II. Метод духовной науки 27

Mm. Gg. This year you will be writing a semester-long paper on moral theology, while you will only attend lectures in this department next year. This presents a huge inconvenience: you will be working on a subject about which you have no understanding. It is true that you studied moral theology in seminaries, but this “moral theology” does not convey anything useful with its absurd name and gives a false idea of ​​our science with its content. And it would be much better if you had not studied “moral theology” at all before. To make your situation somewhat easier, I will briefly outline the concept of our science, and we will have to talk mainly about its method. Our science sets its first task - the doctrine of Christian experience as a historical fact and personal experience, the doctrine of Christian life, the doctrine of Christianity in its internal, spiritual content, in its mystical essence. The second task of our science is to understand the relationship of Christianity to real life, to resolve the question of what Christianity is in the face of living life, in its psycho-biological and historical, individual and social aspects, to justify Christianity from the point of view of life and to pronounce judgment on it according to the principle: not man is for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is for man. Since the angles of view of the experienced (mystical) and life are embraced in the concept of moral, both intended tasks can be combined in the formula: the moral teaching of Christianity. What, according to the scholastic tradition, was called moral theology should be called that: the moral teaching of Christianity. But the moral teaching about Christianity is inextricably linked with moral philosophy, that is, the moral teaching about life in general. This is a universally accepted truth. Back in 1805, the unknown author of Abridged Moral Theology wrote: “The beginning and foundation of moral theology is the Holy Scripture and nature, especially human nature, which we know with the help of sound reason. And the very prescriptions contained in the Holy Scriptures, without the correct use of enlightened reason, cannot be sufficiently known or properly applied to every case; and for this purpose it is always necessary to combine with moral theology a moral philosophy, purified, as far as possible, from false opinions.” When we talk about the justification of Christianity before life and about its application to life, we must mean not all sorts of fleeting, individual, random, varied outbursts of living human consciousness, but life organized in moral and philosophical consciousness. Morality is a universal human phenomenon, most characteristic of human life, and the vital justification of Christianity is its justification from a moral and philosophical point of view. The connection between the moral (mystical and life) teaching of Christianity and moral philosophy can be established in two respects: in relation to the scientific-systematic and in relation to the content. In the first respect, the combination of the moral teaching about Christianity with moral philosophy is important because moral philosophy provides a system in which the moral teaching about Christianity finds its place and, therefore, is scientifically justified. On the contrary, in relation to the content, the moral teaching of Christianity reveals for moral philosophy the highest spiritual experience of man, the highest spiritual value, which forms the basis of a specific moral assessment, and therefore becomes an introduction to moral philosophy. Thus, the moral teaching about Christianity is actually a moral-philosophical teaching about Christianity, and our science in its full form is an ethical-mystical teaching about Christianity and moral philosophy. Common to all parts of our science is the method, which brings internal unity to all parts. The moral teaching of Christianity - this name indicates the method of science - does not have a subject that is separate from other theological sciences, and the moral teaching of life in general has a common subject with other sciences. The moral teaching of Christianity differs from other theological sciences, mainly from dogma, and moral philosophy from the positive sciences differs in a special method. This is one method that combines the moral teaching of Christianity with the science of life and manifests itself, perhaps, most clearly in the moral teaching of Christianity. Our science is not the teaching of Christian morality. Morality, in the narrowest sense of the word, as the subject of a special science, namely the science of morality or moral philosophy, is actually social morality, the morality of mores, die Sittlichkeit der Sitten, as Nietzsche said. But in Christianity there is no such morality: Christian morality is a fictitious concept. More specifically, in Christianity there is no teaching about family life, about the political system, about economic morality: Christian life is only spiritual life. Therefore, when they imagine moral theology and moral philosophy as two parallel sciences, as if there were, for example, Christian family, economic, state morality and there is a philosophical, pagan, natural-reasonable family, economic, state morality, then they are on the wrong path: about spiritual life there is only Christian teaching, and family, economic and state morality is always only natural, reasonable, philosophical, and it remains so in moral theology. One can contrast Christian moral teaching only with positive ethics, the carnal direction of worldly life, ethical utilitarianism, eudaimonism - in the sense that Christianity is reconciled with “moral philosophy, purified, as far as possible, from false opinions”, reconciled with worldly life within the boundaries of a healthy nature, but worldly morality, even in such a purified form, remains natural, earthly, utilitarian, a matter prudence, serpentine cunning, operating next to Christian dove simplicity, with spiritual life. The moral and philosophical teaching about Christianity is not the same as the Christian teaching about morality, about the moral nature of man and his spiritual destiny. The Christian teaching about morality, that is, about the nature of primordial man, about the nature of sinned man, about grace operating in regenerated man, this is part of dogmatic teaching, although it is usually transferred to moral theology. Not the Christian teaching about morality, but the moral, moral-philosophical (ethical-mystical and life) teaching about Christianity, as part of the moral teaching about life - this is our science. They think falsely, considering Christianity, as a subject of science, to be divided between dogmatic and moral theologies. The moral teaching about Christianity and the dogmatic theology have the same subject, and they differ from each other only in the method of studying this subject, which is different in the dogmatic theology and the moral teaching about Christianity and is common in the moral teaching about Christianity and moral philosophy. Moral teaching does not deal with a part of Christianity, for example, with deeds as opposed to faith, and the question is usually presented in such a way that dogmatic theology deals with dogmatic teaching, and moral theology with human behavior, as a conclusion from dogmatic teaching, as its moral application. No, moral teaching deals with all of Christianity, as a whole, but differs from dogmatic theology in the method of relating to this object, which is common to them. Dogmatic theology is an objective knowledge of Christianity, in other words, it is abstract; on the contrary, moral teaching, moral philosophy deals with a direct relationship to the object of knowledge, with the concrete content of our experience, with the intimate side of life. A direct relationship to the object of knowledge can be called knowledge, in contrast to knowledge. Moral philosophy deals not with the knowledge of life, like the positive sciences, or with the knowledge of Christianity, like dogmatic theology, but with the conduct of life, with the conduct of Christianity. Knowledge, otherwise mystical, intuitive knowledge, is a direct experience of reality, illuminated by consciousness. Direct relation to reality, the specific content of life is the area of ​​feelings, desires, aspirations - pleasure, approval, consent, expectations, friendship, understanding... Unlike objective knowledge, this is an intimate, subjective, anthropocentric area: I want, I like, my desire. Here there is no view from the outside, here it is entirely a view from within, here the movement is not from the periphery to the center, but from the center to the periphery, here all the light comes from the soul, here the decisive role belongs to the subject, who in his own way colors all reality, evaluates everything knowable. Just as knowledge is fully realized in science, which makes objectivity its method; Likewise, the specific content of life is ordered, formed, and united by the principles of evaluation, which culminates in moral philosophy. The subjectivity of experience becomes a method of relating to reality, a method of assessment. Just as in scientific knowledge everything is distributed in the order of causes and effects, and an objective world is created, outside of which not a single fact is conceivable; so here, too, a ray emanating from the heart illuminates the entire content of life, and all of it is distributed in the order of values, outside of which no experience is conceivable. In this world of values, everything, every moment, is considered not from the point of view of actual existence, but from the perspective of approval or disapproval, closeness to the heart or distance from it, in the aspect of creativity, creation - here every moment, every part is considered as a building material that cannot but take its place in the construction plan. Knowledge is looking back when one cannot help but stand; leading is a look ahead of a moving person, straining his muscles, a look forward, in front of which the picture is constantly changing, and it is in it that everything moves from the efforts of will. This is no longer the perspective of actual being, but the perspective of true being, valuable being, the ontological distribution of all parts of experience. Thus, one obtains a secret possession, inaccessible to prying eyes, an intimate, inner treasure, which for the person himself is more certain than the light of the sun, but which cannot be translated into the language of discursive thinking, objective knowledge. Of course, the subjectivity, even the individuality of the initial principle must be accepted, and in advance one must refuse to achieve the universally binding, generally valid in the field of knowledge. However, this is not subjectivity in the sense of inevitable limitation, which even in knowledge is overcome in its own ways. There is an opportunity to run away under the banner of individualism, to hide under the banner of formulas: it seems to me so, my opinion is under the onslaught of someone else’s skepticism, which brazenly advances, not allowing tender attention to someone else’s soul. However, this is not absolute individualism, solipsism, which does not care about other souls. The fundamental subjectivism of intimate knowledge completely admits, along with itself, as obligatory for itself, objective knowledge; It is entirely acceptable that intimate knowledge can be resolved in terms of positive knowledge, discursive thinking, but intimacy itself is not preserved in this resolved form. It is even conceivable, in a conversation with another, in relation to someone else’s positivism, an ironic attitude towards one’s own knowledge; one must even take into account the fact of an attack of doubt in the mysticism itself. In general, he can describe his inner experience in terms of positive knowledge, scientific psychology, although understanding is not given in this way. This time. The second is that subjective experience also has objective value, namely typical value. The intimate world, landscaped with fundamental illumination, resulting in a harmonious understanding of the world, is comprehended only by the inner eye, understood only subjectively. In an intimate conversation, I cannot speak to my interlocutor in the same way as in communicating external knowledge, for example: “stand in my place, look through the glass. Do you see something? (I see) Now turn to the right,” etc. In an intimate conversation, I speak completely differently: I direct my gaze inward or into the distance, and invite the interlocutor to listen to what I am experiencing. I say: when I do this and that, this happens to me, then I imagine the whole world as such and such, etc. This is entirely a monologue, but not a dialogue - during it I can even forget about my interlocutor. And only after finishing, I remember him and ask: did you hear? Understood? It may happen that I have a similar nature in front of me - then my interlocutor understands me from the depths of his spirit, understands me instantly: maybe he heard only my first words, and then listened to himself. But this may not be the case, and then my interlocutor, unless he is an