X. Письмо девятое: Тварь

The last thread with the earth broke. A gravestone fell on his chest. It's all the same. The days will drag on, gray and hopeless. There is not a single gap, not a single ray. Everything is dim. I used to live in hope. She is alone, only she gave strength. She alone was the source of life. Now there is nothing. Nothing. Nothing... In the neighboring yard they were sawing logs, and the sound was thick, like when butter is whipped into already thickened cream, or when fatty sour cream is stirred in a crock. It was as if lumps of earth were thumping against the lid of the coffin. Unbearable!.. I walked through the cemetery. It was read in passing on some cross: "The ashes of the sacred soul rest The bell of the universe will strike and we will see you.” "Ashes of the sacred soul"! Lord, there are dead souls here too! Further, further to the edge of the cemetery - to a rampart with planted birches and to a ditch! Further, towards the setting sun, into the golden fields! The mustachioed barley glittered, bent all the way to the north. The spring wine, which had not yet poured, turned silver, as if covered with a silver-woven brocade cover. The winter crops have turned white. The rye turned pale and dried out; the heavy ears were drooping down. The fields were agitated by a regular, rhythmic surf. And, reaching my feet, the wave broke. Again and again the wind struck the white fields awaiting the reaper. Rhythmic waves ran again and again broke at my feet. I remembered one hot day in July. I am sitting in the garden, under the acacia trees; Everyone had already gotten up from the tea table, and I was left alone, with a book and an unfinished glass. Flies in a close-knit formation surround every drop of sweet tea or jam. The ripe pods of the yellow acacia crack and forcefully scatter their round grains, knocking on the leaves. Sometimes a grain hits a glass, a glass saucer or a vase of jam, and a melodic crystal ringing echoes the blow. Dried pods rustle as they fall. I sit for hours, listening to the rustling, these ringing sounds and the dry cracking of the pods: the mysterious birth of trees takes place, and newborn seeds, tearing away from the mother’s womb, see the light of God for the first time and begin to live an independent life. Will something happen to them? Now the parental worries about them are over... The acacia is ripe, which means the rye is ripe: they always ripen together. The beginnings of new life are everywhere... The sun was setting; sunset. The day was over: in the trees, flocks of crows were about to settle down for the night. The sky shimmered with mother-of-pearl, colored red and yellow, as if woven with many layered clouds. And their edges were soft purple, amethyst. The tops of the bell towers of neighboring villages were clearly visible on the fiery field of the blazing sky. The villages look like they’ve painted something on them, like bird’s nests. Some kind of pole seemed to be stuck into the very sky. The wind brought the grainy spirit of ripe rye. I remembered something familiar, - eternally familiar, - familiar from distant eternity, - forever dear, dear and soulfully calling. But the sky faded and faded, like the lips of a dying woman. The sky was dying, and with it all hope for a better future died. All good impulses and expectations faded and faded, like the cheeks of a dying woman. From the edge of the sky, just barely, a melancholy ditty was heard by the wind: "The last time, the last hour, We won’t see you soon, and parting is close.” A thick, impenetrable, black cloud covered the sky and hung like a heavy curtain over the horizon. It got dark. There remained only a narrow strip of aquamarine, post-sunset sky, resting on the ground with a thin golden rim. The strip narrowed and turned pale. Finally, a heavy, as if cut edge of a dense cloud slammed down this last gap... like a coffin lid. And I stamped my foot with anger: “Aren’t you ashamed, unfortunate animal, to whine about your fate? Can't you let go of subjectivity? Can't you forget about yourself? Really—oh, shame!—can’t you understand that you have to surrender to the objective? The objective, standing outside of you, standing above you - won’t it really captivate you? Unhappy, pathetic, stupid! You whine and complain as if someone is obligated to satisfy your needs. Yes? You can't live without this and without that? Well, so what? If you cannot live, die, bleed to death, but still live objectively, do not descend into despicable subjectivity, do not seek conditions of life for yourself. Live for God, not for yourself. Be firm, be tempered, live objectively, in the clean mountain air, in the transparency of the peaks, and not in the stuffiness of the humid valleys, where chickens dig in the dust and pigs roll in the mud. Ashamed!". There is objectivity; This is a God-created creature. To live and feel together with all creation, but not the creature that man has desecrated, but the one that came out of the hands of His Creator; to discern in this creature a different, higher nature; through the crust of sin to feel the pure core of God’s creation…. But to say so is the same as putting a demand for a restored, i.e., spiritual personality. And again the question of asceticism arises. After all, it is not fasting and other physical labors, not tears and not good deeds that are the good of the ascetic, but a restored whole, that is, a chaste personality. “Nothing,” says St. Methodius, 439 - nothing is evil by nature, but by the way it is used evil becomes evil - γίνεται κακὰ τὰ κακὰ.” There is no reality in man that is evil; but the false use of powers and abilities, that is, the perversion of the order of reality, is evil; on the contrary, integrity-chastity consists, according to the word of St. Ambrose of Milan, “in undisturbed,” “in undamaged nature”: “pudor virginis est intemerata natura.” 440 Evil is nothing more than spiritual distortion, and sin is everything that leads to such. But the presence of this distortion of personality requires a kind of orthopedics, spiritual orthopedics. This orthopedics is the narrow path of asceticism in the mind of the holy fathers. “Not because,” argues one modern Bishop, 441 “asceticism became necessary, as a set of a certain kind of restrictions and constraints for achieving moral perfection, because Christianity requires it. No, Christianity requires from a person only positive, moral development, but only the sinful person himself turns out to be completely unable to live directly as the Christian ideal demands, and is forced to resort to various kinds of measures to suppress the acquired sinful content of life, “with the sweat of one’s face there is the bread of heaven,” as ascetics put it.” Spiritual life is the salvation given by the Lord Jesus Christ; asceticism is the path to it. But then, in order to understand not only the task posed by the feat, but also its special essence, it is necessary to delve somewhat into the order of the organs of life, which can only rightly be called order, that is, human chastity. One can approach the understanding of this order from different angles, but this seems to be the simplest path, or at least the clearest path. Man is “given” to us in different senses. But - first of all and first of all, it is given bodily, - as a body. The human body is what we primarily call a person. But what is a body? – Not the substance of the human body, understood as the matter of physicists, but its form, and not the form of its external outlines, but the entire structure of it as a whole - this is what we call the body. 442 It is possible that the very word “body” is related to the word “whole”, 443 i.e. it means something whole, undamaged, complete in itself, integrum: and, according to A. S. Khomyakov, “body” comes from the Sanskrit root tal, til - to be full, fat, 444 according to ancient understanding - healthy, strong. Similarly, the Greek “σῶμα" is rooted to the words: σάος, σόος - healthy, whole; σώος, σῶς – prosperous, healthy, saved; σῶκος – strong, healthy; σαόω, σώζω, - or rather - σῴζω, - I treat, heal, save; σω-τήρ – savior, healer. Comparing σῶμα with σωτήρ and with σώζω, we can say that these words relate to each other, as a result or instrument of action (ἐνέργημα, effectus, vis) to the actor (ὁ ἐνεργών, auctor) and to the process of action (ἐνέργέω), And since the ending τηρ is equivalent to the ending της, we can further write a complex relation: σῶμα: σωτήρ: σώζω = κοίημα: ποιητής: ποιέω = κτίσμα: κτιστής: κτίζω κτλ. 445 Thus, σῶμα denotes something passive, a work that has integrity and integrity. The body is something whole, something individual, something special. This is not the place to prove that individuality permeates every organ of the body and that therefore there is some kind of, quite undoubted, although perhaps elusive for the formulas of characterology as a science - there is some kind of connection, some kind of correspondence between the subtlest features of the structure of organs and the slightest twists of personal characteristics. Features; structure of the skull; lines of palms and feet; shape of hands and fingers; voice timbre, expressing the smallest features in the structure of the vocal organs; handwriting that captures the subtlest features of muscle contractions; taste and idiosyncrasies, showing exactly what substances and stimuli a given organism needs, i.e., what it lacks, etc., etc. - everywhere here, behind the impersonal substance, a single personality looks at us. The body reveals its unity everywhere. And therefore, the more we think about the concept of the “human body,” the more persistently the need to move from the ontological periphery of the body to its ontological center, i.e., manifests itself. to that body which makes this diversity of organs and activities unity, to that body without which only the concept of ὁμοιουσία is applicable to all these organs, but not ὁμοοὐσία. It is this root of the unity of the body, this body in the body, this body par excellence, this body itself that occupies us. What is usually called a body is nothing more than an ontological surface; and behind it, on the other side of this shell lies the mystical depth of our being. After all, in general, everything that we call “external nature”, all “empirical reality”, including our “body” here, is only the surface of the division between two depths of being: the depth of “I” and the depth of “not-I”, and therefore it is impossible to say whether our “body” belongs to the I or to the not-I. 446 What can be said about the structure of our true body? – Let the shell that outlines its outlines, let the “body” of empirics indicate its organs and the features of its structure. First of all, the symmetry of the upper and lower parts of the body is noticed - the so-called homotypy of the “upper” and “lower” poles. The bottom of a person is like a mirror image of his top. Organs, bones, muscular, circulatory and nervous systems, even diseases of the upper and lower poles and the effects of medications turn out to be polarly coupled. 447 But, if so, doesn’t this correspondence mean that the ontological focus of the body is not this or that limb, but the center of homotypy, i.e., the middle part of a person. Which? – Already a superficial glance indicates the natural division of the human body into the head, chest and abdomen, and each of the parts, taken as a whole, can be taken as a single organ. Nutritious and reproductive functions are concentrated in the stomach, feelings are concentrated in the chest, and, finally, the life of consciousness is concentrated in the head. The nervous system - this, in the empirical plane, is most closely our body - the nervous system has its centers in these three organs and, as far as one can guess in the modern state of knowledge, these centers are precisely the centers of the above-mentioned activities. 448 But the point is not in them, but in the fact that the life of each of the organs - head, chest and abdomen - can be deepened by appropriate training, and then a person becomes a mystic of the corresponding organ. The correct development of all organs, under the leadership of the one with which the human personality is primarily associated, i.e., the breasts - such is normal mysticism, and it is achieved no other way than in the fertile environment of churchliness. Any other mysticism, although it gives deepening, nevertheless upsets the balance of the personality, for, unable to be nourished by grace, the grain of the soul, growing not into the bowels of the Most Holy Trinity, but somewhere to the side, dries up and dies. Such is the mysticism of the stomach, i.e. the mysticism of orgiastic cults of ancient and modern times and partly of Catholicism; the same is the mysticism of the head, or yoga, widespread in Eastern countries, especially in India, and introduced into the European world by occultists of various persuasions and, especially, theosophists. Only the mysticism of the center of the human being, the mysticism that first of all opens access to grace in a person, nourishing his depths, only this mysticism corrects the personality and allows it to grow from measure to measure. Any other mysticism necessarily increases the already disturbed balance of life and ultimately distorts the nature of a sinful person. This is the danger of “delusion” or false mysticism, that the more and the more conscientiously a person who has fallen into it tries to work on himself, the worse it is for him, and only the worst fall can force him to come to his senses and begin to destroy what he so diligently built. Just as a traveler heading down the wrong road, the more he rushes, the further he will go from his goal, so in the same way an ascetic who has left the path of churchliness will perish from his own asceticism. It is not without reason that the spiritual elders warn the newcomers: “Do not be afraid of any sin, do not be afraid even of fornication, do not be afraid of anything; but be afraid of prayer and deeds.” So, church mysticism is the mysticism of the breast. But since ancient times, the heart, or at least the organ called by this name, was considered the center of the chest. If the chest is the center of the body, then the heart is the center of the chest. And since ancient times, all the attention of church mysticism has been directed to the heart. “Whoever reads the word of God with due attention” - this is how P. D. Yurkevich begins his famous article about the heart, 449 - can easily notice that in all sacred books and all inspired writers the human heart is considered as the focus of the entire bodily and spiritual life of a person, as the most essential organ and the closest seat of all forces, functions, movements, desires, feelings and thoughts of a person with all their directions and shades. One cannot, along with some, see in texts that mention the word heart “a random image of a word-expression, which did not seem to be controlled by a specific thought.” The heart is not an allegory, but a tautegory. 450 “A simple reading of the sacred texts, unless we reinterpret them according to pre-occupied ideas, convinces us immediately that the sacred writers definitely and with a full consciousness of the truth recognized the heart as the focus of all phenomena of human bodily and spiritual life.” 451 “The sacred writers knew about the high importance of the head in the spiritual life of man; nevertheless, we repeat, the focus of this life was seen in the heart. The head was for them, as it were, the visible pinnacle of that life, which is initially and directly rooted in the heart 452.” Holy Scripture gives “a very definite idea that the head has the significance of an organ that mediates between the integral being of the soul and those influences that it experiences from outside or above, and that at the same time it has the dignity of government in the integral system of mental actions” 453. From this it is clear that the task of ascetic life, chastity, is defined as purity of heart. “Create a pure heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit in my womb” (Ps. 50:12) - the Psalmist cried, and, after him, every believer cries. But, according to the nature of Jewish parallelism, the second half of the petition is a synonymous strengthening of the first: “renew” is the same as “create,” and “in my womb” is the same as “in me,” “right” is the same as “pure,” and “spirit” is the same as “heart.” The findings are also confirmed by linguistics. The heart is the center of our spiritual life, and to become spiritual means nothing more than to “arrange”, how to “prosper”, how to “make chaste” your heart. In the Indo-European languages, 454 words expressing the concept of “heart” point at their very roots to the concept of centrality, middleness. Both the Russian heart and those deeply rooted to it: the Belarusian heart, the Little Russian heart, the Czech srdce, the Polish serce, sierce, etc. - a diminutive form - from the noun serdo. The root of the word serdo forms the words: Old Slavonic environment, Old Russian: sered and sered - middle, serede - in the middle (preposition and adverb), Russian: sereda, medium, middle, middle, means, intermediary, serdts-e-in-a, etc., and all of them express the idea of ​​being or acting “inside”, “between”, in contrast being “outside”, “beyond” a known area. The heart, thus, means something central, something internal, something in between - an organ that is the core of a living being, both in its place and in its activity. This etymology explains the use of the word 455 “heart” in meanings that have nothing to do with its anatomical, moral or psychological meaning. “People often call with their hearts the spoon, the pit of the stomach, the inframammary cavity, above the stomach, where the abdominal brain is, a large plexus of nerves.” 456 Apparently, both the Bible and the ancient writings of different peoples are also characterized by such word usage, and its meaning deepens if we remember that the solar plexus of the sympathetic nervous system, located in the pit of the stomach, is recognized by occultists as the nerve center of mystical activity, 457 and by positivist physiologists it is certainly recognized as the center of various organic functions, such as secretory, etc. 458 “Heart” sometimes takes on the meaning: “inside, subsoil, womb, center, inner middle,” so it is said “heart of the earth,” instead of the inside of the earth, “heart of the tree” (cf. French cœur d’un arbre) and “heart of the pen” - in the sense of “the middle of the thickness” of them. In a similar way, you can hear the expressions: “apple heart”, i.e. nest, seeds along with the casing; “core of the tree,” that is, the middle pulp in the tree, running like a vein from the root to the very top; “core of a stone”, the core where it is, a special type or composition of a stone inside another; “salt core” in mountain salt (Iletsk), clean proofs, transparent as glass, lie in nests; a flint pebble in the chalk, or, in the Kazan dialect, a heart. That is why any rod inserted into a trunk, into a hole is called a core; a bolt passed through the front cushion and the axle of the cart, on which the front end rotates; pin, pin, trigger; an iron rod with a ball to form a void when casting hollow artillery shells; or, again, soft iron forming an electromagnet and placed inside a winding, as in dynamos, the “core of electromagnets” or the “core of a drum.” Let us now turn to the Semitic languages, mainly to Hebrew. In the Russian translation of the Bible, the word “heart” conveys the concept expressed in Hebrew by the word לֵב libb, corresponding to the Assyrian libbu, Aramaic לבִָא; Ethiopian , Arabic lubb, etc., or the word לבִָב libab, and in Aramaic לבִָב 459. According to Furst, the verb לבַָב has its first meaning, transitive: to wrap, wrap, wrap, entwine, cover, and its second, transitive meaning: to glow, burn, smolder, be incandescent. The transitional meaning is proven by parallels: in Arabic: yapav to cover, - hence yapav skin, fur, shield; paffa convolvit, rolled up, – a verb equivalent to the Hebrew לףַָ to wrap up; In Syriac: paf, to cover, from where epibe’ eyelids (eyes), i.e. skin, integument, etc. It is clear that the verb לבַב could really mean pinguis fuit, was fat, as Gesenius points out, 462 for to be fat means to be surrounded, to be, as it were, wrapped in fat. In the same way, it is clear that the verb in question could have the meaning of “holding on something, firmly sticking to something, attaching a climbing plant to trees” - from which then “wrap around, wrap around.” 