week of the Cross, that is, just on the middle day of Lent; Each family member is given one cross before dinner, and it is eaten with a special saying: Further 569, in the same series of consecrations, a prosphora can be placed, consecrated by taking out particles from it - memorial ones and a larger pyramid-shaped particle; this latter was intended for distribution after the liturgy, that is, it had an agapic meaning. Even further are the service prosphora, which have a special gradation among themselves, and in everyday life the nine-rank prosphora is especially revered, as a spiritual cure for illnesses. Even further - antidor, i.e. the remaining part of the prosphora of the lambs after cutting the lamb; this latter, having the shape of a truncated tetrahedral pyramid with a smaller base towards the top, must be taken out of the prosphora, in accordance with the symbolic meanings of this, taken out, like an ever-virgin birth, without violating the integrity of the walls of the prosphora itself, which marks the incorruptible womb of the Mother of God. This is the antidoron, blessed for fragmentation after the Lord's Prayer. Even further down in the series of consecrations is the bread blessed after the litia, which has already been discussed. Then the artos, consecrated by the icon of the Resurrection, imprinted on it through a special gift, by incense, prayer and sprinkling with holy water, by seven-day veneration of the church in processions of the cross throughout the Holy Week, this one continuous Sunday day, the mystical properties of which were consolidated in the popular consciousness in the 17th century, as an idea of ​​the physical continuity of this week, during which the sun does not set at all; and, finally, the long consecration of the artos ends with a prayer for its fragmentation and ritual fragmentation using a copy. From the prayer for the consecration of the artos, it can be seen that the Church brings the artos under the type of the Old Testament lamb, which prefigured “the Lamb who takes away the sins of the whole world.” “Look upon this bread, and bless and sanctify it... but make us, who bring this, and kiss it, and eat from it, to be partakers of Your heavenly blessing, and take away all sickness and illness from us by Your power, giving health to everyone” 570. To the fragmentation of the artos: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, the bread of angels, the bread of the eternal life, who came down from heaven, feeding us in these all-bright days with spiritual food of Your Divine blessings, for the sake of the three-day and saving Resurrection! Look now, we humbly pray to Thee, to our prayers and thanksgivings, and as you blessed the five loaves of bread in the desert, and now bless this bread, as if all who eat from it will be granted bodily and spiritual blessings and health...” 571 Artos is kept reverently - as a spiritual cure for illnesses and infirmities; They even receive communion due to the lack of the Holy Gifts. The genus artos at the lower level of consecration represents Easter cake, church ritual food, but not at all worldly luxury. Finally, the highest, final degree of consecration of bread is the Holy and Most Pure Body of the Lord Jesus Christ 572, which, along with the Blood, represents the focus of not only the cult - and further culture, but also the world itself, as was clarified earlier. “Communion, then, is the union of God with us, our deification, sanctification, the fulfillment of grace, radiance, the driving away of everything contrary, and what else but God’s dissolution, that is, confusion (unity) and communion. This is the sacrament, the sacrament, and the consecration of saints, and truly the holy of holies, and the perfect sacrament of all mysteries, and the initial and mysterious sacrament,” testifies the “Tablet,” with reference to Dionysius the Areopagite [Tablet, chapter 30, p. 103] 573. 27. The ascending series of consecrations of bread, ending with the Eucharistic Bread, is joined by the consecration of grain wheat and partly other grains, but no longer as simple substances to be ground, but as hidden, anabiotic, we would say now, the beginnings of life, as the sources of vegetable vegetation, hidden in them and rising from them in sprouts and then ending in ears of grain; Here plant life is sanctified, resurrected from the womb of the earth, born from the grave, when the life-preserving, but at the same time life-binding shells have decayed. Order for sowing; consecrated by home prayer, oozing, i.e. boiled wheat with honey, on the eve of the Nativity of Christ, the so-called Sochevnik, or in common parlance Christmas Eve; funeral kutya 574; Kolivo in memory of the Hieromartyr Theodore Tiron, consecrated on Saturday of the first week of Great Lent 575 - boiled grains with dried fruits; wheat, consecrated along with bread, wine and oil after the litany at Vespers; finally, wheat, consecrated in the sacrament of consecration of oil with seven candles burning in it, and scabs, holy oil and incense - these are the steps of this grain-blessing series. Its negative pole is “Prayer over defiled wheat, or flour, or some kind” 576. It should be noted here that wheat is sanctified almost always, if not directly always, in connection with the thought of death - past or future. Kolivo of Theodore Tiron - in view of the persecution of the Church that broke out under Emperor Julian, threatening torture and death; wheat lithium - as a remedy for illnesses, that is, again in view of possible death, and, probably, with a funeral meaning, because the ancient all-night vigils (when the consecration of the four substances named are performed) were not only terminologically all-night vigils - παννυχίδες, but also in the modern sense of the word "requiem services", i.e. commemorations of the departed saints and especially martyrs, in whom the ancient church consciousness felt not an abstract attribute of holiness, but concrete holiness, personal closeness and kinship with them; and, finally, the wheat of the blessing of oil - already clearly at the meeting with impending death. The symbolism of grain makes clear the use of these grain rudiments of life in establishing a religious attitude towards death: after all, a grain is almost nothing, a point that in itself has no sensory meaning, but this nothing is incomprehensible, but it also undoubtedly exhausts itself, when it dies, decomposes and finally comes to naught, the fullness of the living organism of the plant, which in turn brings grain according to its kind and infinitely expands the possibility of new life; Since ancient times, grain has been a type of life that dies, is buried, decays and is resurrected, [so that it bears “much fruit” 577]. This explains the usual combination of consecrated wheat with honey, this mysterious substance that combines the most diverse aromas of the whole meadow and thus appears as a microcosm, that is, again the potency of countless manifestations; For various reasons, this substance has been associated since ancient times with the veneration of the dead and communication with them. 578.) In its pure form, honey - or its equivalent, grain - is a necessary accessory for the funeral eve, that is, the table in front of which the secret remembrance takes place, or the naming of souls and communication with them; what is said here can be completely understandable only to the one who served, for only he knows the “yes”, then the “I”, the “here”, the “amen”, which in the heart gives responsibility to each named name. But here, when discussing these memorial substances, the roots of the symbol, those realistic foundations by virtue of which parallelism and analogy grow from abstract thoughts into theurgic actions, must be touched upon, albeit in passing. This connecting link between the spiritual receptivity of a thing, its liturgical capacity, by virtue of which it can receive grace, and the abstract meaning, to which our consciousness clings to the symbol, is the natural-magical, occult nature of the thing, in this case, the grain. During consecration, the grain absorbs the spiritual energy descending on it, and for this it must be spiritually capacious; on the other hand, this consecrated grain is given to us in the cult, and, therefore, must be represented by consciousness with some meaning; in this case, it is such because it rots, sprouts, and produces a plant. But the question is: what is common between the first and second moments, between capacity and meaning, and how are they united for us as a water thing, in one grain? After all, directly from the indicated symbolic meaning of the grain it follows only that it is used as a metaphor for the idea of ​​​​resurrection, but not at all its effectiveness, not at all the ability to really serve as a mediator in resurrection, the lowest degree of which is healing, or in healing, which, taken to the extreme, leads to resurrection. In other words, abstract symbolic meaning, at best, is the basis for abstract poetry, but not for the real life application of a certain thing - and this is exactly what a cult is. There must be something in a thing in which reality, all dynamic through and through, is directly revealed as meaning, so that symbolism and reality are not placed next to each other, but form one living dual unity. This connecting link is the soul of the thing, and we can say that it is from this center, extending in two opposite directions, that the thing is declared both as reality and as meaning, thickening on one side and thinning into a universal concept on the other. In the case of the grain under consideration: the soul of the plant - its guiding spiritual principle, its dryad or hamadryad, we would say if we were talking about a tree and not about a grain, perhaps its demeter - unites in itself, and therefore by itself, these two sides, and therefore the cult, which produces the connection of meaning and reality, is based similarly on these naturally given connections of meaning and reality. Without going into the metaphysics of commemorating the dead now, we will note only one point - this is the need to give (their) hungry and at the same time powerless soul a certain share of earthly life, so that they have the opportunity to somewhat approach us and be in communication with us. The very teaching of the Church about the need for the departed to pray for them and do good deeds must be understood not only in the sense of prayer for them, but also literally for them, instead of them, when the living, as it were, give to the temporarily dead their lips, their hands, their life opportunities and even their hearts and minds, in short - their energy of life, actively manifested and creative, and thereby, satisfying their spiritual intention, allow them to temporarily and partially incarnate themselves, are the organs of last resort, guided and moving from there. But for closer communication, a greater degree of incarnation is also required: there is a need for an influx of vital energy of a more organic nature, and this influx can be drawn, generally speaking, from various sources, legal and illegal, useful or unhelpful both for the deceased themselves and for those who enter into such communication, however, they largely achieve their main goal - incarnation. This is not the place to evaluate the various ways of giving the dead some temporary organ for communication with the living. From the most forbidden to the most obligatory, these methods are quite monotonous and consist in providing the departed with some of the finest super-evaporations, super-secretions, essences of organic substances and especially the life-soul; these are especially the case with blood and seeds. We can say, to roughly coarse the matter somewhat, that when commemorating the deceased, they use for their incarnation the life principle hidden in the seeds, and this impassive, least corrupted by sin and still childishly immaculate life force, the plant soul, in its metaphysical and spiritual affinity with the angelic world, is the most suitable organ, the most suitable body for the manifestation of the pure and already, of course, heavenly intentions of those whom we call to remembrance. And the very inability of the plant soul to passionate movements, its inconsistency with sinful principles, its inability to remind the deceased what is harmful for him and to tune him in such a way - makes from these grains, when remembering, a kind of valve or filter, through which the deceased is allowed to bring down to earth and nourish with earthly activity his angelic self-determinations, but is resolutely forbidden to do the same with the diabolical self-determinations, which thus, according to lack of food, conditions are created for their oblivion, loss and drying out. It is on this filter that the cult relies, growing with the life-creative Spirit, “hatching” the hidden grain in this grain with the Spirit, and then the natural power of the plant unfolds and purifies, endlessly increasing its activity. Now it is clear that the meaning of symbolism * is organically connected precisely with the properties of the plant soul, with this central point of the grain: by replacing the grain with something else at the funeral service, we would disrupt the entire system of forces, actions and symbols that are balanced and highly coherently serving one goal - the spiritual enlightenment of the person commemorated - and would be like an artist who, while painting a picture, would smear his work with the sleeve of unsuitable clothes, or a musician who squeaks his boots I would mute my violin. Moreover, such inconsistencies are conceivable here that can cause an action that is directly opposite to the desired one, and, instead of helping, cause the greatest damage. Let not the so-called good intentions be put forward here as a refutation: taken abstractly, without concrete knowledge of what they lead to, they only boast of their kindness, proclaiming themselves to be good, while anything else, and kindness needs to be proven by deeds. And the work of these good intentions can be likened to a kind indication of the passage through a pool: the smallest, but certainly due kindness here would be a modest consciousness that the transition is unknown to me. 1 Cor. 15, 39 > 579, then different grains also, of course, have different flesh - flesh, that is, the vital principle of the body, archaea, and among the different grains there are different ranks of the vegetable-angelic hierarchy, different plant characters, of which some are more suitable for the tasks of commemoration, and others less. Both direct sensation and the ancient experience of mankind saw in rice and, in particular, in wheat the most immaculate spiritual and plant principles; it is possible that, by providing a certain vegetative soul into the body of the deceased, one must take into account the ongoing, even after death, spiritual structure of the people and era to which he belonged during life, and therefore one or another choice from several possibilities indicated or at least recognized by cult experience is appropriate here; So, it would be natural to imagine the ancient and future Indian Church using rice grains. But wheat is dearer to our hearts. In general, in the cult, as in everything vital-organic, and, moreover, mainly in it, as predominantly vital and organic, the unshakable inflexibility of its demands, based on the non-conventional, completely realistic structure of its functions, does not exclude, moreover, it presupposes and requires its flexibility and application to the integrity of life conditions, and therefore the variety of its discoveries and ways to introduce spiritual energy into the world, each time the most appropriate, depending on the situation and environment for which he needs to act. But only spiritual experience makes it possible to understand how it can and cannot be applied in this or that case. And this is not because cult actions are devoid of internal logic, but because of the complexity and responsibility of the decisions required here; and only in hindsight do motives sometimes become transparent that would not have come to mind in advance. Here is a small example: it would seem most correct to provide the deceased with the organ that is most akin to him - his own life principle, and a good deed here would be the most generous gift. And it would seem, why feed the soul of the deceased - this bird, according to the primordial symbolism of religion, with grain, when it could be given a more nutritious life principle of the person himself? But it is known from experience what horrors and disturbances in the afterlife this practice in spiritualism leads to, when the medium and other participants feed unknown, unearthly forces. And in the face of such experience, the infinite superiority of church remembrance becomes clear, its intention being close to what spiritualists would dream of. In fact, nothing dark can pass through the filter of a memorial service, the self-will of the deceased or other spiritual forces, due to the inability of grain and other memorial services to serve as a medium for the embodiment of sinful principles. There is a saving severity here, in which there is no opportunity for otherworldly sin to blossom. On the contrary, what saving thing will the deceased extract for himself from the subconscious, elemental, passionate depths of a medium lying in prostration, who has not passed through the gates of death and therefore has not even realized that “flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God”? 580 From there, from another world, unless a very sinful soul or the will of an actively evil spirit turns out to influence the world through such organs that are clearly suitable for evil and, on the contrary, impenetrable for subtle spiritual tasks. But further: exercise, volitional effort strengthens and demonstrates the abilities inherent in the organ, and therefore the pure environment, attracting good, is even more purified, grown by the forces of grace in its goodness, and the environment adapted to sin is also grown, but in the direction opposite to the first, by the efforts of the evil figures it attracts. This explains the well-known observation, attested, for example, by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow 581 and many others, that spiritualistic seances, more or less indifferent, or at least seeming so in their first steps, always develop in an evil direction and end with the obvious intervention of a dark force, just as a sad spiritual uprising ends - passion and lawlessness; neutral, or even seduced by its brilliance at its origins: The beginning of life is the morning of May, Its end is a poisoned spring 582 But, of course, “life,” as this word is understood in common parlance, when in any self-restraint and self-restraint they see lifelessness or lifelessness. A good intention to communicate with the deceased, when choosing unsuitable means for this, leads to directly opposite results, and if, God forbid, the deceased are actually drawn into materialization through the fleshly environment, then, of course, they can receive from this, to their detriment, even more sinful deeds, among those committed by them during their lifetime. It is not for nothing that “black magic” received its very name - nigra magia - from a successful play on words, in which its Greek name νεκρομαντεία (necromancy) was consonantly adapted to the Latin word nigra, and the necromancy of the ancients is nothing more than the spiritualism of our time. This black “evilness”, attracted in certain cases, seizing a position, growing organs of expressiveness for itself, is determined, however, not necessarily and not only by the evil will of the talmoturge, but by the selective absorption of certain spiritual energies put into play (by the environments, each of which has its corresponding) 583 spiritual nature, and, as has been said, by the ignorant and self-confident use of certain environments and actions can quite bruise, as the proverb goes, someone’s forehead, even during prayer. This animal is very close to the remembrance of souls, since ancient times it was recognized as a chphthonic animal, and in folk symbolism - of all countries and times - symbolism and metaphysics, which has deep mystical foundations, was understood as an image, as a manifestation, as a manifestation of the soul itself. In some cases it was a reminder of the soul, in others - an organ of manifestation of the soul, in others - its very appearance was thought of as a spiritual phenomenon, without a crude material carrier, and, finally, sometimes it was recognized or it happened that the soul itself temporarily took on or simply generally had the image of this “prophetic animal” 585. There is no need to delve into a philosophical analysis of human belief, especially since modern philosophical thought and terminology are too crude to be able to capture the overflows of the infinitely more subtle metaphysics of universal humanity, and therefore they either irrevocably cut or unconditionally mix where universal human thought modulates. It is enough to say only that the indicated ideas about the bee-soul in living symbolic thinking do not at all exclude each other, but are connected with each other, like degrees of saturation of the same color. But whatever the philosophical interpretation of this range of concepts, for anyone who has understood the groundlessness and emptiness of abstract philosophizing and felt the absolute need to draw the nourishment of their thoughts from the living experience of the history of all mankind, the main thing in the diversity of these beliefs is clear - that the appearances of the deceased are not poetic, but in fact can occur in the form of a bee (and some other creatures); but how exactly this is possible is more or less clear to some, at least from their own experience, while to others there is no need to explain, in view of their preconceived prejudice against all spiritual phenomena in general. d. Both double frames were sealed, and in general they were closed almost all the year round, and communication with the street of this church, located on the third floor, was possible only through stairs and many doors. While performing the proskomedia, for some reason, probably being late for the service, I was in a hurry and therefore did not read my usual memorial book and limited myself to only the names of my closest relatives. Then the service continued as usual until the funeral particles were washed with the Holy Blood. When the time came for this action, and the words of the prayer were said: “Wash away, O Lord, the sins of those who are remembered here by Thy Honest Blood, by the prayers of Thy saints” 586 - to my greatest amazement, a bee appeared in the air near the throne and began to circle around the bowl, narrowing its circles and persistently trying to penetrate the bowl. Brushing it away, I covered the cup with air and, as expected, began to transfer the cup from the throne to the altar. The bee accompanied it relentlessly, hitting my head until it finally became entangled in my hair, so that I barely managed to place the bowl on the altar and then combed the bee out of my hair. But then she disappeared as suddenly as she unexpectedly appeared; The searches undertaken after the service did not reveal its presence, although I do not at all doubt the materiality of this bee, despite the difficulty of understanding where it could come from, especially at this time of year. However, I am not going to assert, at least I do not need to assert, that this bee did not hatch in one of the Posad hives. But the point is this: when the bee appeared, and until the very moment of its disappearance, my head was not at all free to think about the time of year and the possibility or impossibility of this guest flying into the altar through the double sealed frames. Without thinking anything about it and only mechanically brushing it aside, I, however, received an impetus to sharp inner attention, not mental, but deeper, to follow this creature. It immediately felt like a “prophetic animal”: for a reason, not without a spiritual sign, she circles around the chalice, she wants to taste of the Holy Blood, yes, exactly, she wants, she is looking for communion, but why? Is it really just because of the wine smell? Thoughts passed through one of the lower levels of consciousness. And at that moment when she disappeared, I immediately understood what was happening, or, more precisely, at that moment, when the solid and internally adamant knowledge about the bee flashed by itself, it disappeared, as if it had melted, as if it had flown away along a perpendicular to each straight line of our space passing through the point of its location. The knowledge was that this bee resembles, reveals, is the soul of my deceased - murdered friend S T, the knowledge is completely indisputable, self-evident, direct discretion. Then several thoughts quickly flashed through what this could mean, and it was easy to figure out (this thought was no longer intuition) - to realize that today was the memory of S. T. and that I forgot to remember him on this particular day, although I usually remembered him. Then, although belatedly, I still took out a particle for him. This is the personal perception of the bee-soul. There is no doubt that “psychologists”, who have never thought of the reality of experience, and, moreover, a holistic experience, will not find it difficult to explain in this case: the bee was probably stuck somewhere in the altar since the summer, and then, warmed up, it came to life and, being hungry, flew to the smell of wine; At the same time, “a few facts” will be given about the well-known sense of smell of bees. Further, it will be seen with triumph that in the subconscious area I already remembered about the day of remembrance and, having not fulfilled what “subjectively” (i.e., due to the lack of a scientific worldview) I considered my duty, I was subconsciously worried, and, with a general tendency towards “mysticism,” the anxiety became aggravated and came to consciousness from the unexpected appearance of an insect. (Probably, very learned people will write in parentheses its Latin name: Apis mellifica L., so we need to warn them for greater learning), and, finally, learned psychologists, by the way, will mention an unflattering word, to explain my mental burden, to two or three of my wife’s aunts. These learned things are too well known that it is worth starting here to prove the possibility of using them only on the general basis of a nihilistic worldview, leading to the basic Kantian premises, and therefore it is better for those who accept them not to talk about religion at all, and at the same time about experience, any experience, and for those who do not accept them, i.e., for those who fundamentally share the symbolic worldview, it is quite clear that, firstly, such fragmentation can absolutely destroy any experience, and secondly, that intuitive insight, supported by the conciliar experience of mankind, in any case is worth something, and that, therefore, this thought, thirdly, should rely in its development precisely on concrete experience, no matter how they comprehend it later, and not undermine from the very beginning any experience that threatens to stand against its preconceived decisions. <32.) Wheat, participating in memorial rites, on the one hand, and in the consecration of oil, on the other, establishes here and there a common multiplier, showing the internal affinity of both theurgic actions; and the participation of honey, which is clearly related to the afterlife, in the funeral service emphasizes, therefore, some connections between the consecration of oil and the afterlife. It is a fairly common phenomenon that under the immediate and most obvious activity of a sacrament or ritual, layers are revealed that are not so obvious, but nevertheless significant and even more significant than those obvious activities; in the biological field they can be likened to the internal secretion of certain glands. So is the blessing of oil: having health as its subject, it echoes the world of the departed. It is remarkable that the blessing of oil was originally performed precisely at all-night vigils, and all-night vigils were nothing more than commemorations of the departed. And moreover, it was the blessing of oil that was performed at cemeteries, which once again confirms the connection of the sacrament of health, the sacrament of healing with the veneration of the dead. But let us return from the consecration of grains in general to the circle of consecration of food. The closest thing to the consecration of bread and wheat will be the consecration of salt - from ordinary salt with its symbolic sign of the fire element, as well as in fire - the meaning of salt. “Every sacrifice will be salted with salt [fire],” 587 says the Savior, and we know that in ancient cults the sacrifice was sprinkled with salt, which mysteriously burned this sacrifice, burned it, and therefore preserved it for eternity. Next comes the prayerfully blessed salt for Easter, holy Easter salt 588. Even further - the salt burned on Maundy Thursday, this is not only the mystical, but also the liturgical center of the cult year η the focus of all the most important consecrations. Further, at the next sanctification stage - salt, distributed to believers in ancient times at the Nativity of Christ - sacramentum salis 589. Finally, the salt put by the Church, also of ancient times, into the mouth of the newly baptized - may his word be dissolved by fiery wisdom; and to this day, in time-worn usage, you can hear about the “salt” of someone’s words - the aroma stored at the bottom of an already empty vessel. And the top of the entire consecrated ladder of “saltness” is Salt, which salts all life, the very fiery Word of God. Another series of food consecrations, now more general, that is, extending not to just one type of food, but to many types at once, or even to food in general. These are: prayerful permission for fasting on the Nativity of Christ by the “spiritual son” 590. “A prayer to bless the meat on the holy and great week of Easter” 591, in which the most sacred sacrifices are remembered - Abraham, and Abel, and the “fattened calf” - the parable of the prodigal son, “so that as Thy goodness was granted to enjoy, here and we will enjoy those sanctified by You and blessed, as food for all of us” 592. Similar to this is the “Prayer to bless cheese and eggs” 593, “thickened milk”, i.e. cottage cheese and products made from it. This also includes “Prayer at the Communion of the Cluster on the sixth day of August” 594; its inner necessity is vitally recognized only in the south, when baskets of sweet grapes, piles of golden peaches, pears filled with sweet juice, a glow of ruddy apples, black-violet and green-gold plums, coral pomegranates and other fruits are consecrated, so that the salt is crowded and cluttered with this “abundance of earthly fruits” 595, filling the entire church with its aroma. “Bless, Lord, this new fruit of the vine, like the blessings of the air, and the drops of rain, and the silence of time, in this most ripe hour of good will to come,” 596, prays the Church. The very time of the annual circle is ripe and filled with fragrance - after all, in the symbolic worldview there is no time-abstraction, we live in a living and concrete environment, time-space and the very thing of the world; these fragrant and juicy fruits are clots of acquisition, densification of the world environment, already ripe for the Transfiguration: the beginning of a new year is approaching. This is the same meaning of the “Prayer for those who bring the first fruits of vegetables” 597, intended for the consecration of all first fruits of vegetable gardens. 33. A coherent ascending series is also formed in relation to oil, and this is natural - due to the nobility and vital importance of this substance. From oil - as a source of light, as a food substance and anointing, consecrated in everyday life and liturgically, this series goes to the anointing oil from the lamp of the festive icon after the all-night vigil, then to the oil blessed with bread, wheat and wine after the litya, then to the oil miraculously kindled in the lamp, for example, with St. Seraphim and others, even further - to consecrated with the oil of baptism, according to the words of Simeon of Thessaloniki, “a pre-image of the divine world” 598, and, finally, to the oil and wine in the sacrament of consecration of oil, that is, to the prayerful and healing oil, and to the holy world. As we see, this series of consecrations is again intertwined with its links with the links of other rows. Just as in a living organism, in a cult, everything is connected with everything, everything is reflected in another and the other reflects itself, and just as in living tissue a solitary discussion of one or another series of its elements is always forced, since it is arbitrary, so the thought of a cult can only very conditionally outline for itself, for the sake of external order - sequence, this or that line, but at the same time there always remains an unsatisfied need to note such and such connections, and, outlining them, the presentation loses external order and its own form: the variety of verbal presentation and the variety of cult have a completely different number of dimensions, and the form of the latter cannot be, at least schematically, reflected by the form of research about it. The best that such a study can provide is to outline, for example, several connecting threads in the area of ​​cult and convince one to further peer into this area and to notice for oneself those connections that especially meet the spiritual needs of a given person and at a given time. 34. In order not to multiply further examples of how ascending sanctification rows are outlined, let the presentation be limited to what has been said; but let us cite just one more series, also an ascending series of illumination, but now not of substance, but of function: after all, every reality is subject to sanctification, and the sanctification of every reality has degrees in order to ascend to the heavenly world to the absolute Foundation of all existence. In this case, we mean the function of power and, therefore, the sanctification of power, and with it all citizenship. Here we will not establish its gradations: we will only note that one of its initial moments is the prayerful “cutting of the hair” 599, that is, the first cutting of a child’s hair - the first rank of a person - elevating him from the non-speaking, from the infant, from the νήπιος, and the last word means at the same time both a child and a fool - into a youth. This tonsure dedicates the child to God and thereby gives him the first rudiments of power: he entered into the organization of citizenship as a being who has learned to use the gift of speech, that is, a being and a rational citizen. As is known, tonsure is an act of sacrifice, and the liturgics of the Old Testament, as well as the Greco-Roman liturgics, required cutting off part of the hair on the forehead of the animal being sacrificed. The cutting of hair during initiation into the sacred degrees and into monasticism has exactly the same meaning: the initiate is sacrificed, that is, he is slain, as indicated even by the word sacrifice, that is, slaughter. The first act of such slaughter, as removal from the world, as transference to another area, is the cutting of hair. But what is sacrificed becomes transcendent to the world and is no longer “of the world” 600; in the world it now does not exist, but only appears. As such, as super-peaceful and only appearing in the world, it is thereby the power over the world, it is that which directs and organizes the world, that along which the world is guided and finds right paths for itself. The symbolic worldview does not and cannot recognize any other power except that which is transcendent to the world and has its source in the other world. This would mean renouncing oneself, breaking the only absolute orientation on the Absolute, allowing into it conditional orientations on the conditional, i.e. idolatry. Power, by its very nature, legitimately belongs only to the sacred, and insofar as something is understood as profane, or especially when it asserts itself as such, its holding of power is usurpation and violence. There can be no worldly power; and since rights and duties exist only by power and through power, and outside power they are devoid of any content, then the idea of ​​non-sacred rights, worldly rights and duties, is empty. This does not mean that this excludes the concept of natural law, on the contrary, but natural law is conceptualized only on the symbolic-cult understanding of the universe, through its relationship to the Supreme Hierarch of the universe, “He was everything” 601. Society is a hierarchy of transcendental powers, but is by no means a worldly organization that gives birth to power. And the first degree of this hierarchy, the first sacred rank is given to the baby at the first cutting of his hair, which in ancient life corresponded to the moment of the boy’s transition from women’s hands to men’s. In some cases, for example among the Cossacks, the boy mounted a horse and was given weapons, different at different times. At the top level of the considered series of sacred ordinations of the civil order is the wedding to the kingdom. “After the first prayer, [the hierarch] pours myrrh on the head of [the King] in a cross shape, showing that Christ Himself will anoint him, that the one who conquers with the cross prepares a winner in him, that he who has an eternal power and a crown of glory will grant him the power and make him the head of all. That’s why he anoints only one head. Then he proclaims: αγνός (holy), suggesting that the King is sanctified by the Holy One and consecrated by Christ [the Anointed One] as the King of the sanctified” 602. These are some of the extremely complex initiatory rituals, rites, as directed by Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica. Their general meaning is, of course, clear. But Blessed Simeon consolidates in a precise formula that somewhat vague, although very widespread and vivid understanding of royal power as a church rank, which has always been widespread in living church tradition and, in particular, poured into the consciousness of the only legitimate heir of Byzantium and the successor of its worldview - Rus'. According to the formula of Blessed Simeon, “being imprinted with the world, I seal and with the anointing of the Existing King of all, the King is clothed with power, placed in His image on earth, and accepts the grace of the Spirit communicated by the fragrant world, confirming the supreme rulers of citizenship and the army” 603. So, this is the same formula about the King, which, both in the meaning of the given expressions and in the philological letter, is: “an icon of Christ” or “a place in Christ” 604. In various transpositions, they are repeated countless times by church writers and ideologists, both Byzantine and Russian, both in antiquity and up to the present day, inclusive 605. As we know, the Orthodox structure of society is opposed to the Catholic one, and, in response to the latter’s reproaches for papism, as a fundamental union in the person of the supreme pontificate of both swords, secular and spiritual, the papists accuse the Orthodox Church, especially the Byzantine, of Caesar-papism, i.e., also of appropriating both swords to one person, in this case, Caesar. Without going into these canonical controversies, here, however, for the sake of understanding how exactly society is sanctified, it is inevitable to think a little about the true state of affairs, at least in their canonical norms. So, first of all, the question arises: is it true that, according to church legal norms, Caesar-papism exists in the Orthodox Church? – But I will allow myself to answer the question posed with a broader statement: not only is there no Caesaropapism in Orthodoxy, but the notorious papism of the Western Church is a polemical invention, which, it is true, has some canonical facts behind it, but reinterprets them in a very distorted way. But it must be repeated that we are talking here about the norms of church organization, and not about certain historical phenomena, both in the West and in the East, that do not at all correspond to the requirements of their Church. In fact, we must talk about very deep phenomena that cannot be accommodated in such simple schemes as Caesar-Papism and Papo-Caesarism. These phenomena arise from the possibility of a dual relationship between the main aspects of a theocratic society - the spiritual principle, directed from earth to heaven, and the secular principle, directed in its activity in the opposite sense, and, on the other hand, the unifying form of monarchism and filling it with content - conciliarity. Fundamentally speaking, every Church, by virtue of its main purpose of connecting the earthly with the earthly, must inevitably take into account the irreducibility of any of these four moments, and, forgetting about one of them or deliberately eliminating at least one of them, it destroys the balance of its own existence. Thus, if in the first couple of moments the worldly principle is destroyed, then the Church becomes abstract, breaks away from the world and fundamentally recognizes its inability to embody the spiritual; This is how a movement of the Buddhist type arises, such as Tolstoyism, Doukhoborism, etc. On the contrary, abandoning the spiritual, the Church becomes simply an external state organization, the limit of which is the forms of socialism. In another couple of moments of church life, too, logically speaking, one can forget or deny both the beginning of autocracy and conciliarity. In the first case, the Church disintegrates, as happens in Protestantism, but the limit of such disintegration is fundamental subjectivism and the affirmation of the “intimacy” of religious experience. And in the second, church life is deprived of creativity and tends as its limit to soulless formalism and bureaucracy. Only two Churches in full force and with full consciousness affirmed the necessity of each of both antinomically conjugate moments of both pairs: these are the Eastern Church, with its semi-supporting branches: Coptic, Abyssinian, Armenian, etc., and the Western, with the same branches represented by the Churches: Old Catholic, Mariavite, Anglican and some others. All these Churches, fundamentally recognizing all four of the above-mentioned main points of church organization, although with varying degrees of consciousness, thereby did not fall out of the idea of ​​the Church, which is why they deserve, to one degree or another, and also different at different times of their historical life, the name of the Church. So, the different structure of the Church can be essentially twofold, depending on one or another way of combining these two antinomies: spiritual - worldly and autocracy - conciliarity. And each of the two members of the first antinomy can be attributed to each of the two members of the second antinomy, i.e., conciliarity can be attributed to the spiritual, and autocracy to the secular, or the spiritual can be made monarchical, and conciliarity can be attributed to the secular principle. In neither case will the two principles, spiritual and secular, be under the same power, so that in neither case will the spiritual become as white as secular power, nor will the latter seize a judgment about the spiritual that does not belong to it. In other words, in the first case, corresponding to the structure of the Western Church, there is no basis for the accusation of papo-Caesarism or “papalism”, and in the second, relating to the Eastern Church, there can be no talk of Caesar-Papism. So, the difference in the structure of one and the other Church boils down in the essence of the matter to where exactly the conciliarity of the Church is placed, and here, having eliminated the vulgar accusation of heresies so obvious and gross, one can and should, however, ask oneself a question of a more subtle nature, which particular structure of the Church is more consistent with the idea that the Church serves - salvation. And to weigh the comparative merits of one and the other in the light of this particular idea is practically all the more necessary because the Western temptation, which has long been knocking on the Golden Gate, has recently, without even making any special efforts, been tacitly accepted and implicitly confessed by the Russian Church: here we mean the idea of ​​the canonical supposed necessity of monarchical spiritual power of the Orthodox Church, while secular power can and even, perhaps, should be collective. In other words, in church circles, which consider themselves