intellectually honest person, not obsessed with prejudice, after listening to me, must say: “yes, all this is good, all this is wonderful, but I am not convinced... I doubt it.” I may not be convinced, but this alien, this third-party thing is of decisive importance: “good, wonderful.” Even though my experience is only a possible experience for someone else’s knowledge, it can no longer be ignored. We climb a mountain with a beautiful view. I rose a hundred feet and see the distant horizon, but another rose two thousand feet and, according to him, he saw a delightful picture. When I later describe this mountain to others, I cannot help but mention the one who climbed two thousand feet, I cannot help but refer to his testimony. The internal experience achieved by some is not comprehended by discursive thinking, is not characterized by the features of intersubjective universality, it is forever associated with the person who experienced this experience, but from a typological point of view, it is a universal property. Even if it was only one person, it doesn’t matter: his experience is a universal human treasure, he must attract everyone’s attention, no one who builds a worldview on the basis of human experience can ignore him. He who has reached the greatest height in a certain direction receives undeniable advantages over others: he understands all others, while his experience surpasses the understanding of others. His treasure is a personal treasure, an individual one, if you like, “my opinion, I think so,” but intellectual conscientiousness forces others to recognize his advantage, to recognize the value of his experience. He builds for others. This opens up the opportunity for others to participate in his experience through personal relationships with him, personal friendship, and trust. In this case, the final support of belief is the intimacy of personal relationships, again subjective experience. The application of this method, a fundamentally subjective one, this path of leading to Christianity, approaching it as a mystical experience, looking at it from within intuition - creates a moral teaching about Christianity. There is not a word here about Christian morality: the question here is about all of Christianity, the inseparability of faith and life, about the entire Christian religion, about Christianity in general. But Christianity is studied here not from the objective-abstract side, but in the fullness of its concrete content. Here, the study does not for a moment break away from history and personal psychology: at the center of everything here is the experience of Christ, as creative, and the experience of a believing Christian, as the path of knowledge of that experience. It’s not that there is only history here, only psychology: subjectivity is fundamental here. An evaluative, believing attitude, as opposed to objective knowledge, is what is only important here. Here the cognizer is all in a rush, all in motion, with arms outstretched forward, with a gaze directed into the distance, with a burning heart. Here not a single concept is created, not a single word is uttered outside of an act of faith, recognition, evaluation; all this teaching comes down entirely to the ontological arrangement of the details of the picture, to the illumination of all particulars in the direction of the central value. The task here is to imbue all Christian formulas, all theological concepts with the aroma of experience, the fragrance of mystical experiences, so as not to break away for a single second from the life-giving soil of experience. Here the entire content of theoretical theology is embraced, but the principle is abstinence from objectivism, the expulsion of the slightest signs of Gnosticism. Everything that happens is grasped by our consciousness in two ways: in objective knowledge and subjective assessment. We relate to the outside world in two ways, both scientifically and intimately, although the outside world is predominantly brought to our attention as “nature,” an objectively organized experience designed for the utilitarian needs of our existence. The external world is known in order to be used. We also comprehend the spiritual sphere in two ways: both in objective, i.e. dogmatic knowledge, and in intimate, ethical-mystical perception, although the spiritual sphere is primarily the realm of intimate, mystical recognition, faith, where beliefs, even in dogmatic formulation, have a secondary meaning, a derivative value. We can include all religion, all Christianity in objective, abstract theses: God exists in three persons in a world of peace, He creates the world and man, man has sinned, God makes his atonement, the world and history will have their end, followed by the afterlife and eternal life. This is the dogmatic teaching. But all of Christianity can be described in terms of concrete content, intimate experience. In this case, the starting point is, in the historical aspect, the life of Christ, and in the psychological aspect, the experience of the believer, and the life of Christ is understood in the light of the experience of the believing soul, and the experience of the believing soul is shaped in the image of Christ’s life. Here the transition takes place from the spiritual life of the believer, from the dwelling of the Spirit in his soul, to the divinely filial life of Christ, from the Spirit and the Son to the Heavenly Father. Here is the decisive moment in recognizing the historical Jesus as God, in recognizing the divine value of spiritual good. Here our salvation is comprehended not by the past present, not by the sin of Adam, but vice versa: by the present past, by the present spiritual good, the sinful state became, with its onset, the past, as a negation of good. Likewise, the future is included here in the present, and eternal life is already the property of the believer. Thus, all objective dogmatic knowledge is translated into the language of spiritual experience, all Christianity receives a concrete, intimate form. At the same time, abstract dogmatic formulas are filled with content, because concrete, intimate experience, mystical comprehension, is the only content of the Christian religion, in relation to which dogmatic beliefs turn out to be an intellectual reflection, a logical consolidation of it. This content includes, as an integral element, internal, mystical knowledge, which is characterized by the highest degree of self-evidence. And this is the basis of the moral teaching of Christianity. It is easy to see that only Christianity, alone among all religions, has such historical and psychological content, which exhausts the entire religion, since only in Christianity is the historical personality recognized as the complete, supreme God, and mental experience, i.e., spiritual life, is truly divine ontological - and therefore Christianity is the only religion. Equally, it is obvious that Christianity, and precisely it, can be comprehended in an intimate way completely, exhaustively - in relation to it, the only appropriate moral-subjective method, a decent ethical-mystical teaching. And this is spiritual truth, spiritual science. She speaks a peculiar language, she has a peculiar logic. The Divine for her is the highest value; positive judgments - recognition of value, confession and affirmation of it. All spiritual science is the comprehension and revelation of the unearthly sweetness, the heavenly beauty of the spiritual kingdom. She does not tear herself away from the heart for a single moment, never forgets about the subject, there is no place in her for impersonal, abstract truths. She always listens to the heart, in which all her judgments - sentences - are rooted; she peers into the inner reality on which unshakable confidence is established. But this confidence is not knowledge, and spiritual science steadily turns away from objective, logically forced judgments and never takes an external, “from the outside” point of view 28 . The method of moral study of Christianity, the method of conducting a fundamentally subjective attitude to its historical and psychological phenomenology, opens up, in comparison with objective knowledge, completely new horizons, a new kingdom of spiritual good, spiritual values. The same words, the same concepts, but new content, a different depth of comprehension. Understanding this method and applying it consistently is a most difficult task, an insurmountable task for many. Everything that you have hitherto received from theological science, all the years of your theological training, have accustomed you to a different method. Theological bibliological and historical science and especially dogmatics, which dominates our theology, giving tone to all branches of theology and, in particular, to the old, obsolete moral theology - all this nurtured in you theological objectivism, which there was no occasion for you to doubt. Is it easy for you to enter through the narrow gates of our only science into the new kingdom of experienced Christian knowledge, to take a new point of view - the moral study of Christianity? The demand is now made upon you - complete abstinence from objectivism; you are now offered the ideal of consistently pursuing a subjective, experiential method - otherwise you will not enter this new kingdom! Never to stray from an objective point of view, never to sin with rationalism and Gnosticism, to maintain the purity and chastity of religious knowledge - I don’t know of a higher and more attractive literary task 29 . I understand: it is difficult for you to avoid the Scylla of objectivism. But I fear that it might not be even more difficult for you to pass by the opposite Charybdis. I’m talking about the moral, experimental, ethical-mystical study of Christianity, and you are already picturing complete mysticism with its aesthetic asceticism, artistic exercises, admiration, photism, levitation, etc. Christianity is entirely mystical. The Christian spirit is not of this world, but it is not “mysticism.” Being entirely not of this world, Christianity is humanitarian. It is completely in the personality, which is created by spiritual freedom and free (absolute) love: Christian mysticism is the mysticism of the individual, spiritual mysticism. At the same time, it is the mysticism of personalities, since the individual is realized in the kingdom of personalities, headed by God the Person. As originating not from nature and effort, but from the Spirit of God, as revealed in the individual, Christianity is an exclusively spiritual good, not amenable to any physical definitions. But, as entirely humanitarian, as consisting of free love, it is pragmatic and vital: in Christianity the human soul comes out of itself, passes on to others, embraces the whole world, affirms all life. The nature of the Christian spirit is creative, giving birth, giving and jointly embracing, affirming, proclaiming to the world: “yes!” Divine love is separated from earthly love, from the love of those who give birth, as heaven is from earth, and, however, is similar to this love and is symbolized by it. They are equally kenotic, catabolic: the warmth of divine love, like the warmth of the love of those giving birth, everything turns into movement, does not linger inside, is not accumulated, is not romanticized, and is not kindled by internal combustion. The Christian spirit is meek and silent. Erotic sentimentality and passion, expressed in excited fantasy and unbridled eloquence, are alien to him. Undoubtedly, in spiritual love there is beauty, the highest beauty. There is only one beauty in the world. Purity is not the gaze of women. There is only one beauty in the world - There is beauty in free love, but aestheticism is alien to Christianity: in Christianity, all beauty is humanized, flowing into the only channel of love, humanity, the kingdom of individuals. Christian beauty is the only beauty of the Son of Man, who lays down His soul for people: ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίϑησιν ὑπερ τῶν πρυβάτων. Christianity cannot stop at one thing without putting ethical content into it. In Christianity, mysticism and beauty are spiritual, humanitarian, ethical, creative, vital, meek and silent mysticism and beauty. Not “mysticism”. The roots of mysticism are not in the spirit, but in physiology. Mysticism is entirely naturalistic, and it belongs entirely to pagan soil. Mysticism is already rooted in the nostrils, in the idiosyncrasy of smell. The mystic smells good and evil, he “smells” the presence of an angel or a devil. Mysticism is also hidden in other feelings, in the special structure of them in the mystic: for him, all colors have a moral meaning, they are divided into good colors and evil colors, he perceives all spiritual concepts with a color sensation. We say: my conscience does not approve of this, but the mystic says: this smells bad, it is of a bad color. Ascetic isolation from life is explained by organic (or historical) reasons 30. But especially the foundation of mysticism is the idiosyncrasy of the sexual structure. Mysticism is the construction of religion on physiology and primarily on sexuality: mysticism is religious sexualism. The mystical function of sex is accomplished in the direction of “internal secretion”: mystical love