463 The word לב comes precisely from this, transitional, meaning of the verb לבַָב, so it means something covered, surrounded by organs and parts of the body and, therefore, hidden in the depths of the body and, therefore, central, the center of the body, the middle organ of the body. There are also other explanations here. The heart is “fat” in the sense that it is surrounded by the thickness of the body. Heart - “entwined”, again in the sense that it is “inside, breast, etc. hidden, as if wrapped.” Therefore, the Arabic word lubb refers to a nut or almond kernel wrapped in shell or pulp; Arabic 'pubub grain of the fruit (cf. our "halva", a sweet made from crushed nut kernels 464), pabab and pubbag - chest (Brustknöchen). Consequently, the Hebrew לב, Arabic lubb, etc. mean the innermost point, as a “hard” point, as a “core” point. This etymology of the word לב well explains why Holy Scripture sometimes speaks of the “heart,” i.e., the center, the central point or region of inanimate beings of the world in meaning or position, the “heart of heaven”: הַשָׁמים‏ עדלֵב to the depths of heaven (Deut. 4:11); about the “heart of the sea”: ־יַמִים בלְבַב you brought me into the abyss, into the heart of the sea: (Ex. 15:8, “song of Moses”); “the depths thickened in the heart of the sea - בלב־יָם” ( Jonah 2:4) and, as a reflection of the Hebraistic image of the expression in Matthew 12:40 about the “heart of the earth”; הָאֵלָה בלְב “in the middle of the oak tree” or, more precisely, in the branches, in the thicket of the branches of terebinth (2 Sam. 18:14). Purification of the heart gives communication with God, and communication with God straightens and organizes the entire personality of the ascetic. As if spreading throughout the entire personality and penetrating it, the light of Divine love sanctifies the border of the personality, the body, and from here it radiates into the nature external to the personality. Through the root by which the spiritual personality goes into heaven, grace sanctifies everything around the ascetic and flows into the depths of all creation. The body, this common boundary between man and other creatures, connects them together. Therefore, if man, who fell away from God, carried away all creation with him and, having perverted his nature, perverted the order of all nature, then, restored by God, he brings the primordial harmony and order into creation, which collectively “groans and suffers to this day” (Rom. 8:22) and “waits with hope for the revelation of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19). Man is connected by his body with all the flesh of the world, and this connection is so close that the fate of man and the fate of all creation are inseparable. The very covenant of God was concluded by God not only with man, but with all creation. 465 In the covenant of God with Noah (Gen. 9), this thought is repeated many times with all possible certainty. 8. “And God said to Noah and his sons with him: 9. “Behold, I establish My covenant,” בְרִיתִי ־ את ’et-beriti, “with you and with your descendants after you. 10. “And with every living creature that is with you, with the birds, with the livestock, and with all the beasts of the earth that you have, from all those who came out of the ark to all the animals of the earth; 11. “I have established My covenant,” et-beriti, “with you, that all flesh shall no longer be destroyed by the waters of a flood, and there shall no more be a flood to devastate the earth.” 12. And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant - הַבְרִית אוׄת זאת zot 'ot gabberit - which I establish between Me, and between you, and between every living soul that is with you, throughout all generations forever: 13. “I set My rainbow on the cloud, so that it may be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14. “And it will come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that a rainbow will appear in the cloud. 15. “And I will remember My covenant,” et-beriti, “which is between Me and you, and between every living soul in all flesh; and the waters will no longer be a flood to destroy all flesh. 16. “And there will be a rainbow in the cloud, and I will see it, and remember it, the everlasting covenant, - עוׄלָם בְרִית berit'olam, - between God and every living soul of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17. And God said to Noah: “This is the sign of the covenant,” he takes, “which I have made between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” What is remarkable here is the perfect identity of the formula of God's covenant with humanity and with other creatures 466. These are not two different covenants, this is one covenant with the whole world, considered as a single being, headed by man. The very word “covenant” - ברית berit, repeated several times in these ten verses, is found in the Bible in those places where it speaks of the covenant of God with man. 467 If the perversion of human nature entails the perversion of all creation, and the dispensation of man is the dispensation of creation as well, then we have a question about the specific features of this chaste creation, that is, those beginnings of the heavenly state that the ascetic reaches now, in this life, before the general change of the world. But in order to more clearly understand the essence of this earthly paradise of ascetics, this mysticism of the heart, we must remember that the perversion caused by false mysticism, the displacement of the center of human existence, can be of two types. Either this is the mysticism of the head, the mystical overdevelopment of the mind, fed not by grace from the heart, but feeding independently, with demonic pride, and false knowledge trying to embrace all the secrets of earth and heaven; or, on the contrary, it is a mystical redevelopment of organic life, the mysticism of the womb, which again receives the sources of life not from the heart exuding spirituality, but from demons, impurity. In both cases, the personality is not whole, but fragmented and perverted, without a center. The self-restraint of a proud mind distinguishes the ascetic from the mystics of the first type; curbing the lustful belly - from mystics like the latter. Everything by which an ascetic lives does not arise spontaneously in one or another separate organ, but in the living center of his being, in the heart, and arises here under the gracious influence of the Comforter Spirit. Having arisen in the center of the entire being, purified by grace, the vital movement naturally (and not unnaturally, as with false mystics) spreads through the organs of vital activity, and therefore they all act in accordance with and in accordance with each other. 468 He is essentially connected with all creation and does not shun anything characteristic of creation; but he, in his feeling of the creature, has no lust. He penetrates deeply into the secrets of heaven and earth, and is not devoid of knowledge of them, but in his knowledge of the secrets he has no pride. The evil infinity of unbridledness, both in the material world and in the intellectual world, is certainly expelled from it, for it is cut off at its very root, in the heart. He has an incorruptible body and an incorruptible mind. And, moreover, even non-spiritual people receive strength from the ascetic for a better relationship with the creature. The spiritualized ascetic seems to soar above nature. “Which of the strong people,” says Macarius the Great, 469, “or wise or prudent, while still on earth, ascended to heaven and there performed spiritual deeds, contemplating the beauties of the spirit? And now someone, outwardly poor, extremely poor and humiliated and even completely unknown to his neighbors, prostrates himself before God and, guided by the Spirit, ascends to heaven and with undoubted confidence in his soul enjoys the miracles there.” And, according to Nikita Stifat, 470 “when someone becomes a participant in the Holy Spirit and recognizes His power from some indescribable action and fragrance within himself, which is tangibly revealed even in the body, then he cannot remain within the limits of nature - he does not feel hunger, thirst, or other needs of nature.” He is transformed, and all the properties of his nature change. “He who has grace,” says Rev. Macarius the Great, 471 - has a different mind, a different meaning, and a different wisdom than the wisdom of this world.” He is different in everything, he is a monk. Monasticism itself is nothing other than spirituality, and spirituality cannot but be monasticism. And here, for the monastic consciousness, the whole world becomes different. Leaving worldly life, the monk indulges in worldly life. “According to the inner mood of the soul,” says Nikita Stifat, 472, “the nature of things changes”; “Whoever has achieved true prayer and love,” he testifies, 473 “has no discernment between things, does not distinguish between the righteous and the sinful, but loves everyone equally and does not condemn, just as God the sun shines and rains on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Blessing the universe, the ascetic everywhere and always sees signs of God and God's writings in things; for him, every creation is a ladder along which the angels of God descend into the earthly vale; everything further is a reflection of what is above. All nature is a “book” for him, as the Rev. said to himself. Anthony the Great. 474 Let us turn to an explanation, using some historical examples, of the provisions expressed here. However, I do not at all flatter myself with the hope of clarifying the mutual relationship between the Eternal Truth and the experimental reality that surrounds us. There is such an abundance of material here that I don’t know how to get down to business, which typical examples to choose. You just have to sketch, lightly outline the object with separate lines and dots. But I don’t even strive for approximate completeness. I will begin directly with a certain point that probably runs counter to modern views, especially the views of those who imagine themselves to be defenders of the religious significance of the creature. 475 Namely: only in Christianity did the creature receive its religious significance, only with Christianity did a place appear for the “feeling of nature”, 476 for the love of man and for the resulting science of the creature: “The newest natural science, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, owes its origin to Christianity,” says E. du Bois-Reymond. 477 “Everything is full of gods - πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι” 478 - this is the main position of paganism. It may seem strange, but I will still say that this position sounds godless and worldless, atheistic and acosmic at once: as St. Athanasius the Great, 479 “polytheism is godlessness, plurality of command is lack of command.” Everything is full of gods. But, firstly, what is this “everything” about itself? If we take the limit to which the non-Christian worldview strived; if we take the speech in its tendency, in its aspiration - and only the limit, only the tendency is what is defined in it, discussed, fixed in the word - then “everything” is only a phenomenon, a phenomenon devoid of true reality. It is an appearance, a “skin”, as Fr. Nietzsche. 480 It is a beautiful form and nothing more. But there is nothing in him—it would be better to say—he has no “himself.” Everything is a soap bubble that resolves into a drop of dirty water. Outside of grace-filled consciousness there is no comprehension of personality, and therefore everything is semi-real and, with a keen eye, melts into nothingness 481. “But,” they say, “although it has no value in itself, although only our aesthetic perception of it, only bare subjectivity, is valuable in it, but there is God in it.” Is it God? Isn’t there a demon hiding behind the beautiful form? Was it only the later polemic with Christianity - that alone - that gave the word δαίμων its modern, negative meaning? - Of course not. These numerous demonic creatures were first of all terrible for ancient humanity, just as they are now terrible and demonic for any graceless consciousness, in any non-Christian religion, just as the “spirits” of spiritualists and the countless “deities” of northern Buddhism are terrible. Fear and trembling surrounded the man; the gods themselves were demonic, and the connection with the gods, re-ligio, was reduced in its essence to δεισιδαιμονία, to God-or, more precisely, to demon-fear and to the resulting desire to magically curse an unkind demon: 482 Timor fecit primos deos, and the ancient man secretly felt that he was honoring not gods, but demons. As now, as always, graceless religion has fatally degenerated into dark magic. This is an indisputable feeling in any graceless religion, and only someone who has not experienced any religion specifically can speak “in general about religion” as something homogeneous. Grace-filled faith and graceless religion, no matter how many common features they have in their ideological content and their cult, in sensations and in the dispensation of the soul they are so heterogeneous and impenetrable to each other that it seems even awkward to call both of them with the same term “religion.” But even if someone has not experienced this qualitative otherness of a graceless religion, he, at least in an abstract way, must recognize the demonic nature of graceless humanity. There is no other way to explain it - either open depression or “tragic optimism”. After all, what is this “optimism”, no matter how strained (the ends of the lips) the smile of a slave who is afraid to show his master that he is afraid of him, because this could bring anger, is afraid by his very fear of causing anger, is afraid of his fear. – The forms are beautiful, but is it really a secret to ancient man that “Chaos is stirring beneath them”? Only the idea of ​​Fate, essentially hostile to the demon gods, flickered, perhaps, either as a vague memory of what was lost, or as a distant premonition of future monotheism. Shackled by fear, ancient man could turn all his strength to the “skin” of things and to its reproduction. The nature of ancient art shows that ancient man did not at all like the “soul” of things and was afraid to penetrate beyond the outlines of the “skin”: after all, there he found chaos and horror. Having no protection, he turns to one of the demons for help, and then, out of fear, tries to “wrap his head in a blanket and fall asleep.” “It’s better not to look” - this is the slogan of an ancient culture that is forgotten in “optimism” - the same optimism as the optimism of an opiophagist or a hashishist. At the same time, formal science is possible: geometry, partly astronomy, etc. But real science is impossible, because how can one study chaos, and who would dare to penetrate it with an inquisitive gaze? A person’s courage irritates and worries demons; they do not trust his curiosity and do not like it when he tries to discover what they have hidden from his eyes with a golden veil of beauty. Even the independent mind of Aristotle was not far from this basic element of the ancient religion: Love between the gods and man, as between heterogeneous creatures, is impossible, states the Stagirite. 483 Love is impossible! - such is the awareness of one’s God-understanding throughout antiquity; and if later Roman philosophy (Cicero, Seneca, etc.) tried to say otherwise, then it undoubtedly left the ancient religious soil and betrayed the spirit and primordial principles of the ancient concept of God. It is very possible that light from the East begins to shine in it. Two feelings, two ideas, two prerequisites were necessary for the possibility of the emergence of science: first, a feeling and an idea, which have as their content the natural unity of creation (as opposed to the capricious arbitrariness of demons who fill “everything”); secondly, a feeling and idea that affirm the true reality of the creature as such. Only they would make it possible to penetrate deep into her with a fearless, direct gaze, trustingly come close to her and joyfully love her. It was necessary to introduce into consciousness, theologically speaking, two dogmas, namely: the dogma of the providence of the One God and the dogma of the creation of the world by the Good God, i.e., the granting of creation its own and independent existence. The providence of God and the freedom of creation constitute, in their antinomy, one dogma - the dogma of God’s love for creation, which has its basis in the idea of ​​God-Love, i.e., the Trinity of the Divine. This antinomy, in all its decisiveness, is the basis of modern science; outside of it there is no science. Thus, if it was previously shown that the dogma of the Trinity is the original principle of philosophy, now it is revealed that it serves as a rule for the construction of science. Both ideas underlying the existence of science, especially the first, were in the Old Testament books of the Bible. “The monotheism of the Jewish and Christian religions,” says Christopher Siegwart, 484, “created fertile ground for the idea of ​​a comprehensive science that explores the general laws of the world. In fact, what other form could the idea initially take that heaven and earth are encompassed by one thought, that man is called to understand this thought, if not the form of faith in One Creator, Who created heaven and earth, Who created man in His image and likeness? In what other form could one express with greater clarity the idea that nothing is accidental, and that things in the world do not intersect along confusing paths by the will of blind chance, if not in the form of the thought of Providence, apart from Whom not even a hair will fall from a man’s head?” The unity of creation - not the spontaneous unity of indifference, but the organic unity of harmony - such is the precondition of science. This is understood by the Jewish interpreters of the Word of God. “Know,” says Maimonides at the end of the 12th century, “that the entire universe, that is, the uppermost sphere with everything contained in it, is nothing more than an individual whole, like the individuals Simeon and Reuben, and the difference in the beings contained in it is like the difference in the organs of any individual of the human race. And just as Reuben, for example, constitutes a separate personality, composed of various parts, such as muscles, bones, blood vessels, various organs, liquids and gases - so the universe consists of spheres, four elements and the compounds arising from them. Next, Maimonides elaborates on his analogy between the micro- and macrocosm. “Thus,” he sums up his reasoning, “we must imagine the universe as one living individual, moving through the soul that is contained in him. This view is quite important; for, firstly, it leads, as we will see below, to the proof of the unity of God; secondly, it shows us that the One truly creates the one.” 485 It is clear that such views on the nature of the world should have been conducive to the study of nature; Jewish thinkers even demand it. To the question: “Are we obligated to cognize the unity of God through research,” Rabbi Behai, who lived at the end of the 11th and at the beginning of the 12th centuries, answers: “Anyone who is capable of studying this subject, as well as similar mental subjects, must investigate them as far as his cognitive powers allow him. - Whoever deviates from this is worthy of blame and is considered among those who are careless, both in doctrine and in practice. – The essence of this research consists in delving into the signs of the wisdom of the Creator, revealed in His creations, and weighing them in the soul, in accordance with the cognitive powers of the researcher. For if the signs of wisdom were expressed equally in all creations, then they would be clear to one and all, and the thinking and the ignorant would be equal in their knowledge; but wisdom, being essentially the same in principle, is expressed differently in different creatures, just as the rays of the sun, which are essentially the same, receive different colors in different glasses, and as water receives different colors from the different colors of the plants it contains. That is why we must examine the Creator’s creations from small to great in order to discover in them those signs of wisdom that are hidden in them. That is why we must delve into them and reflect on them in order to obtain a more or less clear understanding of them.” 486 If the universe were monotonous, then this would indicate, according to R. Referring to the mechanical and unfree nature of the cause that produced it. On the contrary, the diversity of the universe, contained in unity, points to a single, free, creative Will. But if the properties of the universe reflect the properties of God, then “the study of creation, as the only path to knowledge of the wisdom of the Creator, is prescribed to us by reason, scripture and tradition. Reason - because he convinces us that the superiority of man over other animals lies in the ability given to him by God to know, comprehend and perceive those signs of divine wisdom that are hidden in the whole universe. This is indicated by what was said: “He teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and teaches us more than the birds of the air” (Job 33:11). Therefore, if a person delves into the principles of divine wisdom and examines the signs of the latter, then his superiority over animals will be to the extent that he realizes the possibility of knowledge given to him. If he avoids examining them, then he is not only not higher than cattle, but also much lower than them, as it is said: “The ox knows his master, the donkey knows his master’s trough; but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Is. 1:3). “That this is prescribed to us by Holy Scripture,” according to R. Behaya, this is clearly evident from what was said: “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see who created all this” (Is. 40:26); “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, at the moon and the stars that you have set” (Ps. 8:4). “You must know, you must understand what was told you from the beginning” (Isaiah 40:21). “The deaf listen, and the blind see” (Isaiah 42:18). “A wise man’s eyes are in his head, but fools walk in darkness...” (Eccl. 2:14).” 