the rules of piety and the pillars of canonical correctness, for some time now, through the efforts of mainly Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), the idea of ​​​​the absolute necessity of unlimited church power and a tendency towards secular power in one way or another collective, for example limited by a collectively developed constitution or decisions of one or another representative body, began to be cultivated. But in order to more clearly feel the undoubtedly Western taste of this construction, it does not hurt to recall the fundamental sophism of the evidence in its favor, when the concept of “Orthodox” is confused with “Russian”. Without objecting in this place to the “Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus',” we must not, however, forget the fact that the autocratic structure of the Russian Orthodox Church still means absolutely nothing for the Orthodox Church and, in principle, no matter how territorially large and numerous the Russian Church is, it matters no more than the unity of power in a separate diocese or even in a separate parish: after all, unity The Russian church power does not at all introduce the same into the church power of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, the dream of which is definitely a Catholic dream. At the beginning of the world war, when the imminent possibility of the conquest of Constantinople was foreseen, in circles claiming exclusive loyalty to the canonical system, the question was dealt with with great anxiety as to what to do with the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom it would be difficult to subordinate to the Holy Synod, and at the same time it would not be easy to make the supreme head of the Russian Church. At the same time, it was tacitly assumed that the existence within one Orthodox state of two spiritual rulers independent of each other, not subordinate to their higher one, was certainly unacceptable. It seems that because of this difficulty, others were even ready to abandon Constantinople. But why didn’t they think about the same coexistence of the watery Ottoman Empire of four patriarchates and, accordingly, four independent heads? And if this consideration is given by reference to the fundamental abnormality of the entire system of the Ottoman Empire, with a non-Orthodox Sultan at its head, then won’t those who object to it take the trouble to remember how in one Roman Empire there were five patriarchates independent from each other with as many Patriarchs and how the Ecumenical Councils decided not to submit to a single spiritual head, i.e., to the earthly one, but, on the contrary, took every possible care to differentiate their spheres and preventing any attempts on the part of one of them to seize at least partial power over the others. So, the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church, established with all certainty and consciousness by the Ecumenical Councils, ascribes the sign of conciliarity to spiritual authority, even where church life flows along established channels; and when this trend reveals something unforeseen, when it needs clarification and formalization, the conciliar nature of church power is revealed even more definitely: then a Council is required - Local, in the case of still ongoing ambiguity - Ecumenical, and in case of uncertainty whether this Council is in fact Ecumenical, i.e. whether it expresses the self-consciousness of the Universal Church - its assimilation or non-assimilation by the Ecumenical Church, which is continuous, throughout throughout space and time, it is unified, that is, it recognizes itself as one, the bearer of the Spirit of Truth in all the diversity of the phenomena of its life, - as a single organism, the Body of Christ. On the contrary, unity belongs to the canonical secular power. A single Emperor of the entire Orthodox world is an undoubted premise of ancient church thinking, and this premise has always lived and lives in the church consciousness as an unconditional norm, as a commandment for historical action by the Christian people. In the spiritual, I can say what can only be spiritually valuable only by remaining eye to eye with the Truth itself, and only my utmost openness to it, that is, my decisive intransigence to all external pressures, no matter where they come from, will give me the opportunity to be myself, stripped of all conventions, and, having gone beyond myself, to contemplate the noumenal world; and then only, having received spiritual life in my utmost freedom, can I be a member of the Church, that is, discuss spiritual matters collectively: either freely and collectively, or the Truth is not comprehended in any way, the spiritual life of society is organized. A completely different thing is a worldly matter, where we are always talking about the preliminary and approximate embodiment of spiritual principles, which is only possible as the principles of the spirit conquer empirical inertia and where, therefore, the concern lies not with the utmost and unalloyed purity of the Truth, but with the greatest and most expedient overcoming of the inertia external to the spirit. Here, obedience and discipline are inherent in the very nature of worldly power, and the desire of everyone to understand for themselves the expediency and inexpediency of power, as soon as it is fundamentally recognized, is a complete misunderstanding of the tasks of the state organization; The example of an army criticizing the orders of a commander at the moment of battle or, even worse, trying to collectively develop a plan of action is a clear example of the general confusion that arises when trying to transfer the legitimate and necessary demand for free self-determination from the spiritual to the secular realm. The unity of secular power, and such, as has been said, is possible only outside constitutions, i.e. secular, legal, is a natural consequence of the recognition of personal self-determination in the spiritual life. The Western world acts differently, perverting this order of church principles, although not bringing this perversion to its extreme. Spiritual life here is determined by external authority, and, quite consistently, the beginning of authority permeates the entire structure of the Western Church from the foundation to the very top, ending with the sole authority of the Pope, who, according to the necessary logic of things, cannot but be recognized as “infallible in matters of faith,” i.e., by the very church organization that he solely heads. It is complete nonsense to explain the dogma of papal infallibility by the power-hungry claims of the Vatican: the whole point is not at all in the love of power, the lack of which even the Patriarchs of Constantinople could not always complain about, it seems, but in the essence of the matter, for how can the Pope not be infallible when he stands above the entire Western Church and, in principle, above the entire Ecumenical Church, so it can only be appealed to God: papal infallibility is only another name for the church-universal monarchy. And then, therefore, the secular principle must be conciliar, as far as practically tolerable. The temporal power under the Pope is inevitably a federation, just as the spiritual power under the emperor in the east in Byzantium is a federation. The Holy Roman Empire, as a universal dominion, is inappropriate to be in the Catholic Church, and it inevitably breaks up into separate states, which then, since they are not restrained from the outside, become constitutional and turn into republics: the collectivism of secular power is the other side of Catholicism. 35. The consecration of power should in no way be understood as personal, so to speak, spiritual assistance to the Tsar or Emperor, which he, of course, needs to the extent corresponding to the civic height and responsibility of his work. The idea that he, firstly, has civic duties, and secondly, religious needs of a personal order, even if increased by the exclusivity of his place in society, would be a transfer of Nestorianism into the realm of theocracy. But in the church sense, a royal wedding is not at all a wedding before the kingdom, but a wedding for the kingdom, just as a marriage wedding is performed for the marriage, and not only before it, and therefore the gift received is revealed in the marriage itself. The royal coronation is precisely the consecration of power, the human function of power, as a real ability and activity of man, and it refers not to a mode, but to a theocratic place: in the Church there is a noumenal royal throne, no matter whether it is occupied or does not have its own representative in the concrete historical plan; in the Church, according to historical conditions, there may temporarily not be, and even never will be, a Tsar, but there is certainly a place for the Tsar, a “prepared throne” in it, but if there is no one to bear the power delegated by the King-Christ on earth, then it remains directly with Him, just as if all the icons on earth were destroyed, then their spiritual prototypes would not be destroyed, although physically they would not be visible among things peace. In the person of the Tsar, the beginning of civil power is consecrated in general, and therefore it is clear that in the times of the most conscious attitude towards the theocratic idea, this consecration of all power, the entire civil organization, was marked in an expanded form by special symbolic celebrations: according to the Byzantine rite, the elevation of the highest dignitaries to the position was carried out by the Patriarch, in the Church of St. Sophia, immediately after the royal anointing. “In former times,” testifies Simeon of Thessaloniki, explaining the meaning of royal anointing and the communication of special grace to the King, “the same thing was done after the Kings and over other dignitaries. For after the election and the royal appointment, they were brought to the church, they were placed in front of the holy gates opposite the throne, and prayer and blessings were performed by the Patriarch” 607. The civil order is conceived as a reflection of the heavenly hierarchy, headed by Christ, that is, in other words, it reflects and imitates what is above and therefore is permeated and lives by its energies. Consequently, in the earthly, although there is a higher and a lower, with different spheres of their activity, there is nothing accidental, empty, devoid of noumenal weight: “let everything happen according to order” 608, and this order has been inscribed in heaven from eternity. In a theocratic system, every place is noumenal and not a single position is conceived as deprived of participation in the eternal world order. One can say that every activity, as long as it does not fall out of theocracy, is service, and, moreover, service to the eternal, and not to people and their earthly interests - every position is a theocratic dignity. But if about the lower positions, about the lower levels of the hierarchy, it was necessary to remind here that, despite their closeness to the everyday, they are nevertheless organs of the theocratic system and are gilded by the heavenly light of the Sun of the intelligent world, then, on the contrary, it does not interfere, according to the understanding of the church, to remind the highest members of the hierarchy about the ideality of their task and therefore about the sacred idea of ​​​​their order that must be embodied in all life. One of the most expressive instructions of this kind, introduced not on the initiative of one or another accuser and addressed to one or another individual on some private occasion, so not in the order of moralizing and denunciation, but in general and essentially, introduced into the system of sacred symbolism, was the rite of a as and. It is clear that an indication of human insignificance, since the calculation is made of the corresponding forces, outside the service of the forces of theocracy, is most appropriate and symbolically most needed at the heights of power, and, moreover, at the moment of exaltation itself. While exalting, the Church immediately degrades, at the same time reminding us of heavenly glory and earthly insignificance. According to the Byzantine charter, upon enthronement, the Emperor is given a bag of earth - a symbol of the perishability of power and instilled humility, as the same blessed Simeon explains 609: this bag is called ακακία, that is, gentleness, innocence. But not only the elevation to office is carried out prayerfully: the entire civil organization is permeated with symbolic actions, the task of which is not to leave any aspect of life outside its orientation on a higher spiritual principle and to connect everything with everything into a single spiritual organism. As a remnant of this church culture, this sacred structure of all citizenship, numerous rites remain to this day - for the blessing of travel, land and sea, for the start of trade enterprises and every good (καλός - i.e. excellent, beautiful) deed: how far is this full-fledged understanding from the intellectual oppression and arrogance towards commercial enterprises. Then the order of military offensive and defense, to pacify disorder, riots, uprisings, to stop famines, epidemics, earthquakes, pestilences, social problems of all kinds, to calm enmity, hatred, quarrels, to eradicate heresies, etc., etc. 610 For the intelligentsia consciousness, disdainful of life, concerns about such phenomena are made as necessary evil, and therefore with a bad conscience; on the contrary, not a single phenomenon of life that flows from human nature and is not directed against nature is alien to the realistic understanding of life of the Church, although it is assessed more or less highly. And the Church sanctifies the phenomena of life, not as a sad necessity, which, since it is inevitable, must be hushed up, but loudly and openly, ontologically honestly, telling it either “yes, yes” or “no, no” 611, and when the first is said, then there is no longer anything to be ashamed of and hide, but with a clear conscience and good pride one can speak of it as “beautiful” - καλός. There are, further, many prayer rites for the most diverse needs of social life - for example, a prayer service for those who do good, etc. Also here, in this area of ​​sanctification, are such rites as adoption and, in particular, brotherhood 612. Through the action of these latter, society is repeatedly held together by very special connections, alien to modern life, which give human relations a special serious warmth and banish the outwardly official 613. These rites are now completely forgotten, and have long been abolished, at least as recognized by the church authorities; but the reasons for the abolition were actually not purely ecclesiastical, but outwardly legal, because fraternal creation was mixed with property rights, which caused legal incidents, and, bored with the proceedings of court cases, Byzantine legislation simply prohibited the very commission of the rite of fraternal creation. However, its conscious introduction into life could be a powerful means of uniting with internal ties a disintegrated society, especially ours, which is so poorly connected by external legal norms. And besides, it should be noted that the universal custom of twinning was especially developed among the Slavic peoples, perhaps precisely as a result of their non-recognition of legal unification. 36. The entire social organism, in three main directions - the priesthood, the kingdom and prophecy, is sanctified by special prayers and special elevations to the heavenly world. These positive consecrations correspond, as always, to negative prohibitions, penances of all kinds, temporary expulsions from one or another area of ​​the cult, excommunication, and finally, the rite of anathematization 614. The structure of theocracy is established by him, because he equally anathematizes both violators of the actual church teaching and deanery, and those who shake, in thought, word or deed, the foundations of Christian statehood 615. In particular, among the rites aimed at the social structure, a special rite should be noted, performed in Greece, referring to the mysterious punishment of the criminal, the so-called “Rite for the curse of criminals with psalms” 616. The essence of this rite is as follows: after the liturgical prayer behind the pulpit, at which the criminal was commemorated for his repose, a table is placed in the middle of the church, on which the loaves are usually blessed, and on it a dish with vinegar. Seven priests change their vestments, turning their vestments inside out and surround the designated table, each holding a lit resin candle in their hands. Starting the ritual, the senior priest puts a piece of quicklime the size of an egg or a nut into the vinegar, and it is clear that the lime begins to hiss, and by the end of the ritual it hardens and sticks to the dish. The ritual itself consists of reading, in turn, by all the servants seven selected psalms, which contain the most powerful curses of the Psalter. The psalms are interspersed with special prokeimnas and the singing of the so-called troparion of Judas - from the hymns of Maundy Thursday. At the end of the readings, the resin candles are extinguished in vinegar, and the dish is turned upside down and left in the church. Then the criminal, on whose head these curses were collected, begins to suffer from remorse and is forced to confess or dry up from melancholy. It goes without saying that the presence of the person being cursed is not necessary during this ritual. This curse ritual, as well as other prohibitions, will probably seem too harsh and even cruel to some. But isn’t it more correct, isn’t it “more humane” to renew it, using it occasionally, to instill the idea that there are punishments in addition to external influences, i.e., therefore, always applicable, rather than, leaving the guilty unpunished, condoning them in great crimes and plunging those around them into disaster and impotent rage? On a more profound level, rituals of this kind are necessary if only for the one reason that they instill a greater understanding of the ontology of the spiritual world. “He who is near Me is near the fire, and he who is far from Me is far from salvation,” says one saying of the Savior not recorded in the Gospel 617. Grace can “polarize,” as theologians put it, that is, being a reality and a force, it can become a threat to those who approach it inappropriately; and the sacrament can be not only for salvation, but also “for judgment and condemnation” 618, by burning fire. Meanwhile, with the loss of the ontological understanding of religion, our modernity has completely gone into the circle of subjective concepts and in religion it no longer sees reality, which is determined from itself and by itself, but purely subjective thoughts and feelings, wonderful experiences and noble boilings in us, which arise from us and are generously revealed to the world by us. As one of the forms of this subjectivism, people's faith and people's service should be noted, where the word people is genetivus objectivus 619: church service is performed not by the people to God, but by the clergy - to the people. Church property, in the spirit of the entire worldview, is recognized as belonging, again, not to God, but to the people, etc., etc. In short, in all conversations about the faith of the Church, the one who should be mentioned first of all, the real owner of church property, the owner of spiritual truth, is systematically hushed up, and we can talk not about what is convenient, understandable or pleasant for us, but what corresponds to the objective truth. It is this objective truth, standing above man, that our modernity does not recognize. Leo Tolstoy very successfully says somewhere that for some reason he is reluctant to use the word “God”, and always prefers to use the adjective “Godly” or the adverb “in God’s way” - the recognition is understood; oh, since the living and concrete face of God is denied. But through the mouth of Tolstoy, all modern religiosity testifies to its subjectivism. So, in order to remind her that God Himself exists, and not just an adjective applied to man, it is especially necessary at the present time both liturgically and theoretically to reveal the concept of the polarization of grace. 37. Thus, in the cult, all of nature is sanctified, in all its phenomena and directions, parts and areas. In this way, all of it is introduced into the cult and through the cult relates to man in his own human life. Therefore, cult actions, being always actions that take into account human life, at the same time have their own connection with the life of nature: in the orientation of life on the cult, which itself recrystallizes in the cult, everything microcosmic is macrocosmic, and everything macrocosmic is microcosmic. The cult year flows in several tiers of existence at once. The typikon is the score of a symphony of symphonies, lasting a whole year, and its orchestrations are distributed among all the successions of existence - from the highest ranks of angels and up to and including the elements. Let us listen to any department of the cult year - and we will hear here not only the super-earthly voices of the celestials, but also the voices of nature. Every cult movement presupposes the participation of all spheres. But since theologians do not think enough about participation in the life of the cosmic Church, they should be reminded that there are no aspects of existence that are not sanctified: times, places, substances, objects and phenomena are sacred; holy light, holy flame, holy air, holy sound, etc.; in particular, the daily circle of worship is determined by the sun, solar days and is timed to the sun. What is the content of church services? On the cosmic plane, they talk about the daily and annual movement of the Sun. Only in cities is this confinement distorted and obscured. Weekly circles are determined by the Moon and, more broadly, planetary, and the annual circle is determined by the zodiac. Let's start with the last one. The course of the liturgical year, that is, the peculiarities of services, and the memory of saints, and holidays, in addition to their well-known cultural and historical basis and another - mystical, have a third - cosmic: “naturalistic,” a positivist researcher who understands nothing of the essence of religious experiences would say here with triumph, and a moralist preacher would note with a sigh of condemnation. Although in different ways, both the one and the other equally do not understand and will not understand the main thing, that the Creator of the world was none other than the “Teacher of Morals”, and that this Last “all things were” 620; both of them equally do not understand that the finite and conditional cannot be opposed to the infinite, unconditional, for otherwise the attribute of the absolute would belong to it itself, so that, being finite and conditional, it is subordinate to its Creator, “in Him it lives, and moves, and exists” 621. Everything is in God - such is the formula of panentheism, whether it is proclaimed by the Apostle Paul 622 or Goethe, and paganism becomes such only in its opposition to Christ, as persisting in its independence or as artificially restored by moralists against Christianity and set by them. But in itself it is contained in Christ and awaits Him, as all creation awaits its Savior: nature is in God, and paganism is in the Church 623. The assessment of this side of church life by positivists and moralists is deeply wrong, just as the attitude towards creation in the products of Protestantism is wrong, but the fact itself, externally outlined by them, really exists, and if they want to give it the nickname naturalism, then let it remain temporarily, under the condition of the explanation made above. With an evil eye, such a researcher will further spy on the “syncretism” of saints and their lives with images of natural life and, therefore, the connection of the lives with ancient myths. And again, although this is done out of spite and for the sake of destroying the Church, or for the sake of “cleansing” it from the remnants of paganism, such enemies involuntarily turn out to be more just, and therefore more useful than tendentious friends, in the name of protecting the Church, stubbornly denying in it that, the presence of which proves its universality and completeness. After all, an impartial researcher can recognize as a fact not at all the fact that human inventions of immature science, i.e., myth, are attached to the saint, but only a certain parallelism between the life of the saint and some myth and the presence of symbolically natural features in the image of the saint, such as, for example, atmospheric electricity - in the prophet Elijah, the water element - in the prophet Moses, the sea - in St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, or sunshine - in the Lord Himself. But what follows from such parallelism is still a matter of great complexity, and if for a believer the simple destruction of the object of his faith is excluded in advance, then it would be too hasty to conclude that it is necessary to deny with all our might the existence of parallelism. However, for a church person, the significance of the saint and his life, which flows beyond the edges of a purely historical fact of just a single biography, should be clear, since the Church gives us images of saints for teaching and imitation. It is obvious that they are assessed as types, as phenomena of the idea of ​​the smart world, as gaps in the sky - which, however, does not in the least prevent them from being strictly factual. And if so, then the parallelism of their hagiographies with myth and the presence of cosmic features in the hagiographies are predetermined: this is not because the compilers of hagiographies borrowed from pagan legends, but because this is essentially so - because it is true, and no positivism has proven or can prove the opposite. Let’s say even more: if in some cases the myths of antiquity were, let’s say, used by the compiler of the life, then this again happened because it corresponded to the truth, and one cannot blame a Christian historical writer for the fact that already before what he described, partially and preliminary, he had a presentiment of the truth that he is witnessing. Anyone who has studied the history of creativity in all branches could not help but notice how persistently a certain spiritual image is knocking at the world of incarnation and how many preliminary shoots it gives, first fantastically, then poetically, then scientifically, until it grows into a genuine spiritual organism. A historian of modern technology by our descendants could well be accused of mythologism through comparison with previously unrealized scientific concepts and even half-outlined, as in a dream, projects in science fiction novels. And, however, the achievements of technology are a historical fact, but one that, in addition, has some meaning, and this meaning, vaguely anticipated in more ancient times, explains and justifies the very fantasy on its basis. Before the technical implementation of an idea, we only vaguely feel its prophetic meaning and hope that it is not, as they say, “an empty fantasy”; after appropriate realization and through it, we are convinced of this and rejoice in the rightness of our ancestors. So it is with regard to myths: since they are not memories of the revelation of the past, i.e., ultimately, “about Him, by Him all things were” 624, in so far we should see in them premonitions, sleepy visions of the Truth, which in the heavenly world always exists, as it was and will be. Paganism is partly a memory of the Truth that has already been revealed, partly the crest of the advanced waves of Truth coming into the world... And, therefore, if in the Church of Christ the moment of paganism was simply absent, then this would prove the incompleteness, imperfection and, therefore, the untruth of the Church. The moralistic truncation of everything “pagan” from the Church is not only the work of sectarians, but its consequences would inevitably lead to the conversion of the Church into a sect, if it were successful. But according to our faith, all life, not only human, but also of all creation, is governed by the ideas of the heavenly world, embodied especially clearly in the faces of the saints, and therefore the absence of the above parallelisms, the cosmic desiccation of the saint, would be incomprehensible. Life without this fullness of the accompanying voices of natural life would clearly not be life, and then either we would have to suspect the holiness of the depicted ascetic, or assert that the compiler of his life was unable to penetrate into the spiritual appearance of the saint and hear in the music of his soul the voices of the creature responding to him. This is approximately how the syncretism noted by external researchers should be understood. 38. Syncretism 625 of the spiritual and natural, historical and typological, biblically revealed and universally religious appears throughout the cult, and in particular, in the liturgical annual circle: every moment of this circle not only in itself and for the sake of man, but also extends into the cosmic region, perceiving it into itself, and, having perceived it, sanctifies. Already in the basic division of the church year into four large fasts, pauses in life associated with four typical great holidays, or, rather, groups of holidays, the cosmic significance of the annual circle is clearly reflected: both fasts and the corresponding holidays are in clear correspondence with the four seasons of the astronomical year and the four, in turn, corresponding to these last elements of cosmology. “Because out of laziness we constantly fast and do not want to be abolished from the evil ones, since the apostles and the fathers gave this harvest to the souls of the gods... which we must preserve most dangerously. But then there are three others: the holy apostle, I say, the Mother of God and the Nativity of Christ; to the four seasons of the year, and the Apostles published the Pentecostal Divinity” - in such words the synaxar of Cheese Week 626 notes the connection between the four main fasts and the four seasons. Winter fasting sanctifies the beginning of world life, its birth, its first appearance. Timed in ancient times to coincide with the winter solstice (now, due to the divergence of the calendar from the asgronomic year, this timing has ceased to be accurate), at the turn of the year from winter to spring, the holiday of the Nativity of Christ, which ends the winter fast, has next to it a retinue of related holidays, festive overtones, headed by the Baptism of the Lord. In ancient times, these celebrations, i.e., Christmas and Epiphany, were merged into a single celebration of Epiphany, the Epiphany of the Lord. The consecration of the winter element, that is, water (and the zodiac sign of Aquarius), by the body of the Lord descending into the water, the river font - such is the cosmic significance of this winter fast and the winter constellation of holidays. It is in this thought that it can be understood why we have two great blessings of water, and two days in a row - on the evening of the Epiphany, in the everyday expression “on the candles,” and on the very day of the Epiphany, and why, apparently quite unexpectedly, the water of the first blessing, on the evening of the Epiphany, is especially revered, and believers value it more than the water of the holiday itself. After all, it would be natural to think the opposite, that the water consecrated on the holiday itself takes precedence over the water of the day preceding it. But the answer will be very simple if we take into account the statute, which is now often not observed in cities. Namely: the water is consecrated in the evening in the church itself, for sprinkling it on the church, houses, etc.; On the holiday, natural bodies of water, mainly rivers or springs, are blessed. This means that the first blessing of water - church - * is turned in the Church ad intra - inward, presupposes the internal church use of water, for the sake of self-purification and self-sanctification of the Church, and the second blessing of water - "water baptism" in ancient Russian terminology - is turned in the Church ad extra - outward, for the sake of external action on all creation, for the purification and sanctification of nature, the whole world. The first water is for the sake of Christians as such, the second is for the sake of all creation, including people, as members of the world. From here it is clear - the first water is recognized as deliberately intended for the use of the “domestic church” of Christians - in families, in houses, in the kitchen, etc.; the second purpose is to flow into the world, preaching about the “voice of the Lord, which is on the waters” 627 and about the life-giving Spirit, who descended into the generative and world-powerful element, may he cleanse it, capable of all spiritual energies 628, absorbing and assimilating all spirituality, from the dark forces hidden in it and sanctify it, giving it drink and enlightening. 629.) The winter fast will be followed by the spring fast. They prepare anthesteria - the ancient Greek festival of flowers and the ancient Jewish Passover, the holiday of the beginning of the harvest; In the Jerusalem temple, Easter was marked by the offering to the altar and the consecration of the first sheaf of freshly harvested barley. The universal human religious consciousness has always noted with special emphasis this holiday of spring, the holiday of the resurrecting and blossoming life, primarily plant life, the revival of plant shoots, sprouts rising from their graves, resurrecting and emanating from the underworld prisons of souls - new births of Mother Earth. There is, according to the consciousness of mankind, an exclusive connection between plants - the “children of the Earth” - with the Mother, from whom even when they grow up they are not separated, remaining not only children, but also the organs of the one who gave birth to them and is constantly giving birth. Plants, in contrast to isolated and alienated animals, are thought of as beings that are always in a state of birth, fertility, and therefore, since they have not shown the will to independence, plants do not set over themselves a law judging them: “You measure with the same measure, with the same measure it will be measured to you” and: “judge with their judgment, 630 >. Not that they are necessarily of a high ontological rank, but they are innocent through personal guilt, like a newly born baby, and therefore, in a good sense, insane. Therefore, in plants that only look out from the mother’s depths, but have not separated from them, it is natural to see the immediacy of messengers of the earthly depths: and, in a cultic attitude towards them, to feel how a spiritual connection is established with those areas inaccessible to us, separated from the mother. But we separate, and like animals, only while we live. Losing the possibility of self-determination and independent action, in death, we approach plants, and the souls of the dead, like seeds planted in the grave, sprout there with another life, making themselves known with spring shoots. And, going back, we will remember that the subtlest visions of these children of the earth - nectar - are really the food of another world, the food of immortality, which, collected here, with us, fulfills the meal of another world, and then guests from there can come to us, to the cup of funeral honey, as to their underground abodes, without breaking away from their plant existence; and together with the bee that has collected the honey, they can fly and appear. The Festival of Flowers is the Festival of the Earth, and the Festival of the Earth is the Festival of the Dead, and the Festival of the Dead is the expectation of their final and complete appearance, when the whole world will flow with “honey and milk” 631, a mystical drink that builds a bridge to that shore of existence, across the Styx. Countless ties knit individual moments of the festivities of the spring cycle into a single-density body, sparkling with all colors, whose name is the Resurrection of Christ. In the order of the annual cycle, Easter is the consecration of the bowels of the earth, the Earth, the earthly elements. Just as in Baptism, descending into the waters, the Lord sanctified their streams with His death, for Baptism is burial, so on Holy Saturday, “having fallen asleep in the flesh as if dead,” 632 He descended into the earth, into the depths of its bowels and sanctified them. There are others who are trying to hurt the cult, relying on the affinity, supposedly exposed by them, of the spring church cycle - spring fasting and spring festivals - revered resurrection deities, “spirits of the plant world,” as religious researchers very successfully formulated. But in these abandonments there are more attempts with unsuitable means and, perhaps, malicious intent than calculated consequences. Well, yes, of course, this is exactly so, with the only exception that with such attacks, every religion other than Christian is already condemned in advance, and the only question is how to shake Christianity. These naive objectors, in essence, consider the exclusivity of Christianity more than the Christians themselves, while the latter do not at all need such a deep break with all of humanity and do not at all think that throughout history humanity has lived only with stupidities. With such objections, a discovery is made that is at least eighteen centuries late, for apologists were already talking about Christianity as the entelechy of a universal human religion and saw in Christ the fulfillment, completeness and harmony of all human forebodings, yearnings, hopes and vaguely remembered revelations. Well, yes, these objections are correct, but only weak, timid: it is necessary to talk about the dissimilarity of the Christian ideas indicated there, and - I dare say - about their identity, numerical identity. Without clearly realizing it themselves, the pagan prophets, albeit in a stiffened language, spoke of nothing other than this very thing, which took place in a certain year and day, the resurrection of this Himself, born in Bethlehem, “crucified for us under Pontius Pilate” 633, the Savior of the world. Through the mists of history and the murky environment of the frustrated human soul, the pagan prophets already saw still unclear and confused outlines of future events, as typical, noumenal and absolute, as, at the same time, concrete, individual, and embodied. The gospel of the apostles was not external teaching, it was not simply a message of something new, it was not a proclamation of the unheard of, to which one would have to establish one’s attitude completely anew, but it was a revelation of their own souls to them: the evangelists reminded them of the Soul of the souls of the pagans. And faith in Christ was not the addition of a new deity to the vast Pantheon (and if so, then there could be no talk of persecution against Christians), but in the tragedy of human history it corresponded to what in simple tragedy is called recognition - recognitio. Exhausted by the search for the Bridegroom, lost through its own fault, humanity peers at everyone it meets: “Isn’t it He?” And these searches, like the question, testify not to the joy of “walking in your own ways” 634, but to the melancholy of loneliness. And when the apostles proclaim: “The Bridegroom has been found” (“Behold the Bridegroom is coming”) 635, then the heart of the nations does not learn anything new, that is, about the existence of the Bridegroom, but it is called only to attention - to agreement with itself. And here, in this recognition or non-recognition of the self-identity of a person, disagreement or agreement with abstract concepts, where thousands of shades and relationships are possible, nothing third is given between “yes” and “no”: either He is, in fact, the Bridegroom, the Messiah, the Savior, not like Him, but He Himself, or not Him Himself, even if similar, even if like Him - and then the Alien, the false Messiah, the Antichrist. Anti-Christ means, in the sense of the preposition αντί - instead, in return - it means one who is instead of Christ, that is, not a vicegerent, a representative of Christ, but one who claims to be in place of Him, Himself. And therefore, between the two themselves, of which the second can only exist insofar as there is no First, and the First can be recognized insofar as the second is not recognized, between the two of them there is no and cannot be represented as intermediate. “Men of Athenaistia, I see that you are pious. Walking through and observing your tributes, I also found a pot, on which it was written: To the Unknown God. Because you do not know him, you honor his splendor; this I preach to you” (Acts 17:22-23). These are the words of the highest measure of responsibility. So, I ask, is Apostle 636 telling a lie? Flattering the Athenians? What is this - captatio benevolentiae auditorum 637 or mystical recognitio? 