is the love of the non-bearing. It is completely retained inside, is not consumed, does not go into motion, accumulates to the highest degrees of erotic richness, and is heated by internal combustion. An erotic mystic can live only by himself (“holy egoism”), he carries within himself an inexhaustible spring of fantastic images, visions, words and songs: he is a born gnostic. He lives in a vicious circle, he surrounds himself with his own projections, his own environment, he is detached from life. Mysticism is all about dead, abstract beauty. Mysticism is a lush flower blooming on a grave mound; it is pure aestheticism. In contrast to the kingdom of the spirit, mysticism is the sphere of eroticism, the play of physiology in consciousness; in contrast to humanitarian, catabolic, life pragmatism, this is anabolic aestheticism. The cadaverous, sepulchral beauty of mysticism is seductive; she stupefies, stupefies. It is hostile to both spiritual beauty and life 31 . We can call it common for us to identify experienced, mystical religious knowledge with specific mysticism. Just as in life we ​​understand only two extremes: either monasticism or debauchery, and to someone who does not get drunk or debauched, they say with amazement: “You are not a monk!” – and in theological theory, the entire area of ​​religious thought is divided into two opposing systems: either rationalism or mysticism. If we talk about experiential religious knowledge, then we imagine nothing other than specific, naturalistic, aesthetic mysticism, the experience of ecstasy, visions, photisms. Logically, such a classification is fundamentally untenable. The theory of experimental, mystical knowledge is broader than specific mysticism: the latter is only a special case of experimental-mystical knowledge. The moral, i.e., ethical-mystical and vital teaching of Christianity calls not for naturalistic mysticism, but for mysticism, in theological language, spiritual, in philosophical language, ethical. Spiritual-ethical mysticism is the mysticism of the spirit, the fruits of which are love, joy, peace..., the mysticism of God, Who is love. Christian mysticism is neither the mysticism of the head, nor the mysticism of the heart, nor the mysticism of the womb (which is all in sensory mysticism), - it is the mysticism of the spirit, the mysticism of the personality, the mysticism of self-consciousness. Spiritual mysticism is established in theology, on the basis of the Gospel of Christ, in contrast to it from the mystical-ascetic, Greco-Syrian writing. The struggle for spiritual mysticism against aesthetic mysticism is a struggle for the Gospel against the Greek-Oriental spirit. Ethical mysticism is established in philosophy by the principle of life, and the struggle for it is a struggle for the philosophy of life against the philosophy of death, the philosophy of dead aestheticism. On the path to the kingdom of Christian value one must pass the Scylla of rationalism and the Charybdis of naturalistic mysticism. At the gates of this kingdom you will also have to take off your feet and throw off the burden of everyday worries, renounce all practical interests related to science, from the interests of apologetics, pastoral edification, from the desire to convince others, from worries about public morals. Concentrate exclusively on the good of personal knowledge, approach Christian truth with a childishly open heart, with a childishly simple soul. If you are convinced that you know something, that you only need supports for your knowledge, if you have previously clung to well-known theses, if you are possessed by some scientific complacency, are in the grip of one or another prejudice, then the key to Christian truth is lost to you. Be able to direct all criticism personally at yourself, be able to surrender to spiritual truth without any preconditions, be able to stock up on all the sincerity of your personal search for truth, be able to learn, become childlikely trusting - this is the main requirement of the subjective method in theology. You need to solve the Christian problem for yourself, you need to convince yourself, you need to affirm your personal touch on Christian value without the slightest concern about being convincing to others, in order to be durable objectively, in order to protect yourself from the outside. We are talking about a treasure that can only be internal, from possession that can only be personal, about truth before one’s own conscience. Objectively, I can be completely helpless, powerless, but inside myself I can own the whole truth: objectively, I can be invulnerable, but inside I can be empty. You need to know the truth for yourself, to catch it with your inner eye. Afterwards, a special task may arise - objective, epistemological justification of internal experience, or missionary influence on others, but the first task is personal comprehension of the truth, personal understanding. The entire edge of criticism must be directed at oneself, one must overcome all kinds of objections and at the same time be as naive as a dove. The author - I will say in the words of Nietzsche - every author must win - over himself (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches). You need to come as close to the truth as possible, look into it as deeply as possible, without caring about the opinions of others. “The system must be evidence-based, first of all, for itself” (Kirkegaor). This is not just intellectual honesty, the courage not to deceive oneself, the energy not to stop at appearances - this is not enough for spiritual truth: it requires that a person seek it for himself, so that he himself can marry it. Knowledge must be a selfless request of one’s own heart; the aspiration for truth must fill the silence of solitude. The ability to silently enjoy finding the truth, to bliss out the truth in solitude, to be naked before it: this is an indispensable condition for Christian knowledge. Only from this inner possession, a naive combination with the truth - from this only source should all fruitfulness of the truth, its preaching, its defense - flow, otherwise all Christian activity ad extra, missionary and apologetics, will be a human affair. The only organ of knowledge of Christianity in its intimate, spiritual essence is the Christian personality, personal Christian experience. The historical center of Christianity is Christ, and psychologically Christ is comprehended in the experience of a Christian: Christ and the Christian - in them all intimate Christianity and all Christian philosophy. Only in Christ do we know Christianity and only from a Christian do we learn about Christ. If we need to find out the face of someone distant from us, we choose a portrait artist and instruct him to draw that face. It would be possible to order a photograph, which in this respect is superior to an artistic drawing in that each artist will introduce subjective features into his work. However, we do not prefer the photographic photograph, since it, with all its mechanical fidelity, has no life in it. In order to have a living image of the face, we prefer the work of artists, choosing the best from them. Let each artist perceive the face only from his own side, nevertheless, each gives a living image. Likewise, only a Christian can portray Christ, no matter how diverse the Christian experience may be. Before photographic and phonographic, before literal and archaeological, before scientific accuracy of transmission, Christian experience has the invaluable advantage that it can only reproduce the life of Christ, and it always, inevitably - if only there is real, and not imaginary Christian experience - has in itself the life of Christ, reflects the Face of Christ. But - with all this - just as the artist, whom we commission to sketch the dear Face, should not draw himself, but this Face, so a Christian philosopher, a Christian thinker, acting as an artist, should not describe himself, but should direct all his attention to the contemplated object. A Christian philosopher recognizes Christianity within himself, but he should not talk about himself, should not coddle himself, should not expose himself. His personality must be a pure mirror that transmits rays without being visible itself. Christian philosophy can least of all be the autobiography of the author. About the personality of the Christian philosopher we can repeat (mutatis mutandis) everything that Yu. F. Samarin successfully said about the personality of the Christian preacher. “The element of personality must be in the spirit of Christian philosophy itself; but the personality of a Christian philosopher should not emerge from philosophy and become sharp objectivity in the eyes of readers. This would be the greatest vice. The personality of a philosopher should not have independent meaning in itself; everything must be dissolved and penetrated by it; she herself, as a person, should not be anywhere. Personality is that transparent medium through which the rays of eternal truth pass, warming and illuminating humanity. If the subjectivity of philosophy comes forward and stands before the readers in its sharp exclusivity, like a solid, impenetrable body, then it, like a barrier, will obscure the common from them.” Christian knowledge is the experienced possession of truth, the experience of divine reality, the reflection of spiritual life. Any life, especially spiritual, in particular Christian, is an inexhaustible process, a continuous rhythm; and Christian knowledge, in contrast to static gnosis, must be processual and dialectical. Any stop is death for him; any frozen formula is for him the same as slave chains: it can breathe only in the freedom of eternal movement. Most of all, one must be afraid of mistaking a particular side for the whole truth, a given moment for an eternal fixed point, a personal revelation for the last word. There is no path to spiritual truth other than the dialectical one. This dialectic is partly historical, partly psychological. In each historical era, spiritual truth is revealed in a special aspect, everyone approaches it from their own side. What from an objective point of view would seem like a limitation, for the experienced possession of truth seems to be a necessary condition for success. The fullness of truth turns out to be not an (abstract) system, but an endless chain of steps, transitions - and in order to approach it, you need to take some step, you need to move in some transition. Therefore the problems of Christian Science are amazingly complex, inexhaustibly complex. Here, for example, is the problem: faith and love, or knowledge and love. What comes first – faith and knowledge or love? Does love come from faith and knowledge or does faith and knowledge come from love? For mystical knowledge, Christianity is a spiritual experience, a real experience, therefore, the basic principle of Christianity is love: love constitutes Christian experience, Christian reality, ontological value. It is the original principle of Christianity. Christianity, from all the contents of real life, singles out love as the highest value; in love it posits true being: God is love. Christian knowledge is that knowledge that is given by love, contained in the experience of love. He who has love knows God (A). But from this central point in Christianity you can move in one direction or another. Let's trace the genesis of love. After all, Christian love is not simple human, earthly love: it is love that is absolute in nature, divine in origin, love from God, God’s love. Absolute love is the love of God: from God such love passes to us, inhabits us. She is the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. The assimilative force is faith - faith in God. We believe in God, we believe in Christ, and by our faith Christ dwells in us, God’s life, it is God’s love that becomes our property, it is communicated to us: Christian love comes from faith (B). Faith is the starting point of all spiritual life. It is a person’s ability to emerge from his complacency, from positive limitations - into the boundless ocean of the unknown, mysterious, the ability to surrender to a higher rank, to create something new, limitless. Faith, which assimilates to us the Holy Spirit, God's love, God's life, is loving faith: even the demons believe, but they tremble. True faith is faith combined with love for God, for Christ. Just as we, in everyday life, imitate our friend in everything, adopt his habits, his manners, his thoughts, so friendly love, believing friendly love for Christ, for God, or loving friendly faith in Christ, in God, gives rise to in us the same feelings that were in Christ Jesus, makes us kin to Christ and God in spirit (B). But faith in Christ and God, friendly love for Christ and God is not possible without knowledge: nullus potest amare aliquid incognitum. How can we believe in Him whom we do not know? (G). Just as divine love is entirely the fruit of the Holy Spirit, so this preliminary knowledge is a gift of the grace of God, the Providence of God, and yet it is conditioned by our efforts: we need to seek the truth, and we need to prepare our hearts with good morality (D) You see how loop after loop the chain of spiritual life goes on endlessly. Now the mystical, ontological