487 Then R. Behai also refers to the Talmudic treatise Sabbat, 488 in which it is said: “Whoever is able to make calculations on the movement of the stars and does not do them, the Scripture says about this: “They just have psalteries, harps, timbrels, a flute and wine for a feast; but they do not observe the works of God and do not consider the works of his hands” (Is. 5:12). A person is even obliged to “calculate the movement of the heavenly bodies,” says R. Behai, referring to Deut.4:6. “Thus,” he concludes, “our duty to examine creations is sufficiently proven in order to derive evidence of the existence of God and other principles of religion from the signs of the wisdom manifested in them.” So, outstanding representatives of the monotheistic understanding of God see in monotheism a condition for the possibility of science, and in the pursuit of science a necessary expression and manifestation of their beliefs. “On the contrary, under the dominance of polytheism, the emergence of science is impossible,” 489 because “polytheism predisposes a person to disunity and isolation of phenomena, reverses the movement of his thoughts and retards the development of knowledge.” 490 “In countries where polytheism reigns, from time to time there may appear great people who, with the help of a powerful surge of their minds, freed from the polytheistic concepts of their country, discover to a greater or lesser extent the correctness and unity of natural phenomena; but their concepts and views cannot be established; they remain without any effect on the minds, and as a result they do not have any influence on the development of knowledge. This is because in polytheistic countries the direction of minds is completely opposite to the direction of science. Polytheism strives for disunity and separation of world phenomena, while science, on the contrary, strives for their unification and generalization. Polytheism directs minds to attribute every phenomenon to a special cause; Science teaches them to reduce many phenomena to one and the same cause. But monotheism, teaching people that everything that happens in the world has its origin in a single supreme being, must, as shown above, inevitably lead to science.” 491 To confirm that without monotheism there is no science, five categories of facts are indicated, namely: 1°, “that not a single people develops knowledge while professing polytheism”; 2°, “that in ancient pagan Greece there was nothing like what we call the development of knowledge”; philosophical ideas had no impact on the people; 3°, “that as soon as the Arabs accepted Islam, as soon as monotheism was established, the desire for knowledge took possession of them and soon became the most enlightened people of the then world”; 4°, “that scattered throughout the entire face of the earth and enduring all kinds of disasters and persecutions, the Jews, however, everywhere and always showed a desire for knowledge...”; 5°, “that in Europe, where with the introduction of Christianity monotheism was established, a mental movement began...” 492 Ancient thought approached the foundation of science only to the extent that it became “atheistic,” as they said then, that is, because it threw off the yoke of demon-fear and anticipated monotheism; 493 the chain of successively inherited the philosophical throne of minds of Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle approached science as monotheism was comprehended. But the thread of science became thinner after Aristotle, because movements towards pan- and polytheism began. It is also noteworthy that the free-thinking school of Epicurus, like freethinkers in general of all eras and nations, did not put forward any creative principles in the field of science, and if Lucretius Carus asserts with pathos about Epicurus that he is “potuit rerum cognoscere causas 494,” then this is, of course, only the high-flown rhetoric of atheism: in Epicurus, less than in anyone else, one can discern natural science cognition. – The flower of Greek science – Aristotle. He died in 322 BC, but in the 300 years since his death, natural science has done very little, if we do not take into account purely formal or descriptive studies such as geometry and astronomy. 495 Why? – Because in the spiritual climate of antiquity there were interfering forces. “With good reason we can say that the Greeks and Romans did not have natural science,” says the author to whom I have already referred. 496 – Despite its seemingly promising beginning, it turned out to be incapable of further development. True, during the millennium that separates Thales and Pythagoras from the destruction of the Western Roman Empire, individual thinkers reveal extraordinary depth. Aristotle and Archimedes are undoubtedly among the greatest teachers of mankind. Also, the Alexandrian school at one time seemed to ensure continuous progress in the field of natural history. But nothing better indicates the cessation of the ancient study of nature than the simple fact that four hundred years after Aristotle - an interval equal to the period of time between Roger Bacon and Newton - Pliny, that collector of critically untested information, could appear. This is the same as if Herodotus and Tacitus swapped their places.” I know you will ask me: “But why didn’t the early Christians create science themselves?” - Because they had no time for it - just as in general, probably, a Christian who has completely devoted himself to feat has no time for science, although only he has the inclinations necessary for true science. And in the future, this development of Christian science was hindered by purely historical reasons - the same ones that in general, regardless of any beliefs, did not allow science to develop. But, in addition, primitive Christianity, high and pure, was still too poor in words in comparison with what the ascetics possessed. In the early Church, people did not yet have time to come to their senses and dissect their experiences; and life was running too fast to engage in science; life-feeling was too eschatological to engage with the transitory image of this world, which was about to melt and collapse. But the idea of ​​Providence, as God’s direct control of world life, was already alive and bright here; like the Creator of Psalm 103, ancient Christians contemplated the unity and harmonious pattern of the world with reverent joy: “How numerous are Your works, O Lord! You have done everything wisely; the earth is full of Your works” - this musical theme permeates the entire mood of the early Christians. Listen, aren’t the words of St. Clement of Rome. 497 “Let us look closely at the Father and Creator of the whole world and delve into His majestic and excellent gifts of peace and blessings. Let us look at Him with our minds and gaze with the eyes of our souls at His long-suffering will: let us think how meek He is towards His entire creation. The heavens, shaken by His command, obey Him in peace. Both day and night perform their appointed run, without interfering with each other in any way. The sun and the moon, like the round dances of the stars, according to His decree, in unanimity, without any violation, rotate within the limits assigned to them. The earth becomes pregnant, - κυοφοροῦσα, - according to His will, at special times produces all-abundant food for people and animals, and everything living on it, without slowing down or changing anything that He has decided. The unsearchable abysses and the inscrutable decisions of the underworld are restrained by the same dictates. The convexity - κύτος - of the boundless sea, according to His structure, united into assemblies, does not transgress the barriers placed on it around it, but, as determined by it, it does so. After all, He said: “You will come this far, and your waves will be broken within you” (Job 37:2). The ocean, impassable for people, and the worlds beyond it are balanced by the same decrees of the Lord. The seasons of spring, summer, autumn and winter in the world are replaced by one another. The successions of winds, each in its own time, inviolably perform their service. Never-ending sources, built for use and health, without shortage provide breasts for life to people. Finally, the smallest of living beings form their cohabitation in unanimity and peace. All this was commanded to be in peace and unanimity by the Great Creator and Lord of all, who does good to everyone, especially to us, who have resorted to His mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and majesty forever and ever. Amen". Yes, this is a development of an ancient biblical theme; but how many new depressions are there? There attention is drawn to the spectacular nature, to what seems to disrupt its normal course and what in popular books is called “wonders of nature”; here, on the contrary, to the regularity in the everyday, to the universality of the Logos. It was stormy there; here the quiet attracts. There the power and strength of God was praised in noisy inspiration; here His meekness and patience are glorified in quiet hymns. There nature arose and melted at the behest of its Creator; here it is subject to its own laws given by the Creator and Father, common to the entire universe and even to unknown overseas worlds. 499 In a word, attention moved from elemental force to the rational laws of nature. The perception of nature has become more internal, sincere and soulful. And the further you go, the more deeply you comprehend the inner side of nature. The famous “Hymn to Christ the Savior” by Clement of Alexandria, dedicated, however, to humanity, and not to nature, breathes a new idea of ​​creation - a calm and unshakable confidence that without the will of God not a hair falls from the head. This is the anthem: 500 “The Suppressor of the indomitable onagers, The wing of the chicks flying true, The unshakable feeder of the youths, Shepherd of the royal lambs! You, Leader of the children, Christ! catching sweet food! singers of God - Christ Jesus! Exhausted from Your wisdom! fed by tender lips, sing loudly to the God of peace!” This circle of monotheistic thoughts about Providence and the laws of creation is repeated in all further patristic writing, but mainly with an apologetic tinge, that is, for “outsiders,” for “strangers.” When she turns to “her own people,” to a close, intimate circle, before which one can open one’s whole soul, then she becomes loving not only in relation to the Creator and Maker, but also to the creature itself. Endless sharp pity and awe of reverent love for all of the “first-born Adam” sting the heart of the ascetic, as soon as he cleansed it of the bark of sin. When the dirt has been washed away from the soul by prolonged asceticism, long renunciation, long-term “attention to oneself,” then, before a renewed and spirit-bearing consciousness, the creation of God appears as an original and suffering, beautiful and polluted creature, as the prodigal child of God. Only Christianity gave birth to an unprecedented love for creation and inflicted a wound on the heart of loving pity for all things. “The feeling of nature” - if we mean by it the relation to the creature itself, and not to its forms, if we see in it something more than an external, subjective-aesthetic admiration of the “beauties of nature” - this feeling is entirely Christian and is absolutely unthinkable outside of Christianity, 501 for it presupposes a sense of the reality of the creature. But this sense of nature was born and is being born not in the soul of “moderate”, Protestant and in every possible way rationalizing homousians, indulging in reason, but among ascetics and curbers of reason and strict ascetics, among performers of feats - among adherents of homoousia. This attitude towards creation became conceivable only when people saw in creation not a simple shell of demons, not some emanation of the Divine, and not a ghostly appearance of Him, like the appearance of a rainbow in splashes of water, but an independent, self-legitimate and self-responsible creation of God, beloved by God and capable of responding to His love. On the contrary, all other ideas that seem to elevate the creature, in fact turn it into nothing: its independence, its own being and, consequently, its free self-determination is an empty imaginary. The creature, as such, is a decisive nothingness, and only the demons, or the “substance” underlying this nothingness, are real - a substance unknown and inexorable; but both demons and substance, not having in themselves the self-justification of triple love, are not unconditional and therefore, again, imaginary. Every worldview outside of Christianity, in its deepest essence, is both acosmic and atheistic: for it there is neither God nor the world. “God cannot cease to be God, just as a triangle cannot prevent the sum of its angles from being equal to two right angles”; 502 divine egoism is what turned God into a demon. On the contrary, the Christian idea of ​​God as Essential Love, as Love within Himself, and therefore also outside of Itself; the idea of ​​God’s humility, of God’s self-abasement, which manifests itself first in the creation of the world, that is, in placing independent existence next to Himself, in granting it freedom to develop according to its own laws and, therefore, in voluntary limitation of Himself; the idea of ​​the humility of God, of the self-abasement of God - this idea, I say, for the first time provided the basis for the recognition of creation as independent and therefore morally responsible for itself before God. In the ancient world there could be no idea about the moral responsibility of the creature before God, because there was no idea about the freedom of the creature. Christ brought the idea of the humility of God to the final limit: God, entering the world, puts aside the image of His glory and takes on the image of His creation (Phil. 2:6-8), obeys the laws of created life, 503 - does not disrupt the course of the world, does not strike the world with lightning and does not deafen it with thunder - as the pagans thought (remember at least the myth of Zeus and Semele -), but only glows before him with a gentle light, attracting His sinful and tormented creation to Himself, reasoning with it, but not punishing it. God loves His creation and is tormented for it, tormented by its sin. God stretches out His hands to His creation, asks it, calls it, expects His prodigal son to come to Him. And humanity, which leads the creation, is responsible before God for it, just as man is responsible for man. Of course, the dogmatic idea is not precisely expressed here: but this was done deliberately, because it represents experiences in a more crude, and therefore more visual, way. The hope of salvation and renewal for the creature, the painful feeling of free responsibility for the creature, acute pity for it, the deep consciousness of one’s powerlessness - powerlessness from sin and impurity - piercingly invade the soul of the ascetic, reaching the hidden source of tears. We are the redeemed, we have received everything from God and we, buried in sin, often do not even see the world through this sin, although “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life; For God did not send His son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17); - although Christ, at the most solemn moment of His earthly life, ordered His disciples to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature - πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει” (Mark 16:15); - although we have “the hope of the gospel, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven - ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν” (Col. 1:23); - although “the creation awaits with hope the revelation of the sons of God, - because the creation submitted to vanity not voluntarily, but by the will of the one who conquered it - in the hope that the creation itself will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now; and not only she, but we ourselves, having the seal of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:19-23). “Love of nature... What about asceticism, what about escape from nature?” you hear the objections of secular people. In response, I affirm in advance that in secular literature the spirit of Christian asceticism has not yet been completely understood, and what is said about it is said superficially and unfoundedly. The words of secular writers about spiritual exercise, in the vast majority of cases, are “pathetic” words, partly, however, caused by the ineptitude of their church opponents, and partly by the inability to talk about ascetic experience outside of the experience itself. Hence it happens that they usually do not see the significant difference between Christian asceticism and the asceticism of other religions, especially Hindu. Of course, it is not difficult to “prove” the identity of both by comparing several individual words and several extracted sayings. But whoever has penetrated into the inner essence of both asceticisms will say that there is nothing more opposite than them. That asceticism is an escape, this is a ruse; this is sad, this is joyful. That is based on the bad news about the evil reigning over the world; this is based on the good news of victory that has defeated the evil of the world. This gives excellence, this gives holiness. This comes from man, this comes from God. Either he abhors the creature, although he involuntarily reaches out to its evil, seeking magical powers over it; this is in love with the creature, although it hates the sin that eats it, and the ascetic does not need magical powers, because the blessed creature will remove the yoke of heteronomy of sin and will be able to live by itself, according to the eternally given way of being. For that asceticism, everything is illusory and only on the outside seems beautiful, but on the inside it is disgusting and full of rot; for this, everything is full of reality, and visible beauty is “memories” and decay before what is hidden in the recesses of the God-created creature. For this asceticism, the creature is slavishly tied to its cause; for this purpose, she freely self-determines in relation to the Creator and Father. For that asceticism, death is a constitutive element of created life; for this, she is a crazy, random phenomenon, already cut off at the root by Christ. That ascetic leaves to leave, hides; this one leaves to become pure, wins. He closes his eyes to the creature; this one tries to lighten them in order to look more clearly. There is nothing more opposite than both types of asceticism. Despair and triumph, despondency and joy - this is the initial difference. 504 But the more profound the feat, these peculiar elements of the Christian attitude towards creation in general and in particular towards man appear the more clearly. A Christian who does not fully recognize the feat, who has not educated himself through labor; a Christian who continues to remain “of the world”; 505 a Christian who is not capable and does not seek to be “above the worldly fusion”, 506 - such a one can blaspheme the creation of God, frown with disgust at this or that natural phenomenon of created life and abhor it. Look, who, no matter how intelligentsia, abhors marriage? Isn’t L. Tolstoy’s “Kreutzer Sonata,” a typical work of the intelligentsia, both dirt and blasphemy? Doesn’t the condescending, disgusting and, in essence, dirty-disgusting nod towards the body on the part of people of the “scientific” worldview deny this very body in its mysterious depth, in its mystical root. Asceticism is not recognized because its ideological essence is not recognized - the idea of ​​deification, 507 the idea - I dare to use a word damaged by heretics - the idea of ​​the holy body. Intellectuals reproach the Church's understanding of life for metaphysical dualism, but they themselves do not notice that they are blaming the lie of dualism on the Church. 