638 After all, after all, it’s no joke: to talk about some unknown God, perhaps a demon, and say abstractly: “This is what I preach to you!” Let’s take simple everyday relationships: doesn’t it seem like the greatest mistake and horror for a loved one to mistake someone else for a loved one? And isn’t it easier for a wife or mother to completely lose her husband or son than to embrace instead of them an impostor and, perhaps, not even a person? It's all about the numerical self-identity of a person. And yet these words - “This I preach...” - have been spoken. And if we do not consider the apostle himself irresponsible in his preaching, in his words and actions, if we present to him at least the measure of responsibility to which the average person is subject, then the equality must stand firmly: “This I preach to you” - this means “truly this,” truly this, the risen Lord Jesus, whom the whole ancient world, all of it, hoped and foresaw. Guided by the Logos and the Spirit, the sages, according to the church charter, are depicted, or in any case should be depicted, along with the Old Testament prophets, in the church vestibules, and sometimes in our churches themselves 639. In the religious-historical order, the testimony of the Apostle Paul should also not be considered a stretch, as it may seem at first. The ancients honored many gods and set up altars for many, sensing in the gods the manifestations and hypostatic faces of the One Eternal. But no matter how many these faces multiplied, the heart still did not find satisfaction, it still did not feel that the divine essence was completely covered by them, and the heart prompted that behind the rows of these faces, no matter how long the rows were, there remained an inexhaustible, unmanifested, unknown remnant, and that this remnant was the main one, that for which the very rows arose, and that continues to conceal within itself the true shrine of the spirit. And therefore, after all the altars, it was still necessary to erect an altar to the Unknown God, this hidden grain of spiritual life and creativity: after removing from it and isolating many of the fragments that symbolically expressed it. The Unknown God continued to be unexpressed, and only the Only Begotten Son showed the Unknown and Incomprehensible Father. The preaching of Christ was precisely the proclamation of the Unknown God, the naming of the Name of the Unnameable. Least of all, when discussing this place of the apostolic sermon, one can think here about the adaptation of the Apostle Paul. So, then, how pretentious are the researchers who whisper secretly loudly proclaimed secrets spread throughout all four countries of the world, but incomprehensible to the accusers themselves, which, in turn, stems from the misunderstanding of religious researchers that they need to focus on the cult. We speak not after them, but before them, and have said for twenty centuries: yes, there is an affinity, and not an affinity, but a numerical identity between the One Whom the pagans sought and anticipated under different names and aspects, and the One Who, after the fulfillment of times and dates, truly appeared as the alpha and omega of world history 640. Sometimes the instruction is given: “Do not pray in the dark in front of icons without lighting the lamp,” as if out of fear of bowing to the wrong person. But, no matter how reprehensible and dangerous such worship is, it, however, does not indicate an intention to serve the black power, although, perhaps, a vague instinct of the heart will tell what exactly is being done. So the pagans in the darkness of the world “bowed down to what they did not know” 641 and sometimes, confusing everything, they let dark forces into the temple of their hearts; but the idea of ​​the Holy One, the desire to worship, belonged to God, to the alpha and omega of the human spirit 642. Thus, Christology does not come from myths about dying and rising spring deities, but these myths come from Christ 643, who came in the flesh and truly died and “buried and rose again on the third day according to Scripture” 644. This is no longer in beautiful, not vague visions, as in a mirror during fortune-telling 645, but in fact, essentially, Christ rose from the earth, sanctifying it. Holy Week with the Holy One is the time after fasting, the final consecration of the earthen element. Similarly, the summer Pentecost, “the wind rushing wildly” 646, is the consecration of the air element, and the autumn – Transfiguration, with the consecration of fruits filled with the sun’s rays, is the element of light, fiery-radiant, ethereal, closing a series of celebrations, such as the day of the prophet “thunderman” Elijah, the fiery Seraphim of Sarov and others, including on the day of the supreme apostles, a series of fiery festivals. In these last two cycles, fasts adjoin the corresponding holidays in reverse chronological order. This lies, apparently, in the special, hot nature of the corresponding elements, seasons and holidays, in contrast to the cold nature of the holidays and elements of spring and winter. And, moreover, the reason for this opposite is in the descending nature of Christmas and Easter and the ascending nature of Pentecost and Transfiguration: what is meant here is 647. It is not difficult to feel why the earth, which is closest to us, is the main one among the elements, and the time of year and spirit, corresponding to the very flowering of life, turns out to be associated with the greatest of the descents of God, to the very underworld and the depths of hell, and therefore is preceded by fasting, the most severe and longest. But it is difficult to talk about this in a few words, without the service itself, in its entirety, and not just in individual expressions, calling to assimilate the basic spiritual environment from which it arose. Let us therefore put it simply, the very essence of the matter: let us begin to listen attentively to the service of the Epiphany - the eve of the Epiphany, especially in parimia - and we feel as if the abysses of heaven and earth had opened up and streams of water were gushing out from everywhere; water jets flood everything, fill everything, splash and cut through the air everywhere and from everywhere. Water, water, water... and again water, permeating the whole world, flowing through our body - the spirit of water, summoned by powerful words. The entire altar is full of water and some kind of watery, bluish cold light. And now let us listen to the service of Holy Week, especially Holy Saturday, and we will feel Mother Earth occupying all our attention, now sorrowful, now rejoicing: “let the earth rejoice” 648, and in the very consonants and vowels – the instrumentation of the exapostilary of Holy Week – the chant “The Flesh Asleep” 649 – you will hear the earth. What a profound difference in the very matter of the Epiphany service and the Easter service: there are completely different basic intuitions here, and through the lattice of constant parts more or less common to every service, such as the litanies that form the backbone of the service, a different basic background clearly shines through. And now, having compared the service of water and the service of earth, let us listen to the service of Pentecost - and a gust of swirling winds will capture us, caressing breezes will flow into our ears, into our hearts, and our entire being will be enveloped in the element of air. And, finally, the summer services are clearly filled with fire, and the Transfiguration - with such luminosity, such streams of pouring molten gold, such a compaction of luminous matter that when, preparing for the service at night, you read the canon of the Transfiguration in silence, you involuntarily squint your eyes, as if from molten platinum, and it seems that you are about to go blind from the unbearable brilliance 650. “Come and See” 651 - but what to say where words are powerless. 652, for space and time, contrary to Kant, but in agreement with universal human thought, are realities, and not only realities, but also metaphysical (and not transcendental) conditions of any reality, and not conditions of any reality, but a condition, a single condition of reality, for there are not two of them, but there is only one condition, under two aspects abstractly conceivable, now as space (not conceivable without time), now as time (not conceivable without space). This is one reality 653. More precisely, it is not one, but the only, the only reality of being, for every being is only a clot, a condensation, a light ingot of this primal reality, fertilized by the Divine Word, the Seed, - conceived from the Divine thought-idea. The sanctification of space and time is the sanctification of the very womb of all reality, and we must talk about this sanctification at length and in detail. This is where the metaphysics of the cross comes into play, for space itself is a metaphysical cross. But, without touching on this too complex question, we must note, at least in a nutshell, another, closely related to the first and all returning us to the main topic, that the border of cult is the border of being. I mean that not only are the foundations and particulars of the creation of the entire cosmos as a whole sanctified by the lower degrees of sanctification, but the cosmos is not deprived of higher sanctifications, although not always with the express purpose of the Church to bless it. Let's explain with examples 654. From the holy chalice with the consecrated Holy Gifts - from the influx of warmth - a light cloud of vapor rises. These vapors are partly deposited on the altar, partly scattered over the altar, deposited on the walls, evaporate again, fall into the heavenly clouds floating above us, fall in the rains falling on us, flow in rivers, splash in the seas, are assimilated by plants and animals, in a word, from the bowl they spread throughout the earth and even fly beyond the boundaries of the earth’s atmosphere, entering the circulation the entire universe. Alcohol, essential oils, and water evaporate from the bowl. What is this? We cannot say that it was the Holy Blood, because it was made from wine. We also cannot say that it is not the Holy Blood, because then the residue from the evaporation in the chalice would also not have to be called the Holy Blood, and it would turn out that it was the Holy Blood, but only a series of chemical substances. If wine has been transubstantiated - and this is so - then every substance that comes from it is no longer just a chemical substance, but is also transubstantiated. And a chemical analysis of the Holy Gifts would again decompose their types into component parts, each of which would be not just matter, but the Mother of God. When the priest “washes his lips” and “washes his hands” after Holy Communion, the smallest particles - crumbs of the Holy Body and Holy Blood - are washed off with water and again enter the cycle of nature. Baptismal water with particles of holy myrrh and consecrated oil is poured into a “clean place”; Epiphany water flowing like a whole river into other rivers and seas; sacred ashes, etc., etc. - all this flows away, spreads in nature, circulates in plant and animal juices, imbues all nature with grace, sanctifies, purifies and preserves it all. Sacred incense - grace breaks out through the open windows of the church and is carried by the wind, as well as the sounds of sacred chants and exclamations. The boundary of the church is not the walls, for the church action is carried out beyond the walls of the church. There is no definite boundary of the church, for all of nature is a continuous continuation of the church. And therefore, there are no definite boundaries for the Church, for all creation participates to varying degrees in its life and in its grace-filled, God-material actions. Appendix 1. Orthodoxy and Catholicism When I hear in church “We praise God to you, we confess to you the Lord...” 655, composed by St. Ambrose of Milan, then I imagine the Colosseum and hear the heavy steps of cohorts and the clang of iron weapons. The chant is truly Roman - iron, abrupt, straightforward, honest, imbued with religious inspiration, but without exaltation, without theology, without school or philosophical subtleties - eloquent in its absence of rhetoric and floridity. If we compare with the “twisting of words” of the “extended hymns” that the Greeks “weave”, then the difference between this military song and them becomes surprisingly clear. The mood is cheerful, military, strong, but in the depths of this power there is deep humility before God, the consciousness of the need for His help. Proudly, but not before God, a magnificent lion bowing his neck before the divine yoke. Orthodoxy (especially Russian) is based on the words of St. Paul: “All is good, but not all is for good” 657. At the heart of Catholicism are the words of the same apostle: “Let everyone... be in order” 658. This is “according to rank” - originally Roman, Catholic. Already the writer of the Augustinian era, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, contrasting the Hellenes with the Romans, says that among the Romans, contrary to the ecstasies and mysticism of the Greeks, “everything that belongs to the gods is performed and interpreted with that piety that you will not find either among the Hellenes or the barbarians.” [Vyach. Ivanov, - “El rel God's suffering”, 2, p. 113] 659. It is characteristic of Catholics that in every action of the Church, in every word of the Church, they see a reflection of the united Church - they see a thread going to the Lawgiver Lord Himself. My will, your will - all this is nothing. The will of the Pope is nothing. It’s all about God’s will, laid down from time immemorial. Discipline that runs through the entire system. 1910.ΧΙ.14. Night. Serg Pos “We praise God to you, we confess the Lord to you...” 660 both in words and in melody - a chant that expresses the ideal essence of the police. It is not for nothing that it was compiled by a former prefect of police, and, moreover, a prefect, apparently loved by the people, a real good police chief (= “prefect”). There is neither the depth of philosophical speculation, nor the accuracy of dogmatic formulations, nor mystical dreams. There is no sensitivity here, just as there is no play of the mind. Short, abrupt phrases express the power, the disciplined strength of the Roman soldier. But this power bows its neck, a bull’s neck, before the Highest Power, before the divine Commander and surrenders completely to Him. She knows how to be faithful to the one she has chosen. He bows his neck, but does not prostrate himself. No fear, no servility, no self-abasement. And there is precisely soldierly obedience to divine discipline. For the sake of this discipline, he will use his fist when necessary, but for the sake of devotion to his superiors he will not hesitate to sacrifice his life. This is Ambrose of Milan, the ideal police chief. 1) Being essentially spatial, Western thinking represents everything in the scheme of extension. But if everything is extended, then everything consists of parts; the parts are before the whole, whereas for Eastern thinking the whole is before its parts (Aristotle) ​​661. 2) The parts make up the whole, and the whole is only ens rationis 662, no more. Hence the irresistible and fatal atomism. Hence the psychologism... it relates to inner peace and harmony, as cuteness does to true beauty. On the contrary, every remnant of the inner is carefully destroyed. 5) Organic hatred of the internal, expulsion of the internal. Catholicism and Jesuitism. Samarin's words about morality (see 663. 6) Jesuitism - this quintessence of the Western European spirit, this salt of Western Europe, tried to exterminate the remnants of inner life. They had to “attract the whole world to themselves and not alienate anyone” (Pascal) 664. How? – Through the creation of “1a devotion aisee - lightened piety,” as expressed by the title of one of the essays - Lemoan 665. 7) Their moral theology deals with the resolution of one question: what the law requires of a person and how to fight off its demands - and that’s all. 8) But the secret of this repulse is in the hands of learned men, issuing catalogs of virtues and vices. They stole conscience and thus became absolutely necessary for those who were robbed. 9) The direct relationship of an integral personality to a specific life process, the direct acceptance of life into oneself, is replaced in the West by a preliminary reduction of life according to the concept, and it is not life, but the concept that is evaluated (related to). This destroys the integrity of life; and then the concepts are subjected to endless shredding and disintegration. Divisions and subdivisions, schematism and external schematism, external order prove the death of what is being studied. 10) You cannot put a living person into boxes, but you can put a dead person into boxes. It is impossible to say with certainty about a living organism: here is the first, and here is the second, because everything is interconnected. But about a pile, about a pile of bodies, you can. 11) If a value is an essentially external shrine, then communion with it, internal merging with it is impossible. The attitude towards the shrine is eternal hunger, eternal lust, eternal seeking, and never peace and quiet. Eternal memory. 12) If Orthodox mysticism is marriage, then Catholic mysticism is lust, lust. 13) Catholic and Orthodox - Gothic, stretching towards the sky, and an Orthodox church calmly ending in the sky. 14) Passionate nature of mysticism. Rel erotica and erotic religion. The erotic nature of the attitude towards the flock: essentially adoration and hypnosis. 15) Hence - not the internal acceptance of Christ into oneself, but the external imitation of Him, the imitation of His appearance, μίμησις. Not life in Christ, but the face of Christ. The notorious Francis Assisi 666 - he was compared to Christ. – Teresa 667 . – Loyola 668. 16) “Imitation of Christ” by Thomas à Kempis 669. Contrary to the direct testimony of Ambrose. “We cannot imitate God” (“On Virginity” 154(109)) 670. Ign Brianch I, 250 “A book written “out of opinion” 671, according to the testimony of Elder Isaiah, in the Nikephoros hermitage: as he imagined, so he wrote, but he did not know in himself. 17) There is a substitution of the internal for the external, a translation of the internal into the language of the external, a systematic and fatal degeneration of the internal into the external. A mask instead of a face, an imitation of spiritual life, a machine gun instead of an organism, a fake - that is, charm, deception and self-deception. The fire of blood is the same as the fire of divine love. Therefore, an externally imposed form, formula, guise constrains the freedom of the creative personality, killing it. 18) On the contrary, in Orthodoxy there is complete freedom of creativity of form, according to the acceptance of life, the creative principle. Outwardly he is not at all Christ, but inwardly he is He. Our iconography and Catholic art. 19) We must see Christ in ourselves, and not outside, not in a hallucinatory way. 20) External horror of hell. Rending screams, confusion) - Mozart's Requiem - the best. 20) Worship - again all appearance, flesh. The altar is an open stage. There is little secret. Proskomedia. I911.VII.31. Night. Serg Pos Catholicism. Pharisaism, ostentation The Catholic liturgy is not a mystery, but a spectacle, a drama, the drama of the passion of the Lord 672. This is where the characteristic features emerge. First of all, everything is obvious there, and everything is done for show. Therefore there is no iconostasis; the altar is open so that everyone can see everything. And everything that is done there is done for and in front of the crowd. The altar is a stage. Hence the external effects, gestures, training of altar servers. Hence the destruction of all those parts of the liturgy that are essentially secrets (proskomedia). On the contrary, in Orthodoxy it is not drama, but sacred, secret action, for angels. The most important thing is kept secret. What a deep dogma and history of secret parts! What poetry, and this is for no one but God. We serve God. Catholics have no symbolism at all (Goethe, - Faith and Times. 1887, vol. 1, part 2, p. 552) There is plasticity 673, but there is no music of the soul. Transubstantiation - through words imitative (μίμησις) of Christ; and with us - realistically, through the Holy Spirit (“by virtue of the words of the establishment” of the sacrament). The Catholic does not partake of the Holy Blood, but consumes it - all in two steps 674. He communes not only with the lamb (ΝΒ !!!) (i.e., the Church is equal to Christ!) (that’s where Soloviev is 675). So he receives communion under the guise of bread. The entire history of the Roman Church consists of the gradual degeneration (degeneration) of Christianity into Latinism, the degeneration (degeneration) of Latinism into papism, papism into Jesuitism 676. Just as Catholic asceticism is an external imitation of Christ, but without the inner essence of Christ’s life 677, so their worship and the art of them, Catholics, is an imitation, μίμησις, drama, mystery - imitation of Christ, His outer appearance, external imitation - a counterfeit of Christ, and not the life of Christ. Hence the lack of freedom of Catholicism, the fear of moving away from the letter pod, while in Orthodoxy, on the contrary, there is an internal Christian life with complete freedom of external form. Outwardly, the Russian saint does not at all resemble Christ, but a Catholic.” The introduction of compulsory celibacy for the clergy was the greatest moment in the history of Catholicism. The church was poisoned by lust driven inside. Hence the notorious Catholic confession, the whole sensual tone of the cult, 678 in total. Hence asceticism is sensual, the cult of God Mat is sensual. Start. - topic of conversation. All Orthodoxy is about spiritual birth. All Catholicism is about mental training, education. Directcur de conscience 679 We have a “spiritual father”. Just as the father of the flesh gives life from God, but the one who receives it lives himself, independently, according to the laws of his physical individuality, so the spirit of life, in torment, sorrow, and labor, gives birth to a new being in the spirit world, educates him, feeds and nourishes him, but the one who is born still lives according to the laws of his spiritual individuality, himself, independently. He is precisely the spiritual son (cf. Apostle Paul) 680. His spirit father feeds him, opens his spirit eyes, helps him, but cannot and should not instill in him. It’s not the same with Catholics. They do not have spiritual fathers, elders, they have a directeur de conscience, director conscientiae - a manager, a straightener of conscience. Here, in the imagination, an image is drawn of the descent of conscience from some path intended for it, the crooked path of conscience and a series of external pushes that return it to the laid rails. In Orthodoxy, rebirth, rebirth, internal change is required of the individual, but in Catholicism - only external adherence to a certain path. In Orthodoxy, the person himself lives a spiritual life, but in Catholicism he only submits to the external form into which he is squeezed, leaving in reality the same and, moreover, becoming - outwardly - perverted and hypocritical, or suppressed and enslaved. Directeur de conscience! As if you can conduct and command conscience with your conscience, be the director of conscience! God himself is not like that. Hence either hypocrisy and predation, or a state of suggestion, hypnosis. The confessor hypnotizes his victims, turning them into his weak-willed tools. They sicut cadaver 681 in his hands. But hypnosis works primarily on women. Erotica. Rough erotica. If she is an exception, she confirms the rule. For everywhere there is subtle eroticism, the very essence of relationships is erotic, for women feel in love with their confessor. In Orthodoxy, Grigory Rasputin 682 is a miracle, but for them it is only an overly bright phenomenon. Towards the conclusion of the 6th evening 683 Semenov. Gentlemen, to all of you, and especially to the defenders of Catholicism, I am grateful for our conversation today. You know that I have generally delved little into the matter of faith and am even less familiar with the state of Orthodoxy. To hear from the lips of a real, extraordinary and broad-minded Catholic a self-condemnation of Catholicism has always been a cherished dream for me, and now it has come true... M, you were not interested in the Orthodoxy around you... This is strange. Semenov. Strange? Not at all. All the trouble in our homeland is due to an excess of generosity and breadth. Having imagined, as many of us do, the greatness of the Catholic organization, without knowing it at all, I decided almost in adolescence that if I were to be a church member, then I would be a Catholic. I did not take a single step to become acquainted with the latter, but on the basis of my boyish decision I freed myself from the trouble of studying my native faith, which was instilled in me only unconsciously. Now, to my happiness, I heard what I needed to hear for a long time. Now... Priest. Now the hour of the Lord’s will has come, requiring your conversion to the Catholic religion. And if for some reason it is inconvenient for you to do this openly, then I will gladly provide you with my assistance in secretly renouncing schism. Semenov. Oh no, oh. priest, you Catholics are always too aggressive and hasty in converting. And besides, you didn’t understand me: after all, I wanted to say that your speeches converted me... to Orthodoxy. Geinberg. To Orthodoxy?!... Semyon. Yes, to Orthodoxy. After all, thanks to the apology of Catholic Fr. priest, it suddenly became clear: how hopelessly empty the magnificent church of the Catholic soul is, and how cozy it is in my native Church. Wilson. With this allegory, Mr. Seme probably wants to say that Catholicism leaves the soul unsatisfied, only surprising and stunning it with the grandeur of its plans. Semenov. Yes, but much more than that. The Orthodox Church now appears to me so infinitely sweet. But it’s my own fault that now I can’t find the words to say what I’m beginning to realize in my soul. Yes, while dreaming of a cardboard cathedral of Catholicism, I neglected the living body of my native Church. Only now have I realized his life. Geinberg. You probably want to say that the same process took place in your soul that took place in the history of the Church: the awareness of dogma and expression was a consequence of the perverted consciousness of heretics? Semyon(s), It seems, unfortunately, that in Catholicism new dogmas appeared in a completely different way, simply in the interests of the system. Le Roy. However, it would be interesting for us to hear what living things you see in the Orthodox > Church. Indeed, in fact, even if it is impossible to recognize all Catholics, then it must be recognized that he has great cultural strength within himself. This priest expressed a desire to find out for us in the next conversation the general superiorities of Catholicism over Orthodoxy). Perhaps you will agree to accept another new member, Mr. Kireevsk, this is a man who knows more than me in theological areas and is sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy. He was passing through from a resort, where he had gone to be treated for some complex and incomprehensible disease, the true nature of which the doctors could not determine. He had already decided to go back to his homeland, but his situation on the road suddenly worsened so much that he had to wait. If only due to health reasons he can take part in the conversation, then I will ask him to come here. Everyone agreed and parted warmly. Only the priest was hiding something within himself, as if he was about to give a general battle. Catholics object. But simple people? Another. Yes, it's easier to say this. You are talking about principles. But take reality. Is any Catholic peasant really as black as you portray him to be? Is he really that perverted? Does the Orthodox peasant really have some extraordinary advantages over him? Orthodox). Let's leave these questions aside. No matter how highly I rank the Slavic and Russophile movements, it always seemed risky to me to overload them as a fulcrum for Orthodoxy. Although I think for myself that the Slavophiles are right and that the Orthodox peasant really has a spiritual advantage over everyone else, I do not insist on this... Kat<olik)-ez<uit). So you admit that a Catholic peasant is no worse than an Orthodox peasant? Prav <oslavny). For the sake of simplifying the conversation, I concede... Kat<olik). But if you delved deeper into our life, you would agree that our peasant is higher than yours, more devoted to the Church... Prav <oslavny). Well, you always do this: extend your little finger, and you tear off your hand. Orthodox). Well, it doesn’t matter... It’s better... But that’s not the point. To understand religious power, one must take the phenomenon at its limit, in its highest manifestation, and not in its original forms. The embryo of a kitten and the embryo of a child at certain stages of development are almost the same. But when the development becomes more significant, then the difference becomes strong... In the same way, an Orthodox and a Catholic peasant may hardly differ from each other, for they are only the embryos of a real Orthodox and a real Catholic, developed. But at these highest points of development, or at least with a sufficient height of ascent, the deep differences in the structure of the soul in one and the other way of spiritual life appear noticeably. Wilson. What are these highest points of development? The rights of Orthodoxy and, even more specifically, among the saints, ascetics, reverends, who grew up on Catholic soil and on Orthodox soil. Friend of Orthodoxy. . Here we should also add the peaks of abstract church consciousness, from both confessions (?). Evening VI, the end especially. Minor remarks by Semenov, a summary objection to specific issues. a) The difference between the “spirits” of Catholic and Orthodox. Two layers, irreducible to each other: spiritual life and Catholic culture. Catholicism is like a false church, and Protestantism is like churchlessness. Catholic, Protestant – blinded. The Catholic lives, but falsely; Protestantism is clearly decomposing. b) Catholic and Orthodox (and the protest of Catholics, rationalism... Mysticism and false mysticism. Stigmatization (there was no such thing in the East. ΝΒ). Daydreaming. External imitation of Christ; and the Orthodox “makes salvation”, reorganizes the personality. “Thomas of Kempis” 684, Teresa 685, Catherine 686, Joan 687 . Even Francis (“instead of Christ”) the greatest 688. Ignatius of Loyola 689, his leadership (cf. Theophan) 690. Catholic confession and “penitentiary institution” 691. (In the margin to point b):> external decoration of a Catholic. Internal improvement of the Orthodox. “Let it all be so.” But Catholicism is social, and in Orthodoxy there is no churchliness, because there is no organ. The character of Catholic unity (civitas) and Orthodox... The primacy of Peter (φιλεΐν and άγαπαν) 692. “My joy, my joy, acquire a peaceful spirit and thousands of people will be saved around you” 693. Charitable mission (“go around the earth to do...” Pharisaism Matt. 23:15 >). (In the margins:> Ibmme, - “Faith and Reason”, 556 p. 694 NB. Orthodoxy is organically instilled, and Catholicism is externally put on. Why doesn’t Orthodoxy need an external body of unity? Why is freedom acceptable? Why is tradition preserved more faithfully in Orthodoxy than in “unified” Catholicism? Why could Orthodoxy unite and fight back? Cult. Rituals. Art. Style. Conclusion. Semenov. So: the Roman Church as the successor of the Roman state. But is there really no church, Christian? – Yes, but it is inevitably distorted. The basis of the new dogmas is something ecclesiastical, vividly recognized by Orthodoxy. But in the Catholic perverted carnal mind it becomes coarser, becomes whiter, and turns into a rational formula. Even living embryos receive the wrong direction, what is being done there, where there is a complete gag! We must flee from Catholicism... And voices are heard within Catholicism. Zernikav 695, Overbeck 696, Maksak 697 etc. Throughout history... "the Spanish general". Proposed program of lectures on the history of philosophy for the 1911/12 academic year V. The concept of Orthodox philosophy. West and East. Catholicism and Orthodoxy. New European philosophy as a product of the Western spirit. The connection between Orthodox philosophy and ancient philosophy. The main features of Orthodox philosophizing. Representatives of Orthodox philosophizing. 1911.IX.6. Night. Serg Pos Preliminary) Note. – Undefinable Orthodox. - Spirit of life. – Spirit father and confessor. - Catholic confession. – Character “spirit of life”. - Mysticism. – Cult. 1. In historical philosophy - 2 parts, history of modern philosophy). Eternally originating from Tsar Alexander the Great), the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles, now again resumed in literature and at scientific meetings, and even in everyday and social movements (“right” and “left”)... Where does the light come from? Ex oriente or ex occidente? Their direct continuation is Catholicism and Orthodoxy. At the same time, as much as the ancient one feels dear to us, the new one is alien... There is a deep gulf between East and West, a gulf of different cultures. But why are cultures different? Here we enter into the structure of the people's soul. It is essentially different here and there, and the alienness of the Western soul for us is felt, sensed, and cannot be explained properly. They, Western people, are flesh. And all that they have is flesh and of the flesh. Hence - rationalism, mechanism, sensationalism, technology... impersonalism... Understand historical philosophy and their philosophy of 1) space and 2) philosophy of time, or more correctly, eternity. Hence the philosopher of quantity (not quality), the desire for appearance... 2. This difference in the constitution of the soul, in the structure of the soul, in its structure is most noticeably reflected in the most important works of life - in faith. The way the soul responds to the divine call, the way it vibrates in response to the revelation of God - most undoubtedly, absolutely indisputably reveals the soul in its hiding places: in the most serious and most important things there is no time for hiding oneself. 3. To look closely at the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy means to understand the reasons for the significant difference between Western (new) philosophy and Eastern (ancient) philosophy. This is especially and primarily important for understanding Western philosophy. I will try to show you that philosophy is always a product of the corresponding religion... And modern Western philosophy, no matter how alienated it is from Catholicism and no matter how alienated it is from Catholicism, is a Catholic philosophy. 4. This study will give us new ground for a personal relationship with Western philosophy, and even with ancient philosophy. After all, whether we admit it and want it, or whether we don’t recognize it and don’t want it, in fact, ideally we are always Orthodox, bad, sinful, prodigal, but still sons of the Orthodox Church. We may die, but we cannot be different. And only in words can we swagger and bask in the Westerners; if things get serious, if we come face to face with the Western spirit, then a feeling of alienation, distance, and emptiness inevitably arises. For although they are smart, and talented, and skillful, and cultured, and even virtuous, they are still only flesh. We are a spirit, although often a prodigal one. 5. But we are ungrateful, we do not know how to appreciate what we have. We do not understand and do not value our Orthodoxy. But in reality, they are the only ones who are alive; and as we find ourselves in a situation that is essentially non-Orthodox, that is not generated by Orthodoxy, we become feeble and spiritually melancholy. There is a feeling of lack of nutrition. Understand, I’m not talking now about Macarius’s “Dogmatics” or Philaret’s “Catechism” 698. I’m not talking about seminaries and academies, and not even about worship. I'm talking about the way of life, about the spirit of the situation, about the pace and rhythm of the story. In the West it is different, alien to us. 6. But what is Orthodoxy? lie look for it? “What is Orthodoxy”? When I entered the academy, the living conditions were different. This question was proposed to me in a probing sense in a rhetorical sense: it does not exist and cannot be specified. Yes, you can’t point a finger at Orthodoxy. And I couldn’t answer it, I couldn’t point a finger at it. But I wasn’t embarrassed, although I myself didn’t know why I wasn’t embarrassed. Now I know why I wasn't embarrassed. This is what I now answer to the question about Orthodoxy, about churchliness. Reading. “Pillar”, pp. 5 – 8 in ((preface “To the reader”)). “After all, churchliness is the name of that refuge where the anxiety of the heart is pacified, where the claims of the mind are pacified, where great peace descends into the mind. Let neither I nor anyone else who could, cannot and, of course, will not be able to define what churchliness is! Let those who try to do this challenge each other and mutually deny the formula of churchliness! Doesn’t this very indefinability of churchliness, its elusiveness for logical terms, its ineffability prove that churchliness is life, a special, new life given to people, but, like any life, inaccessible to reason? And the differences of opinion in the definition of churchliness, the possibility from different sides of trying to establish in words what churchliness is, this diversity of incomplete and always insufficient verbal formulas of churchliness, doesn’t it experimentally confirm to us, in turn, what was already told to us by the Apostle; after all, the Church is the body of Christ, “completely filling everything in everything” (Εφ. 1, 23). So how can this fullness - τό πλήρωμα - of Divine life be placed in the narrow coffin of logical definition? It would be ridiculous to think that this impossibility indicates anything against the existence of churchliness; on the contrary, the latter is rather justified by such an impossibility. And, since churchliness is prior to its individual manifestations, since it is that divine-human element from which, so to speak, the rites of the sacraments, the formulations of dogmas, canonical rules and, in part, even the fluid and temporary way of church life are condensed and crystallized in the historical course of church humanity, - to this extent, to this completeness, the prophecy of the apostle primarily refers: “We must be and differences of opinion between you - δει - και αιρέσεις έν ύμϊν είναι" (1 Κορ. 11, 19), - differences of opinion in the understanding of churchliness. And, nevertheless, everyone who does not run away from the Church, by his very life accepts into himself the single element of churchliness and knows what churchliness is and what it is. Where there is no spiritual life, something external is needed, like ensuring churchliness. A certain position, the Pope, or a set, a system of positions, a hierarchy - this is the criterion of churchliness for a Catholic. A certain confessional formula, symbol, or system of formulas, text of Scripture - this is the criterion of churchliness for a Protestant. Ultimately, in both cases the decisive concept is the ecclesiastical-legal concept among Catholics and the ecclesiastical-scientific concept among Protestants. But, becoming the highest criterion, the concept thereby makes any manifestation of life unnecessary. Moreover, since no life can be commensurate with a concept, any movement of life inevitably overflows beyond the boundaries outlined by the concept and, thereby, turns out to be harmful and intolerant. For Catholicism (of course, I take both Catholicism and Protestantism in their limit, in their principle), any independent manifestation of life is non-canonical, but for Protestantism it is unscientific. And here and there, life is truncated by the concept, rejected ahead of time in the name of the concept. If freedom is usually denied to Catholicism, and it is decisively attributed to Protestantism, then both are equally unjust. And Catholicism recognizes freedom, but... predetermined; However, anything outside these limits is illegal. And Protestantism recognizes violence, but... also only outside the predetermined channel of rationalism; everything outside of it is unscientific. If in Catholicism one can discern the fanaticism of canonicity, then in Protestantism there is no less fanaticism of science. The indefinability of Orthodox churchliness, I repeat, is the best proof of its vitality. Of course, we cannot indicate such a church position about which we could say: “It sums up the ecclesiastical nature,” and then what would be the point of all the other positions and activities of the Church. We cannot equally indicate such a formula, such a book that could be offered as the fullness of church life, and again, if there were such a book, such a formula, then why would there be all the other books, all the other formulas, all the other activities of the Church. There is no concept of churchliness, but it exists itself, and for every living member of the Church, church life is the most definite and tangible thing that he knows. But church life is assimilated and comprehended only in a vital way - not in abstraction, not rationally. If we really need to apply some concepts to it, then the concepts that come closest are not legal or archaeological, but biological and aesthetic. – What is churchliness? – This is new life, life in the Spirit. What is the criterion for the correctness of this life? - Beauty. Yes, there is a special spiritual beauty, and it, elusive to logical formulas, is at the same time the only true path to determining what is Orthodox and what is not. The connoisseurs of this beauty are spiritual elders, masters of “the art of art,” as the holy fathers call asceticism. The spiritual elders, so to speak, “have become skilled” in recognizing the good quality of spiritual life. The taste is Orthodox, the Orthodox appearance is felt, but it is not subject to arithmetic calculation; Orthodoxy is shown, but not proven. That is why for anyone who wants to understand Orthodoxy, there is only one way - direct Orthodox experience. They say that people now learn to swim abroad using instruments, lying on the floor; in the same way, you can become a Catholic or a Protestant from books, without having any contact with life - in your office. But in order to become Orthodox, one must immediately plunge into the very element of Orthodoxy, live Orthodoxy - and there is no other way” 699. 7. The differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I take both within their limits, at the ends to which they strive) [margin note:> Understand the limits], characteristic) become clear if we ask ourselves where to look for both. Where is Orthodoxy? Is it dogmatic? Is it in the metropolitan, or in the patriarch? – In holiness, in seedbeds of spirituality, in bearers of the Spirit. Zosimova hermitage 700: elder Herman 701; Elder Isidore 702 – that’s where Orthodoxy is. And the rest is all fences and robes, but the important thing of Orthodoxy is in the right dispensation of the soul. Outside the sphere of influence of eldership, there is no spiritual Orthodoxy. And Catholicism is in the Catholic organization. A person outside a Catholic organization is not a Catholic. But what is this organization? It is also a special institution for influencing the soul. There are two ways to influence the soul: from the outside and from the inside. In accordance with its mechanical, spatial idea of ​​the soul, Catholicism chose the first method. And Orthodoxy - in time, in eternal indivisibility) - the second. 8. But the very names of both leaders characteristically reveal a difference in essence. We have a spiritual father. Continuity of life, both physical and spiritual in vivo. Living from living. Just as a physical father gives bodily life from God, but the son who receives it lives himself, independently, according to the laws of his physical individuality, so the spirit father gives spiritual life from God, in torments and sorrows and labors he gives birth to a new being in the spiritual world, educates him, nourishes and feeds him, but the born one lives himself, according to the laws of his spiritual individuality received in the spiritual birth, independently. 9 . He is precisely the spiritual son. His spiritual father cares for him, opens his spiritual eyes, helps him, but cannot and should not instill in him, train him. The development of the spiritual son occurs freely, without deformation, without mutilation. It’s not the same with Catholics. They have no spiritual fathers, they have no elders, neither in deeds, nor even in name. They have a directeur de conscience, director conscientiae, director, manager, straightener of conscience. Here, in the imagination, an image is drawn of the descent of conscience from some path intended for it from the outside, from some rails - a crooked path of conscience and a series of external pushes, pulls, rearrangements, returning it to the path laid out by someone for it, to the rails laid out for it. 10. In Orthodoxy, rebirth, rebirth, and internal renewal are required of the individual, but in Catholicism, only external adherence to a certain path is required. In Orthodoxy, the individual himself lives a spiritual life, and life’s activities and aspirations emanate from it; in Catholicism it only acts, galvanized by other people's suggestions - it only obeys the external, pre-made and for everyone form into which it is squeezed; At the same time, she remains the same as before, and no one has any idea that she herself would change and that this could be the case. Orthodoxy wants to make a person healthy and beautiful, and Catholicism wants to dress her up in colorful outfits. Orthodoxy wants to arrange the inner man, and Catholicism wants to train him and drive him into a stall behind a number. 11. Remember once and for all that the idea of ​​personality is so alien to Catholicism that it simply forgets about it, simply loses sight of the very existence of personality. If for Napoleon, the product of papism, everything was chere a canon, cannon fodder, then for the Pope, also Napoleon, everything was chere a canon - canonical meat - for canons, church rules, for the external order. There would be external good behavior and decency. Nobody cares about the soul, and it becomes perverted, either by protesting and hypocrisy (while there is life left in it), or by being suppressed and enslaved (when it dies). 12. Directeur de conscience! As if he could conduct his conscience, train it, be the director of conscience! God Himself does not have the power to change conscience, for in it, in its independence, the image of God is reflected. Catholics try to distort it, but in their own way. Hence - either hypocrisy and predation, or a state of suggestion and hypnosis: managers and controlled. The “Director of Conscience” almost hypnotizes his victims, turning them into his weak-willed instruments, charged with an instilled idea (fanaticism). Fan is the obsession with an idea, as opposed to the creative possession of an idea. The idea ate the man, and it is not the man who gives birth to the idea. The controlled one is truly a sicut cadaver, according to the favorite comparison of spiritual managers and stewards. 13. But hypnosis acts predominantly on women and is associated with the sexual sphere, instead of the desire for spiritual purity, the cultivation of sensuality and unhealthyness. The celibacy of the clergy is not accidental; it is a powerful means of influencing the governed. This is the desire to create pseudo-spirituality out of our intense, unresolved sensuality. False mysticism. You know, of course, how frequent are cases of crude eroticism, perhaps the most innocent in essence. But if you say that rough erotica is an abuse, an exception, then I will say: this is an exception, this abuse is significant, it confirms the rule. It is the abrusus that reveals the true nature of the usus. 14. After all, the very essence of the relationship between the ruler of conscience and the controlled woman is essentially eroticism, no matter how outwardly decent it may be. A Catholic woman is always in love with her “director” - or hates it. The fact that we have an unusual case (Grigory Rasputin), they have a well-known story. 