character of Christian love emerges more clearly for us. Love comes from faith, but the content of love is not yet given in faith; in its content, Christian love is greater than faith, it is not a psychological result of faith, but a divine response to our faith, revelation through faith. Likewise, preliminary knowledge is not the fullness of knowledge that is given to us by the experience of divine love; it is only symbolic knowledge. When the true spiritual reality is revealed to us, then the illusory nature of preliminary knowledge is revealed, then we no longer believe based on the words of others, then we no longer have the need for teaching, then we ourselves know everything (John 4:42; John 2:27). Christian love is not only a conclusion from knowledge, a reflection of knowledge; it is the divine existence experienced by the believer, it is a self-sufficient reality. Whoever says the opposite is no longer preaching Christian Gnosticism. Let us now move in the other direction from love. Christian love, as the spiritual reality by which a person lives, becomes in him the beginning of an action that embraces the whole world, the beginning of a world-conquering faith: for this faith, which does not yield to any temptations, is not overcome by any appearance - this faith is nourished by the spiritual reality by which a person lives. A person living in spiritual reality cannot help but believe in its victory over appearances, just as someone who has the gift of speech cannot help but speak, someone who has arms and legs cannot help but act, and cannot help but believe in the visible world (E). In particular, the spiritual reality by which a person lives naturally gives rise to beliefs, by which the church lives, and naturally gives rise to beliefs, which the church formulates in the form of generally binding dogmas. Spiritual life is clothed in these beliefs, as in a robe, in them it acquires the certainty that secures it, in them it finds its support. Is it possible to live a spiritual life, live divine love in the midst of the evil appearance of the world and not believe in the coming judgment of God? (AND). The problem of faith and love is so complex. Equally inexhaustibly complex are the problems of religion and morality, the individual and the church, Christianity and culture. When solving all these problems, the most careful decomposition of each question into successive phases is necessary, the most careful designation of the place in the living movement of religious thought that is assigned to this or that thesis is necessary, the clearest recognition of the position, historical and psychological, that the thinker occupies is necessary. This is more than a dialectic of concepts in Socrates. This is the bringing of thought to its basis, to life; this is its procedural concept, corresponding to the experiential nature of Christian truth. Otherwise, with a static concept of Christian truth, tragic hopelessness is inevitable. They think that this or that Christian problem can be solved with one formula: one moment is given the significance of the whole. How often do we observe a verbal or literary dispute between two opponents on the issue of the relationship between knowledge and love, religion and morality, etc., of which one attributes predominant importance to knowledge or religion, the other to love or morality, who cannot come to any agreement, do not understand each other - solely because the dialectics of the problem is not clear to them. Usually, the passion of critical attacks on original theological experiments, intolerance towards all religious and philosophical constructions is explained by the inability of a half-educated critic to free himself from the power of general formulas, from the power of a static system of thought. Can the dependence of love on assimilative faith and prior knowledge (C and D) be considered an objection to the idea of ​​the mystical self-sufficiency of Christian love and its epistemological power (A)? Does the moral and practical significance of dogmatic beliefs (G) turn Christian experience into a simple conclusion from a dogmatic syllogism? Is the experimental foundation of Christian truth necessarily adogmatism and absolute individualism? The doctrine of Christianity is not a problem book with answers. The solution to this or that Christian problem does not consist in finding a predetermined answer. The point is not to choose between yes or no. Those who answer apparently differently, one: “yes” and the other: “no,” can essentially say the same thing. The opposite can also be true: if two people say the same thing, then they are not the same thing. It’s not about the answer: “yes” or “no,” but about how the answer is given, how the problem is presented. The dignity of religious-philosophical work lies in the art with which this or that concept is developed, in the richness of content that is put into concepts, in the richness of colors with which formulas and diagrams are sketched. All this content and colorfulness comes from the fullness of spiritual life, from the richness of spiritual experience. You need to live the Christian religion, you need to always carry Christ in your heart, you need to lie down and get up under the joyful and invigorating influx of the Holy Spirit in order to be a theologian. One must have that knowledge from the Holy Spirit, that anointing, which makes discursive justification unnecessary. Christian philosophy is the fruit of intuition alone. The theologian's lips open from the abundance of the heart. I am not afraid that you will understand my idea about the dependence of theological creativity on Christian experience in the sense that here we are talking about a way of life, about external behavior, as if spiritual experience is evidenced by some kind of appearance, as if one can point a finger at a called theologian. Yu. Samarin proposed to name A.S. Khomyakov, teacher of the Church. And he responded to a possible objection to this: “What! Khomyakov, who lived in Moscow, on the Dog Playground, our mutual acquaintance, who wore a zipun and a murmurka, this funny and witty interlocutor, about whom we joked so much and with whom we argued so much: this freethinker, suspected by the police of disbelief in God and lack of patriotism; this modest layman, whom seven years ago, on a gray autumn day, in the Danilov Monastery, was buried by five or six relatives and friends, and two comrades of his youth, behind whose coffin there was no clergy visible... Is this retired captain of staff, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov, a teacher of the Church? He is the one." This is said inimitably well. Yes, a teacher of the Church can be hidden in a zipun and a murmolka, for there is no specific cut of dress for this dignity, for the gift of spiritual knowledge is not bound by any appearance. I hope you are theologically sophisticated enough to understand that there is no set appearance for a person of spiritual experience. What I say about spiritual experience, I say only for the theologians themselves, I refer only to their own conscience, I call their self-examination as a witness. Rather, I assume you are not free from another prejudice. Perhaps you understand the matter in such a way that theological creativity is the result, external and inevitable, of a good Christian life. No, theological creativity flows from the spring of spiritual experience, but at the same time it is a special, specific direction of spiritual life, a special gift of the Holy Spirit. The measure of this gift is not the degree of holiness achieved, much less the holiness that is externally revealed. Spiritual experience is necessary, but the fullness of Christian wisdom, the insight of the Christian mind is a unique evidence of spiritual giftedness. I regret to say that we are not attentive enough to this talent. In our time and in our society it is not valued: we do not cultivate it in ourselves, and we are disrespectful towards it when it is discovered in someone. The entire field of theology is divided by a red thread into two heterogeneous departments: biblical and church-historical science and theology itself. That is, science in the strictest sense of the word. Purely scientific talents are required there; objective scientific work is appropriate there. Theology requires special techniques. Scientific and theological methods are detrimental to him. Theology in a specific sense must be creativity; it can only be valuable in the form of Christian philosophy. And this specifically applies to our science, since dogmatic theology, as a (historical) teaching about dogmas, must have a strictly scientific character. Our science, which is unfortunately called moral theology and is a moral-subjective teaching about Christianity, can only be successful in the form of Christian philosophy, spiritual science, and must be Christian philosophy. Our science occupies an exceptional place among all special theological sciences: it is not a science, but a philosophy. And whoever does not feel a calling to disinterested Christian-philosophical creativity should not enter this area - just as it is inaccessible to people of the administrative, pastoral, missionary, apologetic, polemical spirit - in general, to practitioners. There is no dividing line between theology and philosophy. To demand a philosophical uplift from a Christian thinker does not mean to demand too much. Above the gates of the theological church, above the doors of our audience, we need to inscribe the inscription: “whoever does not have a burning heart has no access here.” Don't fool yourself. God cannot be mocked. Do not take on an unbearable yoke. This is a road for those who walk along it reverently and joyfully. The theologian is a creative talent. He is a creator. He has his own word. Only those who have their own experience and their own word deserve the name of a theologian, a Christian thinker. This is why all theologians (how few there are in our time!) are so interesting to each other. When starting theological work, be - I tell you - free and bold, be original, create your word. Of course, with your word you will only pour content into a generally binding dogmatic formula. With your original intuition you will only reach—this is your ideal—to an understanding of Christ’s teaching. Theological originality can develop only on a historical root and within dogmatic boundaries. This goes without saying. The point is, however, that the dogmatic formula ceases to be an empty formula and is filled with content only in Christian experience, which is expressed in the original theological system. The fact is that the historical teaching of Christ cannot be understood apart from personal Christian experience, cannot be presented systematically except on the path of theological creativity. The originality of theological work should consist not in freedom from the historical foundations of religion and the dogmatic boundaries of religious thought, but in freedom from theological literature. You are well acquainted with the techniques of mediocre work in the fields of exegesis and church history. The existing opinions of scientists on this issue are familiarized with: the most plausible one is selected from them, or the average is combined. Nothing like this is tolerated in the field of theology, in Christian philosophy. Here, only a work whose author speaks for himself and has its own system can have any value. The work is a compilation, with template quotations, with other people's thoughts picked up in this area is pure nonsense. You need to read here too. A theologian needs to read no less than an exegete and a historian. There is no limit to the reading of a theologian. He must not only study biblical and church historical science, but in addition he must be familiar with all the original thinkers of the spiritual field - theologians and philosophers, with all the paths that human religious thought has already explored. Only the opportunity to say: I read everything, I read, say, approximately Plato, and Aristotle, and Kant, or: and Philaret, and Plato, and Feofan, or: and Khomyakov, and Solovyov, etc., etc. - only such an opportunity, generally speaking, gives the right to come out with an original system. Communication with other religious thinkers is for the theologian what prayer is for religious life: both means nourish spiritual uplift. You need to read everything, but write only your own, only from yourself, only what you have experienced, only what has formed into your own system. The library of theologians should be a library of original thinkers. Just as popular prints do not find access to art museums, so an uncrossable gap must be dug in the consciousness of spiritual society between creative theology and popular waste paper, this rust that corrodes Christian minds and spoils spiritual taste. The task of a theological school is to instill reverence for the former and disgust for the latter. Whoever does not feel a calling to theological creativity, let him go to the field of theological science, where no less intelligence and no less labor are required, and where the basic foundation of theology is created; but as long as he does not insult the sanctity of theology with compilative