508 Meanwhile, patristic theology most definitely reveals the truth that eternal life is the life not only of the soul, but also of the body; so, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, ἡ ζωὴ αὐτῇ οὐ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ σῶματος. 509 Not only “the soul of a Christian” becomes “a participant in the divine nature - κοινωνὸς θείας φύσεως γένηται,” 510 but also the body; a person unites with God spiritually and physically. As Simeon the New Theologian says, “homo Deo spiritualiter corporaliterque unitur.” 511 Etc. Purification of the heart opens the gaze to the heavenly world and, thus, suits the whole person. The soul is sanctified, and the body is sanctified; A holy soul is associated with a holy body. The pillars of the church's understanding of life - Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Saint Methodius of Patara, Saint Athanasius the Great, Saint John Chrysostom and a host of others express this idea so clearly and stand on it so firmly that the reader, looking at asceticism through the eyes of secular writers, who speak about asceticism either out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent against St. Church - anyone like that cannot help but be stunned. Posts serve her; and for the very internal reason for which fasting is rejected, the intelligentsia is ashamed of food. It’s sincere—that’s the horror, it’s sincere. The intellectual does not know how to eat, much less eat; he does not even know what it means to eat, what sacred food means: one does not “eat” the gift of God, nor even “eat” food, but “eat” chemical substances. Only an animal, naked “physiological function” is performed - painfully shameful; and they disdain this “function” and are ashamed of it. They are ashamed and do it; That’s why the intellectual eats cynically, scolds cynically, with defiance, with an insult to his own and others’ modesty. There is no calm and peace in the soul, but there is confusion and heaviness: - the first sign of a graceless soul, ungrateful to life, rejecting the priceless gift of God, proudly wanting to rebuild all existence in its own way. To note how different the church mood is from this squeamish intellectual world-sense, or, rather, intellectual world-insensibility, let me remind you of some canons relating to the life of the body, that is, church rules establishing the relationship of the believer to the body, and let me remind you that this expression of church consciousness was given not by some eudaimonists, but by ascetics and fighters for the idea of ​​asceticism. Here are the rules of St. Apostle: 512 “Rule 5. – A bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, must not cast out his wife under the pretense of reverence. If he expels him, he will be excommunicated from church communion; and remaining adamant, he will be expelled from the sacred rank.” “Rule 51. – If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general from the sacred order, withdraws from marriage and meat and wine, not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because of abomination, forgetting that all good things are green, and that God, having created man, husband and wife, created them, and thus, blaspheming, slanderes the creation: either let him correct himself, or let him be expelled from the sacred order, and rejected from the Church. So is a layman.” The rules of the Gangra Local Council are even more clearly stated. “The council that was in Gangra of the Paphlagonian metropolis,” Zonara and Balsamon narrate, 513, “was after the First Council of Nicaea against a certain Eustathius and those of like mind with him, who, slandering a legal marriage, said that none of those married had any hope of salvation from God. Having believed them, both husbands and wives, some drove out their wives, while others, leaving their husbands, wanted to live chastely; then, unable to bear a celibate life, they fell into adultery. The followers of Eustathius taught something else, contrary to church tradition and custom, and appropriated church fruit offerings for themselves, and their wives dressed in men's clothing and cut their hair. They also commanded to fast on Sundays, and they rejected the fasts established in the church and ate, abhorring meat, and in the houses of married people they did not want to pray or receive communion, they turned away married priests and despised, as unclean, those places in which the remains of martyrdom were located, and condemned those who had money and did not give it away, as if salvation was hopeless for them, and they commanded and taught many other things. So, it was against them that the sacred fathers, having gathered, laid down the rules below...” Here are some of these rules: 514 “Rule 1. - If anyone condemns marriage, and abhors a faithful and pious wife who has intercourse with her husband, or blames her for not being able to enter the kingdom, let him be under an oath.” “Rule 4. – If anyone argues about an elder who has entered into a marriage, that he is not worthy to partake of the offering; when one has performed the liturgy: let him fall under an oath.” “Rule 9. – If anyone is a virgin, or abstains, moving away from marriage, as if he abhors it, and not for the sake of the goodness and sanctity of virginity: let him be under an oath.” “Rule 10. - If any of the virgins, for the sake of the Lord, exalt themselves over the one who is married, let him be under an oath.” “Rule 14. – If a wife leaves her husband and wants to leave, abhorring marriage: let her be under an oath.” Etc. Similar oaths are imposed on those who condemn silk and “red” clothes, on those who abhor meat, on those who arbitrarily invent a fast for themselves on Sunday, etc. 515 Here are examples of how the Church views the life given by God and its manifestations. The rational intellectual, living in omiusia, in words “loves” the whole world and considers everything “natural”, but in reality he hates the whole world in his concrete life and would like to destroy it - so that instead of the world he can put the concepts of his reason, i.e., in essence, his self-affirming Self; and he abhors everything “natural,” because the natural is alive and therefore concrete and cannot be contained in concepts, and the intellectual wants to see everywhere only the artificial, only formulas and concepts, and not life, and, moreover, his own. The 18th century, which was the century of the intelligentsia par excellence and not without reason called the “Age of Enlightenment,” of course, the “enlightenment” of the intelligentsia, consciously set itself the goal: “Everything is artificial, nothing natural!” Artificial nature in the form of trimmed gardens, artificial language, artificial morals, artificial, - revolutionary, - statehood, artificial religion. This desire for artificiality and mechanicalness was put to rest by the greatest representative of the intelligentsia, Kant, in whom, from the habits of life to the highest principles of philosophy, there was, and should not have been according to his own plan, anything natural. If you like, this mechanization of all life has its own, terrible, grandeur, the spirit of the Fallen Day; but all these ideas, of course, are still maintained only by the creativity that they steal from the life given by God. And the same should be said about Kant’s modern improvers. A “smart” ascetic looks at life completely differently. Although he does not consider the existing order to be “natural”, but a perversion of nature, he loves the world with true love, and mercifully endures the dirt that has settled on it and covers it with his meekness. “Loving all people, he,” according to Abba Thalassius, 516, “does not love anything human,” that is, inherent in sinful humanity; Developing the thought of Saint Abba, according to the mind of the holy father, we can say that, “loving all creation, he does not love anything created,” that is, characteristic of a fallen creature. One should not disdain or be irritated by anything, not even by oneself and one’s weaknesses. 517 Compassion, which does not exclude, however, sometimes holy anger, but without irritation, without nervousness, without hysterical antics - such is the even and equal mood of the ascetic. He lives measuredly and peacefully, like the sun completing his feat. 518 And the higher the Christian ascetic rises on his path, to the mountainous country, the clearer his inner eye shines, the deeper the Holy Spirit descends into his heart, the more purely the ascetic sees the inner, unconditionally valuable core of creation, the hotter the pity for the lost child of God flares up in the ascetic’s soul. And when the Spirit descended on the saints, in their greatest prayerful aspirations, then they shone with dazzling and radiant love for creation. The Most Holy Lady herself told one of her chosen ones that “there is schematicism - to devote oneself to prayer for the whole world.” 519 Asceticism, as a historical phenomenon, is a direct continuation of charismaticism; in essence, ascetics are the later charismatics, and charismatics are the early ascetics. The connection between spirituality and asceticism is undeniable. 520 And it is precisely among charismatics and ascetics that there are the most striking examples of that feeling that I cannot call otherwise than love for a creature. That is why, in the “Great Canon of Our Venerable Father Andrew of Crete and Jerusalem,” that is, with decisive repentance and self-flagellation, when the ascetic side of Orthodoxy reaches its highest point, conscience scourges us with a reminder of the crime against the body: “Oh how jealous of Lamech, for having killed my brother's body, like Cain the murderer, with lustful aspirations.” 521 This is one of the many cries emitted by a repentant soul. The corruption of a created organism is imputed to a great sin, and the body is called brother, just as, many centuries later, Francis of Assisi addressed his body, calling it “brother donkey” and just as St. Seraphim of Sarov called our flesh “our friend”: “We should not,” he said, “accept feats beyond measure; We must try to ensure that our friend, our flesh, is faithful and capable of creating virtue.” This is the same idea that sounds in a different tone in the burial order: when I think about death and see our beauty created in the image of God, ugly and wordless, when I think about death and see it lying in the tombs our beauty created in the image of God, ugly, inglorious, without form – ἴδω – τὴν κατ’ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ πλασθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ὡραιότητα ἄμορφον ἄδοξον μὴ ἔχουσαν εἶδος. 523 Oh miracle! that this is a mystery about us, how we mate with death;" “I am the image of Your ineffable glory, Even though I carry ulcers of sins – εἰκών εἰμὶ τοῦ ἀῤῥήτου δόξης σου εἰ καὶ στίγματα φέρω πλασμάτων.” 524 What kind of beauty is this, created in the image of God - ἡ κατ’ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ πλασθεῖσα ὡραιότης? From the above hymn there is no doubt that this is the one who lies “in the tombs”, ugly, without form, corrupted. Our body is this beauty, this image of the ineffable glory of God - εἰκών ἀῤῥήτου δόξης. This liturgical understanding of the image of God, which, by the way, is also characteristic of the Russian people, which was expressed most clearly in the unanimous struggle against barber shaving, 525 - this understanding of the image of God is also confirmed in paternal writing. Thus, Tertullian 526 et al. Augustine 527 saw the image of God as man, the similarity of man with God precisely in the human body. However, these excerpts are given by chance. One could write a whole book about the idea of ​​the body as an unconditionally valuable principle in liturgical writing. We still do not have liturgical theology, that is, a systematization of the theological ideas of our worship. But this is precisely where the living self-consciousness of the Church lies, because worship is the flower of church life and, at the same time, its root and seed. What a wealth of ideas and new concepts in the field of dogmatics, what an abundance of the deepest psychological observations and moral guidelines even a not particularly assiduous researcher could collect here! Yes, liturgical theology awaits its cultivator. God and the world, spirit and flesh, virginity and marriage are in antinomy, relating to each other like a thesis to an antithesis. For superficial religious contemplation, this antinomy may be almost invisible; in essence, in this case both thesis and antithesis are reduced to zero. A person who has not experienced struggles and does not have a accomplished feat behind him does not understand the inner beauty of either thesis or antithesis. So, for a shallow faith, debauchery is something like marriage, and marriage is not much different from debauchery: both of them converge on some kind of half-marriage and half-fornication: it is not without reason that this shallow religious world in one part is called, and in the other, should rightly be called not “light” and not “darkness,” but “half-light”; the entire intelligentsia, in its mystical essence, is precisely “demi-monde” or, at least, has its true ruler, who sets the tone, “demi-monde”. This is the inevitable life-feeling of earthed souls. But, as the personality spiritualizes, the beauty of both sides of the antinomy appears in the consciousness; the latter intensifies, thesis and antithesis become less and less compatible in reason, more and more irreconcilably rationally exclude each other, and, at the same time, for the highest religious consciousness, antinomy turns out to be an internally unified, internally integral spiritual value. Whichever half of the antinomy a spiritualized ascetic accepts, its polar-replenishing twin will be established in the consciousness with a force directly proportional to the religious height of the recipient. In particular: true virginity alone is capable of understanding the full significance of marriage. Height can only be estimated from above; the mountains grow in your eyes as you climb to the opposite peak. In the same way, only from the height of a chaste consciousness can one understand the sanctity of marriage and its qualitative difference from debauchery; only true, grace-filled virginity understands that marriage is not a verbal “institution” of civil society, but an institution that has its beginning from God Himself. And, on the contrary, only a pure marriage, only a grace-filled marriage consciousness allows one to understand the significance of virginity: only a married person understands that monasticism is not an “institution” of the church-legal system, but an institution of God Himself and that it is qualitatively different from single virginity. The same applies to other aspects of bodily life. 528 Let us now move on to the general question of the creature. There is the same antinomy here. Let me give you a few specific examples: Here is Origen, an ascetic nicknamed “Adamantov” for his exploits and who lived only 1 obol (about 15 k) a day, and moreover in dear Alexandria; - an ascetic who often kept vigil and strictly fasted; - a spiritualist of spiritualists, for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, as they say, even castrated himself. A rational addition to what has been said would be hatred of the creature. But this is not so in vital and living antinomy. Listen to him! (Let me just remind you that, according to Origen, the heavenly luminaries are the bodies of angels who voluntarily agreed to submit to vanity for the sake of serving the cosmic process and universal restoration): “Look now,” the ascetic philosopher almost shouts in prayerful delight, 529 “look now, to these beings [celestial luminaries], subjected to vanity not voluntarily, but by the will of the One who conquered, and who are in the hope of the promise, - is it possible to apply the following exclamation of Paul: “I have a desire to be resolved and to be with Christ, because this is incomparably better” ( Phil.1:23). At least I think that the Sun could say in the same way: “I have a desire to be resolved and be with Christ, because this is incomparably better.” But Paul also adds: “But it is more necessary for you to remain in the flesh” (Phil. 1:24). And the Sun, indeed, can say: “It is more necessary to remain in this heavenly and bright body for the sake of the revelation of the sons of God.” The same thing should be thought and said about the moon and the stars. – Now let’s see what freedom of the creature and freedom from slavery are. When Christ hands over the kingdom to God and the Father, then these animated beings, together with the entire kingdom, will be transferred to the control of the Father. Then “God will be all in all”; but these beings belong to everything; therefore God will be in them, as in everything.” One more example comes to mind here: “Let not the sun go down on your anger” (Eph. 4:26), wrote St. Paul to the Ephesians. Look what a heartfelt explanation the Apostle St. gives to his words. Anthony the Great. “And not only in anger,” the Ascetic picks up, “but also in all your sins, because the sun can condemn you for your daily act, for a bad thought.” 530 Here is the Abyssinian saint Yafkeran-Egzie Gugubensky, 531 “a most pure and bright star,” as his Life calls him. “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” says his Life, “we begin, with the help of our Lord Jesus Christ, to write life and exploits, and labor, and abstinence not only from bread and water, but also from idle words that kill the soul. And let us remember the abundance of patience shown to people, and what he did in secret, who knows except his Creator? We will tell the goodness of our father, the great deed of Abba Yafkeran-Egzie. We will not get to the half of this, but (we will only describe what) came to the tongue or caught the eye, as the Book of Proverbs says: “There is a sea, the length, breadth and depth of which are unknown, and there came a bird called 'Ewit, the smallest of all the kinds of birds. She flew in and drank from this sea.” O beloved, will the sea become dry from the drinking of the bird? Likewise, the life of this Abba-monk, the star of the Gospel, the head of the bright stars, meek in heart, whose tears were close to his eyes for the love of God, and a mourner for everyone, for people and livestock and even to the worms, will not be exhausted or exhausted.” Truly,” it is said in another place in the Life, “we have our father Yafkeran-Egzie, who prays for us, and not for us alone, but for the whole universe; for the tsar and for the metropolitan, may he give them the Orthodox faith, may Christians observe it, may he give conversion to the pagans, may he grant mercy and mercy to all creation.” “And the kings, the Makwanens, and the Seyums honored him for his poverty and hermitage. He was terrible for them, like a terrible lion. He consoled everyone who came to him for the good. His house was open to everyone.” His exploits were the most severe. "He fasted days and nights." “He has rejected the world of this world, that he may receive the world there, closed his ears so as not to hear idle words, closed his eyes so as not to see vanity, desiring to see the face of Jesus, the Heavenly Bridegroom, and to clearly hear His sweet voice. He stopped talking to people, because he was captivated by the love of God,” and with those who came, he explained himself only by signs, or using the alphabet. “Then,” says the Life, “he began to struggle through difficult feats, labor, vigil, prayer, prostrations, frequent fasting with prayer, and his tears flowed like streams of water; abstinence and tongue retention. The bones on his thighs shrank, his scalp hardened and his eyes became dim from many tears, his legs became heavy from standing a lot, and he was all dried up from forgetting food and drink. Brethren, this is obvious, but what he did in secret, no one knows except his Creator. He spent 6 years in such exploits. Then he went to the land of Hamla and climbed a mountain called Ayfarba. Here he lived for a year, eating desert plants and tree fruits and roots.” In his later life, “his food was three ephahs a year, not of bread, but of the fruit of the grass, and who knows, except God, his Creator, whether he ate or did not eat?” For three years he did not drink water (note that thirst is especially painful in hot weather) contenting himself with dipping 3 stems of one plant into water and then, during lunch, squeezing them into his mouth. “On the day when it rained, he cleaned the stone and drank from it the little that flowed.” - “Another spiritual feat: He fasted for 40 days, excluding Saturdays, without eating anything: neither leaves, nor