15. Confession. Jesuits. The influence of the clergy comes down to management. To take the very soul into your own hands and lead it in your own way - this limit of Catholicism is, of course, not always respected to the same extent. But you know that the entire history of Catholicism is nothing more than a slow process of the degeneration of ecclesiasticalism into Jesuitism, the transformation of the Latin Church into a gigantic Societas Iesu Christi 703, suffocating with its tentacles not only external ones, but also the Church itself. Ignatius of Loyola 704 is only a symptom, for Jesuitism existed before him, and even now the boundaries of the official Order of Jesuits do not at all coincide with the sphere of Jesuitism. Every Catholic manager is more or less a Jesuit, even when he hates the official Jesuits. The ideological leadership and influence of the Jesuits is immeasurable and growing. But, in addition to this, external influence is growing, for they are all taking the Church into their own hands. But Jesuitism is only the identification and consequence of the true principles of the Roman spirit. Jesuitism is a type of spiritual life. But the Jesuits took the very government of souls into their own hands. Their textbooks (Pori, Ligu ori, etc. 705) Recommended by the Pope as a guide for all leaders; their authorities Busenbaum, Vasquez, Suarez, Escobar, Sanchez and others 706 are the authorities of all Catholicism. Everything that is strongest among Catholics is Jesuitical. And so, the Jesuits created a means of “attracting the whole world to themselves and not alienating anyone” (Pascal) 707. This is a simplified theology - la devotion aisee (this is the title of the work of Eez Lemoan) 708. What's the secret? – Samarin, – Works. Vol. 6, pp. 92 – 93 709. Their moral theology deals with resolving one question: what the law requires of a person and how to fight off its demands - and that’s all. The doctrine of conscience: but the secret of this repulse is in the hands of learned men. They, having stolen the conscience, become absolutely necessary for the robbed. The direct relationship of an integral personality to a specific life process, the direct acceptance of life into oneself, is replaced in the West by a preliminary reduction of life according to a formula, according to a concept and is evaluated; in fact, it does not relate to life, but to a concept. This destroys the integrity of life; and then the concepts are subjected to endless shredding and disintegration. Divisions, and divisions, and subdivisions, schematism and systematicity. As you sit on the kathisma, you feel that the bow has been stretched, weakened, that not only the body, but also the soul has somehow weakened, resting, basking. And now, I imagine the state of the Catholics and everyone sitting. Their soul is always relaxed, always passive, and hence the character of life, which requires authority, a powerful addition in the form of a confessor, etc. On the contrary, the Orthodox is tense, awake with the whole body, the whole being stands arrow upward, does not blur, does not melt in sentimentality. That is why Catholics have passive perception, while Orthodox ones have active, liveliness, clarity. Appendix 2. Holidays. Consecration of reality. Symbolism of worship “Today Christ is born of a Virgin in Bethlehem; today the Beginningless begins, and the Word is embodied" (service of the Nativity of Christ, verse (ira) for praise 710. Most chants repeat this “today” with the present tense as the predicate: “Heaven and earth today prophetically rejoice, angels and men spiritually rejoice” (id., verse on lit. 711, because “today we see in the flesh, invisible by nature, for the sake of man” (verse (ira) on lit. 2) 712, that’s why “all the angels in heaven rejoice and people rejoice today, everyone plays a creature born for the sake of the Savior of the Lord in Bethlehem" (verse in lit., "and now") 713. “The Nativity of Our Savior IX. Easter, the holiday of three days" (Trebn, part 1, p. 329) 714. Also - Annunciation, Dormition (verse 1 on Gosp, exaltation(s), etc. Noumenality of holidays (By analogy with the Eucharist) we always and inevitably have a question: is not Christ God Himself resurrected again and again on the “radiant night” of 715 Easter, just as in the Eucharist he is sacrificed again and again? 716 Otherwise, where does that spiritual uplift, the general joy and delight that embrace each and every one of us come from on this day? And what does this call of the Church mean: “Let us purify our senses and see the unapproachable light of Christ’s resurrection shining,” and rejoice, speaking clearly so that we may hear, singing victoriously”? 717 How can we understand this incessant assertion that it is “today”, today, that Christ is resurrected and that it is “this”, this present day that is “the appointed and holy... one is the Sabbath King and Lord, the feast of feasts and the triumph of triumphs” (p 8 Easter 718, why are everyone invited to be enlightened by the triumph and embrace each other (Easter verse)? 719 If Easter is only a remembrance of the resurrection and, therefore), a remembrance only by us, people, then what does the Church’s call to the joy of all creation mean? - “Let the heavens deservedly rejoice, let the earth rejoice, let the world celebrate, both visible and invisible: Christ has risen, eternal joy” (Easter, p. 1, tr. 2) 720. What does the assurance mean that “today everything is filled with light, the heavens and the earth and the underworld” (p. 3, tr I) 721 ... (to see the resurrection in Eternity) ... How, finally, can we explain the fact that the Church commemorates the dead immediately after Holy Week (on Radonitsa) and before the day of Pentecost? Yes, of course, this commemoration is performed only because of the same faith that Christ has really, now, risen, and therefore prayers for the dead are now especially effective. The entire service of Trinity Saturday is built on the idea of ​​the Lord breaking the shackles of death... It is not without reason that Christians consider it a blessing to die on this Holy Day. The rite of burial... “as everything is about the risen Christ... in the hope of the resurrection...” 722, etc. (Trebn, part 1, pp. 143 – 144 vol.). Prayers for the dead at this time are especially effective. (On the week of the Penticostia evening, they say the 3rd - “And on this all-perfect and saving holiday of purification, the prayer for those who are held in hell is deemed worthy to receive.” 723. On this day, God is especially close: “The Master himself... on this day the secret... showed” (id. the 3rd pier) 724 and other places of service of Pentecost, where this day is emphasized. “Christ is, taste and see: the Lord for our sake, who was for us of old, brought Himself alone, as an offering to His Father, is ever buried, sanctified by the one who receives communion” (can ko sv 9, tr I) 725. ΝΒ 1) “It will always be tempered...”, and “brought to Himself” “in one” 726. The Eucharist as a phenomenon in supertemporal time. ΝΒ. 2) An offering to His Father. But this is the heresy of Sotirich, which was about the words “For you are the one who brings and the one brought and the one who receives and the one who is distributed...” 727 . Who was the offering for? – To the Being of the Most Holy Trinity, and not to the Father. – Who and when was this canon compiled? This would be important to know. The Jews prayed at home (Keil, - Biblical Archaeology). St. Petersburg, 428) 728 . During the morning sacrifice - at 3 o'clock (Acts 2:15). At noon - in 6 Acts 2:15). During the evening sacrifice - at the 9th hour (Dan. 9, 21; Acts 3:1). The final coarse-grained structure of mental life... 729 The non-world determines the world. Not-time is time. Non-space is space. In general, everything here is determined and caused by what is there. So weekdays are determined by holidays, and not vice versa, therefore the first day of the week is Sunday, a week. That is, empty time, not occupied by anything, is emptiness. Time brings with it a holiday. I) 1) intentio and in general 4 moments (enta) of the sacraments, ΙΓ) 2) the structure of prayer and incantation. Paganism and Christianity, II) 3) sanctification of time, II) 4) sanctity of time, “the creature plays.” Here, today, III) 5) consecrating spaces (entrance, “wise, cult of the door: transition to, IV) 6) holiness of holidays. Providing places in cults. Mortal holiness (see Father Nikandra), I) 8) sanctification of the substance (one must also: formula of power and action, etc.), scattering of the sacred, 9) holiness, sacredness, 10) consecration of the 4 elements (insert on page 11), 11) sanctification of the world: scattering of shrines, 13) stopping time according to the apocrypha, time (see notebook <1 nrzb.”, 15) consecration of the icon in the name, 16) sanctification of citizenship - movement, travel, undertaking, teaching, 1) prayer over a dignitary, On Thursday to Nesterov at 11 at 2 o'clock old time. About the miracle of myrrh-streaming chapters. Cleaning the vessel. 4) about the royal άγιος (Sim(eon) Sol<unsky. Birthday of the martyrs. The beauty of the saints. 13) scattering of the shrine - sanctification of the world, 14) sanctification) of space) and time, 15) formulas of sanctification (terms). Baptism = Name of Christ), God (Trinity) = Circumcision = Name of Jehovah. Antinomy of the Cross (reality, reality) Antinomy of the Name (word, meaning). The sacraments are performed by the union of two antinomies, meaning and reality. So we returned to the starting point. A few words.> Antinomy is a doubly antinomy of antinomically combined things. I said we will. The cult - the combination of meaning and reality - occurs due to the combination in it of the activity) of two antinomically related ones: meaning - the Name and the Cross - reality, which themselves are the essence of antinomies. This is the final result of our thoughts for now. To protect the fields from hail, bottles or flasks with Epiphany water were buried in the corners of the field. “And indeed, we have never had hailstorms” (Iv(an) Sem(enovich) Efimov 730, artist, landowner of Tambov province). 1) original sin and personal sin, 2) the essence of tragedy is the conflict between the hero and the chorus, 6) about anger towards God (children of wrath) hardening of hearts, 8) not personal, but generic guilt. “The houses in which they placed stones or wood of holy churches, were not corrupted and died, or no heir of the money-grubber” (Tablet, chapter 21, p. 88) 731. To care about someone - he cared about his relatives, like an older brother. This is not a measure of goodness, but the ancient meaning of the word: to bake = to inflame the soul. ΝΒ. “damaged faith” (author of “Pomeranian Answers”) 733, “damaged Orthodoxy” (“History of the Solovetsky sufferers” 734). Superstition is called “dark,” and superstitions are “dark people with darkened hearts” (Rom. 1:21). The dry sound of frozen lumps of snow when you kick them or push them against each other is similar to the dry sound of hot coals in a stove being poured or stirred with a poker. Here and there – the same dry sonority. 1) Asked F.D. Samarin: “What is the difference between artos and St. 735 Artos - depicts the Savior. If the Holy Gifts are different, then they do not represent, but are the essence. Names. Imitation of the saints. View in 1) Large Catechism 736. About tobacco, potatoes. "Book of Faith" 738. Chapter on destructive drunkenness. Zolotnitsky. Vegetables, fruits and berries (beliefs of peoples) 739. Baronius has 740 about potatoes. “Bodies” (potatoes - “demonic bread”, “dog eggs”, “demonic damned cards” <?”. Everything about the phenomenology of worship 1) The coherence of the sacraments: everything is one, and the essence of one passes to another - if it is impossible to perform it - just as from a section of a ray to another, 2) font: coffin, false (by Philaret, Grig Naz<ianzin) - how the Eucharist always connects with the Spirit), 3) resurrection is the restoration of nature (Kavas 40) 741 (therefore chastity is resurrection), 4) the organism of sacraments - and its (differences and distributions? - invariants - ?>, 5) letter to Rozanov about censer, rhythm, etc. 742, 6) a record of the Praise of the Mother of God (this service is a year, not a day), 7) about rotating circles (in my notebook, 8) about odors, their thermal opacity. 2) Substitute functions of the sacraments. The grace of marriage, which sharpens (Fr. Erast) 743. Grace of Baptism (Nick Cabasilas) 744, Ser Grace of Confession, letters of Benjamin (letter of a monk) 746 and others from my materials. in oak forests, in reeds, in rapids, in houses, in courtyards, in baths. (Sequence of prayer, pp. 206 – 207.) 747 There is the lily of the Annunciation, there is an olive branch brought by a dove to Noah during the flood, there is a palm branch of the Assumption (“Vravie”), fronds of dates from the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, and thorns of the Savior. And the Cross was made of three types of wood. The Mother of God is the “crown of heavenly vegetation” [“Sophia”] 748. The Holy Spirit is “the fire of comforters” (sat at Matins on Pentecost and on Pentecost Monday) 749. Christian worldview “When the matter demands defending Christianity, everyone lowers their head, everyone turns away and moves away. “I wanted to bring here some book written against us by some wicked Hellenic philosopher, and another, more ancient one, in order to further motivate you and awaken you from such laziness. If they were awake to invent such things against us: then how can we excuse ourselves for not knowing how to repel the arrow fired at us” (St. John Chrysostom, Orr. T. 8, p. 102, ed. Bened.) 750. (“The book” is probably Neoplatonic, written by supporters of the pagan reaction, “the most ancient of it” - probably Plato, in order to reflect the first with it. - 77. F.) About the Christian worldview 2 Cor. 11:3 “I fear that your minds will not be corrupted by the simplicity of Christ.” N.B. The Church calls all creation to “rejoice and rejoice,” for it too will be “renewed... Christ has come” (service to the Nativity of Christ, verse on Glory) 751, and will be raised “to the first kindness” (canon for the morning of December 24, p. I) 752. The fall of (demons) idols – canon on Ascension, p 8, tr 2) 753. 754; trope “To the voice of the one in the desert” 755 on the vodosv, etc.), the creature rejoices and trembles with delight, sensing on itself all the grace of this condescension (Baptized, verse at the litiya on “and now” 756 and many others.” This trembling and horror overcomes her even more when she saw her Lord and Creator hanging on the Cross (Vel Heel, verse on verse 757, etc.). As once upon a time at the moment of Adam’s fall, “the sun’s rays were hidden, the moon and the stars were transformed into blood” 758 (verse on the lit. week of Sirn Sub, praise 107, article II) 759. But to the glory and life of the creature was the death of the Lord of the Lord (“The creature... although to save, I deign to die.” The Lord. Kan on the funeral of the Great Heel, paragraph 9, tr 760, etc.), for the sacrifice of Christ “purified the whole creation” (“Immaculate” in Vel sub, art. I, praise 40) 761. His blood cleansed the whole earth: “Of old the earth was cursed, having been stained with Abel’s blood... but blessed with Thy rich Blood it was sprinkled” (Sunday) canon 1, chapter 7, 2nd canon tr I) 762. “The sacred disciples of the Holy Spirit came to complete the unsided swords: sanctifying the earth to God the Creator, cutting off the unsacred, so that the weapon of the evil one might disappear and our souls would be saved” (Tuesday of Pentecost, verse on “Gosp, ascend”) 763. “Lord, in the memory of Thy saints all creation celebrates, the heavens and angels rejoice, and the earth rejoices with men” (Martyr, chapter 6, on Monday at Matins) 764. The heavens are a reality (cf. Earth), and they can rejoice (“firmament”). “And deliver me from many and fierce memories and enterprises” (final morning prayer to the Holy Mother of God) 765 - that is, to live neither in the past (memories), nor in the future (enterprises), but in the present, this is positivity. Anthropodycey Negative theology Ησυχία 766 – the path of negative) theology. “Αφελε πάντα 768 -* - Plotinus repeats words taken from the ritual of the Eleusinian Mysteries - in response to the question, “how can one see God?” (Enn. V. 3, 17. Comp. I. 6, 7 and VI. 9, 10 – 11). Wed: “let us put aside every... worldly concern” 769 = ησυχία – peace of spirit. “These words about everyday things cannot be understood in a worldly way.” The act of essence is not the actualization of essence. Shteynhardt (Melet et Plot. p. 3) called the 5th book of the 2nd Ennead “liber exigui voluminis sed gravissimi argument!” 770. The criterion of the truth of the visible Church is always invisible. The cross is compared to a tree, which turned the waters of Marrah from bitter to sweet, and these waters are usually understood as the water of paganism, that is, as a symbol of everything conventional and created, every thing and every breath (see the canon on the Exaltation of the Cross, p. 4 771, and the corresponding interpretation of Nicodemus the Holy Mountain) 772. “One youth, during a terrible earthquake, under [emperor] Theodosius II and Patriarch Proclus, being caught up into heaven, heard angels singing: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal.” When they later sang this song on earth, the earthquake immediately stopped. From that time on, it was established to sing this angelic song everywhere. The prayer is also added to the glorification: “Have mercy on us.” - Simeon of Thessalonica, pp. 150 773. Prot. V. Vladislavlev, - Explanation of the worship of the Holy Orthodox Church. Tver, 1876, pp. 278 – 279, approx. 3) the strength of sound (cf. trumpets of Jericho). Every mind is amazed 774 (87 rev.), that is, the mind goes out of the mind, that is, it goes out of itself. Having been like an apostle of Christ 775. (90 vol.) troparion: blood - fine linen and purple 776. (90 vol.) Kontakion: The Universe brings martyrs like firstfruits 777. ΝΒ. “Having seen a strange Christmas, let us withdraw from the world, casting our minds to heaven...” (Akaf God Mat, cond 8) 778 (cf. “create a worldly fusion above me”) 779. “Let all flesh be silent” 780. This is sung on Vel Saturday; “Life sleeps and hell trembles. The king of ages... is keeping the sabbath in the tomb" 781. “Let all human flesh be silent...” 783 Vel Sub - Saturday par excellence), detachment from the worldly, empty of business. 1) “Rejoice at the one door, through which the Word passed through one, the faiths and gates of hell, the Lady, who crushed with your Nativity: Rejoice at the divine entrance of those who are being saved, Bride of God” (Canon of God Mat, p 3, tr 4) 784. 2) “Rejoice at the ladder, which lifted everyone up from the earth with grace: Rejoice at the bridge, truly leading all who sing thee from death to life” (Canon of God Mat, p. 2) 785. Sunday troparia with the Mother of God and kontakion of eight voices 786. In chapters 1, 2, 3 mentioning the descent into hell. “Rejoice, impenetrable door of the Lord” 787, Akaf 788, Wall: Ak, ik 12,791; kan prayer service Ave Bogor 792, kan prayer service of Theodore Duka Laskar, n 5 793. “The Annunciation was usually depicted on the folding doors, as a sacrament that opened the doors of salvation” (r. A. S. Uvarov - Collection of small works. T. 1, M., 1914, p. 72). Symbols of God's Mother: “The gate is closed.” Prophecy) Ezekiel XLIV, 2. “And the Lord said to me: this gate will be closed.” 1) “Rejoice, divine entrance of those saved by the Bride of God” (can Most Holy God, p. 3, tr. 4) 798. 4) Ladder, bridge (item 4, tr 799. In ancient times, in some places the (royal) doors were closed after the cherubic song and during the bishop’s service (see Simeon of Thessalonica, Vol. III, p. 39) 800. The door is a transition to another life - a couple dyad (husband and woman). Monument to Aux Morts 801 at PЈre-Lachaise in Paris. "Man and Woman." Vol. 2, p. 658. NB 803. “Open the door of repentance for me, O philanthropic Jesus” (can Iis Slad, p 1, tr 2) 804. “Open the doors of repentance, O Life-Giver...” 805 The blessed damozel leaned out From the gold bar of heaven; Her eyes were deeper than the depth Of waters stilled at even. Her seemed she scarce had been a day One of God's choristers; The wonder was not yet quite gone From that still look of hers; Albeit, to them she left, her day Had counted as ten years. It was the rampart of God's house That she was standing on; So high, thus looking down – ward then She scarce could see the sun. “I wish that he were coming to me For he will come,” she said. On the same topic, Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s painting “The Blessed Damozel”, reproduced, by the way, in the book by Charles N. Caffin, – How to study picture. London, 1905, p. 379. The history of this poem and this picture is recounted in the same book by Caffin. The threshold of that life, the golden barrier of heaven The Blessed Virgin, bowing, leaned on the golden railings of the sky. Her eyes were deeper than the depths of the waters, Calm before the evening dawn. Hardly a day had passed when, buried, She found herself in God’s choir; The stirring has not yet completely left the quiet gaze of her calm eyes. Although for those whom she left, this Day was counted for decades. She stands on the threshold of God's house, And it is so high that if she looked down, She could hardly see the sun. “I want him to come to me, and he will come,” she said. Wed. “golden barrier” in the visions of T. A. Schaufuss 806, “black curtain” in Khomyakov’s vision 807, black “river” (in Kachmar’s vision) 808, River Styx 809, after which there is no return, “door” among the Egyptians, “double threshold” in the mysteries, etc. What is the meaning of bows, earthly and otherwise? Why prostrate in the cult? – The answer to this question is contained in the very structure of man. A person differs in appearance from an animal in that he stands, while an animal lies down. Man is a standing animal. And the internal characteristics of a person are directly determined in their possibility by the fact of standing. Speech would be impossible with a horizontal position of the chest and larynx, and the brain could not develop; hands, the organ of creativity and perception, would not be free; in short, a person who was not placed vertically would not be a person. And if so, then getting up, the will to get up, the ability to get up - all this specifically characterizes a person as such. The act of standing up is one's own manifestation of humanity. The will to get up is the discovery of human aspiration; the ability to get up is humanity itself. Let us not forget that, according to the consciousness of the Orthodox Church, the main task - sobriety - is essentially connected with the effort to stand and that prayer requires standing. On the contrary, sitting relaxes both body and soul, and then wandering, daydreaming, and spiritual passivity begin. The ancient Hellenism demanded, in accordance with the general sober and active disposition of its religion, standing in the church or, more precisely, near the church; Orthodoxy, which shares the requirement of sobriety with Hellenism and generally continues the spiritual traditions of Hellenism, demands the same. On the contrary, ancient Rome, with its more defined priesthood than in Hellas and therefore with greater passivity of the laity, allowed and even desired relaxation and passivity in religion. And this spiritual tradition was further passed on to Catholicism. That is why in both ancient and new Rome it is allowed and even required to sit in the church. Together with the organ, the habit of unconditional obedience, the sensual-dreamy character of the entire religious life, this sitting significantly excludes sobriety. So, standing stimulates sobriety, clarity of the human spiritual structure. Consequently, getting up, rebellion requires special impulses towards humanity, a special will to activity. Bowing and standing are truly exercises in humanity, strengthening our human consciousness. Throwing - that is, spoiled, adapted to the Russian word throw the word μετάνοια, repentance is truly both throwing and repentance, for repentance itself is a conversion, a turn towards oneself, i.e., thinking or bringing consciousness to clarity. To repent, that is, to turn one’s consciousness to oneself, means to drive away all daydreaming, all inebriation, and this means awakening humanity in oneself. So, prostrations and prostrations in general have the meaning of exercises in humanity. They strengthen in us the actual human activity - to standing and to sobriety. Truly, when “wisdom”, σοφία, is taught, then one must be “simple,” that is, straight, upright, ορθοί. And in order to be ορθοί, one must learn to be one. In the end, after all, our confession is defined as ορθοδοξία, as a direct opinion, as the opinions of the soul, which are direct, that is, sober, and not dreamily lying somewhere to the side and becoming limp in a dream. In order to have the power to carry out the exclamation “Wisdom, forgive” 810 one must learn to be “simple.” Bows teach us to be like that, developing the will and, along with it, the innervation to “simplicity,” that is, to directness. And for this you need to learn to be both actively-passive and actively-active, consciously-passive and consciously-active. Sitting is an intermediate state - when there is no destruction of one’s will, but there is no self-consciousness either. Sitting corresponds to passive activity. All of Rome is built on this feeling - passive activity. We, when we prostrate ourselves, actively relax to the last weakening, die, so that, actively rebelling, we can be resurrected. By making bows, we learn resurrection, actively move to passivity and from it - with special strengthening - to activity. That is why Orthodoxy is built on bowing, and Rome does not recognize or almost does not recognize bowing, but practices sitting. “More poetic than scientific, sometimes more sentimental than positive, the view sought the meaning of this [straightforward position] of the characteristic feature, it seems, in the wrong place... [the following is a refutation of this view]. In the directness intended for us, they tried to discern some kind of dominant influence on the entire rest of the formation of the human body, and often quite thoroughly, although we by no means share the enthusiastic enthusiasm with which Herder was ready to deduce from this one source almost all the advantages of human nature. But since it would be impossible for us to understand why a plumb line in itself is nobler than a horizontal one, it seems that we should begin by delving into the necessity of this vertical position, which is not an advantage in itself [and why, etc.], but solely because it is an inevitable condition of higher life activity. I consider it possible to prove that for a creature belonging in its structure to the type of mammal-sucking, the idle use of hands, of which we will later analyze the infinite value, is conceivable only under the condition of a vertical position...”, etc. Prman Lotze, – Microcosm. Thoughts 811 on the natural and everyday history of mankind. Ch.I.M., 1866. 1p. IV. Page 104 – 105 et seq. The theme of rising, rising, standing, appears many times in morning prayers. “And grant us, with a cheerful heart and a sober thought, to pass through the whole night of this present life, awaiting the coming of the bright and revealed day... Lord... Jesus Christ, not to fall and become lazy, but watchfully, and to be raised up into the work of those who will find themselves ready...” 813 (Morning Prayer, 5th, St. Basil the Great). The cross is height, the idea of ​​height, elevation, ascent. This is expressed by the month under the cross a) month – watery principle – dragon – horizontal: the cross tramples and overcomes horizontality, b) month – there is the letter υ, i.e. the beginning of the word υψος, height. The cross is “height” (cf. Rev. Maxim Trek, - About the semicircle in the form of a young moon, located under the cross on churches. Works, Part III, pp. 81 - 82, Ser Pos, 1911. (Scholarly notes and letters from Prof. V.V. Bolotov, relating to his relations with the commission for the translation of liturgical books into Finnish. - “Christian Reading”, 1906, No. 5, pp. 674 - 677). « Deuteronomy 6.13 (5.9); Matt. 4, 10; Luke 4:8 reads: “To the Lord your God What does the Hebrew shakhy mean? In all likelihood, humiliation of oneself in the form of a bow to the ground or falling face down on the ground. Characteristic passages: Isaiah 51, 23; Ref. 34, 8 (according to Russian translation; comparison with Slavic = Greek is interesting). But from a comparison of places. Life 24, 26; Ref. 12, 27; 34, 8; Number 22, 31; 1 Sam. 24, 9; 28, 14; 1 Kings 1, 16. 31 we have to conclude that hi§tah 8 wah [note that this verbal form (the so-called reflexive) corresponds to the Vth Arabic, taqattala; and the fifth Arabic “means the state into which the object of the action, signified by the second form (qattala), is brought by this very action”; and the second form (qattala) certainly expresses the intensification, intensity of the action, sometimes in the form of extensiveness (it lasts a very long time, is repeated many times, captures a lot of objects). Here are some illustrative examples: II. ъа//аша, he studies (= makes every possible effort to know; is being inquired into; is being found out); V. taba/Zama, he learned (=became a scientist)] means not the falling face to the ground itself, but some movements accompanying this fall, or, more accurately, the state in which the person who has fallen face to the ground finds himself as a result of these intensified movements. Consequently, we do not know what exactly (in what detail) the Jews believed the essence, the quintessence of their worship. Three other Semitic translations, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, agree to translate a wah or the Greek προσκυνειν, it makes no difference for now)) “bowing down” with the same verb “sgd” (Arabic gagada sajjada). That this root gives the concept of religious worship is known to everyone (although not everyone realizes it): the well-known word “mosque” is a corrupted Arabic “masgid υη” 814 = masjid = masjed = worship room, a place where one worships. By “sgd” we meant prostration (Dan. 2, 46; 3, 5, 6). It is remarkable that the Jews (Isa. 44, 15; 17, 19; 46, 6) know the verb “sagad h”, but it is used (along with histah a wah) where we are talking about the worship of idols. Probably, in some detail the worship of sagad h differed from the worship - histah a wah. The Greek προσκυνειν is the obvious πρός+κυνειν. Ptgol κυνέω translate osculor, kiss. Therefore, προσκυνειν means: - kisses to someone. But the word was attached προσκυνειν to two unequal actions. α) It also meant the bow practiced by the Persians, precisely described in the Armenian 815 translation; The Armenian eRxiR yaauaye erkir-paganel means “to kiss the ground”: whoever προσκυνήσει threw himself on the ground and kissed it. (Further development = softening of the ritual: instead of the ground, they kiss the hem of the garment, kiss the leg, kiss the knee.) Consequently, bowing (in our sense of the word) among the Persians was only a means to an end (for kissing the ground). β) It also meant an action used among the Greeks: they raised their hand to their lips and then extended it towards the one they wanted to greet - sending him an air kiss. In all likelihood, this very gesture also means the Latin adoro to bring (the hand) ad os to the lips. Finally, the word προσκυνείν was applied both to kneeling before the statues of gods and to prayers before them. Until now, I pretended that the expressions of κυνέω were clear to us. It is obvious, of course, that a kiss - osculum, as something done with the lips, os - is a European kiss. But that κυνέω from time immemorial meant a European kiss is far from indisputable. Κονέω is a word that does not remember kinship: neither in Sanskrit, nor in the Iranian languages, nor in the Germanic languages ​​have they found a common root with κυνέω (in any case, the aorist from κυνέω ε-κυσσ-α and the German Kuss, kiss, do not have a common root). Or maybe philologists do not find this root only because they spared themselves the trouble of thinking about what both Greeks and non-Greeks could mean by a kiss in prehistoric times. The Greeks translated the Hebrew verb na§aq nashak with the word φιλείν, to kiss. It is compared, however, with the Arabic nasiqa to sniff, to sniff. Life 27, 26. 27 – a live commentary on this side of the Hebrew kiss. And among some of the Siberian peoples (the Buryats?), a mother does not kiss her child, but sniffs him. Perhaps in ancient times the same thing meant κυνεΐν, and in this case it perhaps comes from κυν-ός: the dog’s excellent sense of smell is known, its ability to find a person by smell. This conclusion may seem both strange and incredible; but here's an analogy. In Hebrew there is a verb gamal, to repay evil for evil. In Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian there is a name gamal, κάμηλ-ος camel. Undoubtedly, the root “gml” is the same for the verb and the name. It is believed that the camel was named gamal because of its well-known rancor. But maybe the situation is the other way around: the Jews derived their verb gamal from the name gamal, so gamal, perhaps, actually means “cameled” = took revenge with the vindictiveness of a camel. So, in the end, the root of the verb προσκυνεΐν cannot be considered clear. The Gothic “inveitan” hardly means anything other than “seinen Blick auf etwas werfen”, to raise your gaze to something (of course, with the subject expression: reverent, supplicating). That the Slavic “poklanAtisA” describes the physical phenomenon that the pagan noticed 816 during prayer among Greek Christians is clear to everyone. So, ancient translations represent only the replacement of the original expression with words similar in meaning, and not a literal translation. This does not allow us to demand literalness from the translation into Finnish. If expressions like “we worship your passion” in Finnish convey something incomprehensible or only strange, then it is better to convey them descriptively.” Appendix 4. Rotation. Right and left 1. When it is necessary to turn around while remaining in place, for example, when teaching peace, during a blessing, etc., this is done liturgically from the right hand to the left. And since the direction of the liturgist is usually facing the East, we can say that the turn occurs from the East through the North to the West. On the contrary, the reverse turn, that is, a return to the previous state, again occurring from the right hand to the left, occurs from the West through the South to the East. And the rotation and return to the previous state goes counterclockwise. Consequently, if we were to imagine that the liturgist’s circulation is equivalent to an electric current, then, according to Ampere’s rule, his head would become the north pole. 2. This is also the direction of other movements in the church. First of all, it should be noted that the liturgist’s place is before the throne, and therefore individual movements, or a combination of such, must certainly return the liturgist to his previous place, to the throne, that is, ultimately, church movements are closed, circular movements, returning to themselves. Bishop, deacon - they are all subject to the law of closed movements. Moreover, the direction of these circular walks is again counterclockwise, i.e., again such that if the liturgist’s walks were replaced by electric currents in the corresponding direction, then according to Ampere’s rule, the north pole of this circular current would be at the top, and the south pole at the bottom, and, therefore, lines of magnetic force would rise from the head, or generally from the place of the walk, and, on the contrary, would enter the legs. Figuratively speaking, the liturgist excites, as it were, a field of forces rushing from Earth to Heaven. But let's look at some specifics. When the throne is censed, once or in some cases () 817 three times, it is done counterclockwise. Also - every icon, cross, etc.; they also go around the baptismal font, the Gospel and the cross during a wedding, etc. The circumambulation of the throne to go to the high place, for example, during the prokemena at Vespers, before the reading of the Apostle at the liturgy, is done from the western side of the throne, where the priest stands, facing the East, to the right, to the South, and then to the left, to the North, i.e. counterclockwise. The return to the previous place must be done from a high place, that is, from the East, to the North, to the right (for the priest’s face is now turned not to the East, but to the West), and then to the left, to the South. The bypass, both one and the other, goes counterclockwise. The nearest large circle is the exit to the pulpit. It takes place in that direction, that is, past the southern side of the throne, past the high place, through the northern gate and to the royal doors, that is, counterclockwise; the return return is made either through the royal doors, or, more often, through the southern gate, and the meaning of the round remains the same. All exits for litanies, the small entrance for Vespers and Liturgy, the great entrance for Liturgy, the removal for the veneration of the cross, the removal of the Shroud of Christ, the removal of the Shroud of the Theotokos are performed in exactly this way, as well as all exits for incense. There are, however, two exceptions: when during the Cherubim the clergyman moves away from the altar to the altar and when at the end of the liturgy with the exclamation “Always now and ever...” the Holy Mysteries are taken to the altar, then according to the accepted custom, at least in the Russian Church, these both departures to the altar occur past the northern side of the altar, so the meaning of the movement is clockwise. But one must think that this is an accidental oversight and disorder, and moreover, specifically of the Russian Church, for the Holy Lamb, for example, from the throne to the altar during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, after removing the reserve Lamb onto the throne from the altar tabernacle, is carried out past the southern side of the throne, i.e. counterclockwise. Mb, these two deviations are no longer explained by the liturgical desire to take the shortest route, especially since both corresponding moments of the liturgy, due to the speed of the pace of the service, require saving time and possibly quickly performing actions. It would be important to investigate how the corresponding movements were carried out among the Old Believers, among the Greeks, etc., and also to find out whether there are written traces of ancient liturgical practice in this regard in the manuscripts. 3. The next larger circle is formed by the inner circuits of the entire church. This is, first of all, the circumambulation of the small entrance at Vespers and at the Liturgy. Here the movement, starting from the western side of the throne, goes further, as usual, past its southern side, past the high place to the northern gate, then the clergy descend from the salt at the northern choir and, going around the churches, περί ναοϋ, in the words of the charter, that is, following the direction of the walls, from the inside, meaning to go around the people and face the people 818 first along the northern wall, then along the western, then along the southern and southern choir, rising to the solea, along the solea they approach the royal doors from the south and enter the altar. In other words, this circumambulation of the church is again performed counterclockwise and, therefore, everything that has already been said about circles of smaller girth must be said about it. But another circumambulation of the church, with all the full censing, apparently contradicts the indicated meaning of the movement, for it begins, when descending from the pulpit, first to the southern side, and then through the western side, moving to the northern side of the church. However, this reversal of the meaning of the movement is only apparent, for when censing, the clergyman is considered to be facing the walls of the church, from the people, according to the very task of censing the church, and, therefore, his movement should still be assessed as being performed not clockwise, but counterclockwise. 4. An even greater circular walk is the external walk around the church, for example, when encircling the shroud, during religious processions, at least, for example, on Easter week, on the day of the church saint, etc. Here the movement is performed around the church, i.e. facing it. Next about religious processions (a dispute with the Old Believers), about walking around villages, fields, etc. Next about wanderings, about natural turns, about animals and plants, about (geometric drawings <?". The helical structure of muscles, bones, the helical structure of the entire person. The turns go from the person's right side and top to the left and bottom, but the turns are very gentle. (Iv. Flor. Ognev) 819 This is in the book of Iv. Fl. Ogneva. The chromosomes of muscle cells are arranged in a helical pattern. In general, all tissues are helical. “East == or – actually “sunrise” or “sunrise” (as opposed to “west”: cf. Isaiah 41:2, 25; Ps. 50:1; 103:12) and == (lit. “forward”); this was the name of that country of light where the inhabitants of the East turned their faces when praying, so that the West became the “back” side, ===, the north went “to the left” ==, and the south went “to the right”, === (Job 23, 8 - 9; Gen. 13, 4; 28, 4; Num. 19, b). The sun worshipers in Jerusalem, about whom the prophet Ezekiel talks, turned their faces to the East, and their backs to the Holy of Holies (Ezek. 8:16, cf. Sukkor V, 5), while the Jews of exile turned during prayers to face the church, although it faced the West (1 Sam. 8, 33, 44 et seq.; Dan. 6, 11; Berach IV, 5, Tofre, Debarim XXIX). For those who lived in the West, the East was the country where they turned to pray (cf. Qibla in the article Muhammad (in the Jewish Encyclopedia). The East is that part of the world where the Lord placed paradise (Vita Adam et Evae, XVIII, 22, Apocal. Mosis (in Latin), I; Septuagiuta and Genesis 3, 24) According to Didascalia, prayers should be said facing the East, because “the Lord descended from heaven to the East,” “for in that country is paradise” (Apos. Const. II, 52). This was also commanded to the most ancient Christians (see Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, VII, 7; service and canons and teachings of the Apostles, 1; Tertullian, Apology I, 6). The most ancient custom, dating back to the most primitive times and associated with the belief that the deceased descends to the country of Gkdes in the West, but rises again with the sun in the East, encouraged burying the deceased with his face turned to the East (see Taylor, Primitive culture, 1874, 422 et seq.; cf. Russian translation. Cf. Schiirer. Geschichte d. judidch Volks im Zeitaller Jesu Christi, II, II, 453; 3rd ed., 1898, Lpz.; schriften, IV, 36 Smith. Diction, of the Bible. [J. E., V, 28 – 29.] Jewish Encyclopedia under the general editorship of JL Katselson and Baron D. G. Pshzburg, - T. V. Bressuire - Gkdassy, ed. islands for the scientific Jewish publication and the Brockhaus-Efron t-va, St. Petersburg, 1910, columns 812 – 813.” Apparently, this difference in directions should be explained by the anatomical structure of the hand, according to which one direction of movement is more natural, while others are less characteristic of the hand. If so, then the mirror image of the right hand - the left one - should be more comfortable making a clockwise movement than a reverse movement. But as far as I could observe, the situation is different, and it is more convenient to move against the arrow of the left hand than along the arrow, as for the right hand. It is very important to verify this observation. If it is true, then it is a clear proof of the absoluteness of the meaning of rotational movements. The test should be done starting with the left hand, so as not to make any suggestion. S.I. Ogneva 821 noted that with a bruise, especially the head, spins head over heels. I wonder if at the same time they are not spinning in the same sense? D. Gerwani [Bucarest], – Generalization de la regie du tirebouchon aux phenomenes d'induction et phenomenes electromag- netiques (Revue Generate de l'electricite, t. VI, N 7, 16 Aout, 1919, p. 214). We represent the current - “electrical displacement” - as a vector, as well as the movement of a conductor - “mechanical displacement” - by the vector of its portable speed. In the first case (the generator) is specified by the “mechanical displacement” vector (induced electromotive force). In the second case (the motor) is specified by the vector “electrical displacement” and the direction of the tendency towards “mechanical displacement” (electromagnetic force) is sought. Here is the formula: “On prend a la suite du deplacement donnee (mecanique ou electrique) le vecteur du champ (qui est toujours donnee). Ces deux vecteurs places: places determinent dans leur plan un sens de rotation qui, par le regie du tire-bouchon, donne le sens dans lequel tend a se produire Fautre deplacement.” In the case of a generator: the conductor m can have any direction in relation to the plane of both given vectors, and it will be necessary to imagine the axis of the cork maker as inclined, with the normal direction always corresponding to the maximum of the tendency (inducing the electric motor force). In the case of an engine: electromagnetic) force, being perpendicular to the plane of both given vectors, the imaginary cork will always be with the normal axis. This rule can, we think, successfully replace Fleming’s rule, because the only thing that needs to be remembered is that the field vector, common in both cases, and when placed after another given vector, we can agree to say that the field tends to entrain in its sense (direction) the end of the vector of a given displacement. Betz, - Journey along the Amazon River 823. According to Iv. Fl. Ognev, it talks about the circles that travelers, left to their own devices, describe when they want to go in a straight line. – The Bashkirs know the same. “The Greeks write and count stones from the left hand to the right, and the Egyptians from the right to the left, although they claim that they write to the right hand, and the Greeks to the left.” (Herodotus, - History in nine books, IV, 36. Translated from Greek. O. G. Mishchenko. T. 1. M., 1888, p. 135.) Subjectivism and objectivity: the same in the church - right and left are considered objectively, from the point of view of the subject, and not from the viewer's point of view. Hebrew letter, Egyptian letter, church charter (blessing of things, right and left side of the throne, etc.). The Greeks are right subjectively, and the Egyptians are right objectively. “The spiral lines seen on shells usually stretch from left to right; the reverse direction of these lines – from right to left – is observed only in rare exceptional cases.” Henri Coupin, – Bizarre animals. Translation by female doctor E. D. Vurlafich. St. Petersburg, ed. A.F. Marx <1903), p. 324. [MDAk 92.304. You should definitely buy this book. ] But what does “from left to right” mean? Obviously, A. Kupin counts from the end of the turns to the beginning, and the beginning is, of course, the end from which growth comes, that is, the older turns and the smaller ones. Then it must be said that the turns do not go “from left to right,” but “from right to left,” that is, counterclockwise. The ear labyrinth or cochlea is also a spiral rising upward in turns directed clockwise. Therefore, the spiral starting in the center has the same direction as mollusk shells developing counterclockwise. (Cf. V. Meyer - Life of Nature, p. 134) 824. “In Riella, the tree is erect, and the wing is one-sided wavy and even spirally curled.” (S.I. Rostovtsev, - Morphology and systematics of liverworts and mosses. M., 1913, p. 67, fig. 101.) Riella helicophylla (Jungeruraniales, Rielloidaceae) An example of a spiral (helical) surface in the plant kingdom. Orientation in space Zion 825. Methodology of physiology. Ilyin. (The dissertation is about orientation in space.) 