daub. Do not be seduced by the fascination and seeming indisputability of the religious thought that comes to mind; do not be seduced by the apparent certainty and thoroughness of the solution to this or that theological issue. Understand that every thought needs to be thought through along the entire line of the Christian system; every individual question can be valuablely resolved only in a holistic philosophy. Wherever the thinker first set foot, there is the center of the original system. In Christian philosophy there are no particular questions; here the center is everywhere. Different thinkers begin to dig a Christian mine in different places, one works on the question of the temptations of Christ, another on the resurrection of Christ, a third on the religious foundation of morality, but they all go to the same center, each of them builds the entire Christian system. There is a place for cooperation in our science, but it is only of a different kind than in theological science. Compilation and mosaic are not applicable in Christian philosophy, but here open apprenticeship with one or another thinker and participation in his work is appropriate and desirable. Studying this or that Christian philosopher, expounding his system is a noble and useful activity, for many - in general, for everyone - at the first stage of theological work. This is a work that is undoubtedly useful for the author, and also useful for theology. I would recommend this kind of work to every beginner: study a significant system, penetrate the secrets of its consciousness - what else can prepare, educate a thinker? A good maestro will only be one who has been a good student. It's good taste to start by being a student. This is as good as having an elder in the Christian ascetic exercise. This is useful for theology. Schools and traditions are created. The entire theological movement thus rests on a solid historical foundation, on a granite pedestal, and can hope for the future, for the future exists only for those for whom there is a sacred past. Our sacred duty to study the history of Russian theology should be especially emphasized. This is our sin - inattention to our national past. Hence the pitiful international character of theological works, their groundlessness. Only by respecting one’s past is self-respect developed, the most important condition for creative freedom. We cannot count on self-respect if we ourselves do not reverence our predecessors; we will not create an atmosphere conducive to free thought if we do not value our teachers. We will even be lenient towards them, we will find from them more than they left, for those who find will always be right, for the past is always created, and the type of Judas the traitor is the most disgusting of all the creatures of hell. Most of all, fear being like Judas! This work can be more productive than it seems at first. True creativity always has an organic character, therefore any original system is capable of endless development. Find the main thing in the thinker, discard the temporary, the accidental, the erroneous, clothe the valuable grain in a new shell, and you will equally render a service to the history of ideas and create a name for yourself: in this way the student will not only become equal to the teacher, but can become superior to him. To work in theology, you need to read, read a lot. And you need to be able to read. You need to read not only your teachers, but also all thinkers - and you need to be able to read all kinds of books. Any book you read must first of all be understood - not only in order to assimilate it, but also in order to criticize it. It is a great art to appreciate and criticize a book. There is criticism of weak student work from the teacher, criticism of unscrupulous compilation or pathetic mediocrity from the authority. This criticism is another matter. We are talking about the reader's attitude towards a book whose direction he does not like, but which he does not dare call mediocre or weak. Theological school instills in us a special keenness in criticism, a special criticism. We are quick to speak. From childhood we are taught to trash Strauss, Renan and thousands of other suspicious names. We get our hands on dissing dissidents whose works we are not familiar with. We develop an itch to attack an author with indignation from the first line of his book, even based on simple hearsay, based on widespread prejudice. We do not know how to read, and we have false views about a valuable book. We consider a good book to be one that contains what is known and does not awaken anxiety in us. On the contrary, any book whose content still needs to be overcome, which has something of its own, causes us hatred and persecution. J. Ruskin wrote on the issue of reading as if for our society. “We willingly talk about the book: How good it is! It's exactly what we thought it was! – Then we should say something completely different: How amazing this is! I have never thought so before, and yet it is absolutely true; and if there is something here that is not yet entirely clear to me, then I hope to understand this too over time - But whether you react with such humility or not, in any case, know that you are turning to the author for his understanding, and not in order to meet your own there. Treat it critically later, if you feel entitled, but first of all, understand it for yourself. At the same time, be sure that if the author is worth anything, you will not immediately understand him and in order to fully understand his thoughts, you will have to make a lot of effort. Although he expresses everything that he thinks, and, moreover, in very strong expressions, he still cannot and, what is even more surprising, does not want to do this except secretly, in the form of parables, wanting to make sure that you really need him” 32. Every original thinker, and most of all a religious one, makes a hole in the prison wall of established views, accepted opinions. Every good book, in the words of Nietzsche, every good book, when it appears in the world, has some kind of bitterness in it, awakens anxiety in someone. Trust the experience of an old man who sacrificed many, many years on the altar of truth: he once thought the same way as you all think now. But every year, filled with solitary thoughts, removed him from what was clear to everyone; every day his path moved further and further away from the thorny, high road. What else does the progress of thought consist of, if not in overcoming the immediately obvious, obvious to everyone, obsessive, if not in a free rise above the general level? What else is required from a thinker if not for him to say a new word and pave new paths? And if anxiety and even embitterment of everything traditional against the new word is natural, then this is also the naturalness of the fact that with such embitterment there is a lack of understanding. The author triumphs over himself, and the reader, in order to understand the author, must overcome the prejudice that exists against him - this is an elementary requirement of the school from its students. Those who have undergone systematic training must differ from the crowd in their ability to read and the ability to understand authors. The late Leontyev once said to his interlocutor: “In order for you to understand me, you need to forget everything you knew and listen to me long and often, carried away not by the desire to argue, but by the thirst to understand.” Every original author has the right to repeat this about himself. Criticism is necessary. Not only should our thinking be critical, but it is necessary that the thinker, having assimilated everything related to himself, should deal with other authors. There is no other better way to understand your own thoughts than to criticize other systems. You must be jealous of your own concept, of your own face, you must be consistent in your thoughts, in your work, clean from any foreign impurities in your work. But we need to be able to choose our opponents together, so that they are worthy of attention, so that the goal is to find the truth, and not smaller injections, not a game of pride, so that the fight is about direction, and not because of mistakes. You even need to respect your opponent, so as not to lose your own dignity, so as not to lose the value of your own thoughts. We have a responsibility to understand even a system with which we disagree. For a while you even need to love her. You need to have the gift of transformation. Amiel is right about this. “To understand things means to be in them and then get out of them. What is needed, therefore, is captivity and then liberation—charm and disappointment, fascination and cooling. The one who is still under enchantment, as well as the one who has not been enchanted, are equally incompetent. We know well only what we first believed and then discussed. To understand, one must be free, but first be captivated. Love is the first condition of criticism; reason and justice presuppose feeling at the beginning.” Only those who have experienced a fascination with the system have the right to be a strict critic, and this criticism, this ready-made cold hatred, this insensitivity of stupid complacency is the same as vulgar cold debauchery without the poetry of love. Do not be seduced by the immediate obviousness of your position, which has not yet been touched by doubt, do not be seduced by the visible foolishness of the book lying in front of you, by the external defenselessness of someone else’s system. She requires tender attention. At your rude word, she will close herself off from you like mimosa pudica. She will be naked only to the gaze of the one who will knock on her gate for a long time. Every valuable system has its own truth, which must be given justice and which must be given a place in its system. We just don’t need to forget about the different angles of view, we need to value the purity of our melody, our style: this will protect us both from compilation, from syncretism, and from injustice, from pitiful isolation. In our system there should be a place for everything, but only its place. A system of spiritual truth must be flexible. Each of its thesis should make sense only in its place, only in a certain connection. Each of its thesis must contain the possibility of entering a new space; it must all be imbued with the freedom of eternal palinody. Extreme flexibility of thought and not a single rigid formula: this is not only an ideal, but also a condition of spiritual wisdom. You make your way to the intended point, you dig your mine, you come closer and closer to the end, the thought emerges clearer and clearer, a definite and precise expression takes shape, but when the intended point is reached, then say to yourself: and yet here is not the whole truth, and yet it will be a lie if we remain here motionless. It is necessary to develop the concept of pure spirituality, to recognize the ascent to pure divinity as necessary for life, and at the same time remember that spiritualism is a lie. It is necessary to evaluate both the practical force of beliefs and the systematic significance of dogmatic definitions, but not to forget the illusory nature of dogmatism. It is necessary to glorify the salvific nature of asceticism in order to clarify the concept of one-sided asceticism... The logic of solid bodies with which ordinary people, heroes of practical activity, operate is insufficient here (Bergson). What is required here is the courage to erect a structure in which the parts have no other support than mutual support, which has no other justification than inner beauty. We have to come to terms with the impossibility of deducing certain practical rules from this beauty, of making everyday use out of it. And then again, it is not a feasible burden for everyone, that each part separately here is good for nothing, that here you can only work on the whole. What talent, despite all the possibility of external squalor, is required here, what calling, what taste! This is work for selected natures, this is work for sacred moments. You already see that in the very essence of spiritual truth lies the reason for its unpopularity. There is not a single feature in her that would be to the taste of the crowd; on the contrary, each of her features compresses the circle of her adherents. Spiritual philosophy is least of all a folk philosophy; it is a word for a few friends. Everything about it is unpopular - its simplicity, its aristocratic disinterestedness, its freedom, the lack of overcoming compulsion and the lack of tangible conclusions, its superhuman boldness and extreme modesty, and most of all, the combination of apparently irreconcilable contradictions is unpopular in it. The first sign of the vocation of a Christian philosopher is the preparedness of his soul for loneliness: on the contrary, the most dangerous temptation for him is attention to strong expectations, to established opinions, to decisions made, the search for general approval... Christian philosophy is not erected through the efforts of pure reason, it is not a logical system: it requires the whole person, it presupposes living experience, it is created by intuition. And yet she is wisdom - she is a complex of concepts