water. So he spent three days of Pentecost. Understand, man, if you have any intelligence: three times 40 won’t it be 120 days? And this, as I told you, (continued) is not one year, but three years.” - “Another spiritual feat: Yafkerana-Egzie made 7 thousand bows every hour, like a wheel, and the number of his bows was 42,000. He did not know a three-day fast, but only a four-day, five-day fast and fasted for weeks.” One day he settled “on the island of Galila, where there were no people, but there was a deserted place. Here he lived in fasting and prayer and in tears for three years, glorifying God, he abstained for three years, having no assistant either in chopping wood, or in drawing water, or in consolation, but he arranged his stay as if he were incorporeal.” Such are the exploits of this mourner for worms and prayer book for the creature. I will give one significant story, from which the attitude of the Saint to the creature is clear. “Listen again,” the Life invites, “something from the greatness of this considerable, most honorable star, Abba Yafkeran-Egzie. In those days there was one monk, a saint of God, named Zacharias. He lived on the island of Galela, where Saint Abba Yafkeran-Egzie once lived. They contemplated each other with spiritual eyes and loved each other very much. One day they agreed: “We’ll meet there on Lake Azaf - I’m from Guegueben, you’re from Galel, to console each other, for the sake of the greatness of God.” And they set a day. And so, the sizable Yafkerana-Egzie stood up in Dabra Guegueben and put on his shoes. The holy Abba Zechariah of God stood up on the island of Galela and put on his shoes. And they both walked like dry land across the lake by the power of the Lord their God, and met in the middle of the lake and kissed each other spiritually. Abba Zechariah took off his sandals and shook off the dust from them; Abba Yafkeran-Egzie also took off and found some moisture on his sandals. Abba Yafkeran showed Abba Zechariah: “My beloved brother, why are my sandals wet, and as for yours, I see that you are shaking off the dust from them? Tell me, I beg you, O my beloved.” Abba Zechariah answered and said to him: “Father, get up, let us pray to the Lord our God, that he will reveal to us why there was moisture in your sandals.” Hearing this, Abba Yafkeran-Egzie said: “Let it be as you say.” They stood together and prayed. After the prayer, Abba Zechariah said to Abba Yafkeran-Egzie: “Father, this was not shown to me for my goodness, but for the sake of the greatness of your prayer. Your sandals are wet because you hid the fruits of the barley so that the birds would not eat them, while God is merciful and provides for all creatures and gives them food. That’s why there was moisture on your sandals.” Hearing this, Abba Yafkerana-Egzie said to Abba Zechariah: “Father, pray for me.” And they spent time in conversation until noon, and then returned to their monasteries. The respectable father of Yafkeran-Egzie stopped hiding the fruits of barley from the birds and continued to pray about this matter. A few days later, the holy Abba Yafkeran-Egzie stood up, put sandals on his feet, as before, and they agreed among themselves spiritually regarding the day when they would meet. And Abba Zechariah rose from the island of Galela and adjusted his sandals as before. And they both walked across the lake, like crazy, and met in the same place. And they took off their sandals, threw off the ashes, and there was no wetness on the sandals of Saint Abba Yafkeran-Egzia..." This story is one of a great many hagiographic narratives. Almost every one of them depicts the life of a saint in the lap of nature, “with animals,” the obedience of wild animals to him and the care of the saint for them; miracles of obedience of animals and service to their devotees are not uncommon. 532 “He lived with the beasts,” - in these few words, so often found in the lives of the holy ascetics, - in these three words the whole essence of a new, reconciled, restored life together with all creation is expressed. This is true “chiliasm,” which modern defenders of the false chiliastic idea do not even dare to dream about. But, due to lack of space, I will not give examples, which can be found in abundance in lives and patericons. Here is Hermus - a Roman charismatic and ascetic of the 1st and early 2nd centuries. “The Shepherd” was written entirely in ascetic-eschatological tones. But even here, the severity of abstinence is combined with an amazing, heartfelt courage in the experience of beauty. “He who raised me,” Hermes 533 begins his “Shepherd,” “sold me to a certain Roda in Rome. Many years later I renewed my acquaintance with her and began to love her like a sister. After some time I saw her washing in the Tiber River and gave her my hand and led her out of the river. And so, seeing her beauty, I thought in my heart, saying: “Blessed would I be if I had a wife of the same beauty and disposition.” Some time later, when I was walking to Kuma and glorifying the creations of God, how majestic and excellent and powerful they are, I fell asleep while walking. And the Spirit took me and carried me along some path - δι' ἀνοδίας τινός - along which a person could not travel: this place was rocky and impassable due to the waters. And so, having crossed that river, I came to the plain, bowed my knees and began to pray to the Lord and confess my sins. When I prayed, the sky opened, and I saw the woman whom I desired, affectionately greeting me from heaven, saying: “Herm, rejoice!” I looked at her and said to her: “Madam, what are you doing here?” She answered me: “I was brought up here to clear away your sins before the Lord.” I tell her: “Now are you my analysis?” “No,” he says, “but listen to the words that I am going to tell you. God, who lives in heaven and created from non-existent things that exist, and multiplied and increased for the sake of His holy Church, is angry with you because you have sinned against me.” Having answered her, I say: “Have I sinned against you? How? Have I ever said an unworthy word to you? Haven't you always been revered as a goddess? Didn’t he always take care of you like a sister? Why are you slandering me, O woman, this is bad and unclean!” Smiling, she tells me: “A bad wish has arisen in your heart. Or don’t you think that it is a bad thing for a righteous husband if a bad wish arises in his heart? It’s a sin, and a great one,” she says. - For a righteous man thinks righteousness. And so, by the fact that he thinks the righteous, his glory preserves - κατορθοῦται - him in heaven, and he has the Lord as his Patron in all his deeds. But those who think evil in their hearts bring destruction and captivity upon themselves...” After she said these words, the heavens closed; and I was completely terrified and in grief. I said to myself: “If this sin is imputed to me, then how can I be saved? Or how will I appease God regarding my complete sins? Or in what words will I ask God to be merciful to me? During these reflections, the Church appeared in a vision to Hermu in the image of the Eldress. I continue further with the words of the Author: “and greets me: “Herm, rejoice.” And I, sorrowful and crying, said: “Lady, rejoice.” And she said to me: “What is sad, Herm - long-suffering and not hating, always laughing - that he is so sad in face and sad?” And I said to her: “Because of one good woman who accuses me of sinning against her.” She answered: “There is no way that such a burden will be on the servant of God. But in any case, the thought of her came to your heart. And for the servants of God, such a thought - βούλη - brings sin: for it is a bad and stunning thought, - ἔκπληκτος - against the all-venerable Spirit and already tested, if you desire something bad, and especially for Hermas the abstinent, - Ερμᾶς ὁ ἐγκρατής, - moving away from every evil desire and filled with all simplicity and all kindness." Such is the sin of the great abstinence and spirit-bearer Hermas, who spends his days, apparently, in fasting and prayer. This is before the acquisition of the fullness of the Spirit: the Tower-Church is not yet completed. But now, in the new vision, Hermu appears as a prophetic anticipation of the future, the Tower-Church in its finished form. The ascetic purification of the world has been accomplished, the fullness of times has been fulfilled. The Shepherd shows Hermas the Divine Structure. At the same time, Herm prophetically sees into the future and depicts the achieved purity of the creature. Here is a picture of the future full of effortless grace: 534 The shepherd who led Hermas “wanted to leave. And I,” writes Erm, “grabbed him by the bag and began to conjure him with the Lord so that he would explain to me what he had shown me. “I need to rest a little, and I’ll explain everything to you: wait here for me until I come.” I tell him: “Sir, staying here alone, what will I do?” “You are not alone,” he answered, “for these virgins are with you.” “In that case,” I said, “tell me to them.” The shepherd calls them and says to them: “I entrust this to you until I come”; and left. I was left alone with the virgins; and they were very cheerful and treated me kindly, especially the four of them, the most respected. “The virgins tell me: “Today the Shepherd will not come here.” “What, in that case,” I say, “will I do?” “Until the evening,” they answer, “wait for him and, if he comes, he will talk to you, but if he doesn’t come, you will stay with us here until he comes.” I tell them: “I’ll wait for him until evening; If he doesn’t come, I’ll go home and come back in the morning.” In response they say to me: “You have been entrusted to us; You can’t move away from us.” “Where,” I say, “will I stay?” “With us,” they say, “you will sleep like a brother, and not like a husband; for you are our brother, and from now on we intend to live with you: we love you very much.” I was ashamed to stay with them. And the one who seemed to be the first began to kiss and hug me tenderly. The others, seeing that she was hugging me, began to kiss me and lead me around the tower and play with me. And somehow I became younger and started playing with them myself. After all, some danced, others danced in a circle, and still others sang. And, with evening coming, I wanted to go home; They didn’t let me go, but they held me. And he stayed with them that night and rested near the tower. After all, the virgins laid their linen tunics on the ground and placed me in the middle, while they themselves did nothing at all except pray. And I prayed continuously with them, and no less than them. And the virgins rejoiced that I prayed like that. And I remained there until the next day with the virgins. Then the Shepherd came and said to them: “Have you caused him any offense?” “Ask,” they say, “himself.” I tell him: “Sir, I received great joy by staying with them.” “What,” he says, “did you have dinner?” “I had dinner,” I say, “Sir, in the words of the Lord the whole night.” “Is it good,” he says, “did they accept you?” “Yes,” I say, “Mister.” Such is the victory over sin living in the flesh, such is the innocence that crowns the ascetic feat. But this innocence is the winging and spiritualization of the sex, its illumination, and not its asexual and wingless etching - the color of the sex, and not the scourge. This victory, this innocence, this holy inspiration is achieved through the acquisition of the Spirit - in communication with the mysterious virgins depicting the gifts of the Spirit. The fullness of virginity is only in the fullness of the Spirit, that is, at the end of the ascetic feat of all church humanity, in the deified body of the creature; the preliminary fullness of innocence is only in the preliminary fullness of the Spirit, that is, at the end of the ascetic deed of an individual Christian, in the deified flesh of a saint. Holy relics, - meaning this word both literally and symbolically, - this is the dry and leafless and, as it were, dead grain of the holy body: “It will not come to life unless it dies.” Self-affirmation is in self-negation, according to the highest and spiritual law of identity, just as self-negation is in self-affirmation, according to the lower and carnal law of identity. Just as a phoenix, building its own death fire, comes to life reborn in the fire, so the flesh is resurrected in fiery renunciation of itself, because this fiery baptism is only the side of spiritual renewal, turned towards sin. There is no other way. And, as if pointing out to Hermas that the image of the highest purity revealed to him is an ideal, achievable not by gradual approach, not by continuous development, but by continuous renunciation of self, the Church insists in advance on abstinence and even gives Hermas an order from now on to live with his wife as with his sister, 535 - a very common feat among the early Christians and, due to the abuses that have crept in here, destroyed in its original form and subsequently took the form of monasticism. The virginal purity depicted by Hermas is an ideal, just as the fullness of the Holy Spirit is also an aspiration. But the highest points of holy humanity are already illuminated by the rays of the Coming Luminary, the Apocalyptic Christ. Through heroism they acquired the Spirit and in the grace-filled gifts of the Comforter they find strength for the highest love for creation. These are “chosen vessels of the Spirit,” 536 “vessels brimming with grace.” 537 Hermas himself reveals in himself a purity unattainable for a person without grace. Perhaps St. had a similar relationship with kindred female souls. John Chrysostom, 538 at St. Athanasius the Great. Let me also remind you about St. Seraphim of Sarov, about Theophan the Recluse. 539 Here is the venerable Abba John, abbot of Mount Sinai, who lived in the 6th century. Its “ladder,” especially its first half, is capable of petrifying with icy horror a heart taken by surprise and unsettled; Let me at least remind you of “Word 5,” which describes the “Dungeon” with its most severe self-torture. In this “Ladder” there is a “Word 15”, bearing the title “On non-corruption and purity and chastity, which the corruptible achieve through exploits and intense labor.” Here, in a whole series of measures to isolate oneself, a biased or inattentive reader can find a wealth of material to prove that asceticism is a slow self-castration. 540 Perhaps there is not even another similar selection of such plausible evidence of this in all ascetic writing. But this, the stern of the stern, John himself hastens to express his cherished aspirations, conveying with admiration the almost realized end of the ascetic path. “Someone told me,” says John, 541, “about the extraordinary and highest limit of purity, ὐφηγήσατο. “After all, someone,” he says, “looked at the beauty - κάλλος, - greatly glorified the Creator for it; and from a single glance plunged into the love of God and into the source of tears; and it was amazing to see that the ditch of destruction for another, for another beyond nature, became a crown.” If such a person, - adds Climacus on his own behalf, - in such feelings, has adopted such a way of action, then he has risen incorruptible until the general resurrection - ?? τῆς κοινῆς ἀναστάσεως.” The goal of the feat, as is known, is to achieve incorruption and deification of the flesh through the acquisition of the Spirit. This incorruption, therefore, in the eyes of the most severe of ascetic writers is not the internal deprivation of the ascetic, not ataraxia and not indifference, but, on the contrary, the highest responsiveness to the beauty of the flesh - the ability to be moved to the point of tears, to cry with delight at the sight of a beautiful female body. Painful feat and inspired delight turn out to be antinomically connected in the question of gender, as in other questions. “We will be guided by the same rule,” says Climacus, 542, “in relation to chants and songs. After all, it is common for lovers of God to be excited by joy and divine love and tears from both worldly - ἐκ τῶν ἔξωθεν - and from spiritual songs; for those who are voluptuous, it’s the other way around.” So, the goal of the ascetic’s aspirations is to perceive all creation in its pristine victorious beauty. The Holy Spirit reveals himself in the ability to see the beauty of creation. To always see beauty in everything would mean “to be resurrected before the general resurrection,” which would mean to anticipate the last Revelation, the Comforter. By “someone” about whom John Climacus talks, one must understand St. Nona, 543 from 448, who was a bishop in Edessa, then in Iliopolis, then, from 457, again in Edessa and died in 471, that same bishop. Nona, who founded the first infirmary of the ancient world in Edessa. The woman mentioned in the story was not some kind of saint at that time; on the contrary, it was the harlot Pelagia, known throughout Antioch, where Non happened to be, and for her luxury she was nicknamed Margarita, the Pearl. Her meeting with Ion is described in detail in the “Life of our venerable mother Pelagia, who was formerly a harlot,” written by an eyewitness, deacon of the Iliopolis church, Jacob. 544 This story, unfortunately, is too long to convey here, and therefore I will limit myself to only the beginning of the story of Deacon Jacob: “The holy archbishop of the city of Antioch, for the sake of church needs, convened eight bishops from the surrounding cities, among them was the holy man of God, Non my bishop, who came from Iliopolis, taking me with him, a wonderful man and a perfect monk, from the monastery called Tavenisiot, virtuous for the sake of living of his own, was quickly taken to the bishopric. When the bishops descended into the church of the holy martyr Julian, desiring to hear a teaching word from Non, they all sat down at the church doors. But she began to teach from her mouth, saying things for the benefit and salvation of those who listen. To all those who marvel at his holy teaching, behold, walking past the church doors, a certain woman from the infidels, who was a glorious harlot throughout all Antioch, was dressed with great pride, dressed in costly garments, adorned with gold, precious stones and margaritas: and around her came a multitude of maidens and youths, dressed in fine clothes, and wearing gold coins, Her face was so red, as if the world of men could not get enough of the vision of her beauty. As they walk past us, fill the whole air with aromatic incense, even as they see the bishops coming without cold, with their heads uncovered and their waists naked, squeezing their towels together, and quietly sighing, as if they had turned away their faces from their great sin. Blessed Non looked diligently and for a long time at the nude, until he left the room. And therefore, turning to the bishop, he said: Do you not love the great beauty of that wife? To those who do not answer, Non bowed her head, and weeping, collecting her tears in the ubrusets, and watering her breasts with tears, sighing from the depths of her heart, again asking the bishops: will you not delight in her beauty? They are silent. But he said: truly, I have learned a lot from her: for the Lord will appoint that woman at his terrible judgment, and by her he will condemn us; What do you think? How many hours has that wife spent in her bed, washing, dressing, and taking all her thought and care about this, so that she will appear most beautifully before the eyes of her temporary caretakers; We, having the immortal Bridegroom in heaven, on the Worthless Angels desire to behold, do not care to adorn our damned souls, even though everything is filthy, naked and full of cold; those who strive to wash with tears of repentance, clothe themselves with the beauty of virtues, so that in the sight of God she may appear pleasing, and not be put to shame and rejected during the marriage of the Lamb.” Love for creation is expressed even more clearly, most clearly, in the greatest representatives of Orthodox asceticism, in St. Macarius the Great and Isaac the Syrian, truly the pillars of the Church. Both describe states of the highest elation and greatest spirituality. If we reason, we could conclude from this that this is a soaring in empty space, the vast and great Nothingness of 545 extra-Christian mystics. But no. This is where the greatest concreteness and completeness comes into play; It is here that the creature appears to consciousness in its entirety and in its eternal content, illuminated by the awe of all-victorious, imperishable beauty. Rev. Macarius the Great performed feats that seem to exceed human strength and only maintained life in the body. His disciple Evagrius, tormented by thirst, once asked permission to drink water. “Be content with the fact that you are under the shadow,” the loving old man answered him; – many are deprived of this joy. For twenty years now I have been eating, drinking and sleeping no more than is necessary to maintain life.” Indeed, he himself ate food only once a week. When he had to eat with hermits, and they offered him wine, the saint did not refuse, but after drinking one cup of wine, he did not drink water for the whole day. His poverty and lack of covetousness reached the point that he did not even recommend having those books from which others could receive edification; and he himself helped the thieves take things out of his cell. His immeasurable love and meekness towards everything is too well known to need reminding of it. 546 But here is what the saint himself says about the moments of Spiritual manifestations: 547 “Those who have been deemed worthy to become children of God and to be born again by the Holy Spirit, and who have Christ within them, enlightening and resting - ἐλλάμποντα καὶ ἀναπαύοντα - are guided by the Spirit in various and varied ways, and grace invisibly acts in their hearts through spiritual repose - ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, ἐν ἀναπαύσει πνευματικῇ. But let us borrow images from the pleasures visible in the world in order to partially show the presence of grace in the soul. It happens when they (the spirit bearers) become, as if at a royal feast, cheerful, rejoicing with joy and unspeakable joy. At other times they are like a bride, co-rested - συναναπαυομένη - in communication with the groom with her divine peace - ἀναπαύσει θεϊκῇ. Sometimes they become like disembodied angels, in such ease with the body; sometimes they seem drunk from drinking, rejoiced and intoxicated by the Spirit - intoxicated by divine spiritual mysteries. “Sometimes they seem to be in weeping and sorrow for the human race and, praying for the whole Adam, they begin to cry and sob, kindled by the love of the Spirit for humanity. Sometimes they are inflamed with such jubilation and love from the Spirit that, if possible, they would accommodate every person in their own flesh, not distinguishing evil from good; sometimes they humiliate themselves so much before every person in the humility of the Spirit that they consider themselves worse and more insignificant than everyone else. Sometimes in unspeakable joy they are constantly observed by the Spirit... Sometimes the soul rests in some great silence and silence, being in only spiritual pleasure and inexpressible peace and prosperity. Sometimes, in some knowledge and ineffable wisdom and the knowledge of the Unsearchable Spirit, grace is achieved, but this cannot be expressed with tongue and lips. Sometimes a person becomes like one of the people [i.e. e. “like everyone else”]. “After all, when the soul approaches the perfection of the spirit, completely purified from all passions and united and fused with the Comforter Spirit through ineffable communication, and when, having dissolved with the Spirit, it is worthy to become spirit, then it becomes all light, all eye, all spirit, all joy, all peace, all rejoicing, all love, all mercy, all kindness and meekness.” An even more strict ascetic expresses the same experiences even more powerfully, 548 – St. Isaac the Syrian. 