826 Yves Pelage. On the orientation of crayfish - the movement of otoliths 827 (Meniere's disease is just lying down. A terrifying picture of the disease.) (One of the greatest experts in the anatomy and physiology of the ears is Dr. Nik. Fed. Popov 828 - you can get a lot from him, he has a lot of independent work.) Arr 829 side of the prosphora, near the seal itself...” “The Germans believe that the east wind cannot turn to the north, but must always follow the movement of the sun: Der Ost durch Nord kann sich der Wind nicht drehen, stets muss er mit der Sonne Laufe gehen.” We notice that the vortices that occur in the summer always rotate along the sun” (p. 130). According to observation: “Whirlwinds always rotate along the sun (Chuvash)” (p. 132). A. Ermolov, - Folk agricultural wisdom in proverbs, sayings and signs, IV. Folk weather science. St. Petersburg, 1905. “Whirlwinds always rotate along the sun” (id., I. National Monthly Book. St. Petersburg, 1901, p. 307). Rotation. (Salt against the sun) “The twist (crease, curl), which still brings terror to entire villages, should not be confused with the curling of ears of corn on Volos’s beard; this last... is done clearly and with good wishes - for harvest and abundance. On the contrary, the twist is curled secretly out of a thirst for revenge, out of a desire to cause harm to the owner of the field, and is accompanied by a spell to destroy fertility; it is performed like this: the evil sorcerer takes a bunch of ears of corn from the root and, bending them downwards, ties them with a harsh thread or breaks the heads of ears and twists (twists) to the west = the side with which the concept of death, evil spirits and infertility is connected; sometimes steamed grains and grave soil are found in the knot of the crease: both are symbols of necrosis.” A. Afanasyev, - Poetic views of the Slavs on nature. T. 3. M., 1869, p. 515. “The collision of compressive energy with the counter expanding desire, which it awakens and excites in itself, gives rotation (restlessness), that is, disturbance of the abyss and the basis of all life, just as its reconciliation gives peace... What the ancients designated as the center of nature (as the first, in a certain sense, magical circle of life) or as the wheel of birth, was nothing more than this rotation. The well-known figure¶===denotes the second moment of life’s birth, the fiery lightning sparkling from this wheel of nature, which is discussed in my work “On the brilliance of lightning as the father of light.” [In this work, lightning is considered as the critical point of cosmic evolution, passing through which the natural cycle reaches its true justification in divine light. ] (F.v. Baader, – Satze aus der Bildungs-und Beriindungslehre des Lebens. Sammtl. Wsrke, Bd. 2, <Leipzig, 1851,) S. 101.) So, circular rotation is antinomic, like the cross, and in some sense these two antinomies are equivalent to each other. 830 is performed in the order of its rites: by their totality they realize the possibility of the sacrament. The sequence of ritual actions and words, which occurs “in order” or “order” 831, is κατά τάξιν, as it was said, although in a different application, by the apostle, leads our mind to the consciousness of the sacrament being performed. And the spirit, “putting aside all worldly cares” 832, dying to the world and receiving the power to live in another world, essentially sees that the sacrament is truly being accomplished, that truly we have passed away—passed away into another world, into a kingdom not of this world. This is exactly how the sacrament is seen from above, from the heavenly region, when the elect are ascended to meet the Savior, as everyone will be ascended, that is, in the Second Coming, on the clouds 833. When the blindfold of carnal vision was miraculously removed, the Holy Mysteries were contemplated in the form of the slaughtered Infant Christ; evidence of this has already been given in its place. In a similar way, other sacraments were perceived in their depth inaccessible to ordinary vision and in their divine holiness. But this happened precisely during the transformation of the eye of the beholder, after its repose, its elevation into another being. However, such a repose, such a transformation may or may not happen. After all, the sacrament itself is the preparation of the soul for repose and transformation, the preparation of its ability to ascend to the heavenly world. Some have already developed it, others have not yet received it, and the absence of it does not contraindicate the sacrament, but, on the contrary, is all the more urgently required. The sacrament is given to all believers, although the overwhelmingly great majority do not yet have them, and throughout their entire earthly life, perhaps, they will not have them; – the designated ability to see directly the terrible depths of sacred mysteries. And, finally, even those who possess this spiritual vision, but do not own it completely, always and without restrictions; - and they often have to receive the holy sacraments without having their direct mystical vision at this time. St. Sergius of Radonezh once took communion with the fire of the Holy Spirit that entered the Holy Chalice; but it happened once. At other times - we at least have no reason to think otherwise - at other times the same monk received Holy Communion under the form of bread and wine. And so, therefore, the question arises: for those who do not have mystical direct vision at all, or when they do not have it or because they do not have it, what ensures the presence of the sacrament? What does this prove to them? What does “it is finished” proclaim? By what sign do they recognize in the series of empirical something more than empirical? <2.) The immediate answer to the question posed is, of course, simple: a mystical accomplishment is recognized in the course of empirical actions and words - a sacrament is recognized by the presence of its rituals, that is, by the utterance of secret formulas and by the performance of secretly performing actions. In other words, the presence of the sacrament is established for ordinary consciousness by the presence of the very actions that perform it. But this closest answer is far from being the final answer. For, if in each individual case a sacrament is recognized by the presence of its order, then a general question arises: what exactly, in principle, establishes the connection between the order and the sacrament itself, and why exactly does the believing consciousness generally recognize the reality of another limit, to the opposite side of the order in the world? Why? – But this “why”, in view of what was said earlier about the phenomenology of the cult as a system of isolation and a ladder of ascents, this “why” should not be simplified. The order of the order, as explained above, leads consciousness to a certain limit, and this elevation to the limit is possible due to the structure of the order itself, embraced by the mind as a whole, as a system of steps. In this sense, the matter is clear. But our question is not why the sequence of orders leads to the idea of ​​its limit, towards which the ascending series of orders rushes, but why we are confident, mathematically speaking, in the existence of a limiting value for a sequence of orders, or a value at the limit, and, moreover, coinciding with the very limit. Abstractly speaking, a series, even if it tends to a certain limit, nevertheless may not include its limit in its composition - it may not be closed in the series, and in general it happens just like that, so that the inclusion of a limit in a limit series is rather an exception. Abstractly speaking, one can think of the order as always allowing for some addition to itself, some continuation of itself and, therefore, never reaching its final point, which serves not only as its ultimate meaning, but together, in its internal meaning and in its relation to all members of the order, as its limit. And the question is what guarantees the presence of this limit of our series of ritual actions and words. One can vouch for the presence of something: either the direct perception of this presence, or the certified testimony of another person - a person who, in turn, already has or had such a perception. But in this case there is no direct perception of the sacrament; and, therefore, only the testimony of a certain witness can be a guarantee for the presence of the sacrament. Thus, in the cult, the concept and demand for a witness to the sacrament and for him to testify to his perception arises. This concept of witnessing is one of the fundamental concepts of the philosophy of Christianity. Its essential necessity here is already visible from the quantitatively excessively frequent use in the New Testament of the nest of terms μαρτυρία, μάρτυς, μαρτύριον, μαρτυρεϊν and μαρτύρεσθαι, expressing derivatives of the above concept and meaning martyrdom itself. The use of words in the nest of terms that occupies us is even more intense in early church writing. But let's turn to the New Testament. Here the words of the nest that occupies us occur at least 174 times (μαρτυρεϊν - 81 times, μαρτύρεσθαι - 3 times, μαρτυρία - 36 times, μαρτύριον - 20 times, μάρτυς, μάρτυρες – 34 times) [S. N. Bruder. Concordatiae omnium vocum Novi Testamenti graeci, editio stereotypa quarta. Lipsiae, 1888, pp. 542 – 544]. For the total number of words of the New Testament - approximately 12,600 - this represents a content of 1.38%. Let us make a similar calculation of the corresponding nest of words in other non-Christian monuments. In all of Homer there are only 9 cases of using the words of the designated nest (μαρτυρίη - 1 time, μάρτυρος - 8 times) [N. Ebeling. Lexicon Nomericum. Vol. 1. Lipsiae, 1885, p. 1020]; for 35921 verses, i.e. approximately 241000 words, this is only 0.0037%, although it seems that Homer has incomparably more reasons to talk about torture, shedding blood, murder and valiant death than the New Testament. In all Plato’s dialogues 834, including dubious and forged ones, there are 70 cases of word usage that interest us (μαρτυρία - 7 times, μαρτύριον - 2 times, μαρτύρομαι - 4 times, μαρτυρώ - 30 times, μάρτυς – 27 times), and for a total number of words, approximately 584,000, this amounts to 0.012%. Finally, in all the works of Aristotle 835, according to an approximate count, the words of the indicated group occur 38 times (μαρτυρεϊν - 20 times, μαρτυρία - 5 times, μαρτύριον - 9 times, μάρτυς - 4 times), which gives, with approximately 212,000 words in this essay, 0.018%. Thus, in the New Testament the relative content of words belonging to the concept of witnessing is 373 times more than in Homer, 115 times more than in Plato, and 66 times more than in Aristotle. These numbers themselves already show how significant statements are supported by the nest of words in question in the New Testament, in comparison with the place of the same nest in non-Christian writers. But the purely statistical coefficients of significance of this nest of words that we found increase enormously if we take into account the degree of internal importance of the words in question in various monuments. In the New Testament, these words are terms, and, moreover, of a dogmatic nature; a strong semantic emphasis is placed on them, while in non-Christian monuments they are emphasized much less. From what has been said, it follows that one must look very closely at the New Testament meaning of the words in question. Here, turning to the existing translations of the New Testament, we immediately come across a fact of enormous significance: in the Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages, the word μάρτυς and its related ones are not translated in a monotonous dual way, and the translation of some places emphasizes the meaning in μάρτυς: the expression and affirmation of truth, and the translation of others - the meaning: suffering and death, raised in connection with the firmness of this expression of truth [Fr. Miklosich, – Lexicon palaeslovenico-graeco-latinum. Vindobonae, 1862 – 1865, pp. 396, 916]. Yes, translated by Russians: witness and martyr; ancient Church Slavonic: witness and martyr; Latin: testis and martyr; German: Zeuge and Martyrer; French: temoin and martyr; English: witness and martyr. This duality of translations exposes the dual core nature of the word μάρτυς and the disintegration of the original focus in the meaning of the word μάρτυς into two, of which in one the original meaning is more preserved, and in the other the expanded second is consolidated, already difficult to combine with the first, as if it were not restrained only by the exclusively powerful synthetic power of the Greek language. According to V.V. Bolotov, the second row of values ​​given in the table is something layered and secondary. “The word “martyr”, which is used by the Slavs to translate the Greek μάρτυς - witness, conveys only a secondary feature of the fact and appeared as a response of direct human feeling to the story of the terrible suffering that μάρτυρες endured. Such a translation indicates that in martyrdom these peoples are most affected by the torture of the martyrs, and not by their testimony for the faith" [V. IN . Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. Posthumous edition. Edited by Brilliantov. St. Petersburg, 1910. T. 2, p. 3]. But in this case, the question arises: is the very suffering of witnesses of faith something external, accidental, and not necessarily included in the concept of Christian witness? Does martyrdom have only biographical and historical significance, but not ontological and epistemological significance? Μάρτυς, in the Christian sense, is not simply a witness of the truth, just as it is not simply a sufferer for the truth, but there is such a witness who testifies with his suffering, and such a sufferer whose voluntary suffering follows from the very content of his testimony: these sufferings embody the proclaimed truth, the proclaimed truth is realized in these sufferings. Martyrdom is a given, but spiritualized; it is a truth, but one that has become embodied. [Paul Allard. Dix leЈons sur le martyre, donnees a l'lnstitut Catholique a Paris. 2nd edition. Paris, 1906, p. 1 – 2. V. preface en p. 2; Pecherard. Ibid., p. VII]. Historically, as well as ontologically, Christian martyrdom is an exceptional phenomenon and most characteristic of the religion of the incarnate Word; It is not without reason that martyrdom, in its narrow sense, has always been taken by the Church as the starting point and as a unit of measure when considering other church activities and has been extended, as a generic concept, to virginity, to monasticism, to confession, to apostleship, etc., etc., even to marriage and to the priesthood, judging at least, for example, by the troparion introduced into the rites of the corresponding sacraments, at the very peak of jubilant joy martyrs, that is, at a superficial glance, it is not at all in tune with the ongoing rite of circular chorea. All church conditions and activities are thus brought under the specific, but at the same time typical, concept of martyrdom, and martyrdom turns out to be the first manifestation of churchliness. And in Celtic asceticism, along with the concept of red, that is, bloody, martyrdom - martyre rouge - the concepts of white martyrdom are established - banmartra, i.e. self-denial and self-sacrifice, or active asceticism, and green martyrdom - glasmartra, that is, self-mortification and repentance, or contemplative asceticism [Revue benedictine, 1907, 7]. Consequently, suffering to the point of bleeding and the death that culminates it for the faith is recognized as the prototype. “The crowns of martyrdom are woven by death,” says Chrysostom [St. John Chrysostom. Creations. T. V, p. 299] 836, although the beginning of martyrdom is “intention” [St. John Chrysostom. Creations. T. V, p. 714] 837, internal mood, mental disposition and will. And if so, then in the concept of μάρτυς the superficial assessment of suffering itself suffers from superficiality, and later serves as a source of linguistic misunderstandings. On the contrary, attention directed to the dual unity of the meaning of μάρτυς is capable of dispelling the linguistic fog that has thickened around the history of this word. “The current state of philological science is such that it cannot yet satisfactorily explain the Greek μάρτυς,” says V.V. Bolotov [V. IN . Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. <SPb., 1910), T. 2, p. 4]. To this I would like to argue whether the impenetrability of the word μάρτυς is not a consequence of precisely the fragmented understanding of the sememe of the word, while its etymological meaning combines two directions at once, two embryos, like a double nut. The word μάρτυς or, in the Homeric form, μάρτυρος comes from the hypothetical form *μάρτυρ-ς. The root of this last word, according to some, is a step - to shine, shine, shine, and according to others - a tag - to think, to remember, and these roots, both, were originally smar and smer and then lost the sibilant s. [L. Meyer, – Handbuch der griechischen Etymologie. Bd. 4. Lpz., 1902. S. 395. W. Prellwitz, - Etymologisch. Worterbuch d. Griech. Sprache, 2 Aufl. G, 1905. S. 283. G. Curtius, – Grundzuge d* Griech. Etymologie. 5-te Aufl. Lpz., 1879. S. 330; d. Boisacq, – Diction. Etymologique... 8th livr., 1912, p. 618, 627.] When μάρτυς is attributed to the root mar, it is included in the group of words: μαρμαίρω, μαρμαρίζω - shine, shine, μαρμάρεος - sparkling, Μαΐρα - Sirius, i.e. blazing star, shining, μαρίλη - coal dust, ashes, in ancient form σμαρίλη - hot coal; This also includes the Latin mSrus - pure, Middle High German moere - glorious, famous, Old Norse toegg - bright, clear, pure. Here, further, are added: άμαρύσσω (from άμαρίω) - to shine, shine, άμάρυγμα - shine, radiance, light movement, excitement, άμαρϋγή - radiance, light, strong, fast movement, excitement and μαρμαρυγή – strong movement, excitement; the word μάρμαρος is a rock, later brought together with the word μαρμάρεος and covered by this latter, contrary to Curtius and Prellwitz [Curtius, – id., S. 567, 724; Prellwitz, – id., S. 582], does not apply here [Boisacq, – id., p. 611]. Here another group of words is added to the indicated group of words, with a different meaning, but connected with it for the following reasons: radiance is thought of as occurring in darkness, as struggling with darkness, overcoming with effort, as if pushing apart and tearing apart the darkness, and conquering them: “And the Light shines in the darkness, and its darkness is not comprehended” (John 1:5); light is perceived as a fighter and a winner, and therefore, not without reason, some language researchers also add to the group of words from the root step: μάρναμαι - fight, fight, break and break, fragment and fragment, compare Armenian mart - struggle, struggle; also μαραίνω - in the active meaning - to extinguish, destroy, destroy, and in the passive - to go out, go out, gradually disappear, then μαρασμός - withering, fading, which entered the Russian language as insanity. Here too, i.e. Passively understood overpowering and destruction also include words: Sanskrit: mar-ami, mri-je - die, mr-ta-s - dead, maraju-s, mrt-ja-s - mortal, a-mr-ta-s - immortal, a-mi-ta-m - drink of life, living water, mar-a-s, mor-(ti)-s - death, mar-i-s - pestilence, maretan – mortal, human; Latin: mor-i-or – die, mor-(ti)-s – death, mortu-us – deceased, mort-alis – mortal, morbus – illness, mar-c-e-o – fade, fall asleep, mar-c-i-du-s – faded, fallen asleep; Gothic maiir-th-r – killed, caedus. We now turn to another root from which the words μάρτυς and its related ones are derived - to the root tag· The closest relatives of the nest of words that occupy us, originating from tag, are: μέριμνα - heavy thought, restless care, sorge, soin, souci, sollicitude and the verb derived from it μεριμνάω - to worry, to be in care. The Savior by no means suggests “not to worry about tomorrow” 838, that is, a sentimental-utopian attitude to life, which, literally understood, would make impossible even that economic concern that formed the basis of one of the most memorable Gospel symbols - leavening dough, set in the evening, so that it would leaven by the morning of the next day 839. Moreover, any agriculture, any mining industry, which certainly presupposes some relation to the future, would become impossible, and life then could be supported only by incessant robbery; to interpret the above words of the Savior as they are interpreted by Protestant theologians means to presuppose the Gospel as a naive and impossible dream; but the whole point is that the Savior does not at all suggest to His followers “not to worry about tomorrow,” but commands them not to be tormented - the verb μεριμνάω - by the thought of how everyday affairs will turn out, not to lose joy and tranquility in the present because of the future, without hope for the help of the Heavenly Father, that is, not to make tomorrow an object of “predilection”, passionate surrender of oneself to the thought of the future - not to make an idol out of everyday circumstances, which crowds out the thought of God and hope for Him from the heart. And those images with which the Savior explains His commandment - lilies, neither spinning nor weaving, and birds, neither sowing nor reaping - support this explanation, philologically indisputable, of the Savior's words: lilies and birds are not tormented by thoughts about the future, but they arrange their lives in view of the future: the lily, accumulating nutrients into bulbs over the summer, and birds, building nests and hatching chicks. Further here, to the root tag, belong: μέρμερα - also a heavy concern, thought, μερμηρίζω, μερμαίρω - care, think, μέρμερα εργα - remarkable, memorable events, those that force oneself to feel, and, moreover, painfully, and burdened with care, μέρμερος - causing care, causing concern. Sanskrit of the same root: smarati - remember, remember, smirti-s, smar-ana-m - memory, recollection; Latin: sheshog - remember, not to forget, memor-ia - memory, and the difference between the verb memorari and meminisse is that the latter means easy and pleasant remembrance, and the first - forced, with torment - deep, heavy thought 840. Further it is added here: the ancient Prussian egmirit - to invent, to invent; Old High German shogpep - to grieve, to mourn, to grieve and Breton step - doubt. Then, in connection with μέριμνα and others, there is μέρομαι from σμείρομοα - to preserve one’s share, to be in thought, εϊμαρται - called, called, είμαρμένη - fate, share, as that which washed, understood, like fate from speech and fatum from fan, μοίρα - due fate, fate, as a share from sharing, μόριον - piece, part, μόρσιμος - definition of fate. This also includes mer-e-o-g - I receive a share, I get my share for myself, I deserve it. to shine, μαρ - to fight and be overcome, μερ - to have a thought, to remember - are indicated as the underlying words μάρτυς. Whether this is purely etymologically one root, in different modifications, or different, although phonetically close, we cannot decide now, and we do not particularly need to. It’s time for linguistics to abandon the prejudice that every word necessarily has the same root. What is more crudely and unsuccessfully produced is called folk etymology, in a more subtle and perfect form is a general and extremely extensive phenomenon in the history of language, consisting in the mutual influence of words of one on another. In particular, this effect can be arradication, or the adaptation of a word to some new root, as a result of which there appears, as it were, a grafting of one root onto a word of another root. When an apricot is grafted onto a plum rootstock and nectarines (nespoli) grow on the tree, it is impossible to say whether the grown fruit is a plum or an apricot, because it is neither one nor the other and even bears little resemblance to either one. A mixture or, more precisely, a synthesis of two species has arisen, and to try to subsume it under one or the other of the species that formed it would be violence against reality and, naturally, would lead to endless, fruitless disputes. It is the same in language: mutual grafting of words from one root onto the verbal rootstock of another is possible, as a result of which the question about the only root that underlies the word being analyzed is essentially incorrectly posed. Then, in the current development of the word, not one of the roots can be called original, because two roots jointly own one word. This joint ownership can be likened to the legal concept of condominixim 841 or, even better, to the mineralogical concept of a twin or tee crystal, where the same substance is formed simultaneously by two interpenetrating crystal structures. In other words, the linguistic phenomenon discussed here is brought under the general metaphysical scheme of the interpenetration of two formative principles converging on one matter; in this case, two roots and sememes developing on them organize one substance of the language - the same sound composition, and it is impossible to decide which of these roots is “true” on the merits of the matter. In addition, the historical time of such mutual penetration of roots may turn out to be pushed back not only in general very far, but simply to the date of the very appearance of a given word, just as a crystalline form is penetrated by another, not sometime later, but during the very formation of the crystal. In this case, i.e., when recognizing arradication as contemporary with word formation itself, the question of the primacy of one or another root in the composition of a given word is essentially a falsely posed question. In addition, it is possible - and this apparently happened with the various roots of the word μάρτυς indicated here - that several roots, which through their interpenetration formed the complex root of the word being analyzed, themselves once diverged from one primary root and then, having differentiated, after long historical destinies, again converged in one word, emphasizing the differently directed meanings in the primary root. Here it becomes especially difficult to indicate which of the differentiated roots in a given word should be considered primary, and which should be considered a layer of it. In relation to the word μάρτυς, it seems to me, judging by the extreme semantic richness of this word, that at least three of the above-mentioned roots really merged in it, and linguists who discover in a word, in the word of living speech, one or another root from among these three, are all right, each in his own way, and, if you like, each is wrong, since he excludes all explanations except his own. The image and concept of radiance and radiance, of course, is contained in the word μάρτυς, for witnessing the truth is light, and in order to bear witness to it, one must have light in oneself; This idea of ​​truth as light and light as truth is rooted in the deepest regions of mysticism and from there has manifested itself countless times in language and thought, from religious inspired metaphysics up to and including metaphors of everyday life. So, witnessing the truth is radiance. But in order to testify to the truth, one must fight, defeating the darkness of ignorance and lies: a witness is a fighter and, spiritually, a winner. When fighting, you have to not only inflict blows, but also receive blows, and therefore suffer, suffer and become exhausted, and even die; here is a new range of meanings in the word μάρτυς. All this is a manifestation of the power of testimony in the outside world. But what is it, μαρτύριον, from the inner side? – In order to bear witness, one must have the testified truth within oneself, and not just think about it as a product of our own creativity, but become pregnant with it, carry it within oneself as something given to consciousness, as something spiritually compulsory, even aggravating, as requiring one’s testimony. Objective truth forces one to remember itself and powerfully leads one who knows it to testify about it. In this sense, the μάρτυς is possessed by the truth, the bearer of the truth entrusted to him, entrusted to him, and he goes to the feat of witnessing - not from boiling blood and excess strength, not from vanity, not from daring, not in intoxication, not guided by one or another passion, which can be, in particular, calculation - but extremely soberly and out of necessity. Such is the clustering of different meanings in the word μάρτυς. It makes clearer the epistemological and ontological weight of the term around which our considerations are directed. Yes, μάρτυς testifies not of its own, not on its own, not on its own initiative. He is led objectively by the truth that lies before him and necessarily requires him to strive towards suffering, even to the point of bloodshed and death. And therefore, these bloods of the martyr, this death of his expresses not his subjective desires, not his subjective determination, no matter how beautiful and noble such may be, but the power of objective spiritual reality, which does not allow the martyr not to be a witness to it. The martyr speaks his confession. But what testifies to the truth is not the word of the martyr, in itself, perhaps, devoid of weight, but his blood, he himself with his whole being as a certain fact of reality, which cannot be ignored, precisely as an indisputable fact, and which itself already says that there is some great power that leads one after oneself, and even to death; the speech of the martyrs’ lips reveals, explains, dissects the thunderous, but insufficiently intelligible voice of his blood. It is not the blood that confirms the words, being an external appendage to them, but the words that explain the blood, already internally contained in it. No: firstly, words, secondly, blood, but there is: simply blood, in which are words, from which confession rises like steam. Thus, according to the totality of its root meanings, the word μάρτυς in Christianity means, if we combine everything that has been said: the one whom the power of the truth he knows powerfully encourages to testify to it, overcoming error, and in the struggle for victory to accept torture and death. Martyrdom is blood that speaks of truth. <5.) So, what is the power of persuasiveness of the Christian martyrdom witness? Why is there no testimony of martyrdom outside of Christianity? And, more precisely, why does this phenomenon not only not exist, but also cannot exist, apart from Christianity? – Suffering for an idea and even death are possible everywhere – and, without a doubt, they happened not only in Christianity. But the fact of suffering and death everywhere, except for Christianity, was external in relation to beliefs, for not only did it not necessarily follow from their content, but, on the contrary, inevitably contradicted it. After all, everything that is not Christianity teaches about this world, because in Christianity a new kingdom of the spirit has just opened. (Here we will leave aside those preliminary penetrations into this kingdom, such as, for example, Socrates, which, according to church wisdom, were prophetic anticipations of Christianity and could not occur apart from Christ, so that the death of Socrates, if we see the role of martyrdom in it, was a preliminary to Christian martyrdom. Let us leave these ambiguous cases.) And, therefore, a heroic death for such non-spiritual beliefs that affirm this world would be not only inconsistency, but also a clear refutation of the beliefs themselves. Everything can be neglected for the sake of the main thing - life in this world. And if I nevertheless sacrifice myself, then this means that for me there is something more precious than this world and life in it, and, therefore, this other thing, more valuable to me than the world, is not understood by me as an abstract concept, which, no matter how beautiful it is, does not have its own existence and will pass away along with my own existence. And that means if I do not act out of thoughtlessness, that is, if torture and death do not befall me from the outside, due to my lack of understanding of what threatens me, then, therefore, by voluntarily accepting death, I thereby prove that the world of spiritual values ​​is a reality, and not an abstract idea; against my will, I admit that I, even vaguely, know another world and even affirm its ontological primacy over this world. So, if I said with all subjective sincerity that there is no life in the next century - and as proof I offered to behead me and actually suffered this execution - then such a death of mine would still not prove my conviction, because in terms of its content it would not be connected with it in any way. But more than that, my determination would be a confirmation of the opposite, for it would prove that in the innermost recesses of my soul I rely on something more cherished and ultimately more durable, although darkly conscious, than the denial I expressed; and, by virtue of this cherished conviction, I consider death itself to be nothing before something else, which, therefore, is higher than death and stronger than death, and therefore exceeds Time, i.e., eternal. And ultimately, this would lead to proof that I did not think through my innermost feeling of Eternity and, therefore, life in it. Although not in words, but in actual deeds, I would admit that eternity and eternal life exist and move me in the most important things. Such is the self-destructive evidence of non-Christian martyrdom, which, precisely for this very reason, does not deserve the name μάρτυς, as it does not testify to one’s convictions and even refutes them. On the contrary, the content of the Christian confession is covered by the fact of martyrdom, and martyrdom necessarily follows from the content of this conviction: a Christian testifies that there is another life, a genuine one, the root of all life, and there is a resurrection from the dead, and that only by holding to one’s faith can one worthily enter into the life of the next century. Therefore, such a witness of faith cannot help but fight to the blood of martyrdom if they demand from him to renounce the faith and, consequently, to fall out of life itself, which is the soul of his soul in him. Defending his earthly life, he would internally have to break with that in which with his whole being he felt the source of eternal life, and, on the contrary, believe in the strength of that, the feeling of the transience of which constitutes his way of relating to the life of this, this age. A Christian 842 cannot help but be a martyr if he does not renounce his faith, which is in him a fact of another reality he experiences, - for to renounce faith would mean for him to renounce more than himself (whom he is offered to save at the cost of renunciation), and to falsely confess renunciation, with his lips only, means to damage the organ of spiritual knowledge so much that the feeling of eternal life, flowing in the heart, will be eclipsed there and the heart will be empty with a gaping void. And therefore, a Christian dies, testifying that truly the Spirit of life rests in his heart and is felt more real and reliable than this flowing life in a collapsing world. And therefore, the suffering and death of a Christian martyr become more than a moment of biography, and even more than a historical event, but they transcend the boundaries of a temporary fact and, having overflowed time, enter the realm of cognitive values. Μάρτυς really entered another world and sealed his entry with his death; and therefore he really is a witness to the secrets of another world - the witness who certifies the fulfillment of the sacrament. Who can be such a witness to the sacrament? – I repeat, only the one who sees the sacrament in its inner power is the one who is in the highest degree not of the world, although in the world 843. In the proper and precise sense of the word, a witness can only be the Word of God Himself, who appeared on earth, Jesus Christ - “Who is the faithful Witness - about Μάρτυς about πιστός” (Rev. 1:5), as St. John the Theologian writes about Him. But Jesus Christ is not only a Witness, but also a living Testimony, a living Amen to the mysteries of God: “Thus says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness - τάδε λέγει about 'Αμήν, about Μάρτυς about πιστός και αληθινός" (Rev. 3:14), - He testifies of Himself (cf. Rev. 22:20). To Nicodemus’s question, how can there be a new birth from the Spirit, the Lord directly points out: “Amen, amen, I say to you, for we have spoken with knowledge, and with what we have seen, we testify - μαρτυροϋμεν - and our testimony - τήν μαρτυρίαν ήμών - you do not accept” (John 3:11); and to Pilate, to the question about His Kingdom: “For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth” (John 18:36), for His Kingdom is the Truth. Christ is the Witness, Μάρτυς, in the ultimate sense, ό Μάρτυς. In His crucifixion the Jews and Romans thought to see simply a historical event, but the event turned out to be the Truth. And the testimony of Christ turned out to be not only the expressed content, true, but also the power of the highest reality, the statement declared. The crucifixion of the Son of God is redemptive not only because He is the Son of God, but also because it is the crucifixion of the Son of God: by this fact the eternal content of the testimony of Truth was assimilated to humanity. But a fact is fixed in history only by facts. The Lord Insus Christ - as a fact of history - enters the historical consciousness of mankind only through facts that contain the truth of that original fact. Thus, the need arises for the testimony of His testimony and, consequently, for the witnesses of the One Witness. Apostleship is such a testimony, already human, of the Incarnate Truth Itself. “You are witnesses of this” (Luke 24:48), that is, of the entire life of the Lord, His suffering, death and resurrection; and: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the last of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Thus, with His farewell words before the Ascension, the Lord Himself seals the activity of the Apostles, as He told them about the same thing during His farewell conversation: “And you bear witness that from time immemorial you have been with Me” (John 15:27). And they became witnesses of God, witnesses of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, witnesses to humanity of His otherworldliness. The initial history of the Church, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is all dotted with the words “witness”, “witnesses”, “testimony”, “testify”, etc. in all grammatical forms (see Acts 2, 32; 3, 15; 10, 3; 13, 31; 4, 33; 14, 3; 15, 8, etc.). The apostles recognize themselves as witnesses. Thus, the Apostle Peter calls himself “a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1); The apostle John states: “And we bear witness, and we know that our testimony is true” (3 John 12), and Paul exhorts Timothy: “Be not ashamed of the testimony of Our Lord Jesus Christ, nor of me, His servant, but suffer the gospel of Christ” (2 Tim. 1:8). The 844 apostles testify to Jesus Christ. At first glance, it does not seem to raise the question of what it actually means to “testify to Jesus Christ,” just as there would be no question of what it means to testify to the Apostle Paul, or, even better, to some Ivan, or Peter: it would mean to certify the self-identity of his personality, i.e., to ensure that this is the one who is known by such and such a name. But, if we understand the testimony of Jesus Christ in the same sense, i.e., as proof of the self-identity of the historical personality of Jesus in relation to His human nature, then it is absolutely incomprehensible why such a testimony was necessary in Apostolic times. Has anyone, even one of the enemies of Christ, expressed doubt about a historical figure as such? Did anyone suspect whether Jesus really was the same son of Mary of Nazareth that those around him believed Him to be? Why such a complex and bloody organization of testimony about a fact that no one objects to, and never did, except perhaps the Pan-Babylonists who came up with such a doubt in the 20th century? Was it really only for their sake that countless martyrdoms were needed, which, moreover, did not convince them at all? And besides, how were martyrdoms possible, where was the soil on which persecution and persecution could arise? If we understand by apostolic testimony something like an ordinary testimony, for example, a judicial one, then the very essence of the clash between persecutors and the persecuted is completely incomprehensible psychologically. But then, they will say, one must understand the “testimony of Jesus Christ” in the sense of verifying not the self-identity of His human nature 845, but His Divine Sonship, His Consubstantiality with the Father. However, if testimony in the first sense is something too small to cause persecution, then testimony in the second, as too great, 846 would deserve persecution, being a claim to absolute knowledge. In order to testify to the Oneness of the Father and the Son, it is necessary to know God’s nature thoroughly and completely and, being neither the Father nor the Son, claim to be greater than each of them. We have been given the destiny to believe or not to believe in Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father, but not to know such, and therefore, a person cannot attest to such Consubstantiality. The testimony of Christ in this sense would be spiritual pride and admiration for the ungifted, which Gnostics of all countries and times, no matter what they are called, can boast of, and not Christians. Even St. Irenaeus of Lyons laughed at the claims of contemporary Gnostics to explain all the relationships of the divine aeons, saying that heretics talk about the births of aeons as if they were helping Pleroma as obstetricians 847. 