that embrace experience, she is the mind of life. It does not possess logical, coercive persuasiveness, but it is not the result of temperament either. It is entirely expressed in the word, without the need for diagrams, calculations, illustrations, or accompaniment - in the beautiful human word, which penetrates to the depths of the human makeup and is imprinted in the heart; for all that, the aestheticism of the word, its sensual magic, is alien to her. The effect on the imagination and nerves, obsessive rhetoric, insinuating sentimentality, a compelling pious appearance designed for hysterical souls, all artificiality, crafty stylization - all this is bad taste, inappropriate in divine philosophy. The beauty of spiritual life befits the democratic simplicity of wise speech; it is characterized by a noble uplift, alien to artificial decoration, modest and chaste. “A philosopher must be honest enough to do without the help of poetry or rhetoric (ein Philosopher muss sehr ehrlich sein, um sich keiner poetischen oder rhetorischen Hilfsmittel zu bedienen)” - these words of Schopenhauer are especially suitable for the Christian sage. Christian philosophy is clothed in simple words, leaving effects to other kinds of literature. A quiet wind, and not a storm or thunderstorm, is the ancient symbol of God. Spiritual life is compared in the gospel to a mustard seed, which is smaller than any other grain: the same, quiet and simple, should be the word of Christian philosophy. In particular, the following three points need to be noted here. Firstly, the theory of spiritual mysticism is fenced off from specific mysticism (naturalistic, philological, magical) - not only in content, since it is based on faith in the Spirit of Christ, in the reality of spiritual life, and in the word of the Gospel, but also in tone of speech, differing from mysticism in sobriety and chastity. The theory of evangelical Christianity, the theory of spiritual mysticism requires the thinker-theologian to renounce the popular, seductive beauty of aestheticism, aesthetic asceticism, naturalistic mysticism, just as the servants of the True God were always protected by the prophets from sensual pagan cults. All the techniques with which occult philosophy acts on the imagination and sensuality must be alien to the Christian philosopher, just as logical persuasiveness and rationalistic sophistry are not characteristic of him. He must speak, following the Apostle Paul, not in the superiority of speech or wisdom and know nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. This is the proper style of Christian philosophy - the philosophy of the Gospel word, the teachings of Christ. Equally organically - and this is the second point - the modernity of language is inherent in Christian philosophy. After all, the only interpreter of the intimate content of Christ’s teaching is the believer himself, enlightened by the Spirit of God dwelling in him, guided by his spiritual experience. Therefore, a Christian philosopher can be sincere and truthful only to the extent that he speaks in the language of his experience, in the language of his time, his place: to the same extent the system is of interest to him. On the contrary, any stylization to match the tone of the past, any selection of historical faded flowers sounds false and spreads the smell of carrion. You feel that I am touching on the question of how, despite all the high value of church tradition, the national spirit of the people with whose history the Christian tradition is intertwined is obligatory for us - I am talking about the Greek, or more precisely, the Greek-Eastern concept of Christianity. It is necessary to strictly distinguish between the essential continuity of church life in the past history of the church and its historical clothing in national characteristics. Church teaching, the development of which the Greek genius contributed so much to, is obligatory for us, but the systems of ancient Christian thinkers, imbued with a specific Greek-Eastern spirit - are they obligatory for us? Greco-Eastern naturalism, rooted in the very languages ​​of the ancients and in Greek, perhaps more than in others, as well as medieval scholasticism, were alien to the gospel idea and did not so much reveal it as obscure it. European philosophy, which grew out of their soil, has only recently approached those problems that are solved by the gospel - only the philosophy of our days has raised questions of spiritual life and taken the fundamentally subjective path of discussing them. Here, and not in the old Gnosticism, which once again flared up in German idealism, the moral and philosophical teaching of Christianity will find its native environment. In particular, we should remember Russian theology, which, in the person of its most prominent representatives, Feofan Prokopovich, M. Platon Levshin, Met. Philaret Drozdova, St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, Theophan the Recluse, gave a system of intimate and vital understanding of Christianity, free from the attacks of Gnosticism and naturalistic mysticism. Isn’t it time for us to openly take the path of our own national philosophizing, deeply congenial to the Gospel teaching? In the scope of this reading I am forced to limit myself to the question posed, although I have at hand ample material to answer it. One more last side in the style of Christian philosophy. The theologian-thinker, as we said, cannot put any limits in acquiring the knowledge he needs, in the reading he needs. There is no knowledge that would be useless to a philosopher; however, no special knowledge should interfere with the construction of Christian philosophy. It must be a philosophy of pure spirit. Otherwise, every special knowledge, while giving visible advantages to a Christian thinker, actually serves as a hindrance in the understanding and presentation of spiritual thought. Vision becomes cloudy. The rays are scattered. The picture is distorted, because the whole beauty of Christian truth is in its simplicity. It must be remembered that the kingdom of the spirit has nothing naturalistic in itself: it is entirely not from birth, but from rebirth. It cannot be reached in a direct way from the natural principles of thought and the natural roots of life: they are presupposed in spiritual truth, but spiritual truth itself rises above them, so that in spiritual philosophy these principles and roots are revised anew. We begin with the laws of knowledge and with the knowledge achieved, but spiritual Truth is not knowledge. We start with the laws and values ​​of life, but spiritual Life is a completely new Value, inexpressible in natural terms. Therefore, in spiritual philosophy, human language must lose all its natural, spontaneous spontaneity and all historical complexity: here it is used exclusively in a symbolic meaning, imbued with completely new colors, unearthly melodies. Not a single word here should have a spontaneous meaning, not a single feature of spiritual life should be understood in the sense of some special science. Therefore, the background of spiritual truth must be outlined in full armor of scientific criticism, so that the products of ignorance do not obscure the spiritual light, but the spiritual truth itself must be contemplated with a pure eye, must be clothed only in its own words. Most of you are alien to special knowledge, and I tell you: do not be at all embarrassed by this. Don’t even let the thought enter your head that you are deprived of any means for building a Christian philosophy. There are probably several specialists among you: mathematicians, natural scientists, historians, philologists - and to those I say: forget about your advantages at the threshold of Christian philosophy, so that they do not become a burden for you. There are many areas that require special knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, physics, history, philology; even in theology, this knowledge is useful in many ways - for apologetics, exegesis, church history. But they should not provide the slightest content for Christian philosophy. Know everyone that spiritual Truth has its own content and must have its own language - the language of words, torn off from the elemental soil, filled with new meaning, a language in which there are no terms and names, a language that is extremely flexible and subjective, jointly - and accessible to everyone and every time, for each thinker, filled with personal meaning, a language that simultaneously has different depths for different readers and listeners - the only language in which only the content is remembered and words are not remembered, because everyone has them their own, like the Risen Christ, Who was recognized not by appearance, but by the spirit of divine life. Nowadays, the art of writing has become accessible to the masses. Literary style, and even philosophical language - many can boast of this. The profession of writers on high topics appeared, a crowd of employees of spiritual and ideological magazines appeared. Greyhound fashion issues are discussed in articles and feuilletons. Lively, noisy, self-confident, these writers, strong by their numbers and accessibility, are born enemies of spiritual philosophy, weeds of the spiritual field. If our life were flourishing, free, courageous, unselfish, if human order reigned in our country, then our school would be tasked with developing a refined taste, preparing called workers of Christian wisdom, artists of spiritual words. We would then value builders, on whom the Heavenly Father has put His seal, just as subtle tasters are valued in other places - the school years would be a sacred time of “sitting at the feet of Gamaliel”, instead of training and education, that “school” would be created, which with indelible grace, indestructible blessing is embedded in the soul of its pupils and which is always so easy to recognize, then our Academy would release from its walls a spiritual army of well-bred servants of the word, in order to oust mercenaries and falsifiers, lowerers of Christian value, from everywhere. Harsh life does not give scope for these dreams, but will I sin against my conscience by giving in to “exalting deception” at this moment when, perhaps, the Heavenly Spirit is throwing a seed into your young, receptive souls? 33 No one will argue against the fact that the main reason for the unenviable position of Russian theology, in comparison with Western theology, the main enemy of Russian theology, is popular theological writing. Our theological science does not value its reputation, has no self-respect, does not hold its banner high, does not cultivate in its adherents a sense of professional honor, a consciousness of responsible and useful work; at the same time, she does not enjoy respect from intelligent society. This is explained, first of all, by the fact that in the broad theological field the scientific-critical and popular-feuilleton departments are not distinguished: in the minds of readers these departments merge completely, and the signs of lower religious writing are assimilated into higher theology, theological science. The harm of this confusion affects the subdivisions of scientific theology that actually embrace religious thinking—not church historical science, but specifically theology. It is not difficult to understand that works that are more or less stable in the theological field are either purely historical, setting out the objective truth, or those whose content is religious thinking, personal theological creativity. In the first, the identity of the author is obscured; on the contrary, the entire meaning of the latter is in the personal element, in a consistent worldview, in a certain author’s physiognomy. The former lose nothing by appearing anonymous, and they must, of course, prepare and give way to subsequent more advanced research; secondly, the author’s invested soul, personal experiences, religious hopes and suffering have eternal, irreplaceable value. Our environment values ​​first-class work, understanding only the objectivity of research in the sense of impersonality, colorlessness of literary work; but she is completely unprepared and incapable of appreciating the work of the second kind. The latest works are not accepted at all by our environment and remain in it as an alien, indigestible body. And here different stages of alienation are possible. Along with the above two types of theological literature, we can think of a third - a popular presentation of known truths, theoretical and practical, for didactic and edifying purposes. This popular theological literature relates to scientific theology, historical and religious-philosophical, in the same way as popular prints, which are hard not to find in every village hut, relate to works of art. But here it is necessary to establish the important difference that the border between popular print and artistic work, in general, of course, is recognized by the entire intelligent society, while there is no such general recognition of the special areas of popular-preaching and scientific theology - these areas are usually mixed. Popular writing, abundant as sea sand, is hopelessly absorbed by scientific theology - and there is not the slightest trace of a social