549 “The perfection of the entire feat,” he says, “lies in the following three things: repentance, purity and self-improvement. – What is repentance? - Leaving the past and sadness about it. – What is purity – ἡ καθαρότης? - Briefly: the heart has mercy on every created nature - καρδία ἐλεἡμῶν ὑπὲρ πάσης τῆς κτιστῆς φύσεως. – What is improvement – ​​ἡ τελειότης? – The depth of humility – βάθος ταπεινόσεως, – i.e. abandonment – ​​κατάλειψις – of everything visible and invisible (– visible – everything sensible; invisible – conceivable –) and liberation from caring about it. “Another time he was asked again: “What is repentance?” and said: “A broken and contrite heart.” – – “Severe, voluntarily accepted death for everything.” - “And what is a merciful heart - καὶ τί ἐστι καρδία ἐλεἡμῶν?” - and said: “The burning of the heart is about all creation - about people, about birds, about animals, about demons and about all creation. And from the memory of them and the contemplation of them, his eyes shed tears, from the great and strong pity that engulfs his heart. And from great endurance his heart is touched, and he cannot endure, or hear, or see any harm, or small sadness occurring in the creature. And as a result of this, for the dumb, and for the enemies of the Truth, and for those who harm him, he offers prayer every hour with tears, so that they may be cleansed and preserved; and also for the nature of reptiles he prays with great pity, which is aroused in his heart without measure, according to his likeness to God in this... The sign of those who have achieved perfection is this: if a day they are handed over to be burned ten times for their love for people, they will not be satisfied with this, just as Moses said to God: “If you forgive them their sin, then forgive it: but if not, then blot me out of the book in which you wrote it” (Ex. 32:32) and as blessed Paul says: “I myself would like to be excommunicated from Christ for my brothers, etc.” (Rom.9:3); and also “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you,” the Gentiles ( Col. 1:24 ). And the other apostles, for their love for people’s lives, received death in all forms. – The highest degree of all this together is God and the Lord. Out of love for creation, He gave His Son to death by the cross...” Elsewhere, Abba Isaac reports the following: 550 “They also tell about Abba Agathon that he said: “I would like to find a leper and take his body and give him mine.” Do you see perfect love?..” So, “purity is a heart that has mercy on every created nature,” and “a heart that has mercy on every creature is the burning of the heart for all creation,” when the worthy of full love, and therefore, therefore, the eternal and holy side of every creature, including here even demons and “enemies of the Truth,” i.e., demons, is revealed to it. Repentance leads to humility of the heart, that is, its mortification to everything, the destruction in it of the evil self and the lower law of identity. The heart is cleansed of that filth that separated it from God and from creation. And, separated from isolation by feat, the heart becomes chaste, that is, selflessly perceiving the beauty of creation, and is inflamed with love for all creation. More or less clearly, dwelling in more detail or briefly on this or that transition of this path, all the ascetics say the same thing. But, of course, the completeness of purity is a given value, and not a given one. However, every time an ascetic has climbed the “Stairway of Heaven” to some extent, the “sense of nature” clearly appears. Do you remember what Bishop spoke about the cleansing significance of the creature? Theophan the Recluse? 551 I will not, however, quote his words; I’ll do better, an excerpt from the notes of one wanderer. 552 “Now I walk like this,” writes the Wanderer, “and constantly say the Jesus Prayer, which is more precious and sweeter to me than anything else in the world. I have no worries about anything, nothing occupies me, I wouldn’t look at anything fussy, and I’d be all alone in solitude; It’s only out of habit that I want to constantly say prayer, and when I do it, it’s very fun for me. God knows what is happening to me. “At this time I was reading my Bible and felt that I began to understand it more clearly, not as before, when very many things seemed incomprehensible to me, and I was often met with bewilderment. - When I began to pray with my heart, everything around me seemed to me in a delightful form: trees, grass, birds, earth, air, light, everything seemed to tell me that it exists for man, testifies to God’s love for man, and everything prays, everything sings the glory of God. And I understood from this what is called in the Philokalia “knowing the words of creation,” and I saw the way in which one can talk with God’s creations. “I also learned from experience what heaven means and how the Kingdom of God opens up inside our hearts.” “I walked slowly for a month,” the wanderer continues his story, “and deeply felt how edifying good living examples can be; I often read the Philokalia and trusted everything I said to the blind prayer book. His instructive example kindled in me zeal, gratitude and love for the Lord; the prayer of my heart delighted me so much that I did not believe that there was anyone happier than me on earth, and I wondered what greater and better pleasure could be in the Kingdom of Heaven. Not only did I feel this inside my soul, but everything external seemed to me in a delightful form, and everything attracted me to the love and thanksgiving of God. “Everything felt like family to me; in everything I found an image of the name of Jesus Christ.” In a word, all creation was revealed to our wanderer as an eternal miracle of God, as a living being praying to its Creator and Father. 553 This perception is highly characteristic of our wanderers, and individual features of it are captured in many works of art. 554 Of the extensive material that could be used to clarify the connection between ascetic feat, virginity of the soul, spirituality and love-pity for the creature and falling in love with the creature, I have cited only a very small amount. But I hope that in the examples given, this connection has become clear - this bridge leading the ascetic to the unconditional root of creation, once only, washed by the Holy Spirit, separated from his selfhood through the structure of himself, the ascetic has felt his unconditional root within himself - that root of eternity, which is given to him through participation in the depths of Trinity Love. Hence, a new question necessarily arises, namely, how is the creature conceived in itself or by itself or about itself, that is, the question of Sophia. Omnia conjungo. I connect everything. Methodius of Olympia, – Mi. gr., T. 18, col. 264 A, cf. id. col. 506A) – Wed: “If your soul passionately cleaves to beautiful bodies and is then subjected to the tyranny of passionate thoughts that are born from this: do not assume that they are the cause of the storm of thoughts and passionate movement occurring in you; but know that the reason for this is hidden inside your soul, which, like a stone, a kind of magnet - iron, attracts harm to itself from persons, due to a predisposition to it and an evil passionate habit. God’s creations are all good, according to the word of God Himself, and have nothing that would give grounds for blasphemy of God’s creation” (Nikita Stif., - 1st cent., 50., p. 95. Ambrose Med., - About virgins I, VIII, 40 (Mi lat. pr. T. 16, col. 200. - Russian translation I, VII, 40). [Bep. Theodore (Pozdeevsky), Rec. M. Spirit. Ak.], - From readings on pastoral. theologian (Asceticism). Serg. Pos., 1911, p. 21. Wed: F. Simon, - Psychology Ap. Paul, trans. with him. Ep. Georgiy, M., 1907, A I, pp. 1–5 et al. – P.S. Strakhov, – Atoms of Life (“God. West.”, 1912, Jan., pp. 1–25). An interesting, although unlikely, translation is given here. and comment. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: “For we will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed in the twinkling of an eye.” Strakhov considers the word ἄτομος a philosophical term, an “atom,” so that the phrase ἐν ατόμῳ, usually translated through “soon,” according to him, “introduces us into the depths of the very substratum of all things, into the depths of... matter.” All the matter of our bodies will change during the resurrection to the atom. - About the fact that salvation is the salvation not only of the soul, but of the whole person, with his body, and on an essential basis for people. the life of his body stops especially. persistently and firmly V. [I.] Nesmelov, - Science of Man, ed. 2-e, T. 2, Kazan, 1906. Yak. Tarnovsky, – Formation of main suffixes (“Phil. Zap.”, 45th, issue VI, 1909, pp. 4–5): “transition of “t” to “ts” in Belarusian. dialect and in Polish. language gives us some. reason to bring the words “body” (in Belarusian - whole) closer to the adjective. “whole”, especially since the human body means something strictly completed, correctly organized and not subject to division (individuum); The meaning of the Latin word “corpus” is quite consistent with this view.” Al. Art. Khomyakov, – Comparison of Russian words with Sanskrit (Poln. sobr. soch., T. 5, ed. 4th, M. 1904, p. 582 = id., ed. 3, 1900, p. 582). Prel.. Cur.. – E. Akvilonov, – New Testament teaching about the Church, St. Petersburg, 1896, p. 25. Lossky, – Justification. int., 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1908, III 2., pp. 77–78. – T. Lipps, – Self-awareness, St. Petersburg, 1903 – Rud. Steiner, – ΘΕΟΣΟΦΙΑ. – G. Rickert, – Introduction to transcendental philosophy. 1904. – Fichte, – Appointment. people, St. Petersburg, 1905. Page 587–592 – The relationship between the three principles of the human body, which have their centers in three parts of it, the stomach, chest and head, schematically, perhaps. presented as the mutual penetration of these three systems, but with the greatest intensity of activity, respectively. body parts. Papus, Philos. occult.. – In ancient times, the doctrine of the three-component nature of people. body in connection with the three-component nature of the soul was considered definitely decided: it is enough to recall at least the teachings of Plato, Aristotle and others. But this same decision was also contained subsequently. So in the handwritten collection “Big Panfect” or “Kuvaras”, belonging to the Athos-Iveron Monastery, Bp. Porfiry Uspensky found in 1845 unknown figurative poems of Theocritus and with one of them, “The Flute”, a curious explanation belonging to the chartophylax of the first Justiniana of all Bulgaria, Mr. John Pediasim, who lived in the 14th century, the following curious indication of the stability of this ancient teaching: “εἰδέναι δὲ ἄξιον, ὠς ὐποδοχὴν τοῦ τριμέτρους τῆς ψυχῆς, λέγω δὴ λόγου, θυμοῦ καὶ ἐπιθυμίας, τρεῖς σωματικὰς ἀρχὰς κυριωτάτας ἡ φύσις ἑδημιούργησεν ἐγκέφαλον μὲν εἰς ὑποδοχὴ τοῦ λογιστικοῦ, καρδία δὲ τοῦ θυμοειδοῦς, ἧπαρ δὲ τοῦ ... εἰ καὶ ἐγκάρδιόν τις τὸν πόθον ἐρεῖ, οὐχ’ ἁμάρτῃ τοῦ δέοντος διὰ τὸ καὶ τοῦ ἥπατος εἶναι τὴν καρδίαν ἀρχή. – It is worth knowing that nature has arranged the three most important bodily containers of the three-component soul, that is, its mind, feelings and desires: the skull for the mind, the heart for feelings and the liver for desire. The beginning... theirs is the heart" (Bishop Porfiry of the Uspensky. Christian East. Athos. The first journey to the Athos monasteries and monasteries. Part I, department 2, Kiev, 1877. Chapter XVII, pp. 230–231). [P. D. Yurkevich], – The heart and its meaning in the spiritual life of a person according to the teachings of the Word of God (“Works of Kiev. Spiritual Ak.”, 1st, 1860, book 1), p. 63. Neologism, proposed. Schelling. Yurkevich, p. 70. – Cf.: F. Simon, V. I, pp. 22–24. That the heart is assigned such an important role in inner life - that all the functions of mental-spiritual life are transferred here - is not an arbitrariness of word-expression, but is the result of a naturally grown psychology built on observation" (Simon, id., pp. 24-25, and further - an explanation of this thesis). – “The spiritual feeling or sensitivity is in the heart” (Fr. John Kronsh., book III, p. 773). According to the teachings of Kabbalah, the human being is three-component. Body, form or etheric double and the principle of life - this is the first principle, with its subdivisions, called nephesh. The soul, the seat of the will, the basis of the human personality, is the beginning called ruach, the second. Finally, the third principle, spirit, is called neshama (Papus, - Kabbalah, the science of God, the Universe and Man, translated from French by A. B. Troyanovsky, edited by N. A. Pereferkovich. St. Petersburg, 1910. Chapter VIII, p. 158). As has been said, the human personality is formed by the actual organ of the will, the ruach. “His seat is the heart, which, therefore, constitutes the root of life, it is the king (melek - מלך), the central point of connection of the brain with the liver... Kabbalah says: in the word מלך (King) the heart is “like the central point between the brain and the liver,” which should be explained by the mystical meaning of the letters. The brain מו is represented by the first letter מלך. The liver is כבר with its last letter and, finally, the heart is לב with the letter ל, which is in the middle” (ib., ch. VIII, II, p. 178). Goryaev, p. 317 – Miklosich, SS. 292–293. – Sreznevsky, III, column. 338–339: “middle”, etc. Dal T. 4, column. 130–131, 129–130. Theosophists, C. du Prel, etc. . From works dedicated to consideration plexus solaris official science, let's call it: Maxime Laignel-Lavastine, – Recherches sur le Plexus solaire, Paris, 1903, III+430 pp. – complete summary of various experienced data and theoretical considerations about plex. sol., presented by official science. Ch. V (pp. 407–428) contains abundant bibliogr. question, and the Bible is given separately. instructions on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of the solar plexus. - In Russian. language I only know the dissertation: Bloch, - Physiology of plexus caeliaci, M., 1910. There are also some here. liter, decree – As for the much more interesting, although sometimes fantastic, views on plex. sol. mystical science, then there are many separate ones. The reader will find comments in the works of du Prel and others (for their bibliographic index, see: Kiesewetter, - Gesch. d. neueren Occultismus, 2-te Aufl. besorgt von R. Blum., Lpz., 1909. SS. 844 ff.), esp., theosophists, occultists, etc. (Russian. bibliogr., although incompletely contained in: I. K. Antoshevsky, - Bibliography of occultism, 1910; there is a 2nd ed. - Leadbeater, - The Astral Plan, trans. occultism, ed. by G. I. Pozharov and L. I. Dokman, St. Petersburg, 1904, trans. from 5th French, pp. 296–304. – In the new, 3rd ed. Both [index of indexes]: Ern. Radlov, - Essays on magic. Ges.. – Handw., 12-te Aufl., SS. 377a and XI, An. – The word לִבׇה (Ez. 16:30), is usually explained as a secondary form of לֵב, – b. m. just a copyist's mistake. The extent to which there is little certainty here can be seen even from examining the dictionary of one author. Thus, √לבכ in Gezenius in the 3rd ed. Dictionary, 1828, left without explanation; in Tesaur., 1839, explained through “pinguis fuit”, in 2nd Latin. ed., processed by Hoffmann, explained through “cavus fuit”; in 7th ed. 1868, processed by Dietrich, this root is associated with the concepts of “verbinden”, “sich winden”, “convolutus”, etc.; in 11th ed. 1890, processed by Mühlgau, Volk and Müller, “haften an etwas”, “sich fess Anlegen” is recognized as the main meaning, and 12th, 1895, processed by Socin, Zimmern and Buhl, is again left without explanation. Jul. Fürst, – Hebräisches und Chaldäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 2-te Aufl, Lpz., 1863, Bd. I, SS. 655–656. Ges. , – Tesaur. Lipsiae 1839, T. II, p. 738. Ges. , – Handw., bearbeit. von F. Mühlau and W. Volck mit Beiträgen von D. H. Müller, 11-te Aufl., Lpz., 1890, S. 418. However, this is our guess. In Goryaev (p. 394), “halva” and “galva” are close to Turkic. halwa and Arabic. hal'vijat, sweets. Innocent, Arch. Hers., even develops the idea that the creature is, in addition to man, its representative, a person who has entered into a covenant with God, so that animals, in his opinion, also have a religion. (Innocent, first lecture on religion in general, pp. 9–12). Prof., known for his apologetic and religious-historical works, holds the same conviction. S. S. Glagolev; He repeatedly expressed these views to me during our conversations. S. S. Glagolev drew my attention to this identity. In Scripture, religion is “called a covenant, a law, the service of God, the way of Jehovah, or simply the way” (Hn., p. 4). That is why it should not be at all unexpected to recognize the teaching of the holy fathers that the supreme goal of religion, salvation - and salvation consists in deification - is the lot not only of man, but of all creation. Yes, Dion. Areop. speaks of the actual deification of nature to the extent accessible to it (O divine names. 