848 (Rev. 1:9) was on Patmos; and in another place, about the same reason for his imprisonment on Patmos, it is said that he “testified the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and as a result - μαρτυρίαν Ίησου Χριστού οσα ειδεν” (Rev. 1, 2). Consequently, “to bear witness to the Word of God,” or, in other words, to bear witness to the Consubstantial Jesus to the Father, is, according to the Apostle, “to bear witness to the testimony of Jesus Christ.” John does not consider it necessary to certify the historical Person of Jesus, just as he does not undertake to certify that He, Jesus, is the Word of God, Consubstantial with the Father, for “no one has seen God” (Θεόν ουδείς &ώρακεν), that is, apart from, without the Son. But, without testifying to either one or the other, he testifies: οσα ειδεν - what “he saw” (Rev. 1:2), that is, that, supra-historical, but, however, accessible to him, the testimony of the Word of God Himself - Jesus Christ. John does not directly testify to what is happening in the bosom of the Father, but testifies to the testimony of Jesus, who knows the Father. The Word of God, the Only Begotten Son of God and the “First Born from the Dead,” testifies of His Father and His Kingdom. And John, according to the revelation of God, testified - έμαρτύρησεν - the Word of God - the Only Begotten Word of God. The aorist placed here indicates a certain biographical fact from the life of John, known to the reader; and therefore it is natural to ask: where and when did this extraordinary event of solemn witnessing happen? – Obviously, we are talking about the Gospel of the Word (“In the beginning was the Word” - John 1:1) and about the Epistle (“By seeing it - εωράκαμεν - about the Word of the living” (1 John 1:1)), where John was a witness of the Word. And witness what else? - He is a celestial being, he was a witness of the testimony of Christ. John, the “servant of Christ,” confirms the testimony of Christ - not in essence, of course, about which audacity the apostle did not even think about, but on its factual side, that is, he certifies that there really was such a testimony, that he heard, and moreover, with his own ears, that he saw and even touched with his own hands. The Apostle certifies that this Witness about the Heavenly Father, this appearance from Heaven was not a ghost, not imaginary, but truly incarnate. You can understand this passage only by thinking about the historical setting of the testimony. The people of that time did not at all have a fundamental distrust of the possibility of coming from Heaven. On the other hand, the works of Christ, and especially His testimony that He, Christ, saw, were clearly unearthly, internally convincing; there could be no doubt about the truthfulness of His testimony in essence, and His enemies never dared to see untruth in the content of His words about the Father. But the question immediately arose: how can He know what He knows? For the Jews, who saw the reality of the Savior and were not able to accommodate in their consciousness the thoughts of the incarnation, there was no choice but to simply destroy the Being, unacceptable to them, but for them indisputable - to kill Him. And for all those who had not seen Him, especially for the pagans, the easiest way was to decide that Jesus was truly a heavenly phenomenon, but devoid of reality - a heavenly ghost; and then doubts were opened about the factuality of what He proclaimed. The apostles are extremely aware of the need to certify the opposite, that is, that Jesus really was in the flesh and really testified about Heaven - all that they preach from His words. Their greatest emphasis is on the fact that they are witnesses of the Witness. They recognize themselves, first of all, as witnesses, and, moreover, ordained ones - even ordained by God, before all other witnesses: “God raised Him (Christ) on the third day,” the Apostle Peter preached to the centurion Cornelius, “and that He was revealed to be, not to all people, but to us, the witness ordained [actually: ordained] from God - "(Acts 10:41), and call themselves "witnesses" - μάρτυρες (Acts 2:32; 3:15) of the resurrection of Christ. The work of the apostleship is witness. And therefore, when in the apostolic environment the question arose about the election of an apostle to the place of the fallen Judas, the new apostle was installed not just as a preacher, but precisely as a “witness of the resurrection” of Christ - μάρτυρα της αναστάσεως αύτοϋ (Acts 1:22), and most gospel, i.e. The Gospel was evidence of the factuality, the reality of Christ's resurrection. Similarly, Ananias, the first of the Christians who came to the blind Saul with the conviction to be baptized, defines the feat ahead of him as a matter of witness to the new convert: “You will be a witness to Him [Christ] - μάρτυς - to all men” (Acts 22:15). And the Lord, who appeared to Paul in Jerusalem, predicts: in Jerusalem “they will not accept your testimony about Me” (Acts 22:18). In turn, Paul calls the Lord the first martyr Stephen “his witness – του μάρτυρος” (Acts 22:20). Thus, the concept and term μάρτυς goes beyond the apostolic circle itself and extends to all evangelists of the new life: this is already the third concentration of testimony, the third step, if we count the Lord Himself as the first. He calls the murdered Antipas of Pergamon His faithful witness - about μάρτυς about πιστός Μου: “Antipas, my faithful witness, who was killed in you” (Rev. 2:13). Witnesses place new witnesses, and the area of ​​the base of the witness pyramid, as it moves away from the top, increases. The Church severely condemned the thirst for suffering, such as the search for death, the intoxication of martyrdom, the somnambulistic desire for martyrdom or the exalted challenge of torture and death, similar to the Montanist and Donatist. It's not that this never happened; but, since it happened occasionally, it was viewed precisely as a disease of the spirit and was sharply condemned as a rearrangement of concepts and the substitution of objective spiritual value - evidence - with subjective states, i.e., in the language of later asceticism, as a phenomenon of spiritual delusion. In martyrdom, by which the word should mean only church martyrdom, there was an attraction not to blood and suffering, always inebriated, always feverishly frenzied and containing the cruel sensuality of self-torture, but a desire for a new, higher reality, a feeling within oneself of the germinating seeds of another being: “for the death of Christ became the seed of life” [St. Cyril of Alexandria, - Commentary on John, XII, 24] 849. A new life has opened, and as this seed spreads, the circle of people participating in the experience of eternal life expands, and in more and more representatives of the human race there arises a feeling of being more complete and stronger than the world itself. The center of gravity has shifted in consciousness: the reborn soul suddenly assumes a new form of equilibrium of its elements; It is not the earth, but the sky that now attracts to itself, and the martyrs do not flee from the earth, but rush to heaven. In connection with this, an excessive wealth of spiritual gifts spills out, the laws of earthly existence are pushed aside, or, more precisely, they shine through with the golden content of another life and themselves become different; one involuntarily recalls fondi d'oro 850, favorite in catacomb art - vessels of dark green glass with slotted images made of thin gold plates soldered inside, filled with it: sacred symbols flicker through the thickness of the glass, so close to us and, together, hidden, completely inaccessible from the possibility of touching them. The age of martyrdom is gilded by the sky almost clinging to the earth. The acts of martyrdom are dotted with vivid visions, constant revelations and insights, and the very atmosphere of this time seems to be permeated with sheaves of the just setting Sun. The spiritual world opens up. But, in contrast to many seemingly similar phenomena of a visionary nature, which have a fragile and ghostly-subjective composition, these visions are dense and have the clarity of a genuine ontology: it does not occur to one to doubt their reality when reading the records of that time. The most permeated with the spirit of martyrdom and currents of martyr's blood - from the New Testament books - the Apocalypse - is also most saturated with phenomena of spiritual reality, here especially striking and especially obvious and bright; here they are not fog or steam, but semi-precious stones and a sea of ​​glass mixed with fire - the hardest thing in existence, and the most transparent - the rays of the Sun condensed and solidified in the bowels of the earth. And the persuasiveness of that shore of life is strengthened by every new drop of martyr’s blood shed. The blood of the martyrs, grafted with the Blood of Christ - this seed of eternal life - itself becomes a seed, according to the famous saying Tertullian: “Semen est sanguis christianorum” 851. And, entering the heart, this seed produces a fermentation of the blood, or, more precisely, a transformation, and then it itself, assimilating, awakens the feeling of a different existence of a beginning that is hidden in every soul and the desire to swim to another shore. “Neither visible nor invisible, nothing will stop me from coming to Jesus Christ. Fire and the cross, crowds of beasts, dissection, dissolution, crushing of bones, cutting off members, crushing of the whole body, let the fierce torments of the devil come upon me, if only I could reach Christ” [Se. Ignatius the God-Bearer, - Epistle to the Romans, ch. 5. – Epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in Russian. translation prot. P. Preobrazhensky. St. Petersburg, 1902, p. 80]. But this search for another life breathes not with a breakdown or anguish, not with hopelessness and melancholy, not with satiety and boredom from the vanity of life, with which the life of the cultural world contemporary to the martyr was permeated. No, here a full-fledged feeling of another existence has already been given, by a deep, undisturbed world, “the supernal world of όίνωθεν ειρήνη” 852 - which we ask for in the litanies, in which there is calm, self-control, Hellenic clarity and, most importantly, the incomparable light of joy and festive jubilation. Some hint of the fullness of existence in which these first circles of Christ’s witnesses lived can be heard to this day incessant music in the places of their burials, in the catacombs. “As soon as we entered the darkness of the catacomb,” says one of the visitors, “suddenly a feeling of joyful, tender, reverent came over me, my legs dropped by themselves, and I, in unspeakable delight, began to kiss the stones and the ground and cry abundant, relieved, liberating tears. What I foresaw from distant book news came true. The silent, almost mute mystery of early Christianity suddenly silently and silently revealed itself to the heart, and the very “essence” of the catacombs became so close, so understandable, so familiar. I felt peace with my whole being, a peace that surpasses all understanding, a peace that beat like waves of grace into my soul from this mass of unknown, humble graves. The close remains of the child [buried in the catacombs] said with such victorious assurance that there is no death, no sadness and sighing, there is one unalloyed, boundless joy. While the monk [guide] far ahead was giving an explanation to my companions, I walked behind, and my dumb feeling began to find reasonable “inner words.” The masses of divinely idyllic features with which ancient Christian writing is full came to my memory and were all synthesized in the words of Minucius Felix: “We await the spring of our body” 853. There are no words that could better convey the impression of jubilant silence, of intelligible peace, of the boundless tranquility of the early Christian cemetery. Here the bodies lie like wheat under a winter shroud, waiting, anticipating, prophesying the unearthly, extra-worldly spring of Eternity. The first Christians knew some special harmony of religious feeling; some special ray of pre-peaceful divine glory rested on them. They were witnesses and participants of a short-term, blessed absolute peace between Earth and Heaven. In their short, fragmentary inscriptions, in their childishly pure symbolism, in their simple and deep visions, the mystery of the comprehended, perfect and shared Betrothal is revealed... ...For almost three whole centuries, the grain sown by the Word retained its original appearance, lay “one”, abided as a true gift of God, as boundless pure happiness! All unclean human things burned in a free and bright impulse to sacrifice, in a free striving for martyrdom, in a constant readiness to suffer for the Name of Christ... They burned with enthusiasm, glowed with the mystery of reconciliation with Heaven, the mystery of new promises... The first Christians loved flowers. “Who would think that we neglect the flowers,” says Octavius ​​in Minucius Felix, “which spring gives us when we pick roses and lilies and all other flowers of pleasant color and scent? We place them in front of us. We use them to weave wreaths for our own ditches” 854. Apparently, this love for flowers is like that of the pagans. But, in fact, these flower crowns merged in the early Christian consciousness with the crowns of martyrdom. From these crowns there is no return to paganism, and there is a direct transition to the voluntary internal martyrdom of ascetics and hermits... Yes, Christians “loved flowers,” but with a new love, unknown to the ancient world, an absorbing and transforming love, and when the times came, Christianity gave birth to a new era in the history of art...” [Vl. Fr. Ern u - Letters on Christian Rome. Letter three. In the catacombs of St. Callista. (Theological Bulletin, <1913, No. 1), pp. 105 – 109)]. Since ancient times, the martyrdom of Christ has become, for quite understandable reasons, typical in the Church, as the most intelligible interpenetration of human achievement and eternal value covering each other. Every church feat is, according to the mind of the church, evidence of the martyr type and is understood from this angle; and if it were not such, then it could not be churchly, since it is not a symbol - a living interpenetration of two beings. Martyrdom, in a more literal sense of the word, is such a more indisputable symbol, outwardly accessible to less subtle vision, and therefore, from ancient times, in exhortations and edifications for the feat of Christian life, the starting point of thought, an invariable measure of assessment, was usually used the concept of martyrdom. All paths to heaven were measured precisely by this measure, which is why the very concept of martyrdom-testimony, while maintaining its axis unchanged, acquired very different outlines. Theodore Studit in the Word addressed to the monks, and immediately answers: “Countless are the saints of God, witnesses of the truth of God and martyrs, who faithfully resisted the hostile power of the tyrants and endured all kinds of torment courageously and with joy: fire, swords, animals, wheels, iron claws and everything else that evil could come up with, considering torment a consolation and shedding blood with joy - and in this conviction, walking on hot coals, extinguishing burning fires with blood, and doing many things in one’s nature that exceeded one’s nature, and thereby defeating tyrants and kings - as evidence of what? - That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that in His name eternal life is given, as it is written. But are they the only witnesses of the truth who have shed blood? - No; Such are all those who have lived a divine life, about whom St. The Apostle says that “they walked in sheepskins, and in goatskins, deprived, sorrowful, embittered: the whole world is not worthy of them, wandering in deserts and in mountains and in dens and in the abysses of the earth.” And a little lower: “so much wealth has surrounded us with a cloud of witnesses, putting aside all pride and making it easy to commit sin, let us persevere with patience to the task that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the author of our faith and the perfecter of Jesus [Who, instead of the joy set before Him, endured the cross, being careless for its shame, but sat at the right hand of the throne of God]” (Heb. And, 37 - 38; 12, 1 – 2). Do you see how he calls martyrs all lovers of reverence, who unfortunately arbitrarily lead a life of patience? Thus, brethren,” Studit addresses the monks, “we too are numbered among the martyr’s host: for we too, by loving and patiently walking the many-sorrowful path of the life of the cross, by keeping the vow of virginity and not denying the many struggles of obedience that cost us, we testify that Jesus is Christ the Son of God, we testify that there is judgment and retribution, we testify that we must before the terrible by the judgment of Christ, to give an account of how we lived in opposition to the devil, Christ’s enemy, who torments and scourges us with the attacks of evil thoughts and deadly lusts, forcing us to renounce God [...] But we, as witnesses of Christ, will still give good testimony, we will still continue to confess good confession, rejoicing with all the saints that we have been deemed worthy to testify about Christ, not kneeling before the Baal, i.e. not bowing to the lusts of the flesh and other sinful pleasures; Let us not believe the enemy when he suggests to us thoughts of renouncing obedience, but we will valiantly [conscientiously] resist him, being struck, but not defeated. – What is the fruit of such a martyr’s testimony, you know; know that the witnesses of Christ, who testified about Him to everyone, and suffered incredible torment for true testimony, will be declared His joint heirs in the next century, as the Apostle says: “When Christ appears, our life, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:4). With them, we too, continuing our testimony until the end of our lives, may we be worthy to receive eternal rewards and to remain with Christ forever in joy and joy” [St. Theodore the Studite. Instructions to Monks, 233 (after Migne. Vol. 4, para. 10). Philokalia in Russian translation, expanded, vol. 4, ed. 2nd. M., 1901, pp. 433 – 435]. In the church consciousness, martyrs are saints; but the opposite can be said no less firmly - that saints are martyrs. The feat of Christian life, whatever it may be in its external conditions, is always internally martyrdom, for it is tearing oneself away from this world in the name of another world. It happens: among the current of muddy water, other streams stretch in the river, transparent, from a mountain spring, not mixing with the surrounding turbidity; such, for example, is the merger of two Aragvas, White and Black, at Mtskheta. Thus, in the Christian ascetic flow transparent streams of the life of the future century, living waters, although he himself is still in the muddy waters of history. But this preservation of oneself from turbidity is martyrdom, as evidence by the very feat of life of the presence of pure streams. A saint is a μάρτυς, - and truly a άγιος, in the sense explained earlier. He is in the world, but not of the world 855. With his heart he has already left the world, he has already become transcendental to it. In mountainous areas, when everything is still drowning in darkness, a snowy peak will suddenly light up, with its luminous point testifying to the reality of the sun, although directly invisible to us. So a saint, although a weak person, by his very existence is a witness of the spiritual world, a living testimony to the mysteries of eternal life; We believe him not because he speaks about it, but because he himself, even without words, is proof of the object of our faith. The saint is like recording the word of God: rotting parchment, or soft and fusible wax, or decaying, flammable, tearing and crumpling paper are entrusted with the words of Divine revelation. And, however, in this fragile and short-lived substance the eternal Truth truly lives, and through it it appears to the world. So in the sacred: not on the skin of animals, not on beeswax and not on paper, the Revelation of God is written here, but on the even more changeable, even more fickle human heart. But this revelation is written here - “impossible for men - is possible for God” 856 - and the saint became a living testimony of the glory of God, a receipt of the covenant between God and the world. I repeat, not because he is a saint, he is a witness and testimony, but because he is a saint, because he lives in d in χ worlds. Because in it we see with our own eyes the pure streams of eternal life, although flowing among our muddy and earthly waters that destroy life. Among the dead waters of history - and yet alive - in spite of the elements of this world, or, more precisely, a single element, whose name is Destruction, Damage, Disorder, Disorder, Annihilation, Chaos, Death, and in the language of natural philosophy and physics - Entropy. And therefore the saint himself testifies that there is a Source of the opposite force - Life. “Many people believed in Him [in Christ] from the Samaritans, for the words of the woman [Samaritan] who testified - μαρτυρούσης” (John 4:39), says the Evangelist John. But when they saw the Lord, they said to the Samaritan woman: “We believe not because of your conversation: for we ourselves have heard, and know that this is truly the Savior of the world, Christ” (John 4:42). So we can and do say, but if we don’t speak, if we don’t know how to say, then we sin—we say to the saint, by whose word we turned to faith: “We no longer believe because of your conversation: we ourselves have heard and know that Jesus is truly the Savior of the world, the Christ”; - and we know this because we heard in the saint, we saw in him not only the proclaimer, but also the saint, - in him we saw eternal life, through his personality the Christ living in him and imagined in him flickered to us 857; on the fluid nature of man they read the writings of the eternal Truth. In the holy, as in a book, we read the Word of God and see His life-giving. And, having read it, we no longer believe his conversation, but we ourselves have heard and we ourselves know that there is a source of living water. We ourselves have heard the Word of God, we ourselves know. Why? Why do we know this? - We say: according to martyrdom, according to martyrdom and according to martyrdom - according to everything that is called together life. That's true. But not everyone and not always see the saints and enter and become vitally touched by their lives. And yet, the whole matter of faith, the faith that we need for ourselves and in ourselves, is experience, a living contact with another world, even through the medium, perhaps many media, but still a touch. And it seems that not everyone, probably the majority, has had such an experience. It is as if the circulatory system of Christ’s testimony in the church body does not nourish all the cells of the church body. And then, if so, some of them, lying near the blood vessels, have the opportunity to live, while others are doomed to conditionally imitate the actions of faith, having the appearance of faith, but devoid of its power. And this thought becomes even more acute since we have no direct relationship with all the saints, with long-standing witnesses of the mysteries of God - no one. Is all past evidence really just a historical fact for us? And if not, if we are convinced in the depths of our souls of the unceasing effectiveness of this past testimony, if we firmly hold on to it, as always to the present, then we cannot help but ask ourselves how exactly does the witnessing feat of the saints enter into vampiric history, how exactly does the witnessing feat of the saints become its eternal heritage? In the chapter on martyrdom one must certainly insert: 1) Celebrating the day of the death of martyrs - like a birthday - dies pa talis. 2) Saints - like beauty (“decoration of the Church”) - eternal beauty (see Olsufiev) 858. 3) About the relics. About the graveside service. Puseol sign of relics. “Οτι ύμϊν έχαρίσΟη τό υπέρ Χρίστου ου μόνον τό εις αυτόν πιστεύειν άλλα και τό υπέρ αύτοϋ πάσχειν ( Phil. 1:29 ). insert about the genera and types of saints, about their names, about their specialty: the specificity of holiness. Saints. Body and "verbal" ?? τω Θεώ εόάρεστον, την λατρείαν υμών - “I pray you, brothers... present your body as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, your verbal service” (Rom 12:1). 1) Christians present their bodies as sacrifices. 2) This is their verbal, speaking ministry. 3) Consequently), the body is verbal, and literature is bodily. Next: μη συσχηματίζεσδε τω αίώνι τούτω άλλα μεταμορφουσθε τη άνακαινώσει του νοος - “and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (12:2) and so on. see This is where the sacrifice manifests itself. “Life wants to have fullness (Fulle) and shape (Hulle), it wants to be filled (animated) and clothed (have an image), it wants to have content and form, soul and body, and, moreover, both in mutual agreement - its animation and its embodiment must express a certain identity of principle (a certain pre-established harmony). Thus, the main desire of life is not only the desire for formation and education, nor only the desire for animation or a state of completeness, but is directed towards both, intensification (sensation) and extension (contemplation) and, moreover, in their agreement... For the most part, animation and spirituality are unfairly confused, while the latter actually means only the need of every single spirit (every living creature) to remain in constant openness. connection with one’s universal spirit (universal life), to maintain in oneself the connection between the animating factor and the embodying factor, a connection rooted in this universal spirit (as its concept). It is the spirit, as in our days this is especially clearly shown by Hegel, that is everywhere the concept or the middle (center), and thereby the thing itself (life or living). This central or, if you like, androgypic IX. Word ministry (prayer) 1,859. The sanctification of reality is certified by the witnesses of the sacrament. But this witnessing does something more significant than confirming each individual case. It fundamentally establishes the sacrament, telling us that the descent of the above to the below and the ascent of the below to Heaven generally exist. But precisely because sanctification is witnessed in general, each particular case of sacramental performance remains in question and requires special certification. In relation to each particular case, martyrdom is only an indication of the possibility of the manifestation of spirituality, but not yet the fact of this manifestation. Simply put, from my deepest confidence in the existence of sacraments, nothing follows in the sense of recognition or non-recognition of certain actions as sacraments and their salvific value: disputes between confessionals and even within confessionals are a clear confirmation of what has been said. It is clear that since it is a particular case that must be certified, then its particular content will be found in the certifying act. And if this latter is not connected in any way to a given case, then there is no reason to expect anything in relation to a particular case. Obviously, in the very content of a particular case there must be some external signs by which one can judge whether it is supported by what is being testified by witnesses, or whether the strength of the evidence does not extend to it. But, on the other hand, these signs cannot be isolated, because then the matter of witnessing would become impossible. Neither church teaching, nor, consequently, church organization could exist, if only for each manifestation of grace another testimony would be required, in addition to the phenomenon itself. Yes, in addition, if such evidence were given every time, then as directly related to the individual in its particularity, it would itself be individual and particular, and we, not knowing whether this is really evidence and whether it is sufficient, would need new evidence - the evidence of this evidence, which again would have to be individual and, therefore, look for new evidence for itself, and so on to infinity. Only a single consciousness can dwell on the individual as such and, moreover, at a separate moment; Personal reason, much less church reason, requires the general, but not the abstractly general, but something concretely presented. Denying such signs, the general signs of the sacrament - more broadly - sanctification - would be the destruction of church reason. In conditions of sanctification one must look for these signs. But among all the conditions that, by their organic nature, are capable, generally speaking, of replacing each other and by themselves to a certain extent making up for some incompleteness of their circle or the defectiveness of one or another aspect, just as sections of the cerebral cortex take over the functions of each other when the vital activity of part of them is stopped - among all the conditions there must be, obviously, irremovable ones and, in their essentiality for the sacrament, forming its basic scheme. Sanctification is always a certain fruit, a certain crowning of the rite, the immediate goal towards which its performer strives. And therefore the question cannot help but arise: what is the general condition of sanctification itself, what exactly sanctifies? The most direct answer to this question, the simplest and most correct, would, however, be analytical, if not identical: it would therefore go past the question. Of course, it is natural to answer: the Holy One Himself, the Mighty and Immortal 860, the Source of sanctifying energies, the Fullness of Holiness. But our question is not about the final cause of sanctification in general - this would again give us a principle from which we cannot draw particular conclusions - but about the conditional cause, or, if you like, the co-cause, of this sanctification taking place here and now. Why was this water consecrated, and not this one, why was part of this prosphora transubstantiated, and not that one, and, moreover, now, and not an hour ago? “Because,” let’s say, “it was this very water, this very prosphora that was taken for consecration.” Because, let’s say, it was precisely over this specific part of reality, over this area of ​​reality, here and now, that the necessary rituals were performed. So 861, but rituals, and absolutely necessary ones, in themselves do not yet give sanctification, and, moreover, they do not give higher sanctifications. Yes, the ritual itself could not be recognized as such, since it has not yet entered into consciousness. And in order to be conscious, it must be named, either externally, that is, with a loud-sounding word, or more intimate, from a silent whisper beginning and deeper, to the smallest possible mental-body manifestations of activity. The ritual cannot be only an external action; verbal and rational, it is certainly accompanied by the affirmation of oneself, the spiritual position of oneself through its name, and until this act is carried out, the ritual is not only not a ritual, but also does not exist in consciousness. Even the prayer mill of the Lamaites, seemingly extremely external, is spiritually affirmed by its name - when it is built, when it is looked at, when it is remembered, taking into account its main feature - the incessancy of its action; in fact, bringing it to his consciousness, the Lamaite internally affirms it not as a turning mechanism, not as a mill in general, but mentally calls it a prayer, cult mill; he evaluates the incessancy of its rotation not as a mechanical process, but as a ritual, as the ongoing implementation of the cult intention to erect it. People far from the cult are accustomed to refer to this instrument of the cult as reducing the cult to obvious absurdity, but do not think about the nature of any spiritual impulse - after all, it certainly includes the demand to get out of subjectivity, to be embodied in the outside world and last as long as possible; In essence, the desire to erect a prayer mill is no different from the desire to build a church, gild a dome, etc. etc., inclusive of worldly imprinting of spirit in matter: painting a picture, printing and reproducing a poem and publishing a scientific discovery. It would be unfair to attribute this desire to vanity or any other form of self-interest; no, in the very depths of the purest spiritual movement there is also an impulse to move outward and to secure oneself as firmly as possible in the world; but this is not a vice, but the truth of spirituality, and only this desire to realize itself demonstrates the full reality of spirituality, whereas otherwise its objectivity is doubtful. The prayer mill wants to prolong the sigh of prayer for many years and can be compared to lofty sayings on stone or copper; but in Lamaism they want to impart trembling and movement to this embodiment of prayer in matter - a natural symbol of the prayerful trembling of the soul itself. But behind all that, even this extreme case (the so-called “mechanization” of the rite) becomes a rite through its name, in the prayerful consciousness that created it or perceives it as a rite. It is the same in all cases: the ritual exists objectively, but it exists as such through prayer. Placing someone in water does not mean baptizing; cutting out part of the prosphora, not only without speaking, but also without mentally holding prayer formulas in your head, does not mean committing proskomedia; putting crowns on someone does not mean marrying someone. In general, pantomime, from which every verbal content, every name of it, even held only in the mind, that is, minimally expressed, is pumped out - such a pantomime is not a sacred act; externally there is a ritual, but through the word: “Take away the word from the water, and there will be only water; add the word - and there will be a sacrament,” says St. Augustine 862. This word is a word of prayer, a prayer formula or some equivalent of it. Only through the word does an action become a sacred act, a series of external processes - a ritual, a visible - a sacrament: the everyday is hidden in a secret by the word. This word may sometimes not be pronounced out loud, but it is certainly implied, silently assumed, thought during external action; and without a word, one way or another manifested, without λόγος, external action remains wordless, άλογος, not intelligent - only empirical, only subordinate, only sensual. The word raises his grief. And then this word, as it is said, is a prayer. That is, not every word, of course, casts a phenomenon from earth to Heaven and, therefore, not every word is a prayer; but those words that are not prayer, they do not transfer the phenomenon to the higher spheres and, therefore, do not call it a ritual, which means they call it a non-rite. If water is simply called water, then this name, of course, is not prayer; but water is also affirmed by him as a non-sacrament, sensory water; if the given water is confirmed by a word, as the water of the sacrament, then such a word will be a prayer; but this word is not just a word. The lever that antinomically brings the lower out of the sphere of the lower is a word that is itself antinomic, as containing within itself a twofold relationship to the lower and to the higher. We have been given this word, but we do not make it out of ourselves. We possess the lever of the sacrament, but we possess it because it is given to us and because, in using it, we rely on something that is not itself the world. We act, [but] not ourselves, but by God - in the precise sense, we act as God, 3εουργουμεν. 2. The question posed about witnessing the sacrament rests on prayer. What is prayer? Before we try to answer this new question in detail, let’s try to understand the structure of prayer; This will make clear its organization, its essential and minor parts. For the sake of objectivity and greater firmness of analysis, we will first consider non-Christian prayer. Ibn-Dasta, an Arab writer of the 10th century, reports the text of the prayer of the ancient Slavs, without, however, indicating which particular Slavic tribe he is talking about, and this gives some reason to think that this is generally the typical pattern of prayer of various Slavic peoples. “All of them (Slavs) are idolaters,” writes Ibn Dasta. “They sow millet most of all.” During the harvest, they take millet grains in a ladle, raise them to the sky and say: “Lord, You, Who have supplied us with food (until now), provide us with it now in abundance” [Shrakavi. Muslim tale, 265 863. A. S. Famintsyn. Deities of the ancient Slavs. St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 40]. This is the prayer. Its composition is quite clear. I. “Lord” – address; II. “You, Who provided us with food” is a reference to the past, as characterizing the Person to Whom one is addressing, and therefore can be an otnological motive for a further request; III. “Provide us with it now in abundance”—the very request, the content of the prayer. The same pattern is observed in other ancient pagan prayers that have come down to us. Let's give a few examples. Thus, in the Iliad, the priest Chris prays to Apollo: Silver-bowed God, hearken to me: O you who guard, go around Chris, sacred Killa and reign powerfully in Tenedos, Sminfey! If when I decorated your sacred church, If when I burned my fat thighs before you Goats and calves - hear and fulfill one wish for me: Avenge my tears on the Argives with your arrows! [ 1, 37 – 42, trans. Gnedich. Further, see V. IN . Latysheva. Essay on Greek Antiquities. T. 2, St. Petersburg, 1889. Pp. 63 – 64 and Φ. F. Zelinsky. Essay on Greek Religion 864. ] II. An indication of the inherent power of God as an ontological motivation for the ability to fulfill a request; III. An indication of the merits of the petitioner, as a reference to past relationships and as a subjective motivation for the right to make a request; finally IV. The request itself is like the content of a prayer. As we see, this scheme is very close to the previous one, but more dissected, namely, the motivation of the Slavic prayer: “You, who supplied us with food,” implying two thoughts: firstly, ontological (“He had the power and authority to supply food”) and secondly, meaning merit (“And we turned out to be worthy of Your mercy”) - this motivation in the prayer of Chrys clearly expresses both moments separately. Let us now compare with these prayers those of the pious Aeneas. Prayer to Zeus: O almighty Zeus, if You did not begin to hate All the Trojans at the same time, since goodness, as of old, looks at human labors, let the fleet escape the fire Now, Father, and let the Teucrians’ belongings be lost from the destruction. Or You are already completely hostile with lightning of death, If I deserve it, betray it and crush it here with Your right hand 865. II. A reference to former goodness, but with a rhetorically intensifying doubt whether it continues today; III. Rhetorically raising doubts about one’s own merit, the meaning of which is the strongly expressed: “After all, I have always been pious!”; Aeneas’ prayer to Cybele is similar: Good mother of the gods Idaea, whose heart is Dindim with the towers of the city, bridled by a couple, You are now leading me to war, you fulfill as you should the Prophecies, come to the Phrygians, goddess, to the aid 866. Again the same four points: appeal, ontological characteristic, reference to the previous connection (“leading to war”, gave a “foreshadowing”), request 867. Let's now look at a few almost randomly taken prayers from our Breviary. Here is the prayer over the salt: “God, our Savior, who came to Jericho with Elisha the prophet and healed the harmful waters with salt, bless this salt yourself and offer it as a sacrifice of joy. For You are our God, and to You we send glory, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen" 868. We distinguish here the following parts: I. “God our Savior” - an appeal to God; II. “He came to Jericho with Elisha the prophet, and healed the harmful waters with salt” - a reference to what has already happened as ontologically characterizing the power and will of God, and therefore proving the legality and appropriateness of the further, the request itself; III. “Bless this salt myself and offer it as a sacrifice of joy” is a request that fits the type of what has already happened, has already been given to humanity by God, and therefore, therefore, not spiritually rejected, not impossible in the cult, not offensive to our faith, not contrary to it; It is characteristic that church prayer places spiritual sanctification in the first place, as opposed to external multiplication - pagan naturalism; IV. “For You are our God, and we send up glory to You... forever and ever” is a secretly effective impulse with the true, revealed name of God, declaring and establishing God as the Triune, the True God; With this doxology, Christian prayer differs significantly from pagan prayer, for it proves that it acts not with a vague consciousness of divine powers, but with the frank, God-revealed, true, super-logical Name of the True God, not invented by men. V. “Amen” is a bond, “truly,” i.e., a human expression of will that brings into action divine energy, since God wants our freedom and our synergy with Him. So, this prayer has five parts, and the first three are similar to those of the pagan prayer, although they are revealed on a different plane; The last two parts are unique in Christianity, as they express pure God-revelations and pure devotion to oneself, entrusting oneself to God. Let us now check our observation using several examples. Here is a prayer over a new well: “To the Creator of the waters, and the Creator of all, Lord God, the Almighty, who created and transformed all things, You Yourself sanctify this water: eat Your holy Power for all resistance, and give to everyone who receives drink from it for the sake of drinking or for the sake of washing, health of soul and body, for the change of every passion, and every ailment: for there will be healing from the water and peace to everyone who touches her and accepts her. For all glory, honor and worship is due to You, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages, Amen” 869. It’s easy to see the same five parts here: I. “Lord God” – address; II. “To the Almighty, the Creator of the waters and the Creator of all... all things created and transformed” - an indication of something already revealed by God - His restraint and providence, in particular, in relation to the case under consideration, an indication of the creation of waters and the transformation of everything; III. “You Yourself sanctify this water: pour on it Your holy power... to everyone who touches it and receives it” - a request for sanctification and the granting of healing properties to the water; here, even more clearly than in the previous prayer, the predominance of the request for spiritual benefits over sensual benefits appears; IV 870. “As it behooves You... forever and ever - affirmation in the true name and Or again, a prayer from the wedding ceremony: “Holy God (part one - conversion), who created man from the dust, and from his side gave birth to a wife, and yoked him to a helper for him, for it was fitting for Your Majesty that not only man should exist on earth" (the second is a reference to the former and typical). “And now, O Lord, send down Thy hand from Thy holy dwelling, and unite Thy servant of this name and Thy handmaid of this name, for before You are united husband and wife. Unite me in one mind, crown me in one flesh, grant