tendency to treat both books differently. For a society interested in religious and ecclesiastical issues, and for a society not interested in these issues, all theological literature, starting with indications of the easiest path to the kingdom of God and ending with the critical philosophy of Christianity, falls into one heap. Edifying church writing in Russia appeared simultaneously with Christianity, in any case, long before the birth of scientific theology in our country, and it was always abundant. In recent days, it has increased with the cooperation of the secular intelligentsia. Yes, in our time many secular people are involved in religious and church issues. Salvation, Antichrist, the Holy Spirit, asceticism are zealously discussed by secular writers. And one thing is certain: the pamphlet-feuilleton literature coming out from the pens of these writers does not in the least enrich scientific theology, but is closely related to the edifying field. The difference between church edifying writing and the latest secular theological feuilletonism should be noted: in the latter, the accepted teaching is no longer conveyed, but “new paths” are, as it were, laid. However, this is not personal religious creativity, because programmatic party goals dominate here. All secular religious feuilletonism is completely distributed within the framework of the liberation social movement, and each of its movements is closely adjacent to one or another liberation direction. Here theology is in the service of politics, and personal religious creativity is replaced by party programs. Here they also preach, teach, denounce in their own way, and do not want to know critical scientific and theological techniques. Ventriloquism and arbitrariness are limited only by one limit of the party program, and then are limitless. They write about asceticism, the holy spirit, the church, but they do not firmly pronounce these holy words. This theological feuilletonism brings little benefit to theological science, or better yet, it brings nothing but harm to theology. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes 34. They make noise that our theology has hitherto been scholastic, dead, that it needs to be revived, brought closer to life - they make noise and abuse these cheap truths. Nowadays, loudly proclaiming and proving this call does not mean being a hero, but means breaking through an open door: who is not now filled with hatred of scholastic theology and does not feel a thirst for living religious thinking? But now the center of gravity lies in another question: what exactly is the vitality of theological thinking? Is it that religious knowledge should be of a utilitarian nature, should be in the service of temporary practical interests, or that religious knowledge should be placed on the basis of living personal experience, and only from this personal depth lead to practical conclusions that cannot be foreseen in advance? Both directions go against scholasticism, but there is a huge difference between them. After all, it is one thing to value each knowledge according to its practical usefulness for a given time, and another thing to know the intrinsic value of science. And this matters in relation to every science, in particular to theology. That every science must have practical results is beyond doubt. One can fully agree with what Paulsen says on this issue. “Practical problems arise earlier and are more important than theoretical problems. If we say that the sciences arose to solve practical problems, then there will not be a big mistake. Knowledge, at least in its initial emergence, is a means for practical purposes: anatomy and physiology for the art of medicine, geometry for measuring the earth. And philosophy, or theoretical knowledge in general, arose initially thanks to the question of the meaning and tasks of life”... This is so. But there is also no doubt that “nowadays there are two types of scientific disciplines: theoretical and practical, theory and applied knowledge, science proper and teaching about the arts. The goal of the former is knowledge, the goal of the latter is the transformation of things through human activity: they indicate how to change things in relation to our goals.” But the whole point is whether to limit the limits of theoretical knowledge to immediate practical interests, or to leave it to be guided by its own interests? Is there any practical benefit to the result of theoretical science, or is there none? In resolving this – second – question one can hardly disagree with Poincaré, according to whom, “it cannot be said that action is the goal of science. Should we condemn research done on Sirius on the pretext that we will probably never take any action in relation to this star? The same must be said, in particular, about religious knowledge, about theological science. That theology must be alive and active has now become a common place from which no significant conclusions can be drawn. On the way to the latter, there is a more real question about whether theology, as a science, is directly connected with modern problems of religious-ecclesiastical and socio-political practice, whether it should be limited to serving these problems, whether it should be governed by programmatic sympathies, or whether theology is a science with an autonomous content that must be taken into account, whether it is pleasant or unpleasant for us, whether it corresponds to the interests of the time or does not correspond. In reality, they want theology to serve social parties, either conservative or progressive, so that it is guided by party sympathies - monarchical, constitutional, socialist, social democratic, social revolutionary, anarchist. Not on the essence of theology, not because theology is inextricably linked with temporary political trends, but because it has long been accustomed and now seems very convenient to everyone to use religion in political interests; all political parties lay claim to theology. Anarchism wants to have its own theology (for example, Mr. Chulkov), socialism - its own (Christian socialism), monarchism - its own, church politics - its own, constitutional parties also include church theological issues in their programs, etc. Everyone wants to rely on theology, everyone wants to replace theological science with feuilleton and brochure production. Some parties rely on and claim theology, among other things, as the cornerstone of their programs, while others rely on theology with their entire foundation, want to absorb all of theology, but there is no big difference here. They equally deny theology as an autonomous science, and equally myopically look at the benefits that theological knowledge can provide. They forget that knowledge can only be used, it must be listened to, open laws must be obeyed. Naturae non imperatur nisi parendo. Religious science, by the essence of its object, and not just on general scientific grounds, has an inclination towards decisive freedom from the subjective interests of the moment. To have a religious attitude towards life means to look at life from the point of view of eternity. The Christian religion, as an absolute religion, is adequately expressed only in personal religious creativity and has no other relationship to social forms, to temporary interests, than through personal creativity. Feuilletonism, pamphlet outlook, programmatic myopia are essentially contrary to Christian theology as a science. But at the same time, the crowd for whom the vitality of Christianity is accessible only in the sense of a journalistic horizon cannot maintain itself at the height of the Christian attitude to life. That is why there is no other area where bad popularity, vulgarity, feuilletonism and charlatanism bring such enormous harm to the cause and are so widespread as in theology. However, medicine can provide an analogy with theology. No matter how great and significant the difference is between scientific medicine and healer quackery, the latter in an uncultured society too successfully challenges medicine to its meaning. Defending the objective value of science, Poincaré writes: “The rules of the game represent an arbitrary agreement; it would be possible to accept an agreement of the opposite content, which would not turn out to be worse. Contrary to this, science is a rule of action that leads to success in general only on the condition that a rule with the opposite content does not succeed. When I say: to produce hydrogen, act on zinc with acid, I am formulating a rule that leads to success. I could say: act on gold with distilled water - this would also be a rule, but it would not lead to success. One cannot argue against these words of Poincaré; However, the thesis he expressed is not equally obvious in all areas. Of course, in the field of engineering construction, the very first experience - the construction of a bridge, a tunnel - will draw an uncrossable border between knowledge and quackery. But in the medical field, the difference between science and witchcraft is not obvious to everyone, or at least not everyone interprets this difference in favor of science. Medical science is modest: it admits that not all diseases are curable, that not every disease is curable under all conditions, that it depends on the organism that it only helps. On the contrary, witchcraft quackery promises miracles, inspires hope that all diseases can be cured, and supports this hope with so-called “horse doses.” Due to these circumstances, medicine in a low-culture society cannot compete with witchcraft. And, in any case, medicine itself, with its own resources, is powerless to fight its competitor. But the situation of scientific theology is even sadder. It sees next to it religious charlatanism, which either promises its adherents power over natural forces, magical help, or recommends religion as the most reliable and surest path to social and political improvement. In our time, the latest type of religious-theological quackery has especially become fashionable - theological-feuilleton play on socio-political sympathies, which even a semi-cultured crowd cannot resist. How easy it is to imitate the shallow desires of this crowd! In our days - in the days of the struggle against the old regime - one has only to proclaim that the Christian religion is on the side of socialism and against such and such a government - and the crowd applauds. She will not understand that no matter how urgent the need for socio-political reforms, the most radical, is, there is still an undoubted vulgarity in the fact that religion is directly associated with certain forms of socio-political progress. Even some Georgiy Chulkov, who understands theology less than any seminarian, by virtue of his individualistic point of view alone understands that “for religious consciousness there can be no relative criteria. Religion in its spirit is always irreconcilable. She cannot tell me: today let there be a constitutional monarchy, tomorrow a republic. Religion sets absolute goals.” But the crowd, even the intelligent crowd, precisely because it is a herd, will never understand religious aristocracy, religious absoluteness. She needs bread and circuses! And scientific theology, which has as its object pure religious knowledge and preaches nothing but absolute action and personal freedom, does not have its own means of directly combating theological quackery. And what is most curious: what is seductive for weak souls is not some specific feuilleton solution to the Christian question, but precisely the feuilletonism itself, the most programmatic formulation of the Christian question. They are equally passionate about the brotherhood of labor, built on the principles of iron discipline, and Tolstoy’s colonies, based on the complete denial of any discipline, and the brotherhood of struggle, which introduces the principles of revolutionary action into Christianity, and Christian socialism. The fact that all these programs exclude one another remains in the shadows: Christian “Trudoviks” gnashing their teeth denounce the absurdity of both non-resistanceists and Christian social activists; non-resistanceists, in turn, hate both Trudoviks and social activists; the latter, finally, despise both peaceful Trudoviks and passive non-resistanceists. But they all have one thing in common: they all do not want to know theological critical science, they all preach, denounce, present their programs, promise immediate healing of ailments, and offer “rules of action.” Avoiding theological science, they all have no idea or even a premonition about religious mystery, about the beauty of religious knowledge, they are all terribly non-religious people. They exchanged religious value for market coins, they drag the shrine through the streets, they replace religious knowledge with cheap programs. From them we will not hear religious-creative thoughts, catchwords - they flood the book market with their popular brochures, their recipes for the crowd. Under such conditions, scientific theology requires heroic self-sacrifice from its workers. Theologia vera virtus est. Along with supply, it is necessary to awaken demand, along with throwing grains, prepare the soil, and develop tastes. There is no favorable countercurrent. On the