9 5, - Mi gr., T. 3, col. 912D; id. 123 - col. 912D; id. 123 - col. 972A; id. 27 - col. 645A. - Quoted from the work: I. V. Popov, - The idea of deification in the ancient eastern Church, M., 1907, p. 33, note = “Issue of Philosophy and Psychology,” 1909). And St. Maxim the Confessor went further. He extended the ideal of the deification of man to all of nature. Through Christ, man is first deified, and through man all nature will be deified (quoted from the same place). – Among the Russian religious thinkers of modern times, who especially vividly felt this cosmic side of Christianity, I should point out, in addition to the already mentioned Arch. Innocent and S.S. Glagolev, - Bishop. Porfiry Uspensky, Vl. Solovyova, S.N. Bulgakova, Vyach. I. Ivanova, V. F. Erna and others. That's why gracious. the mysticism of the heart is a phenomenon of health and balance of the body, while the false mysticism of the head or womb always has either as its root or as its fruit illness of both soul and body. In Christ, the “Author of life,” there is complete balance and perfect health. On the contrary, outside of Christ, that is, outside of Life, there is no health. – Psychiatrist V.F. Chizh, known for his numerous. works on various literary works. types and historical figures in whom he discovers mental illness - he recognizes the Russian holy ascetics (the holy fools remain outside his consideration) as typical representatives of mental health and balance. And, on the contrary, a rare book on psychopathology does not make extracts from the messages about themselves of saints and mystics outside the Orthodox Church, as typical examples of mental disorder. Of course, psychiatrists simplify matters when they see only the spiritual. upset; but what is certain is that it exists. – Regarding the pathology of charming mysticism, a lot of material has been collected in many psychological, psychopathological and psychiatric works. In particular, we point out: D. G. Konovalov, - Religious ecstasy in Russian. mystical sectarianism. Serg. Pos. 1908. So far only the 1st issue has been published. 1st part ΧI + 258 pp. (= “Theological Herald,” 1907 and 1908) – Numerous numbers are indicated here. lit. subject. – D. G. Konovalov, – Psychology of sectarianism. ecstasy. Serg. Pos. 1909, 2nd ed. 18 pp. (= “Theological Vestn.”, 1908, No. 12), - A. Vertelovsky, - Western medieval mysticism and its relationship to Catholicism. Historical research. Kharkov. Vol. I, 1888; Vol. II, 1898. – M. Shaginyan, – On the Bliss of the Possessed. Poetry 3. N. Gippius. [M., 1912]. 42 pp. See also. About delusion, see “Words of the Ascetic” by Isaac the Sir. and Gregory of Sinaite (“Philokalia”, 2nd ed., M. 1900, T. 5) and other fathers, coupled in “Philokalia”, in Bp. Theophan the Recluse, especially in his "Letters on Spiritual Life"; Bishop discusses this spiritual illness in the most detail. Ignatius Brianchaninov, esp. see "Works" T. I. Nikita Stiff. , – 3rd hundred, 38, p. 250. “Whoever replaces the action of external senses with internal ones - vision with the aspiration of the mind to see the light of an animal, hearing - with spiritual attention, taste - with rational reasoning, smell - with mental comprehension, touch - with cheerful sobriety of the heart: he leads an Angelic life on earth - for people he is and is seen as a man, for Angels he is and is understood by an Angel" (Nikita Stif., - 1st cent., 8, p. 84). Gregory of Sinaite told his disciples even more strongly, namely, that “he who has risen to God, by the grace of the Holy Spirit sees, as if in a mirror, all creation with light, “whether in the body or apart from the body we know” (2 Cor. 12:2), as the divine Paul says, until there is some obstacle to him during contemplation, forcing him to come to himself” (“Athos. Patericon or biography of the saints who shone forth in St. Athos,” St. Petersburg, 1860, Part 1, p. 356. Life of St. Gregory of Sinai, from Νέον ἐκλόγιον). – To the question: “If someone has achieved heart purity, what is its sign? And when will a person know that his heart has reached purity?” Rev. Isaac the Syrian gives the following answer: “When one sees all people as good and no one seems unclean and defiled to him, then he is truly pure in heart” (Isaac the Syrian, - Homily 21st, in Greek ed. - 85th. "Creative", 3rd ed., p. 96). “One of the wise men of that time approached the righteous Anthony [the Great] and said: “How can you, father, endure such a life, deprived of the consolation that books provide?” He answers: “My book, Mr. Philosopher, is this created nature. She is always with me and, when I want, I can read the words of God in her" (Evagrius the Monk, - Instructions on active life, 92. - "Philokalia", 4th ed., M., 1905, T. I, p. 588. - Mi gr., T. 40). – This thought is then repeated countless times. plural once among mystics, both church and non-church. Maxim Isp repeatedly expresses it. (ed. Oeler. 105 ff., 152, 162, 212, 242, I 31, 75, 83, 463, - cited by M. D. Muretov). “One day I was sitting and looking intently at the garden. Suddenly the curtain fell from the eyes of my soul: the book of nature was opened before them. This is a book given to the primordial Adam to read, a book containing the words of the Spirit, like Divine Scripture. What teaching did I read in the garden? - The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead!.." (Arch., later Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, - Garden during winter. "Works", St. Petersburg, 1865, T. I, pp. 97–98). – “The world, as the work of a living, wise God, is full of life: everywhere and in everything there is life and wisdom, in everything we see the expression of thought, both as a whole and in all parts. This is a real book from which one can, although not as clearly as from revelation, learn the knowledge of God” (Fr. John Kron., book III, pp. 113–114). “If we, having written any book, know about its entire arrangement and composition, about all the thoughts contained in it, and when others express thoughts to us, especially the plan of our book, we say that this is our plan, our thoughts, then how can we take away from the Lord the omniscience of all worlds, all creatures, all things in the world with their qualities and states! “Isn’t it a book of God?” (id., pp. 665–666). – The same idea about nature as a book forms the basis of the essay I. A. Θ. – Α. Ω. Gemma Magica, or magical gem; that is, a brief explanation of the book of nature, according to its seven greatest leaves, in which one can read Divine and natural wisdom, inscribed by the finger of God. M. 1784. Amazing thing! How in ancient times people, like the Epicureans, who fought against the “superstition” of religion for the sake of rational knowledge, did not really know anything, and did not try to know anything (Cf. Vl. [A]. Kozhevnikov, - Moral and mental development of Roman society in the 2nd century, Kozlov, 1874, pp. 101–102); in the same way, even now, church fighters of all sorts, breaking away from the Church either under the pretext that it “constrains” research, or accusing it of hostility towards the creature, themselves do not know this creature they defend, do not engage with it, and hardly see from “nature” anything other than salon sofas and newspapers. Those who study natural science do not live with nature, but strive to create a prison for it from concepts, for this is precisely the essence of modern natural science, exposed by its adherents and traitors, modern neo-Kantians and other epistemologists, especially the Marburgers. Both the psychology of the sense of nature and the history of its development have been studied extremely little and are not well known. But what has been done in this direction definitely confirms the thesis presented in the text. Here are some books and articles on this issue: Alfr. Bizet, – Historical development of the sense of nature. Per. D. Korobchevsky, St. Petersburg, 1890 - Gr. Olenev, – Sense of nature in ancient times (“World”, 1910, Jan., No. 4, pp. 286–288). – V.F. Savodnik, – The sense of nature in the poetry of Pushkin, Lermontov and Tyutchev, M., 1911 (here, on pp. 2–4, bibliography of the question of the sense of nature). – Em. Michel, – Le sentiment de la Nature et l’hist. de la Peinture de Paysage (“Rev. de syntèse histor.”, T. XI, 2, No. 32, pp. 150–164). – A. von Humboldt, – Cosmos, trans. Weinberg, M, 1863, II. – De Laprade, – Le sentiment de la nature avant le Christianisme et chez les modernes. – Motz, – Ueber d. Empfindung d. Naturschönheit bei d. Alten. – Caesar, – Uber d. Naturgefühl bei d. Griechen last three books pointing according to Kozhevnikov). – Separate note on our topic are scattered in labor. by esthete and according to history art., esp. painting. E. du Bois-Reymond, – Cultural. history and natural science, trans. with him. edited by S. I. Ershova, M., 1900, p. 29. Cf.: “Christianity is undoubtedly one of the purest manifestations ... of the attraction to culture and, moreover, to the continuous creation of the holy” (Fr. Nietzsche, - Untimely reflections, III 6. “Complete collected works,” “Moscow Book Publishing House,” 1909, T. 2, p. 228). A saying attributed to Thales and quoted by Aristotle - On the soul, I. 5, 411a, 8. Afan. V., - Word to the Gentiles, 38, and in general see this whole Word. Fr. Nietzsche, The Gay Science. That is why, outside of grace, the world appears as a ghost, “Nothing”, shaped by visible reality, truly only “foenomenon bene fundatum”. That is the Maya of India, that is the μὴ ὄν of the mysteries, Plato and, in essence, the entire ancient understanding of life. The sage is the one who penetrated beyond the “rough crust of matter” and managed to see there... not the “incorruptible purple of the Divine”, not the “book of revelation”, not the “glory of God”, not the “wisdom of God”, but only emptiness and nothingness. Many saints testify to the demonic nature of paganism. church fathers and writers who knew paganism not from hearsay, but from personal observation and even from sad experience (Justin, Cyprian, Lactantius, Augustine, etc.). But it is worthy of special attention of the consciousness of the pagans themselves. This is, for example, the testimony of an apologist for paganism, who was also a priest of Apollo, Plutarch. “I cannot believe,” he says through the mouth of the pious Cleomurotus, “that the gods could look with pleasure on how, on the day of gloomy sacrifices, people savagely tear apart human sacrifices, devour raw bloody meat, undergo heavy fasts, indulge in mournful lamentations, allow themselves dirty, shameless expressions, and emit terrible cries”: to suggest this would be a cruel superstition and wickedness. But I will say, continued. Cleomurot, “that these holidays and sacrifices were established only with the aim of satisfying and appeasing evil demons, and averting the manifestation of their malice.” But demons or geniuses,” it is said shortly before, “we are obliged to recognize and honor according to our fathers. tradition" (Plutarch, - On the impoverishment of oracles, XIV, 417D Plutarchi cheroneus. Scripta Moralia, Parisiis, 1839, vol. II, p. 508). The theory of the propitiatory cult of evil demons was, according to Plutarch, first expressed by the Platonist, the head of the Academy, Xenocrates. “Xenocrates thinks that powerful beings live in the air around us. nature, gloomy and gloomy spirits who love this gloomy cult, such as self-flagellation, shameful words, and do no harm to people when they are revered in this way" (Plutarch, - On Isis and Osiris, XXVI, 361 B (Plut. Scr. Mor, id. Vol. 2, p. 441). Newer researchers also often speak out in the sense that that paganism was a cult of demons, and pagans were demon-possessed. This idea is carried out, for example, in the works of: Prince S. N. Trubetskoy, - Religion (Enc. Slov. by Brockhaus and Efron = “Collected works”, T. 2, M., 1908, pp. 499–509). rel. (id., T. 2, p. 434 ff.). - His doctrine of the Logos in his history (Collected works, T. 4, M, 1906, esp. pp. 187–190). 30–34· – C-te Goblet d’Alviella, – L’idée de Dieu, d’après l’anthropologie et l’histoire, Paris-Bruxelles, 1892, Chp. III, p. 103 suiv. – N. [S.] Arsenyev, – In search of Absolute. Boga, M., 1900, esp. pp. 37–39. – The demonism of paganism also explains the fact that healing from fear of demons and salvation from demons served, in the eyes of the entire ancient world, as perhaps the main guarantee of the success of Christian preaching. In addition to the above-mentioned books about this, see: A. Harnack, - Religious and moral foundations of Christianity in their historical expression (from the history of the missionary prop. archive for the first three centuries). Per. A. [A.] Spassky, Kharkov, 1907, ch. III, pp. 60–79 and VIII, pp. 178–194, – E. G., – Demonic diseases (“Chronicles of Reading,” 1912, July-Aug., pp. 775–790. – A. A. Spassky, – Belief in demons in the ancient church and the fight against them (“God. West.”, 1907, II, 6, p. 357–391). - The idea that fear created the first gods was first expressed by Democritus; at least Sextus Empiricus (Adv. math. XIII, 259) recognizes this primacy for him. According to Cicero (De nat. deor. II, 5), the Stoic Cleanthes probably borrowed this view from Democritus. Lucretius Car. – Interesting remarks about the connection between demon possession, fear and the inability to explore reality are expressed in: O. Weininger, – Last. Sl., dept. "Culture", pp. 159–161. Aris. , – Ethicist. Nick. IX 9. Opera, Vol. 2, pp. 1158b 35, 1159a 4; - Big. This. II 11 Op. id., p. 1208b 29 ff.; - Evdem. VIII 3, Op., id. p. 1238b 27. Chr. Siegwart, - On the moral foundations of science (Russian translation published in Vestn. Vospit., 1904, No. 9), p. 176. From his collection Kleine Schriften, Bd. II, 1881 (2-te Auflg. 1889). Compare: “There must necessarily exist outside of us a mind that consists not only in the ability to understand the truth, but has such power that it can produce all possible truths on itself; which, existing independently, constitutes the very essence of truth, embraces the fullness of light, love and life. Otherwise, there would be, and could not be, either truth or goodness anywhere. Otherwise, the basis of all things, all knowledge, would be pure nothingness” [Archim., subsequently. Archbishop Khersonsk. and Taurus. Innokenty Borisov]. About the existence of God (“Chronicles Reading”, Part 30.1824, p. 205). It was Innokenty who discovered and proved the ownership of this anonymous article by my student, I.M. Uspensky, Ph.D. LXVII issue. M.D.A., in his op. “Philosophical views of Innocent, Arch. Dick.". – The same among the ancients, for example: “Ἀλήθεια δὴ πάντων μὲν ἀγαθοῖς θεοῖς ἡγεῖται, πάντων δὲ ἀνθρώποις" (Plato, - Zak. V 730 C [29, 28] p. 335 24–28). Maimonides, - Mentor I 72 (ts. according to: M. Bazilevsky, - Influence of mon. on the development of knowledge, Kiev, 1883, pp. 15–20. – Immediately, on pp. 15–24, the entire chapter from Maimonides is given, interpreting the universe as a single being). R. Behai, – Hub. Galeb. (On the duties of the heart), ch. “On sincere service to God” (c. from Bazilevsky, pp. 93–94, 95–96). Bazilevsk. , id., p. 13, cf. sl. id., page 39, cf. pp. 44–45. On the struggle against polytheism that came from within the ancient world, see: P. Decharme, – La critique des traditions religieuses chez les Grecs des origine, au temps de Plutarque. Paris, 1904. XIV+518 pp. – Goblet d'Alviella. - Kozhevnikov. – C. Boissier, – Roman religion from Augustus to the Antonines, trans. M. Korsak, M. 1878. – M. S. Korelin, – The Fall of the Ancient Worldview. St. Petersburg, 1895. Lucretius Carus, at the beginning of almost all the songs of his poem “On the Nature of Things,” pleases Epicurus and even calls him a god; Wed.. About the condition ancient natural sciences see: Kozhevnikov. Ch. II, pp. 93, 206 (the title of the chapter is narrower than its contents). – Whewell, – East. induct. Sciences, trans. from 3rd English ed. M. A. Antonovich and A. N. Pypin, St. Petersburg. TT. 1 and 2. - 1867, T. 3 - 1869 - P. A. Lyubimov, - East. physics. Experience in studying the logic of discoveries in their history. Part I, Greek period. science. St. Petersburg, 1892. V+268 pp. – Ferd. Rosenberger, – Essay on history. physics. Part I, trans. with him. edited by I. M. Sechenova, St. Petersburg. 1883, V+178 pp. – Edm. Perrier, – Basic ideas of zoology in their historical development since ancient times. times before Darwin, trans. A. M Nikolsky and K.P. Pyatnitsky, St. Petersburg, 1896, 302 pp. ch. I-III, pp. 1–29. E. du Bois-Reymond, p. 41. – Kozhevnikov, p. 107. – E. Dennert, – Christ and the natural world, trans. with him. St. Petersburg Klim. Rom., – 1 Cor.19:2–3-20:1–11 (Fun’k, SS. 44–45. id.) (20 8 ). - A reference to America? What is this: a premonition of future knowledge or, perhaps, a disappearing memory of the past? Wed. Kozhevnikov, p. 97. – On Christian. view of the self-legitimacy of the world especially. insists M. M. Tareev, – Fundamentals of Christianity, Serg. Pos., 1908, TT. 1–4 - and even makes this concept the cornerstone of his system. But the self-legitimacy and self-affirmation of the creature in this system almost merge under the general term “freedom of the flesh.” According to a not entirely accurate translation by Rev. Philareta Bishop Chernigovsk., – Historical review of chanters and chanting rights. Churches, ed. 2nd. Chernigov, 1864. – Text and explanations: Titi Flavii Clementis Hymnus in Christum Salvatorem, Ed. – Ferd. Piper, Gottingae, 1835. - Required. corrections above. translation, see: F. Smirnov, - Hymn Klim. Alexander. (“Tr. Kyiv. D. A.”, 1879, T. 2, pp. 370–372). – For the text and explanations of this hymn, see also: Gr. A. S. Uvarov, - Christ. symbolism, Part 1. IΙ, 5. Symbolism of ancient Christ. period, M., 1908, posthumous. ed., pp. 44–49. Kozhevnikov, pp. 96–97. Immediately quoted: “All antiquity did not know the enjoyment of nature” (Gervinus, - Literaturgesch, I, S. 124); the Fathers of the Church for the first time decided to put nature above art (Humboldt, - Kosmos, II, 30); “the ancients felt plastically; the Christian world feels picturesquely... The sense of nature among the Greeks did not so much comprehend the interaction of things, connecting them into one organic whole, but, on the contrary, grabbed onto some particularity in order to develop it in detail into the likeness of one or another human trait or personify it into a human character. image" (Carrier, - Art, II, pp. 276–277 Russian translation). Schnase has the same opinion - (Gesch. d. bildenden Künsten, II, 129 ff.). – “When painting pictures of nature, classical poets were exclusively concerned with describing appearance, and even then in the most general terms; That’s why in them even traces of a deep understanding of the inner life of nature are not noticeable, such as how it is expressed, for example, in the works of Shelley...” (Kozh., p. 97, note 3). “Despite the zealous defense of classicism by its admirers, the majority of those who dealt with this issue of the interest of the ancients in nature are inclined to think that the ancient world had a feeling for nature, if not owls. alien, then, in any case, less characteristic than a new society. – There is no reason to assume that a people endowed with such a rich imagination as the Greeks remained completely indifferent to the nature that surrounded them; however, from the earliest times, Greek. civilization developed in such a way that feelings for nature could not be special in it. strong. – The broadest comparisons easily prove how much the classical world preferred to concentrate on the study of ch-ka rather than on research. nature: how short and poor the Greek poets’ descriptions of this latter are, compared with their own depictions of people. life! How luxuriously plastic was developed in antiquity, completely corresponding to antiquity. love for humanism, while the landscape [P.F.] was not known to either the Greeks or the Romans. If in est. and even in scientific When the ancients turned to nature, they rushed first of all to look for the reflection of their loved ones in it. human ideal; They constantly sought not so much to study her independent life, but rather its analogy and connection with him. Idolizing everything plastic, ant. thought, and when studying nature, focused its attention on especially outstanding phenomena, especially. striking with their appearance. The grandiose, the tragic, in a word, what most likely resembles human passions - this is what primarily interests not only ancient poets, but also ancient scientists in nature. Eg. Moreover, hidden, immediately elusive forces, inner life and transformations of matter are a thing almost incomprehensible to the ancients and did not even interest them. – Not only were the ancients not sufficiently interested in nature, they looked at it from a completely wrong point of view: firstly, they tried to bring its phenomena into an exclusive connection with people. ideals, through which they fell into constant mistakes; secondly, they followed only the largest, most obvious facts and thus learned to neglect the study of the internal forces of nature in order to pay attention to its appearance. – How diligently Greco-Roman scientists noticed those phenomena that seemed rare, almost miraculous, and how contemptuously they looked at ordinary physical facts; - for example, the department of meteorology was of great interest to them, while the less amazing phenomena of light, sound, etc. almost did not receive their attention at all; in the same way - ancient. botanists and zoologists collected hundreds of anecdotes on the behavior of foreign strange plants and animals and had almost no idea about their native fauna and flora” (Kozh., id., pp. 96–98). - However, contrary to what has been said, sometimes they try to attribute the sense of nature specifically to the ancient world, for example, linking it with the name of Pliny, and the eradication of the romantic understanding of nature - to Christianity (D.S. Merezhkovsky, - Eternal Companions, St. Petersburg, 1899, 2nd ed., pp. 102–103, Pliny the Younger). Wed: “If there is no The churches add that God accepted people. nature, the way I openly expressed this, I do not quite understand the meaning of these words: to tell the truth, it seems to me no less strange, as if someone said that the circle took on the nature of a square” (B. de Spinoza, - Letter XXI (LXXIII) to Gen. Oldenburg, - Correspondence, p. 148.) “Lord to them. full respect for created. To Him nature and its laws, as His infinite work, are most perfect. wisdom; Therefore, He usually accomplishes His will through the medium of nature and its laws, for example, when it punishes people or blesses them. Therefore, do not demand miracles from Him unless absolutely necessary” (Fr. John Kron., p. 667). P. Florensky, - Anthony of the novel and Anthony of the legend, Serg. Pos., 1907 (= “Bog. V.”, 1907, No. 1). – Here an attempt is made to specifically compare two ascetics. mood - nihilist. and Orthodox - V. (A.] Kozhevnikov, - On the meaning of asceticism in the past and present, M., 1910 (“Rel.