them the fruit of the womb, the perception of happiness (the third part is the petition itself); For Thine is the dominion and Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages (the fourth part is the Name of the Triune God, testifying to God as the Source of all grace-filled consecrations). Amen (the fifth part is a bond, “let it be”)” 871. So, the structure of the prayer remains the same. For greater certainty, let’s take another prayer, now from the Service Book, namely the prayer of entry: “Sovereign Lord our God (the first part is an appeal), who has set up in heaven ranks and armies, angels and archangels, in the service of Thy glory (the second part is a reference to the typical as the basis of the petition): create at our entrance the holy angels to be, serving us and glorifying Thy goodness; (the third part is the petition itself). For all glory, honor and worship is due to You, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages (the fourth part is the Name of the Most Holy Trinity as a testimony of Him, the Source of all creative energies). Amen (the fifth part is a mystical bond)" 872. Etc., etc. Every prayer, that is, in the proper sense, prayer, in contrast to hymns of praise and other verbal elements of the cult, the sacrament surrounding or enshrining, decorating and developing, but not constituting the very core of it, every prayer is built according to the indicated three-member plan, ending with the mysterious trinitarian doxology - this fullness of Christian knowledge of God, this confession of the condensed organism all dogmas. The service is interlayered with these hymns to the Most Holy Trinity. Parts read and parts chanted, kathismas, stichera of various kinds, canon, etc. - all this is interspersed with glorifications of the Most Holy Trinity; Priestly exclamations are basically again the same trinitarian formula in different environments and combinations. But, looking closely, it is not difficult to see that this formula ends the prayer, and sometimes, in addition, it begins; priestly exclamations are the audible ends of secret prayers, so to speak, the above-ground shoots and germinating completions from the very roots of the cult. In relatively few cases, explicit prayers, or litanies, read by the deacon end with these exclamations; but, judging by a number of analogies, one must think that here too there were once now priestly prayers, such as, for example, the prayers of the antiphons at the liturgy. Let's return to the structure of prayer. The entire divine service, as it has been clarified, is built according to the above-mentioned five-member scheme, or, in other words, it is all the rhythm of the trinitarian formula, surrounded and developed by our thoughts, feelings, desires: the highest Truth is embodied in a specific consciousness and permeates its entire content. But before expressing this thought more precisely, let’s go back and remember the non-prayerful, in the strict sense, side of worship that we have forgotten: about spells or prohibitions. What are they, what is their scheme? It is also necessary to think about it so that the formal structure of the prayer has overall liturgical significance. For example, the first prohibition in the Order of the Catechumens: “The Lord forbids you, the devil, who came into the world and took up residence in men, that he may destroy your torment and destroy men, Who on the tree of the resisting forces conquered, the sun that was darkened, and the earth that was shaken, and the tomb that opened, and the bodies of the saints those who rise, who destroy death through death and abolish the power of the possessing of death, the devil will eat you. I forbid you by God, who showed the tree of the belly, and set up the cherubim, and the flaming weapon, which turns like a crack: you are forbidden. For these I forbid you, who walked as if on dry land on the lash of the sea, and who forbade the storms of the winds, whose vision dries up the abysses, and whose rebuke melts away the mountains: He forbids you even now with us. Fear, go out, and retreat from this creation, and not return, hide yourself in it, hide it, or act, neither in the night, nor in the day, or in the hour, or at noon, but go away to your Tartarus, even before the prepared great day of judgment. Fear God, who sits on the cherubim and gazes upon the abyss, whose aigels, archangels, thrones, dominions, beginnings, powers, powers, many eyes of the cherubim, and six-winged seraphim tremble, whom the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them tremble. Come out and depart from the sealed newly chosen warrior of Christ our God, for I forbid you those who walk on the wing of the wind, who make angels scorching their fire. Come out and depart from this creation with all your strength and your angels. For glorified is the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen" 873. It would be natural to call this prohibition a negative prayer: the formal similarity between the prohibition and prayer is immediately felt, but with a change in some parts from affirmative to negative. Indeed, the following tablet shows the formal similarity between prohibition and prayer: So, here and here there are five formally corresponding parts, and the ontological reference, doxology and bond are identical here and there, and the appeal and expression of desire are negatively addressed; This is how prayer itself turns into a prohibition. This correspondence of parts is understandable: a negative desire is a desire to deny. But to deny something positive, that is, God, would be a sin, and only the negation itself, that is, the devil, is subject to the desire to deny. Consequently, the prohibition cannot but be based on an appeal specifically to the devil. But the rational basis and power to perform this action - to reject denial - can only be drawn from the Source of reason and strength, as with the positive action - prayer. Hence the identity of the ontological reference to the past and glorification - in prohibition and in prayer; in the same way, I, whether praying or forbidding, affirm myself as God-acting again in a single way in part five. The prohibition, as expected, turns out to be a negative prayer, a negative prayer. But we still need to check the identity of the schemes. Here is the incantation of St. Tryphon the Martyr from the rank of the field - a powerful incantation, as many Protestant priests, even those who do not recognize incantations, have repeatedly testified to me from personal experience: “I conjure you, many-species animals, worms, caterpillars, beetles and pruses, mice, sciatica and crits, and various kinds of flies, and moths, and moths, and mites, and ovades and wasps, and centipedes, and various kinds of animals crawling on the earth and flying birds, harm and futility to cornfields, grapes, gardens and inflicting helicopter hail [each time only the conjured pests are named, and not all], by God, the Father Without Beginning, and His Son, the Co-original and Consubstantial, and His Most Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son, Consubstantial, and Life-Giving. I conjure you by the incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and His life on earth with man, His saving passion, and His life-giving death, and His three-day resurrection, and ascension into heaven, and all His Divine saving vision. I conjure you with the holy many-eyed cherubim, the six-winged seraphim, flying around the throne, and calling: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of hosts. I conjure you, holy angels and with all your power, and by the thousands of thousands, and by the darkness of those who stand with the fear of many before the glory of the Lord, that you do not harm the grapes, below the fields, below the heaps, the trees and potions of the servant of God (name), but go away to the divoy mountains, to the barren trees, on the ground God has given you to eat your daily food. I conjure you by the honest Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, The true God and our Savior, Who has given us salvation and deliverance, for whose Name the imams must die, let us not offend below the field, below the grapes, below the heli-hill, below every fruitful and barren tree: and below the leaf of potions, let us not offend from the surroundings the limit and place of the servant of God (name). If you disobey me and break the oath with which I conjured you, do not come to me, the humble and least Tryphon, but to the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who is coming to judge the living and the dead; In the same way, as I told you before, go to the Divya Mountain, to the barren tree. If you do not listen to me, pray to the Imam, the Lover of Mankind, to send His angel, who will bind you and kill you over beasts, iron, and lead; I also conjure you with the great Name, written on stone, and not worn, but dissolved, like wax from the face of fire: come out from our places to the places that were before you, impenetrable, and waterless, and barren, come out from the place and around the border of the servants of God, and those who call upon me for their help, and intercession and salvation, and in these too the most holy Name of the Father is glorified, and May the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the prayers and petitions of the humble Tryphon be fulfilled, as glory and power belong to God forever and ever. Amen" 874. And again here are the same five parts as in the previous prohibition, but with the first part referring to caterpillars, beetles, butterflies and other harmful creatures. Take any prohibition or spell; we will always find there the same five parts, and the appeal is directed each time to the conjured beings with whom we enter into a relationship, but everything else is formally unchanged. Now, if we expand the concept of prayer, including negative prayer - prohibition (where the power is not taken from the beings to whom we address ourselves), then we can speak of prayer as consisting of: appeal; narratives about some mystical event, such as the one that the worshiper wishes to receive; manifestations of desire - positive (“let there be”) or negative (“let there not be”); the Trinitarian doxology as evidence of the truth about the absoluteness of God and therefore, therefore, omnipotence; and – the “Amen” bonds as an expression or confirmation of one’s freedom to bring into action God’s powers. 3. Let's take a closer look at the meaning of this structure of prayer - it consists of five parts. Let's start with the fourth. What is the ternary formula? This is the name, “the most holy and magnificent name” 875 of the Most Holy Trinity, that is, God known as the Trinity, that is, also God known as the true, absolute, one God. “You [i.e. i.e. pagans] do not know what you are bowing to, but we [i.e. e. Jews, bearers of revealed Truth] we know what we bow down to” (John 4:22), the Savior points out to the Samaritan woman. The Trinity formula is a testimony to the Truth and therefore a declaration that we, those who pray or conjure, know what we bow to, we know the absoluteness of God and therefore we know Him as the Source of power. What, further, does it mean to attribute to God glory, power, power, kingdom, honor, worship, etc., etc., and, moreover, everlasting, eternal, forever and ever? – Analytical disclosure of the absoluteness of the Holy Trinity; this is proof of the reality of our knowledge of what we bow to, for the Absolute can be worshiped not in spirit and truth, but as finite and conditional, the Eternal as temporary. The name “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” - this single name of God already contains a whole series of further statements that Their Trinity, as absolute being-reality and absolute meaning-truth, befits and belongs to glory, power, strength, etc. - all ontological attributes. The Trinity doxology is an analytical judgment: “God is God, the true God” - and, abstractly logically, could be replaced by this latter. This is the disclosure, both in the subject and in the predicate, “I am Syy” 876 877. “I am the One who is,” always and everywhere inherent in religious esotericism. The new revelation revealed the content of both “Az” and “Sy”: then the main theme of the entire Christian service is obtained - the trinitarian doxology, and the worshiper relies on the confession of this supreme truth, knowing that he himself is true and strong only by spiritual contact with Truth and Power. The Trinity doxology of the fourth part of the prayer is the support of the previous part, the preceding petition or prohibition - with the true name of God as concentrated into one striking point by the entire Divine Revelation 878. Let us now turn 879 to part three. Taken by itself, it is not at all a cult action, although it is precisely this that gives the psychological impulse and internal motive of prayer: this is our subjective pressure, the pressure of our desire or unwillingness for this or that event to happen or not to happen. This is what remains of prayer in immanentism and which in itself is not prayer or a religious action, but an expression of a naked psychological reality. Neither the value of truth nor the power-reality of this movement of our being has been proven - it would not have been proven if there were no other parts of prayer. But in general, the power of the internal movement is proven by the fourth part - the trinitarian doxology, and its meaning - by the second part - a notification or reminder of the type of events in the mystical region, under which the new subjectively desired and sought-after thing is included. In itself, it would not be proven in its meaning, in its meaningfulness, in its legality, in its spiritual truth and would remain subjective: you never know what I can want, and if only I, in my subjective isolation, want something, then how can I approach the Truth with this, my own, for now? But in a type, when my desire is subsumed under the type, it, this mine, finds itself the proof of truth it lacks and thereby, introduced into the Truth, is no longer expressed as subjective, but as objective truth. I insist on my desire not as my own, but as the Truth 880: the preceding indication of the mystical type gives the formula to my desire, as a participant in the eternal universal Truth. Desire, based on its already revealed metaphysical scheme, is itself part of the Truth, and it’s not my fault that it is mine - and mine, that is, the Truth and mine; With the realization of the desired Truth, I am not at all obliged to be upset (according to Kant); on the contrary, I can and should, according to the Apostle, “rejoice in the Truth” 881. The psychological impulse was my desire; but the basis of the subjective turned out to be objective, the basis of “wants” is the divine creative idea of ​​the creature; the subjective appeared as subject. And when this turned out to be true, then there was a reason to reduce this idea to the roots of reality, and the idea becomes not a powerless truth, but the power of Truth. Our desire is a reason to perceive the unity - of the private aspect of God, as some idea, and desire, also private, as some energy. Those who objected to prayer, as supposedly pulling the string of the Absolute Being, first of all, sin with a low assessment of themselves: man is given ontology, so that, spiritually peering into our own aspirations, we can discover some objective truth in them and then stand before the Throne of God not as “pullers of the string,” but with a ray of light from the same eternal Sun. It’s time to understand that in prayer and prayer we do not oppose God, but draw closer to Him and unite with Him; “Prayer is the existence and union of people to God,” proclaims the Church Charter in the chapter on prostrations, citing the words of the Climacus [Mlgav, l. 429 ] 882 . And therefore, when the desire, which I initially recognized as mine, was revealed to me as a desire, although in me, but God’s, I act by the power of God or the power of God acts through me. Our request - the third part of the prayer - is, philosophically speaking, the matter of prayer, the empirical is, in need of a metaphysical form; this is the type of mystical event recalled in the second part. But in order to bring our formless life under the divine form, under the type, we need a Designer - God, who owns all forms, all types of being. The fourth part of prayer, to use philosophical terminology, is the effective cause of prayer, the effective cause of sanctification. The first part remains - the appeal. Appeal is also a name. But if the name of the Trinity doxology is a name comprehended, a name of recognition, a hidden name, revealing to us the knowledge of God, a name coming from God to man, then in circulation it is a preliminary name, “apperceptive mass” 883, a name coming from man to God. This is a call. By addressing - naming - we, by an act of will, reveal our solitude to the Named, we affirm ourselves as a secondary being, we see before ourselves a higher self - we reject the self-isolation of our subjectivity. The call means my recognition that I am not the only one who exists and that I am not the last foundation of all existence. In the call, therefore, we come out of ourselves existentially and the Named One comes into us existentially, so that relation and connection become possible. We may have a subjective excitement about God, which we recognize as subjective; God for us is “only our concept” 884, “a deception that elevates us” 885. We may want God, be attracted to Him, but this is only our excitement, an event in our psyche, at least according to our understanding of it: for we have not yet decided on communication itself, we have not yet deigned. Excitement increases, our desire becomes denser, intensified, thickened - and objectified by the call. Whether mental, whispered, spoken out loud or shouted, ontologically and epistemologically, a call, a call is always the same: opening oneself, opening one’s innermost being, removing the edge, withdrawing the defensive detachments of self-defense, self-isolating the depths of one’s being - to the Named One; it is a desire that has reached the point of determination to be realized; it is precisely an act of will, the will to communicate. And when this volitional act of self-disclosure was initiated by us - at this very moment, not shortly after this act, but by this act, in this act, God became for us “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - not the God of philosophers and scientists” 886. A living Being, It Itself, communicates with us, and not that we “have an idea” about It. Before our eyes there was a dense, cloudy cover, and, examining it, we saw many significant images in it, but at the same time we knew that these were only clouds and that at any moment it was up to us to stop our dreams and declare the clouds to be clouds, just as it was up to us to interpret this or that cloud in one way or another. But now we have risen above the cloud cover and see the starry sky or the shining sun; and now we know that this is not our arbitrariness, but something indestructible, from which we can get rid only by closing our eyes or turning our backs and again looking at the clouds stretching at our feet. The prayer call is precisely such a rise above subjectivity, above the subjective interpretation of one’s own mental movements, although in themselves they are not nothing, just as clouds are not nothing. Everyone knows how the cloudy sky is torn by the call and how infinitely different in quality from the usual feeling of isolation this living meeting of the eyes with the eyes of the Father Who is in heaven, and what a strong and transparent, diamond foundation is then provided for personal existence and for everything that happens around. God is near us, near us, all around us: “in Him we live and move and have our being” 887, immersed in the unexplored abyss of divine activities - by them and in them we abide in being. These divine energies, that is, the Divinity itself, guide us and act in us, but we often do not know about it. But at the same time, there is an area of ​​our freedom, with its roots going back to the same divine energies and relying entirely on them, and at its peaks possessing the gift of self-determination, the gift of consent or refusal to live with God - the autocratic power to go either to Him or from Him. This is the area of ​​our subjectivity 888, that is, that ontological that belongs to the subject and, in contrast to the subjective, devoid of strength and energy, is cosmic. We have the power to open our hearts to the Source of being so that the streams of life flow in, or, on the contrary, to withdraw into subjectivity, go underground, and flee from being. Then our connections with the world dry up and our being freezes. The call is the realization of our freedom. The Call is putting oneself face to face before the Called One, and therefore the Called One before oneself. The call is a goal that we set, or more precisely, that we discover in ourselves and in ourselves. In the call we recognize ourselves as willing, we express ourselves as such and affirm ourselves as such. The call is the overflowing energy of our aspiration: flowing from the boundaries of the subject, it continues to be his energy; but together it becomes transsubjective energy and unites with what it is directed at. But it does not follow from this that the call is necessarily a call of love and trust: it can also be a call of enmity and hatred. It is not communication in love that is characteristic of the call, but the essence of communication. The call, as such, establishes ontological contact, and the spiritual orientation of this call - love or hatred - gives the contact one or the other meaning, so that the caller either enriches himself with life, or loses what he had: “Those who seek God will not be deprived of any good” 889. The goal of our desire is to spiritually place some reality that exists “in general”, outside of relation to us, before us and make it an object of direct relationship. The call is the fulfillment of this goal, so this is its essence; the call is a spiritual act that makes from he, or, more precisely, from it, you. But the way of communication is determined further. When Proudhon, turning to God in “Vous,” furiously blasphemes 890, losing all self-control from the anger strangling him, he also calls, but calls not in love, but in hatred, like an enemy. And it would be a humiliation of human dignity, human ontology, it would be a belittlement of human nature to think that such a call is nothing, as if these are empty words that achieve nothing and therefore are not obligatory or responsible to anything. “Whoever is near Me is near the fire,” says the Savior, according to His saying preserved in the Gospel of the Egyptians 891. The call puts the caller “near God,” and then this fire burns the one who made the call. When, on the other hand, in prohibitions and spells we turn to the devil, or to animals, or to plants, we also call them, making, by a special act of will, them from it and they - you and you; or, if you like, by some turn of our spiritual being we ourselves ontologically turn towards them so that our relationship to them is established as to τ y, to y. But we call them here not for help and not out of love, but so that they, being they, do not elude our influence in the world's infinity, so that they stand face to face with us and so that then we can meet them as enemies and, armed with the power of God, measure ourselves against them and overcome them; in order to overcome and overthrow, one must embrace and touch. The call, therefore, concentrates not only our attention on the called, but collects on it all the power threads of our ontological relationship to being: our scattered, relaxed and wandering connections with everything that is outside of us are gathered here, stretched, determined; our relationship to the world has become clear and active. If earlier ontological flows from the whole world, more broadly from all being, flowed more or less indifferently through our being, all present and conscious only in possibility, now we are actively establishing ourselves on a certain flow and bringing it to the clearest consciousness. 6. Prayer, again taking this word in its general sense, consists, therefore, of parts corresponding to the four Aristotelian causes: final and efficient, formal and material, arranged in a cruciform manner. Their unity, that is, their non-random placement side by side, is evidenced by a special act of affirmation of the prayer as a whole - it is sealed by Amen, which in free translation means: “my word is firm” or: “what is said, I confirm.” needs and God's activities. Our subjectivity stands as a mediastinum between our need, our feeling, our excitement - and, on the other hand, God's power, which has already revealed itself in the case - type. We are surrounded by fragrance, but to perceive it we need to inhale the fragrant air; We are bathed in light, but to see it we need to open our eyes. Everything given to us must be actively taken in order to become part of the spiritual organism; and precisely as a living whole, he does not perceive anything that has not been spontaneously assimilated by him: the given, as long as it is outside, can crush the spiritual organism, but cannot penetrate into its composition without its permission. And the divine energy, the same one that created us and gave us unity and self-determination, which allowed us to have our own energy, it is even less than the conditional givens of the sensory world, it rapes us and invades us without us. The abyss of uncreated divine light is always around us, always with us; but the energy of God assists us only when we open ourselves to such action, eliminating the mediastinum of our selfhood. This mediastinum must be removed by a special act of will, our consent to divine intervention in our activity, that is, by our self-elimination, or by breaking our subjectivity and giving a place in us to God Himself: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” 892. We must open the door of our being, for God does not break it down, but when we open it, then in the place of our selfhood an objectively effective cause is put - the power of God, the power of the name of God. This is one action: negatively, it is a rupture of one’s own limitations, detachment of oneself, recognition of oneself, conditional and limited, as such, i.e. conditional and limited - or, in other words, detachment from orientation towards oneself, from “self-extortion”; positively, this action is orienting oneself to the eternal, putting the name of God in one’s place, filling oneself with the power of God. This bipolar action, or synergy, is schematized by the vertical of our drawing; it is a condition for the implementation of prayer, a condition for changing reality, a condition for the sanctification of some process, some movement - in Aristotelian terminology. The vertical as a manifestation of spiritual activity is always logically the first before the horizontal determined through this act. So here too, the process itself, the movement itself, established as a condition by the above-mentioned vertical, is schematized by the horizontal of the cross; The ends of the poles of this horizontal determine the channel along which the synergy is directed at a given time - the cooperation of God's grace and human aspiration: the ends of the horizontal determine what in the world needs to be changed and how, that is, according to what type, for we cannot even think about influencing the world not according to the types of eternal Truth, but according to a random whim. The last thought can also be explained this way: prayer is not an arbitrary intervention in the “righteous and true ways” 893 of the Lord, but, on the contrary, their affirmation and assistance to them, human cooperation with God in the sanctification of the world, privately applied to a particular case - that is, the request of the Lord’s prayer: “Thy will be done, as it is in heaven and on earth” 894 - on earth in the image of heaven. That is why what is desired is justified in its type, as a completely revealed Truth. And these two reasons, material and formal, become in prayer one - one process: the passing earthly vision came into contact with the eternal Truth, and now the particular is subsumed under the typical, the typical is embodied in the particular; This is also synergy. The final “Amen” strengthens the unity of the line of condition and the line of movement, two directions of synergy: these two lines through the central “Amen” constitute one cross - one spiritual act. But if he is truly alone, if he is whole in himself, then the prayerful feurgy is all there: it already exists - only prayer requires fulfillment, must be accomplished or completed - έντελεχεισθαι - to come to its goal, to its organic end - εις τέλος. The accomplishment of prayer is its entelechy. The Amina contains this last, entelechy, this completeness of prayer. The rite of the sacraments puts the secret-perfective moment into special secret formulas, which in their meaning are the spread of such an “Amen”, although the “Amen” itself finally compresses the entire feurgic process into an impact point; this fulfillment of the sacrament is handed over by the rite to the will of the clergyman. “The servant of God (name) is baptized in the Name of the Father, Amen, and the Son, Amen, and the Holy Spirit, Amen” 895 - this is the perfect formula of baptism. “The Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, Amen” 896 – Confirmation. “May our Lord and God Jesus Christ, by the grace and generosity of His love for mankind, forgive you, child (name), all your sins, and I, an unworthy priest, by His power given to me forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen” 897 - this is the perfect formula of the Sacrament of Repentance 898. “The servant of God (name) is married to the servant of God (and m i ρ e k) in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen" 899 – marriage ceremony. And so on. Each sacrament has a central action and a central formula that expresses the meaning of the corresponding action. The very completion or completion (τέλος) of the sanctifying process is timed to this action and to this formula; consistently growing in its rituals, which therefore form the rite-following of the sacrament, this process becomes a sacrament through its central action and the judgment of action associated with the latter - the secret-perfective formula. This is how it is in a cult. But not only is there: it cannot be otherwise, again, not because God could not act according to His omnipotent will, but because human nature does not accommodate any other construction of the cult and, therefore, another cult could not be a human cult. Another cult could not be a cult at all - Divine-human co-activity. Here it is necessary to speak definitely about the method of our entire research. Our task is to deduce the cult, that is, to show the meaning and internal necessity of its organization. Having salvation as its main goal, cult is an activity that should sanctify man and, more broadly, all creation. The elementary properties and means leading to such sanctification cannot be historically random and arbitrarily collected into a mechanically folded heap. It is clear ahead of time that as an activity and even co-activity of living spiritual beings, a cult cannot but be an organized activity through and through, purposeful in every element. Understanding and appreciation of the cult depends to a high degree on the awareness of its organization. But to understand the mutual connection of all aspects of the cult, their mutual necessity, the cult as a whole, can, obviously, start from its goal. And the goal is the salvation of man, precisely the creature, of this ontological organization. It is not the business of the philosophy of the cult to deduce this very organization, but its business, having reverently accepted it as God’s charter of existence, is to clarify for itself the organization of the cult that follows from it: if the latter did not take into account the structure of the creature being saved, then either the cult could not be attached to the creature, and, consequently, save it, or it would forcibly distort and break the creature, again not saving, but destroying. The grace of the cult is not a deadly simoom, but a “subtle voice of coldness” 900 and, in order to be perceived as such, it must be consistent with the rules of creation, consistent with itself, for the same energy of God created creation and the image of its existence. That is why the cult is human, and the study of the cult is necessary anthropologically: the structure of the cult is the true structure of the creature, and in the cult the creature does not find external norms for itself, but its own, internal, internal foundations, but purified of everything accidental. A cult person is a Man, and a cult does not add something alien to humanity, but, on the contrary, cleanses humanity of accidents, making an artistic creation out of the empirical. The cult has its foundations in man, in creation, but man himself, creation itself, has its roots in things above, for man was created “in the image of Christ” 901. And therefore, anthropological in method, the study of the cult is essentially ontological, more specifically, feological. After this clarification, we return to the sacrament. 7. Let us again take into account what exactly the cult must carry out: its purpose will determine its structure. He must realize the transcendental conditions of life - a person’s exit from subjective self-isolation and support in absolute objective reality. Consequently, a cult is a system of actions that carry out such a way out and orient all life on the Unconditional, the Immobile and the Eternal. Now the question is: how can we be convinced of the presence of such a way out of ourselves into the eternal and unconditional region? What tells us about it? Where are the places and images of exit? “This is the essence of the sacrament,” they will say. “You must believe the sacraments,” they will say. – Yes, we must believe in the sacraments, that is, not in the sacraments, but in their mystery, in their invisible side, in their transcendence, in their intelligence. But in order to believe in the mystery of something, we must know what exactly we should believe in the mystery of. To believe in the transubstantiation of bread and wine, one must know the very types of transubstantiated bread and wine. To believe in the regenerating power of the font, you need to know the font itself. In order to believe in the gift of the Holy Spirit, taught through the holy ointment, one must know the most holy ointment. No matter how deep and strong faith is, it necessarily rests on some knowledge. A number of invisible things, exposed by faith 902, are, however, exposed in something visible, in some concreteness; the invisible is held in our consciousness by what is accessible to direct perception. The ladder, along which the heavenly forces ascended and descended, establishing a constant connection between Heaven and earth, was lost at its apex in the abyss of heaven, but its base rested on the rocks of Bethel. And if the sacrament did not contain in itself, along with the invisible, the visible, then faith in the sacrament would not be faith, but knowledge, but self-contained knowledge, subjective, extra-vital, not connected with other life, not part of the integral experience, and therefore false. This will be “metaphysics” - as abstract knowledge - the imaginary knowledge; but even such metaphysics still has concrete features and materials, with the removal of which nothing remains of it in the precise sense. So, belief in a sacrament necessarily implies some concrete perception of the cult, something visible, or audible, or smelled, or tangible. The sacraments are performed by the power of God and are such manifestations; but that is why they are sacraments, because God did not leave us in the dark about when and where they are performed, moreover, he left them to be performed according to our will, and we learn in each particular case that here and now a feat of faith is required of us, by the certain actions and words we perceive. If there is no necessary connection between the mysterious and the visible or perceived in some other way, if the grace of the holy sacraments is not confined to a precisely defined system of words and actions, to certain events committed in time and space by man, that is, to certain high points of culture, then there cannot be sacraments in our consciousness at all. They are committed because they are committed, people commit them, but they are committed not according to the subjective disposition of those doing or receiving, but according to objectively taken into account actions and words. But doesn’t the latter mean that the formula ex opera operatum is applicable to the sacraments? 903 Doesn’t it mean that the accomplishment occurs due to the very fact of a certain order, certain words and actions? – The answer depends on the indirect object of the word “commitment” - what exactly is the commission. In Catholic theology, salvation is understood; in Orthodox theology, it is the sacrament itself 904. According to the Catholic view, the sacrament is salvific ex opera opera turn - by virtue of its accomplishment, so that the saving effect extends to cases of violence, for example, communion: the practice of giving communion to heretics who were tied up and their mouths opened with a stick is known. But Orthodox theology very significantly distinguishes ontological reality (- and therefore, the effectiveness of the sacraments! -) from the special question of their salvificity. The sacrament is performed by the power of accomplishment, because the corresponding rites have passed and, as soon as a person has taken advantage of the freedom that is given to him and constitutes his inalienable gift, as soon as he has realized the opportunity to leave his solitude and comes face to face with the Eternal, the barriers between him and Heaven, depending on him, are removed at his wave: he called God - that means it was not in vain, it means that he opened himself to the One in whom “we live and we move and exist" 905. Whether this was done with good or evil intentions, thoughtfully or frivolously - this is a special question, and the nature of all the consequences of this call - for the one who called - depends on this quality of the call. But whatever the nature of these consequences, they do not negate the basic fact of the existence of the consequences themselves, which is the revelation of some new circumstance in the world: this new circumstance is the contact of the creature with the Creator. When they object: “Does a frivolous appeal also entail a circumstance of such immeasurably great ontological weight?” - then they forget, firstly: that every call of ours, the most heartfelt, could be called frivolous, in the sense of a lack of understanding of the immense responsibility of what we are doing, and in the end, perhaps, a lack of sensitivity to what is salutary, because we would probably never dare to take advantage of the gift of our freedom and would be isolated in our solitude if we thought closely enough about our unworthiness. The historical example of Judaism in this regard is deeply instructive: Judaism wanted to be completely worthy and, rejecting all existence, focused on the law, looking for righteousness in man, by virtue of which he could worthily stand before his Creator; then behavior began to become absolute and the commandments received absoluteness from their human fulfillment. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain” 906 - was understood, as it should have been understood, if one seeks absoluteness in earthly things, as a prohibition to pronounce the name of God at all, for before the infinity of the Eternal, all our motivation melts away as vain. Then, so that someone would not accidentally pronounce the terrible Name, it was considered more correct to simply hide it with a deep secret kept in the senior line of the high priestly family. As is known, the ancient biblical text did not contain vowels and, as consisting of only consonants, could not be read, that is, pronounced out loud without the reading being preceded by oral instructions on how exactly this or that word should be pronounced; consequently, the sacred name of God, the pronunciation of which remained a secret even from the mentors themselves, could not be read, because the reader did not know which vowels were supposed to phonetically animate the four consonants of the Name. But this is not enough: there was a fear that a foolish or careless reader, while reading, might vocalize the four letters of the Name at a run, without immediately realizing what he was doing and, as if by chance, among many different combinations, it would not turn out to be true. Once the line of prohibitions had been started, it was necessary to ensure against such an accident. To prevent the Name from being accidentally read correctly, it was forced to be read, but obviously incorrectly; so that correct vowels were not accidentally added to the consonants, deliberately incorrect vowels were deliberately added to them: the word of God was permeated by the Jewish sages with a system of false moves, and, moreover, in all the most important places. No one now, even by chance, would call on their God by His name, revealed by Himself - revealed, obviously, in order for it to be revealed; and if it were a good destiny for the human race not to know the Name, then the Eternal, without waiting for people to successfully hide His revelation, simply would not have given it. Only one clan, in the person of its eldest representative, knew the pronunciation of the Name, but this representative could use his knowledge only once a year, on the day of Purification: only once a year the name of God was called upon; but no one heard this call, “poured by letter” 907 into the sounds of thousands of choirs, accompanied by trumpets, tympans and other musical instruments. However, it is clear that this practice does not provide an absolutely understandable commandment “you shall not take the name of Your Lord in vain...” 908 because this single call of the high priest is still pronounced by a person and, therefore, may not be pure from some “in vain.” Isn’t it more correct, then and here, to abstain from the true Name? The logic of history - it is unknown whether it was due to someone else’s initiative or only according to the general meaning of the entire course - led to the complete oblivion of the name of God by Judaism. The people, who received the revelation of the Name, wanted to rely not on God, Who Himself came so close to them, but on the merit of their own deeds, they wanted to equal God’s holiness with their righteousness, that is, they secretly believed in themselves instead of God and actively forgot, closed from themselves God’s revelation - the humility that was from pride 909. And while the entire theocratic history was the approach of God to man, man, in his proud humility, moved away from God and believed that this was precisely how he achieved the goal of life. What must have inevitably been his distrust, amazement and indignation when the theocratic process, completing, finally brought closer the One from whom man considered himself called to isolate himself? The Incarnation of God is the mature fruit of the entire history of the economy, and when we look back from this peak at the entire past, it seems to us some kind of madness that Israel did not accept Christ. But if we look at Christ from the historical consciousness of Israel itself, then we cannot help but see that this non-acceptance was also the ripe fruit of this consciousness, and we cannot help but see that Israel could not accept Christ: being a Jew, it was ontologically impossible not to accept Christ, without denying one’s being, and psychologically, it was impossible not to accept Him without denying one’s consciousness. So this is where the desire to be completely unthinking leads and has led an entire people chosen by God. And when they now deny the ontology of the call, pointing out its, in some cases, lack of thoughtfulness, are they not restoring the argumentation of rabbinism and will they not be forced to push the artificial boundary between the frivolous and the frivolous deeper into the realm of the latter, until nothing remains at all unrecognized and, in fairness, humanly superficial and not fully realized in its significance. Now, one of our theological thinkers, not without Jewish leaven, denied, from the fullness of his consciousness, the ontology of the sacrament of the Eucharist. “It would be scary to admit transubstantiation,” he said, “because it would mean that a particle of the Body of Christ could fall to the floor and be humiliated” 910. It was also pointed out that the recognition of the ontology of the invocation of God in the sacraments also entails the possibility of secret performance - frivolous or even blasphemous. But doesn’t this falsely understood reverence presuppose a proud Pharisaic self-esteem, as if in some certain cases a sufficient degree of consciousness (that is, in comparison with God!) can be assured, to others or at least to oneself? And doesn’t this kind of reverence for the sacrament destroy the sacrament at the very root, since I, the recipient of the sacrament, can never decide with certainty whether the performer of the sacrament is sufficiently conscious, when I don’t know this about myself, or, more precisely, when I perfectly know my own weakness and the weakness of those performers, I know the weakness of the mind, which even in such the greatest saints as St. Macarius of Egypt cannot hold on completely on God even for a few minutes 911. If we were to say to ourselves that the frivolous invocation of the name of God has no ontological force, if we really thought through to the end the statement of those who see in such an invocation “the word, and only the word,” then this would mean completely destroying the possibility of sacrament, prayer, the entire cult and, under the cover of piety, to indulge in the most unbridled positivism. If those expressing such considerations thought about their consequences, they themselves would be horrified at the destruction of the entire church system contained in them. If perfect rites do not provide a secret ontology, then where is the criterion for anything done in the Church? How do I know whether I have been baptized, confirmed, received communion, confessed, married, and so on, if I must first find out the degree of consciousness of the clergy who performed these sacraments on me? And could they not have deceived me about their spiritual state, or, more likely, deceived themselves? But let’s say that by some miracle I penetrated into the secrets of their souls, which they themselves did not fully know; let's say everything turned out well. But here a new, even greater question arises: did they have the grace of their rank? And in order to answer this question for myself, I need to penetrate into the spiritual state of the bishops who ordained them, and, moreover, not in general to find out for myself the moral make-up of these individuals, but also to penetrate into their thoughts and feelings precisely at this moment of ordination. And further: countless similar questions, more and more inaccessible to solution, will endlessly arise regarding the entire hierarchical Church, which transmitted the grace of the priesthood through its links. And if, at least at one point, the slightest doubt arises regarding this chain, and, moreover, not in relation to the externally verifiable, but in relation to the unverifiable internal, then the entire chain is suspected, and with it my own fate. After all, it may turn out that I not only do not have grace, but at every step I provoke the wrath of God when I behave as if I have it, i.e. I act as a deceiver and an impostor. It is clear that the only way out of this endless world confusion that religious subjectivism produces can only be the reverse recognition, the primordial belief of every religion, that the subjective has significance primarily in the internal assimilation of divine energy, the method of its assimilation, while the objective and universal significance of the sacrament is determined by the objective performance of it ex opera operatum. The rites of the sacrament introduce the moisture of life into the world, and rivers of grace flowed into the world by the very performance of the rites; But whether someone drinks from them and, if he drinks, whether for his own benefit is a special matter for everyone, and here everyone looks after himself. However, by my reluctance to drink from the river of eternal life, the satisfaction of my neighbor's thirst is not hindered or damaged. This is what should have been said, firstly, in response to considerations that a frivolous invocation of God is nothing: and now, secondly: to say simply - a frivolous invocation of God does not happen, because it cannot exist, - because such an impossibility. Here again it is necessary to completely and clearly distinguish the ontological fact from its consequences. There may be an irreverent attitude towards God or even resistance to Him. There may be an internal duality when, calling on God, a person is busy thinking about something completely different and, perhaps, incompatible with the thought of God. All this means that a person puts himself before the face of God, without thinking about the consequences or thinking about them in the opposite way to what he should think. In this sense he may be called frivolous, perhaps wicked; but this does not mean that the call itself is frivolous or impious: just as a mathematical theorem in the mouth of a criminal remains the truth and cannot be called criminal, although the behavior of the person expressing it, for example, to hide traces or to deceive, is criminal, so the call on the name of God always retains its ontological truth and, therefore, cannot be pronounced as such, i.e., when pronounced, it is thought with its true content, and not with a false or completely no content. Whether a saint or a wicked person names God in his invocation, he names Him specifically, and not someone else or anything else. Whoever and with whatever intentions calls on the name of God, he still directs his call in the right direction, towards God, not somewhere into the void. The word is therefore a word, λόγος, a spiritual-physical process, and not a purely physical, not just an external sound, because it, no matter how little consciously it may be, is certainly teleological, certainly has a meaning, and even “with one mouth,” half-consciously spoken, even in delirium, in a dream, the word is still not without its meaning, and since it has become a word, since it is not a spasm of the tongue, but some act of our spirit, it is certainly directed towards the object designated by it. In the mouth of a good or bad person, believer or unbeliever, the name of God means precisely God and no one else; and this first act - the extension of the Name towards its content - is necessarily identical for everyone who pronounces the Name, for only by the identity of this act does the one who pronounces the Name adjoin the language in which he speaks, and, therefore, enters the sphere of rationality; if there were no such act, then he, the speaker, would remain unreasonable and wordless, άλογος, and, consequently, his sounds, not being words, would be devoid of any reasonable significance - like the howling in a trumpet - not only in the consciousness of those around him, but also in his own, for language either belongs to society or to no one, but cannot be individual. Then it was impossible to say either yes or no to such sounds, and, therefore, denying the rational meaning behind them, one could in no way be reproached for them with disrespect. But since we reproach, we therefore recognize the logical content; This means that the words have a universally significant meaning in all mouths, and, therefore, the name of God, even in the mouth of a wicked person, is what it is - directed towards God 912. So 913, the call on the name of God in its very first moment is an ontological exit to God; Whatever the reason for such an exit, it - as an exit, as a call - cannot in any way be assessed in itself, as empty or ineffective. He who calls on God knows what he is doing and wants what he is doing. When one notes the unconsciousness of pronouncing the name of God, then, of course, it is true that in most cases the conscious attention of the one pronouncing the holy name is not directed by the clearest vision to the word itself, to the name; in this sense, one can speak disparagingly about the overwhelming majority of “those who accept the name of the Lord God” 914. But if the lack of concentration of conscious attention is seen as the decisive basis for condemning the ordinary call of the Name as meaningless, then isn’t almost all of our speech, and in particular all of our calls, not only in relation to God, in an even worse position? In general, except for exceptional cases of deliberately looking at our words, deliberately stopping attention on each individual word, doesn’t our speech generally flow semi-consciously - which, however, does not in the least prevent us from recognizing and taking into account its logical significance and imputing this significance to the speakers? In relation to the word, as well as to other means of expressiveness, no matter what actions they manifest themselves, we recognize conscious attention as secondary, reflexive, while creativity itself, the very activity of expressing meaning belongs to the larger mind - subliminal and supraliminal consciousness. This latter generally guides our lives, it is it that carries the inspiration of good or the passion of evil; and the hourly manifestations of our meaning, no matter how little conscious they may be, that is, little rationally far-fetched, are still the essence of the phenomena of meaning, namely reason - they still express the active, albeit deep, sometimes even hidden from lower consciousness, self-determination of our personality. If a drunk swears, then we talk about him as not holding back thoughts and feelings and in this sense as being deliberately insane, but we do not at all think that these curses of his are in no way imputed to his moral character: otherwise we would not consider such swearing to be a bad thing; and the drunk himself, when he sobers up, is ashamed of her and would like the ex to not exist. And a promise made while drunk is not considered an empty promise. This proves that both he himself and those around him consider his abusive words exactly for what they are, and do not at all think about the possibility of reinterpreting them in a good way or about simply canceling them, as something standing outside of meaning and outside of moral assessment. In other words, everyone and always recognizes language as a supra-individual, supra-conscious, supra-rational essence, objectively facing the mind, just as in general there are entities objectively facing it that are not created by it. Therefore, whether consciously or semi-consciously he takes a word from the treasury of language, he takes it, takes an objective word, with its meaning inseparable from it, and, therefore, bears the corresponding consequences. Here there is nothing to refer to conditionally subjective concepts of justice or injustice, deservedness or undeservedness of consequences: touching an objective essence in a certain sense can be likened to the introduction of some substance into oneself - and if this latter caused harm, then there is nothing to talk about the undeservedness of the misfortune that befell, just as there is nothing to talk about the undeservedness of help, since the substance taken unconsciously gave healing. And at the same time, we are convinced that the word, even if it is a little conscious one, was not said by chance: the highest self-determination of the individual brought “to the tongue” what was “on the mind.” Everything that has been said about words in general applies especially to condensed words, which constitute the strongholds of the historically formed thought of the people, even of humanity: such words are especially powerful, especially real, have extraordinary consequences, and, therefore, their use is especially responsible. Names, more than other words, are such centers of condensation, concentrators of universal human meaning, and the name of God, naturally, of all words, is the word of the greatest depth and power, and therefore the greatest responsibility. But this responsibility relates to the noumenal roots of personality, to the deep self-determination of our entire being, and not to peripheral consciousness and not to rational attempts at depth, sincerity and piety. The hysterical accentuation of the name of God, the exclamation of tone, the loudness of sound, which appear as a result of the conscious emphasis of the Name, do not at all ensure genuine walking before God, and even rather, this is seen as a sign of the Pharisaic duality of consciousness. “Not everyone says to me: Lord, Lord! will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" 915 - does not mean that the Name itself does not give anything, but that in this rational, sincere effort to give oneself an inch of growth (- still sincere, as the ancient Pharisaism was sincere in its own way; the spiritual falsity of hypocrisy and insincerity, of course, was implied by itself by everyone and besides Christ -), - this effort contains, already contains, the inner the duality of a person who is double in his thoughts, for he calls on the Lord, but hopes not for the Called One, who would give him growth, but for himself, as making a conscious effort and desiring to grow himself through his own effort of calling. But such a one, that is, one who calls on the Lord and, therefore, does not remain unanswered, but who, in fact, does not need the Lord (in his opinion), will not enter the Kingdom of God. He called on God, but in order to explain to Him his lofty intentions; opened, but just enough to show off his humility and immediately slam the door to his heart. The deliberateness of the call, if not always, then most often, its consciousness, is a negative sign; on the contrary, semi-consciousness rather indicates the coincidence of internal and external: called, out of love or hatred, but because he wanted to stand face to face and, therefore, stand. And each of us vitally values ​​the semi-conscious, or even completely unconscious, call on the name of God not at all as low as is done in abstract discussions. When a sick person in delirium, or a dying person in agony, clearly unconsciously whispers the name of God, we are moved, we see in this - and even precisely in the very unconsciousness of invocation - something lofty, spiritually victorious; – somehow it’s even better that it’s unconscious, obviously without reflection, without self-reflection; we believe this is not in vain. Unconscious does not mean unreasonable. Even on the lips of a drunk person, the name of God seems to us to somehow remove guilt, at least the weight of condemnation from him, somehow paralyzing the bad that the wine brought with it. Not without reason, in countless cases told by the people, partly known to everyone from personal experience, included in fairy tales and approved by the church consciousness, the sign of the cross, as they say, “out of habit,” “automatically” or “mechanically” performed by an intoxicated person, and the invocation of the name of God, also falling from the tongue, supposedly by accident, that is, unconsciously pronounced, is attributed to the help of grace, which has more than once saved from imminent death - whether of evil people, some accident, danger or dark obsession. 9 . All of the above brings the philosophical and theological thought about the effectiveness of invocation closer to the usual everyday view of this subject, or, more precisely, everyday thought - to the theological. The call is not a private side of our spiritual activity, but the concentration of our entire being, culminating in a mystical exit from ourselves and touching the Called One. The entire cult has as its content the removal of us from the earthly sphere and the ascension to the heavenly sphere; the sacrament is this very ascent to heaven, therefore, the sacrifice of our being to God. From here it is clear that the secretly completing and secretly fulfilling prayer invocation is a sacrifice, a spiritual self-sacrifice. Prayer is sacrifice. “Grant me, O Lord, to accept the voluntary sacrifice of my lips” (Ps. 119:108). “Turn, O Israel, to the Lord Thy God; for you have fallen because of your wickedness. Take prayer words with you and turn to the Lord; say to Him: “Take away all iniquity, and accept it for good, and we will offer the sacrifice of our lips”” (Hos. 14, 2 - H) 916. The words of the mouth, prayer are the sacrifice and the source of all sacrifice, for every other sacrifice is made a sacrifice through prayerful invocation, by which our mystical self-sacrifice is embodied in certain actions and becomes a visual phenomenon. After all, every sacrifice is substitutionary, it is victima vicaria, it is an image of our own creation, destroyed in its unrighteousness before the Eternal. The Slain Lamb is myself, my being, and He became so because he actually sacrificed himself, presenting himself before God through his call; but through my prayer I transferred the material significance of this spiritual process to the Lamb, and only then did He change from being slaughtered to being slain and being sacrificed. And every other victim is me, but since mystically I actually sacrificed myself and embodied this mystical act in some materiality. “The raising of my hand is the evening sacrifice” 917, but the matter of the lifting is the raising of hands, and only through a prayerful call are these raising hands of mine a visual image of the ascension of my own being, self-sacrificed to the Being of beings. Elevating our corruption to another world, to the Holy, prayer receives to earth an already renewed and sanctified being. “When you read,” every youth read, starting to read, in the preface to the School Book of Hours, “when you read, God speaks to you; and when you pray, you are talking with God. And your prayer is a sacrifice pleasing to Him... If the hearts are sent out of pure grief, it pierces the heavens, and from there it does not return in vain, but brings down the gifts of grace that make the mind wise and save souls” 918. Our ancestors began their education with this thought of St. John the Climacus and other fathers. 10,919. “... The soul was not and is not before the mind, nor the mind before the word born from it, but at one moment all three have existence from God,” says St. Simeon the New Theologian, “and the mind gives birth to the word, and through it brings forth and manifests the desire of the soul... Your own spirit, or your whole soul is in all your mind, and your whole mind is in all your word, and all your word is in all your spirit, inseparably and unmerged. This is the image of God, and in this we are enriched from above... Therefore, when we bow to any person, the same respect testifies to him as having a mind, soul and word, without separating them and without preferring one of these three with preferential respect; but since he has these three in himself inseparably and unmerged, we bow to him and pay respect not as being these three, but as one person, in the general image of the Creator God... We confess the equal honour, equal power and consubstantiality of the Father with the Son and the Spirit, the Holy Trinity as the One Principle, Power and Dominion, just as our own mind is equal in honour, equal in power and consubstantial with the word and soul, since we have the same nature and being with them... Now, if a person loses one of the three accessories shown, he can no longer be a man. If you take away a person’s mind, you take away the word along with the mind, and you will end up with a crazy and dumb person. Take away his soul and take away his mind and word along with it. Likewise, if you take away one inner word, you will upset the entire human nature. A mind that does not give birth to a word cannot henceforth accept a word; for how is it possible for someone who has himself become stupid and dumb and stepped out of the order of his nature to hear a word from now on? Just as we naturally have a breathing spirit within us, by which we breathe and live, so that if we stop breathing, we will immediately die: so our mind naturally has within itself the power of words, which gives birth to the word, and if it is deprived of the natural generation of the word, as if it were divided and cut with the word that naturally exists in it, then it will be killed and become good for nothing. Thus, our mind received from God its natural ability to always give birth to a word, which it has inseparable and always united with itself. If you take away the word, then along with the word you will also take away the mind, the originator of the word... So, whoever calls one of the Three Persons [of the Holy Trinity] greater or lesser than the others, has not yet removed his mind from the depths of the passions in order to be able to see and know himself with intelligent eyes, and to understand by himself that, as in himself, the mind is no more and no less than the soul, the soul - the mind, the word - the mind and soul, in the same way no more and no less. no less than the Father is the Son, the Son is the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son, but they are co-originating and equal in honor” [Words of St. Simeon the New Theologian. Translated into Russian by Bishop Feofan. Ed. 2nd, Panteleimon Monastery. Vol. 2nd. M., 1890, pp. 94 – 97. Word 61st]. This passage from St. Simeon is a clear example of the patristic, and, consequently, church teaching in general about the verbal activity of man. The word is not an external appendage of human nature, not an accidental sign of a person, with the removal of which everything remains essentially unchanged, but a constitutive sign, moreover, the very essence of a person, since a person has revealed himself with his spiritual energy, has become existing for others and for himself. You cannot say: “a man and his word.” The word is man himself, but in the aspect of self-detection, in the aspect of human activity. Human activity, or culture, and in its very essence, at the vital node, cult, is essentially verbal, and this is not only in the sense that human actions are accompanied by words, have a verbal explanation, but also in the incomparably deeper sense of being internally permeated with words. Every action, insofar as it is human, i.e. there is an action, and not a natural process, in its essence there is a word, and an external fact, the external factual side of it is the matter of the word, similar to the matter of sound, but more easily subordinate to the embodiment of meaning. We speak through our actions, and the inner side of this speech is the same as any other. The proper sign of humanity or spirituality in church writing is literature, and the main division of all existence is on the basis of literature or wordlessness, just as the recognition of a human action as corresponding to nature, its assessment as humane, is determined by the word verbal, while the unnaturalness of an act, its fall from humanity into a lower sphere, the fall of man, is stained as wordless. “I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, present your body as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your verbal service - την λογικήν λατρείαν υμών” (Rom. 12:1). Man's service to God, designated by the apostle by the term λατρεία, which means the relationship of the creature to the Creator and cannot be applied to the relationship of the creature, this service to God consists in making a sacrifice with one’s entire being, including the body. The apostle speaks only of the body, because the spirit itself must be directed to this sacrifice, since it does this with the body; but this living, holy, pleasing to God sacrifice is a verbal service: the believer speaks with his body, sacrificing it, testifies with his body about the One to whom it is offered. And further, the apostle, having affirmed the reality, including the physicality of the Christian sacrifice, explains even more its language: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind - άλλα μεταμορφοΰσθαι ττ| άνακαινώσει του νοός υμών.” (Rom.12:2). But we were talking about the offering of the body as a sacrifice, and, therefore, this sacrifice of the body is a transformation or transfiguration by the renewal of the mind. The apostle does not call for service by word, as it is usually understood, but to service with the body, but with a spiritualized body: it is verbal. When the mind conforms to this age, that is, to a wordless creature, “walks through the elements,” 920 then it renounces the Word and the body, merging with the world, becomes wordless, because it does not utter words with itself—it does not testify to God. When the mind, worn out by the Fall, is renewed, that is, transformed, conforming to another being, eternal life, and, therefore, removed from the world, the mountain is lifted up, sacrificed to God, then the body testifies to the things above: this is verbal service 921. Sacrifice is prayer embodied (K. F. Keil, - Guide to Biblical Archaeology. Kiev, 1871, part 1, p. 241, pr. 8). “Already Utram (Utram, De Sacrificiis I, p. p. 212 sq.) notes: quod preces vituli labiorum appellentur Os. 14.3. Cujus dicti ea ratio est quod preces sacrificia quaedam essent et sacrificia preces quaedam. Preces utique sacrificia spiritualia; et sacrificia symbolicae preces 922 (a sign for this is already on 1 Sam. 13.12 and Prem. 15.8. Cf. also 1enstenberg, Evang. Kirchenzeit, 1852, No. 13, p. 113). And conversely, prayer is a sacrifice (“like incense before You”) 923. “Forgive me the sins that I have committed this day in deed, word, and thought” (Evening Prayer 1, St. Macarius, to God the Father) 924. Here are the three stages of incarnation: thought (inner word), deed (word incarnate), word > thoughts, but < realized word That' ουτε ονομα, ουτε τό Όνομα Αυτού έστι. Appendix to part one. Outlines and notes for unwritten chapters Philological > and archaeological excursions are required for Anthropodicea: 1. About holiness. The term “saint” in different languages 2. About martyrdom. Terms μάρτυς, etc. 3. About the sacraments. The terms μυστήριον, sacramentum, etc. 6. Russian literature about the cult. Select everything, with very short reviews. N.B. 7. Fasting, motivation by the phenomena of anaphylaxis. 8. About vestments (and masks). 9 . About the word and the concept of symbol. 10. About the concept of the Glory of God. Chapter... the unity of the sacraments (unity of liturgical structure) Main points of the sacraments: d) return to Earth through a simple continuation according to Dante (in Riemann space 925) (The right ascension closes in on itself.) Anthropodycey. Chapter on liturgical creativity 1) O. John Kronstadt 926. 2) O. David (Athos) 927. 3) Unwritten, but universal tradition (raising hands in front of the cherubim, etc.). 4) When part of the church tradition was written down (Metropolitan Cyprian) 928. Archimandrite David (Athos) while washing his lips after Holy Communion says: “Wash away, O Lord, Your most pure purity from my foul and unclean lips” 929. ““Tabor and Hermon will rejoice in Your name” 930. Can soulless mountains rejoice? Tabor and Hermon are the mind and the heart. Until the mind and heart are in unity, there can be no true prayer.” “Where there are two or three in My Name, that and Az are in the midst of them” 931 – Two or three are the mind, heart and body. Mind, heart and body must be in unity for Christ to appear: if in unity, then the Jesus Prayer will be true...” Grace descends on the priest like dew, and from him on the parishioners 932. Otherwise, grace will not be given to parishioners. Hence the sacrifice. Chapter on Absolute Dimensions in space and time (church, house, city and in general) On the anthropomorphism of measures Names of measures from parts of the body. Next: The absolute concreteness of Christianity. The absolute concreteness of Christianity Christ Himself celebrates the Eucharist. Chrysostom See the citation in “Prav Dogmatic) Theology” by N. Malinovsky, T. IV, pp. 41 933. In the chapter on the concreteness of Christianity It is necessary to include in the Philosophy of Worship a chapter on the formation of services from services to specific shrines - for example, the service of the Cross, the service of the Edicule of the Resurrection 934. Discuss in detail the Shroud of Turin 935. Chapter on religious life and life in religion 1) According to church rules and holy. 2) In ancient Russia, especially see Russia 936. 3) Even in the later times of the 19th century. a) review of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev about secular life’s instability (“kicking”) b) prayer before the start of teaching 937. Archbishop of Kazan Anthony Amfitheatrov, condemning measuring instruments in psychology, noted: “During exams, you can see right through with a simple eye what is in the heads, and even more so in the hearts of students, is exactly the same thing,” as expressed in the canon of St. Andrew of Crete: “The law of God is exhausted, it celebrates the Gospel, but the Scripture is all in you, the soul is careless” (Kan And Kr, p 938 *. (Archim(andritU Sergius (Basileus), - His Eminence Anthony (Amphitheaters), (Archbishop of Kazan and Sviyazhsk). T. 2. Kazan, 1885, p. 382 - <38)3. It is very characteristic of the way of life and consciousness of the strong established way of life of the clergy in the 19th century. letter from Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret (Amphiteatrov). His brother Semyon received the surname Raicha at the university, served at the university and became a famous translator. He married a German woman. Filaret did not like this whole non-domestic situation, and he called the Raichs Germans. “I really don’t like Semyon Kotyrnoye’s very little life... and his craft and occupation is some kind of magazine, literary, and most importantly, everything is fantastic... there is nothing significant. God forbid if any of our people go down this same road... But I have a feeling that our Pavel [nephew, who entered the university and lived with the Raichs] will not have a good time on his chosen path. After a university education, he will probably also start playing tricks...” – writes M. Filaret on June 2, 1832. And indeed, Pavel Amfitheatrov, like Semyon Raich, also became German, married an Englishwoman and was an official in the department of assignments under Governor Bezobrazov. During their meeting, Metropolitan Philaret remarked to him: “Why, child, do you have the idea to definitely marry a non-Orthodox woman?!...” To this Pavel Amf(theatres): “What are you doing, Vladyka?! My wife is really nice, such that I am completely satisfied and glad.” The Bishop said: “Well, your witticism is not very nice, and I am painfully unhappy and dissatisfied that I heard it from you to my face... I don’t know how to give you a blessing...” Soon Pavel Amph died, and then his wife; they had no children at all. In this Anthony (Kazan Amphitheater, saw that the un-blessing of the Lord was fulfilled..." Archim(andrite) Sergius (Vasilevsky), - His Eminence) Anthony (Amphitheaters), Archbishop of Kazan and Sviyazhsk. T. 1. Kazan, 1885, pp. 40 – 41. Custom is “usuality”, the same as “everyday life”. (Alec N Storozhev) 939 . Life φ biography (these are several events that determine the spiritual appearance). Genesis is the external side of life (cf. Genesis); we recognize a person by his “ordinariness”; but the Russian intellectual does not have “usuality.” A person “in the image”, i.e. “dressed in God’s way”, not shaved or shorn. One who is not dressed in God’s way is “out of character.” Preaching ordinaryness: “walking in the law of the Lord” 940, that is, being in Christian ordinaryness. The commonness of idols is Tatar. A person has a certain becoming. The B Catechism says that the house of the true Christian is called the Church 941. The dining table is the same throne. Lunch is a continuation of mass, or, more precisely, its completion. You can’t lean your elbows on the table, put your hands on it, you can’t laugh. [Do not hit the table: the table is the footstool of Christ.] Children are not given pieces - so that they do not drop the crumbs on the floor and so that no one steps on them. Do not pinch or break bread with one hand. Nek consider it a sin to cut bread with a knife. Buckle has material on the effect of food and so on on the character of individuals and nations 942. Florensky’s welcoming words “Christ is Risen!” caused by the fact that the first lecture was delivered by him on Tuesday of the 3rd week of Easter, May 8, Art. Art. 1918 (Easter in 1918 fell on April 22 of the old style). At the same time, this Easter greeting, filled with love, set the tone for the further content of the lecture. – 27. [During the layout of the electronic version of the book, the numbering of the notes in the paper version at the end of the book got lost. In fact, number twenty-four is the first. Accordingly, the same applies to the entire numbering of the Commentaries. But only the numbering has been lost; the order and content have been preserved. – approx. ed. electronic version] Parmenides B I 29. Compare: Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1 / Per. A. V. Lebedeva. M., 1989. P. 287. – 27. The first lecture took place on the day of memory of the Apostle John the Theologian - May 8, Art. Art. 1918 Mentioning the Apostle John the Theologian, Florensky uses the form of liturgical dismissal. The Apostle John was called the apostle of love. – 27. Boanerges (Sirsk.) – Son of Thunder; This is how the Lord Jesus Christ called the apostles James and John Zebedee. – 27. Pushkin A. S. K***. I remember a wonderful moment. – 28. Priestly prayer book. M., 1907. L. 208. – 28. ει (ancient Greek), if you are (church glory) – is, verb in the 2nd person of the present tense. – 29. Florensky’s handwritten and typewritten copies erroneously read “Khovar.” Corrected by Dan. 10, 4. – 29. Octoechos, that is, Osmoglasik, from the 5th to the 8th tone. M., 1906. L. 40. – 30. Triodion, siest Tripesnets [Lenten Triodion]. M., 1897. L. 44 vol. Cheese Wednesday. Matins. Song 8. John of the Three Songs. – 31. Right there. L. 45 rev. Cheese Wednesday. Matins. Song 9. John of the Three Songs. – 31. Right there. L. 52. On Friday raw food at Matins. Sedalen according to the 2nd verse, tone 7. – 31. Right there. L. 107. On Wednesday of the 1st week. Matins. Song 8. John of the Three Songs. – 31. Right there. L. 127. On the heel of the 1st week. Matins. Song 8. John of the Three Songs. – 31. Right there. L. 164. Tuesday evening of the 2nd week. Ina stichera of Mr. Theodore, tone 3. – 31. Right there. L. 166 rev. On Wednesday of the 2nd week. Matins. Song 8. John of the Three Songs. – 31. Right there. L. 178. On Friday of the 2nd week. Matins. Song 9. John of the Three Songs. – 32. Right there. L. 208. On Wednesday of the 3rd week. Matins. Song 9. John of the Three Songs. – 32. Right there. L. 217. On Friday of the 3rd week. Matins. Song 5. In canon. – 32. Right there. II. 217.06. On Friday of the 3rd week. Matins. Song 8. In canon. – 32. Right there. II. 226 06. 3rd Sunday of Holy Lent. Matins. Canon of Theodore the Studite, tone 1. Song 1. – 32. Missal. Ed. 6th. St. Petersburg, 1905. P. 151. – 32. Triodion, siest Tripesnets [Lenten Triodion]. M., 1897. II. 230 rpm Week 3 of Holy Lent. Matins. Canon of Theodore the Studite, tone 1. Canto 8. – 32. Right there. L. 231 vol. Song 9. – 32. Right there. L. 238. On Monday evening of the 4th week. Ina stichera, tone 8. – 32. Right there. L. 241 vol. – 242. On Tuesday of the 4th week. Matins. Song 9. John of the Three Songs. – 32. Right there. L. 317 vol. On Friday of the 5th week. Matins. Sedalen according to the 3rd verse, tone 6. – 32. Octoechos, that is, Osmoglasik, from the 1st to the 4th tone. M., 1906. L. 50 vol. Tone 1. On Tuesday evening, stichera 3 on “Lord, I have cried.” – 32. Octoechos, that is, Osmoglasik, from the 5th to the 8th tone. M., 1906. L. 142 vol. Voice 6. On Friday morning. Sedalen according to the 3rd verse. – 33. The source has not been identified. – 33. Prayer to the Honest Cross: “May God rise again...” // Priestly prayer book. M., 1907. L. 254. – 33. Right there. L. 221 vol. – 225. – 33. Palestinian Patericon. Vol. 16. Life and martyrdom of Saint Procopius and those with him. St. Petersburg, 1908. S. 8 – 9. – 34. In the manuscript, added in pencil: “(example).” – 34. εκτυπος – added in pencil in the manuscript: “or αντίτυπο ν, instead of image.” – 34. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. Minea Chetya. Book of Lives of Saints for the month of May. M., 1898. P. 387. – 35. Palestinian Patericon. Vol. 2. Life like the saints of our father Euthymius the Great. St. Petersburg, 1898. P. 51. Wed: “And so, when the ascension took place, Terevon Sarakin, standing near the altar and leaning his hands on its barrier, suddenly saw that fire that had descended from heaven, spread over the altar, as if on a canvas, hid the great Euthymius and blessed Dometian and remained from the beginning of the trisagion doxology until its end.” – 35. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. Minea Chetya. Book of lives of saints for the month of April. M., 1898. S. 12. – 36. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. Minea Chetya. Book of Lives of Saints for the month of October. M., 1897. P. 128. – 36. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. Minea Chetya. Book of Lives of Saints for the month of July. M., 1898. P. 67. – 36. Priestly prayer book. M., 1907. L. 223. – 36. The source has not been identified. – 36. The place of the quotation in the source could not be clarified. – 38. The place of the quotation in the source could not be clarified. – 39 Such evidence was not found in Tertullian’s work. – 39. Works like those of our holy father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia. Ed. 4th. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. Sergiev Posad, 1900. Part 1 (Conversations on Shestodnev). Same. Part 2 (Interpretation of the prophet Isaiah. Chapters 1 – 16). – 39. It was not possible to find such evidence in Augustine’s work. – 39. from a person (lat.). – 39. In handwritten and typewritten originals there is a pass. Inscribed ed. – 39. Palestinian Patericon. Vol. 16. Life and martyrdom of Saint Procopius and those with him. Memory 8 July. St. Petersburg, 1908. P. 16. – 40. See: Saint Demetrius of Rostov. Minea Chetya. Book of Lives of Saints for the month of October. M., 1897. October 2. See note. 42 to this section. – 40. Compare: Canon of the Honorable Cross, the work of Gregory the Sinaite. Song 8. “The cross is rich, the sign of the Incomprehensible Trinity, Life-Bearer” (2nd troparion); “The three-part cross, the honorable tree: the Trinity bears the Trinitarian image” (troparion on “And now”) // Priestly prayer book. M., 1907. L. 224 vol. – 41. Triodion, siest Tripesnets [Lenten Triodion]. M., 1897. L. 243 vol. – 41. Before this section in the handwritten copy, Florensky wrote in red ink: “(break).” – 41. Florensky probably means the following text: “What if You, Lord my God, Jesus Christ, would shine the light of Your Divinity from Your most pure Mysteries, when they rest on St. the throne - on the paten during the liturgy, or in the tabernacle, or monstrance, when Your priest carries them on his chest, going to or from the sick! From this light, everyone who met them or looked at them from their homes would have fallen to the ground in fear, for the Angels are also covered with fear of Your unapproachable glory! And yet how indifferently others treat these heavenly Mysteries! How others indifferently perform the terrible sacred rite of St. Tine! (Complete collected works of Archpriest Ioann Ilyich Sergiev. Vol. 4. My life in Christ (part one). 2nd edition. St. Petersburg, 1893. pp. 230 – 231). – See also: Priest Pavel Florensky. To my children. M., 1992. S. 263. – 42. The text in square brackets was added by Florensky with a pencil in the manuscript and was not included in the typewritten copy due to the fact that it was not parsed by the typist. – 42. So in the text of the manuscript and typescript. – 43. Here and below, the drawings are made from Florensky’s originals; for clarity, the notes provide a modern interpretation of the inscriptions. – Note. comp. Olesnitsky A. A. Old Testament Temple in Jerusalem. St. Petersburg, 1889. P. 600; It's him. Holy Land. Report on a business trip to Palestine and surrounding countries. 1873 – 1874. Part 1. Jerusalem and its ancient monuments. Kyiv, 1875. Chapter “Haram esh-Sharif and the remains of the Church of Jehovah.” P. 155. On p. 511 a drawing from this book is published, p. 151. – 43. "Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky suggests that the entire area of the modern Haram el-Sharif, equal to 17.5 dessiatines, was included in the area of the Temple of Solomon (Holy Land, vol. 1, 155; Old House Church, p. 600), and in this matter does not agree with many of the latest studies regarding Haram el-Sharif, for example, Warren, Shikk, etc., which, based on According to the testimony of Josephus (De bello jud. V. 5, 1; 1, 21, 1), only the central part of Haram esh-Sharif is attributed to the time of Solomon, and as for the northern, as well as southern, their construction dates back to a later time, mainly to the time of King Herod. Having analyzed the opinions of these researchers, Olesnitsky says that he does not find such ancient evidence on the basis of which one could assume the expansion of the church pier during the period of the second Jerusalem temple (Old Testament Chr ... 598 - 663).” – Troitsky I.G. Biblical archeology. St. Petersburg, 1913. P. 375. – 43. Drawings of the Temple of Solomonov from the book by A. A. Olesnitsky “Report on a business trip to Palestine and adjacent countries. 1873 - 1874" and the plan of the Temple of Herod from the book of I. G. Tsyutsky "Biblical Archaeology". – 43. The transcript of the signatures is given from the typewritten copy. In square brackets are words from Florensky's manuscript omitted by the copyist. “500 l (mishnah); 187, 136, 135, inner) courtyard, 135 l, 322, azarat kohanim - courtyard of the priests; our azarat is the courtyard [of women]; courtyard of the pagans - azarat goyim; [Lion!]; 500 l (mishnah); 4 stages in a circle (Jos(if) Flavius). Upon inclusion of the Antonia Tower - 6 stages." – 44. So in a handwritten copy. In the typewritten copy: << Imagine the smell of blood, fat, incense was heard in Hebron - smoke - trumpet sounds - from 21 to 48 during the burnt offering...” In the publication “Theological Works” JMβ 17 is an erroneous reading. – 44. The text in square brackets is based on Florensky's manuscript. In the typewritten copy there is an omission, and in the manuscript against this place Florensky wrote in pencil: “Leave space for this.” Florensky probably intended to further process this summary recording. – 44 Wed: Gen. 9, 4 – 5; Leviticus 17:14: “For the life of every body is its blood, it is the life thereof.” – 45. “Religion could inspire so many evils” (lat.) - words from Lucretius’ poem “On the Nature of Things.” – 45. shadow of future things (lat.). – 45. Matt. 26. 26. Wed: Exclamation of the priest at the Eucharistic canon of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom // Missal. Ed. 6th. St. Petersburg, 1905. P. 145. – 45. The text in square brackets was added by Florensky with a pencil in the manuscript and was not included in the typewritten copy due to the fact that it was not parsed by the typist. – 45. Priestly prayer book. M., 1907. L. 263. – 46. Missal. Ed. 6th. St. Petersburg, 1905. P. 517. Section “On the circumstances of the lack of a serving priest.” – 47. The text in square brackets was added by Florensky with a pencil in the manuscript and was not included in the typewritten copy due to the fact that it was not parsed by the typist. – 48. contradiction in definition (lat.). – 49. is under discussion (lat.). – 49. 1 contradiction (Latin). – 49. Compare: “With the advent of Socrates, Greek taste changes in a direction favorable to dialectics; What is really going on here? First of all, this overcomes aristocratic taste; the mob rises to the top with dialectics” (Nietzsche. Works: In 2 vols. T. 2. M., 1990. P. 565). Dialectics makes a tyrant out of reason. Schematization and systematization are the occupation of craftsman philosophers (Ibid. T. 1. P. 669). – 49. Ps. 110, 10; Ave. 1, 7; 9, 10. – 50. Ζωον (Greek), animal (Latin) – animate, living, animal (Church Slav.) = living being; $ήρ (Greek), bestia (Latin) – animal (Ρ)*-) – beast. – 52. Plato. Definitions 411a = Collection. cit.: In 4 vols. T. 4. M., 1994. P. 615/Trans. S. Ya. Sheinman-Topshtein; "God is an immortal being." – 52. previous, original (lat.). – 55. Minia. The month of December. Kyiv, 1910. L. 284 vol. (25th day). – 55. Minia. Month of March. Kyiv, 1911. L. 145 (25th day). Stichera on Glory and now: on the stichera. – 55. Canon of prayer to the guardian angel. The work of John the monk, Black Knives, tone 8. Beginning: “The indefatigable guardian of my soul...” (Priest prayer book. M