contrary, you encounter prejudice and mistrust. You go on stage under sidelong glances. With your first step, you bear the sins of others. They deny you in advance the right to tell the historical truth and the personal truth, they attach someone else’s programmatic scales to your religious thought, and stereotyped external marks. The narrow area of ​​theological science and, in particular, religious thought is squeezed by the swampy undergrowth of theological journalism. A whole host of buffoonish scribblers, grimacing in front of the market audience, amuses her by playing the roles of Savonarol and Brand, breaking down in front of her with their diaries and confessions. But it turns out that even in the narrow field of theological science, religious thought has against itself militant theological scholasticism - in two forms: in the form of impersonal church-historical archaeology and in the form of scholastic taxonomy. Religious philosophy is a modern martyr. She is already suffering from being overwhelmed by a dirty wave of journalistic, vulgar falsification. It suffers from censorship—general, special for learned theological works, and voluntary censorship of reviewers and informers acting like “some from James.” It suffers from censorship incomparably more than other departments of theology, because in matters of religious thought everyone considers himself competent, and it is not customary here to comply with scientific data... However, all this would be tolerable if our theological science provided refuge for religious thought in its own sphere. But theological science wants to be the kingdom of external learning and does not want to give room for religious thought. Religious philosophy differs from journalism in that it is based on critical-historical science, but theological scholarship itself turns away from religious philosophy. Theological science - both church-historical and systematic - looks at religious philosophy, at religious thought - with disdain. The first motive of this arrogance is that academic philosophy does not tolerate creativity of thought! Prof. A.I. Lebedev, our famous church historian, in his autobiographical essay, wrote the following: “I never felt much inclination towards philosophizing, and my master’s topic (philosophical-theological) finally quarreled me with philosophy, with philosophy as it is understood in the academy. This philosophy predetermines and predetermined all questions - and the researcher was indicated in advance where it was absolutely necessary to say: yes, and where it was equally imperative to say: no. True, when writing my dissertation, there were cases where it was impossible to say with certainty either yes or no, but in these cases it was necessary to draw a hair on the motive: one cannot disagree, but one must admit. All this quickly bored me - and caused physical nausea. I realized that academic philosophy is the true nirvana for the real science of this name. And I am not surprised that all the lazy people in the academy show an undoubted inclination towards philosophy. I did not at all want to think in accordance with the ready-made instructions and, bowing to everything that bore the name of academic philosophy, took the chair of ancient church history.” These words of the venerable church historian deserve attention... A.P. Lebedev is my esteemed mentor at the academy, about whom I still retain the most pleasant memories. His church historical works form my reference books. And, however (it is better to say: even more so), I regret that such a thoughtless speech came from under his pen. The sad thing is that in the words of A.P. Lebedev's logical side of the matter is not entirely correct. In his last articles, with particular persistence (and pain), he draws the attention of readers to those persecutions and repressions that are retarding the development of church historical science in our country 35 . What is the difference in this respect, that is, in the conditions of development, between church history and theology? Why does this pressure form an external obstacle for historical science, but an internal property for theology? Maybe this pressure bounces off historical science like a pea off a wall, and leaves its mark on theology with its whole dirty paw? It is too well known that this is not the case 36 . This is in terms of development, now – in essence. The history of religions and church history have as their subject religion as a fact, and Christianity as a fact; The philosophy of religion and the philosophy of Christianity have as their subject matter religion and Christianity as a problem. That is, essentially the work of a historian of religions and the church is external work, while the work of a religious thinker is creativity. Personal free creativity is the conditio sine qua non of good theological work. This is clear to everyone except representatives of “scientific” theology - church historians and systematic theologians. It may very well be that A.P. Lebedev identifies precisely this religious-mental creativity with laziness of the mind, contrasting it with church-historical work. But this is what is characteristic of our “scientific” theology, and it is precisely in this disregard for religious creative thought that church history becomes on the same level as scholastic-systematic theology. The second motive for the disdainful attitude of representatives of theological science towards religious thought is the general accessibility of the topics of religious philosophy. No matter how inaccessible the latter may be in its content, no matter how high its demands from writers and readers may be, the fact remains that it discusses the same subjects that are treated in sermons and edifying leaflets. Not so with church-historical and theological-scholastic works. Here there is always the opportunity to deal with questions that have never occurred to anyone, with church-historical names that no one has heard of, and with church-historical monuments that no one has read - and this creates the psychology of an arrogant specialist. When several such specialists from different parts of the globe extend their hands to each other, then a complete illusion of something both sacred and universal is created. At least. A teachers doctrine and his roof Is all his province, and enough: But is no more concerned in use, Than shoemakers to wear all shoes us At the same time, an important role is played by the consideration that such topics make it possible not to touch upon personal convictions, and this is not only sometimes very convenient, but is also considered a sign of “good form” in theological and scientific circles... It is a well-known fact that long-standing orders form the corresponding psychology of the crowd. Likewise, in our country, long-term persecution of religious thought has given rise to a deeply rooted superstition that it is indecent to talk about one’s personal religious beliefs. This superstition contains a kind of seminary-academic spirit. Expounding accepted church teaching, interpreting an external church-historical fact is scientific, but building a personal religious worldview, at the very least, is not accepted: it offends common sense. And a simple conclusion from this superstition is the opinion that writing scientifically on publicly accessible (religious) topics is a very easy task, not worth serious attention. And in this way, in this typical environment of common sense, the undoubted truth is completely obscured that to philosophically and seriously discuss well-worn topics, vulgar questions, without straying into journalism, without repeating well-worn paths - this is possible only with more or less great talent and personal originality. Not only does building a literary edifice of one’s convictions, in general, and religious ones in particular, mean writing with blood and nerves; moreover, this is an area where nothing, neither hard work nor learning, can replace creative fire, nothing can mask the absence of God’s gift. For without this fire and gift, no effort can be taken to get out of the quagmire of commonplaces, beaten paths, alien, old and dead words, annoying preaching and frivolous journalistic feuilletonism. So pompous scholarship and noisy journalism stand opposite each other, almost touching, squeezing and crowding out religious thought. They often quarrel among themselves, reproaching one another for ignorance, and the other for lifelessness. But the dear ones scold, they only amuse themselves. And there are many examples when unapproachable scientists quickly switched to the clownish role of market publicists. Both are unchanged and consistent in one thing - hatred of religious thought. And there is no place for this sufferer either in the swamp of vulgar preaching or in the stones of fruitless scholarship. Read to 3rd year students of the Academy on September 15, 1915. A more detailed understanding of the theory presented is given by distinguishing it from the pragmatic theory of knowledge, from the utilitarian nature of the theory of “judgments of value” (Werturteile) and from the theory of the postulates of practical reason, including Richlianism. But that's not about it here. I personally am filled with an organic aversion to Gnosticism, which eliminates mystery, similar to what a chaste person has for debauchery, for shameless exposure. My aversion to Gnosticism is equal in strength, perhaps, to my natural antipathy to ostentatious piety, to the appearance of those who, in the words of Feofan Prokopovich, “bow their heads on one shoulder, their voices grow thin, they grin untimely, they inhale often and for no reason.” “...we need to consider where the gloomy thought about life comes from... Such a thought, firstly, occurs in some from the unhappy melancholy composition of their disposition. They, having a thought darkened by various boring imaginations, and constantly tormented by internal anxiety, no longer imagine everything as cheerful, bad and spoiled, they don’t like everything; everything is annoying; and from their own life they make a general conclusion about the life of everyone in general: just like a person whose eyes hurt with icteric disease, everything appears yellow” (M.M. Plato). I discuss the topic of mysticism in more detail elsewhere. But it is obvious that the inconsistency of “medical materialism,” with which I have little in common, since I recognize spiritual mysticism, cannot serve as an objection to my theory of mysticism. The only objection to me would be the (obviously untenable) assertion that never or no mysticism has an organic origin: I am only talking about mysticism of organic genesis. But another reader would do well to apply Schopenhauer’s stern speeches: “Everyone can truly understand and appreciate only what is related to him and of the same essence. But to the flat is related the flat, to the vulgar, to the vulgar, to the dim-headed - confusion, to the brainless - nonsense... Just as even the strongest hand, throwing a light body, cannot impart to it such a movement so that, having flown far away, it will hit strongly - and not fall powerlessly close by, for it lacks its own material content to perceive the force applied to it; “The same thing happens with beautiful, great thoughts and masterful creations of geniuses, if there are only small, weak, perverted heads to perceive them.” The following was typed by me in God. Vestn. 1903 May - it is added here (without changes) due to the similarity of the topic. The smarter secular writers also feel this. These are the words that belong to L. Shestov. “...In his article On the New Religious Consciousness, in which Berdyaev for the first time begins to talk about Christ, the God-man, the man-god, etc., he breaks off, stutters, and in words reveals all the signs that he has found himself in a foreign and unfamiliar area, where he has to move at random and by touch. By the way, it should be noted that all our writers, who came to Christianity through evolution, cannot learn to truly pronounce the holy words. Even Merezhkovsky, who has been practicing theological topics for so many years, has not yet reached any significant virtuosity, despite his undoubted literary talent. There is no real tone. Kind of like a person who learns a new language in adulthood. You always recognize him as a foreigner. Same with Bulgakov. He solved a difficult problem in an original way and from the very first articles began to pronounce the word Christ in the same tone in which he had previously pronounced the word Marx. And yet Bulgakov, despite all the advantages of the simplicity and naturalness of his manner (for it did not have to be changed), does not satisfy a sensitive ear. Here, perhaps, they will be in their place. Politics, issues of social order are an old, close, dear matter.” There is nothing to say about writers of a smaller caliber. ... “Church history was looked upon as a science that should be subordinate and towed by dogmatic theology,” etc. A.I. Lebedev Bog. Vest. 1907, April 711 ff. According to A.P. himself Lebedev: “In terms of its merits, Russian church historical science is not only not equal to its foreign comrades, but has also lagged significantly behind them.” Ibid. 705. Wed. May, p. 102 and many more. etc.