-Phil. Bibl.,” Issue ΧΧΙΙ-ΧΧΙΙΙ = “Chron. Read.”, 1909). There is also an abundance of biblical literature. - M. V. Lodyzhensky, - Superconsciousness.. - His same., - Invisible Light. From the field of higher mysticism, St. Petersburg, 1912. John 8:23, 17:16, 18:36, etc. Mol. morning 7th, song of the midday. About deification: I.V. Popov, - The idea of ​​deification in ancient history. Church, M., 1909 (“Vop. f. and ps.”). - His same, - Religious. ideal of St. Afanasia Alex., Serg. Pos., 1904 (= “God. V.”). – His, – Mystical justification of asceticism in the works of St. Macaria Egypt., Serg. Pos., 1905 (= id). – S. Zarin, – Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian. teaching, T. 1 2. See also Smirnov. Here's the impudence. an example of the church's sense of the body. When on Nick. personal was made in 325 - most likely, bishop. Hosea Cordubs., - an attempt to make abstinence from their wives obligatory for all clergy, then apparently many were inclined in favor of this. offers. “But a man, a cat, spoke out against him. both as a confessor and as an ascetic, he was highly respected. It was Paphnutius, bishop. from the upper Thebaid. His voice carried all the more weight because, a strict virgin himself, Paphnutius was free from any suspicion that he was guided by any selfish motives. He spoke in the sense that the apostle also calls marriage “honest” (Heb. 13:4), which follows. there is no incentive to demand celibacy from everyone, placing on everyone that yoke that only a few can bear with honor can be brought to you. benefits only harm the Church, exposing them to dangerous temptations, if not the sacred ones themselves. persons, then their wives. The opinion of Paphnutius triumphed, and as before, the choice between marriages was left to the free discretion of those supplied. and celibate life (Soz. I 23)" (Bolotov, - Lectures, T. 3. St. Petersburg, 1912, pp. 142–143). Gregory Nis. , – Oh shower. peace. – Mi gr., col. 1049 C. Makariy V., – Bes. 44 9. – Mi gr., T. 34, col. 785B, Wed. Demon. 493, id. col. 818D). Simeon N.B., – Sl. 27. Mi gr., T. col. 452 D. Wed. id. 451–54, approx. 13: ἄνθρωπος Θεῷ ἑνοῦται πνευματικῶς καὶ σοματικῶς. More on the topic approx. [521–523] see Sarin, page 53. Rules of St. Apostle, St. Soborov, everyone. and Pom., and St. father with interpretations, ed. Moscow Islands of Lyub. Spirit. Pr., M., 1877, pp. 7, 95. id. The time of the Gangra Cathedral is not precisely determined and is believed to be between 340–370. Thalassius. The complete opposite of this Eastern mysticism of personality is the Western mysticism of thinghood: “Dass du nicht Menschen liebst, das thust du recht und wohl, Die Menschenheit ist’s, die man im Menschen lieben soll” (Angelus Silesius I, 163, S. 27). John and Barsanuphius, Rev. Seraphim, ep. Ignatius Brianch. Milestones. Sat. articles about Russian intelligentsia. M., 1910, ed. 5th and newer edition. A whole lit., indicative, has grown up around “Vekhi”. cat. appl. by late ed. this book. – H. M. Sokolov, – Russian saints and Russian. intelligentsia. Experience compare Har., St. Petersburg 1907. Elder of Kiev-Pech. Laurels, Hieroschim. Parthenius, is one of those chosen ones of the Most Pure One, cat. from childhood they are fragrant with heavenly freshness, an angel in the flesh, who even in his youngest years never experienced a struggle with the flesh and never sullied his heart with sinful attacks (“The Story of the Life and Deeds of the Elder of the Kiev Pech. Lavra of Hieroschim. Parthenia”, Kyiv, 1898, pp. 13, 19), - this most eminent honorer of the Ever-Virgin I searched a lot to find out what the essence of the schema is. And so, one day, in front of Her icon, which was always in his cell, praying that the Lady would tell him what the schema he had taken upon himself was, he heard a voice from Her: “There is a schema - to devote oneself to prayer for the whole world” (id., p. 27). Jer. Parthenius gen. 24th Aug. 1790 in the village of Simonovo, Tulsk. g., and rested in Vel. Friday 1855 S. [I.] Smirnov, - Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church, Part 1 (trans. ecumenical collection), Serg. Pos. 1906 (= "God. V."). Kozhevnikov, immediately lit. – Holl, – Enthusiasmus Lpz., 1898. Evening. first quarter sed. Great Lent, dog. 2, trop. 3. Or, in what gentle tones Tertullian speaks about the body: “The soul cannot remain a prostitute for the groom to accept it naked. She has her own clothes, her own adornment and her slave - flesh. The flesh is the true bride... And no one is as close to you, soul, as she is. You must love her most of all after God” (Tertullian, - On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 63). The rite of burial is especially characterized by the interweaving of two motives: lamentation over the corrupted beauty in man and joy over the restored beauty in the Mother of God. In ancient times, these experiences were intertwined even more closely. O ancient Christ. experience of death, see: V.F. Ern, - Letters on Christian Rome, Pis. 3rd (“God. V.”, 1913, Jan.). – G. Boissier, – Catacombs, M. (“Rel.-General. Library”, ser. III). – A. von Fricken, – Roman catacombs and ancient monuments. Christ claim., M., Part 1, 1872, Part 2, 1877 - S. N. Bulgakov, - Two Cities, M., 1911, TT. 1 and 2, articles on early Christianity. – The idea of ​​resurrection and holiness of the body esp. is vividly felt from ancient times. pis. at St. Irenea Lyon. , and of the new ones - in Η. Φ. Fedorova. “It is impossible to portray to anyone,” the biography writer Peter V. describes, the impression of the decree on barber shaving, “the great embarrassment that such a decree of His Majesty caused in the hearts of the Russians.” “They tell us to shave our beards,” the Russians said. Dmitry Rost., “and we are ready to lay down our heads for our braids; let them cut off our heads rather than shave our braids.” Many are known. riots over beards; but even severe punishments from the government (for example, in the Astrakhan riot, 365 people were executed and many were exiled to Siberia) did not deter the defenders of sacred decency. And what does it mean? was given to the beard in veneration of saints, this can be seen from the especially large beards of Sts. ascetics and from fasting. instructions in icon painting. originals on the features of the beard of this or that saint. Special The beard is characteristic of hermits and ascetics. (P. Smirnov, - Hair shaving "Prav. Enz.", 1901, T. 2, Art. 1005-1022. - Right there, on Art. 1011-1022 of the lit. issue and other instructive information. Extremely interesting other information, see: F. Buslaev, - Historical essays of Russian folk literature and art., St. Petersburg, 1821, T. X., pp. 216–232: “Old Russian beard”). – The strength of resistance to Peter’s barbering on the part of the Orthodox Church. Rus' is measured very expressively. an annual beard tax imposed. Peter I, namely 60 rubles. on all courtiers, city residents and clerks; 100 rubles each on merchants and traders; 60 rub. for townspeople, boyar servants, postal department drivers and clergy, excluding priests and deacons; 30 rubles each to Moskovsk. residents of all classes; and 2 money for each. a man when traveling to or from the city through the outpost. (“Full collection of orders”, Decree 16 Gen. 1705). For the curious real. “beard badges,” i.e., silver, remained a monument to this struggle for a beard, which was unbearable for the people. or copper tokens called "bearded", cat. issued to beard duty payers; these badges had to be carried with you. The extreme rarity of such silver badges clearly proves that not many were able to pay the beard tax. “A badge of this kind in my collection is the size of a silver two-kopeck piece (20 kopecks); on the front side there is a Russian eagle and SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT (1705). g., and on the back - the lower part of the face; nose and mouth with a mustache and beard, and the inscription: money taken. There were two types of copper badges; Some look like silver ones and there are some that look like cats. The Russian eagle has been rebranded; they probably served for the 2nd time; others are quadrangular, the size and weight of a ruble. On them there is a simple inscription on one side of the beard, the duty has been taken, and on the rim the words: a beard is an extra burden" (Baron Stanislav de Chaudoir, - Review of Russian money, translated from the French Β. Α., St. Petersburg, 1837, Part I, Chapter VI, pp. 169–170. - More about the same: Aug. Schletser, - History of coins, money and mining of the Russian State., from 1700-1784, Gottingen, 1791, pp. 67, 78. - Chulkov, - Historical description of Russian Commerce, M., 1781, I, p. 698. - Chulkov describes another type of beard badge, but Chaudoir doubts the existence of such). – Images of beard badges can be seen in the reference. Op. Chaudoir (Part II “Collected images, St. Petersburg, 1837, board 22, Fig. 5 and 6; board 23, Fig. 1, explanation to them on p. 12) and in: N.V. Migunov, - Rare Russian coins from 1699 to 1912, 4th ed., M. 1912, p. 80; beard sign, depicted. here, it is interesting because it is with a redeemable countermark. - The duty for a beard is, i.e. sk., a measure of the resistance of the average person. But it is known how resolutely and adamantly many individuals and departments defended the beard, and with it the idea of ​​the sacredness of the body, from the destruction of this idea by Western, intellectual-scopal nihilism. currents of ancient Rus'. The non-accidentality of this whole struggle is spoken of by a philosopher who is very close in spirit to the intelligentsia and who strongly influenced the most typical Westerner, Iv. S. Turgenev, – Art. Schopenhauer, with his aversion to religion and disgusted spitting on the body. “A beard, like a half mask, should not be allowed by the police,” he grumbles against human nature. - Moreover, like a sign of gender on the face, it is obscene, which is why women like it...” (Art. Schopenhauer, - Separate, but systematic thoughts on various kinds of objects, XIX: to the metaphysics of beauty and aesthetics, § 233, note 1. “Collected works” in translation and edited by Yu. I. Aikhenvald, issue XIV, p. 766). - Yes! Almost all of St. men, most great people, millions of honest doers of God's will wore a beard, saw it as a sign of valor, and considered it reprehensible to remove it; Moreover, many of them actively fought for the right to wear it - let us at least mention our Slavophiles (A. S. Khomyakov, - Complete collected works, Vol. 8: Letters, M., 1904, Letter 15, to A. N. Popov, p. 191; Letter 2 to gr. A. D. Bludova, p. 375), - and so, far from being of impeccable morality, the intellectual, in his hatred of the sex against which he himself sinned, was pleased to reach the discovery that a beard is obscene, and demand the intervention of the police - this again, an institution entirely intellectual in spirit - to fight the beard! Tertullian, it is true, is a Montanist in his works. period - expresses very original thoughts about the body as the image of God. According to this writer, it was not the Savior who accepted the image of human existence, but man was preformed by the Creator in the image of the Son of God who was to appear on earth. The image of God is the image of Christ, which was given to man many years before the coming of I. X. in this image. ““Et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem, Dei fecit ilium” (Gen 127). Cur non, suam, si unus qui faciebat, et non erat ad cujus faciebat? Erat autem ad cujus imaginem faciebat: ad Filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior, imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem qui tune de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo" (Tertul., Against Praxeus, 12. - Mi lat pr., T. 2, coll. 168A). “Let's create a ch-ka,” God said before he created it. He creates it, that is, with his own hands because of its advantage, so that it is not compared with the universe... all beings in general, as slaves, are produced by one command, by one wave of power. On the contrary, ch-k, as a master, was created by God Himself... Remember, however, that the flesh, actually so called, is the very thing that is called ch-k: “And God created ch-k, taking dust from the earth” - hominem autem memento carnem proprie dici: “Et finxit Deus hominem limum de terra.” He was already h-k, although he was still a duster. “And I will blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and there will be dust,” that is, dust, “into the soul I live.” And the Lord God planted a paradise in Eden, and brought there the place he created” (Genesis 2:7–8). So the b--k, which was at first a persecution, became a complete b---k only later. What are these truths for? Moreover, so that you can see that all the benefits predetermined and promised by God belong not only to the soul, but also to the flesh, if not by common origin, then by preference of name. - I continue to move towards my goal, being, however, unable to give to the flesh what He who created it gave it, clothed with glory, when dust, this insignificance, was in the hands of God, in whatever it may be. Without a doubt, she would have been happy even then if God had only touched her. So what? Couldn't God have created man with just one touch, without anything else? It is so fair that some great miracle was being prepared when He decided to work on this substance Himself with such diligence. Indeed, how many times has this flesh felt the touch of God’s hands, how many times has it been touched, mixed, processed by them, how many times has it increased in honor and glory. Imagine that all of God was engaged in this creation. His hands, mind, action, wisdom, providence, and especially love: He uses His entire Being here. Why does He do this? In order that through this coarse dust He will see His Christ, Who will one day become a man, like this dust, and become the Word made man. The Father begins by addressing his Son with these words: “Let us make man in our image and likeness. And God created man,” that is, he created what he created “in the image of God,” that is, in the image of Jesus Christ, “create him” - therefore, the dust, in which from that time the image of Jesus Christ was clothed in His future life, was not only the creation of God, but also the pledge of God. Why, in order to desecrate the flesh, should we present the earth as some rude and contemptuous element, whereas if another substance were capable of creating man, then we should never lose sight of the dignity of the artist, who, having chosen this substance, would consider it worthy of it, or would make it so by touching only it,” etc. (His, - On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 6. id. coll. 802 B-803 And in general, see this entire work. - Based on the translation by Karneev: Works of Tertullian, St. Petersburg 1850, part 3, pp. 63–65). Tertullian's sense of the holiness of the flesh is all the more worthy of all attention because Tertullian's mistake was precisely his excessive severity in relation to the body. This combination of extremes of Montanistic asceticism, aspiration and search for the fullness of spirituality and deep reverence for the body is highly characteristic, but, as we tried to show in this work, not at all unexpected. “Begin to love the flesh,” exhorts Tertullian, “when it has such an excellent Artist as its Creator - incipiat jam tibi caro placere, cujus artifex tantus est” (id., 5, coll. 801 B). But loving the flesh, for him, does not at all mean indulging its weaknesses; on the contrary, it means demanding purity of the flesh, the purity of this image of God, this vessel of His Spirit. “The dust is glorious because the hands of God touched it, and the flesh is even more glorious because of the breath of God, through which it yielded to the coarse elements of the dust and assumed the dignity of the soul. You are no more skilled than God. If you do not put in cast iron, in copper, in iron, not even in silver, the precious stones of Scythia and India and the brilliant pearls of the Red Sea, if on the contrary you decorate them with the purest gold of the most excellent work, if for the best wines and fragrances you prepare vessels corresponding to their quality, if you dress good swords in excellent scabbards: then can you imagine that God would put the shadow of His soul in some contemptuous vessel, the breath of His Spirit, the active image of His Word - animae suae umbram, spiritus sui auram, oris sui operam - and to condemn them to exile in a blasphemous place? (id. 7, col. 805 A). – In later theology there is no established understanding of what exactly the image of God in the h-ka is. In work: [Filaret, Met. Moscow], – Notes guiding to a thorough understanding of the Book. Genesis, – part 1, ed. 2nd, St. Petersburg, 1819, pp. 34–38 - lists various ways of interpreting this subject, but without a decisive choice or rejection of one or the other of them and with the recognition of significant uncertainty in this matter of the Biblical narrative. Arch. Hers. Innocent speaks out in favor of understanding the image of God in relation. to the whole person: “Opinions about the image of God are different,” he says, “some extend it to the soul and body, while others limit it to one spirit or soul. But the opinion of the former is more just: the whole man was the image of God, and not just one part of him - the soul. But how could the image of an incorporeal Being be reflected in the body? The same as in spirit. This seems strange to us because we imagine the body to be too gross. But what is it in itself—is it different from spirit or not? – we don’t know. Well, if in its essence it is identical with the spirit? In this case, all temptation disappears. You can believe that it is like this: for it is much better to imagine the human being as consisting of one something, and not of two heterogeneous ones” (On Man. Lecture 2, p. 85). - Interesting. thoughts on the same subject are contained in the “Diary” of Fr. John of Kronstadt and in the “Book of My Genesis” by Bp. Porfiry Uspensky. Bl. August. , About Life. prot. manich., I 17. – Mi lat. pr., T. 34, col. 186. This view of monasticism from the latest writers is especially persistently pursued by Bishop. Ignatius Brianchaninov. But it is then that it becomes immutably clear that monasticism requires very special living conditions and is completely out-of-peace, so that an “angel in the flesh” cannot interfere in affairs not only of politics, but even of the church, as was decreed by the 4th rule of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Origen, - About the beginning. I. 7, § 5. – Mi gr., T. 11, coll. 1751–1776. – It must be said, however, that the question of Origen’s self-castration is very obscure. At least, not even hiding his hostility towards Origen, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus talks about this in very vague terms: “They say about this Origen that he intended something against his body. Some say that he castrated himself so as not to be disturbed by voluptuousness, not to be inflamed and inflamed by carnal movements; others say not so, but that he came up with the idea of ​​​​applying some kind of medicine to known members and drying them out. Others dare to contribute something else to him, for example, as if he had found some kind of herb that has a healing effect on memory. We do not entirely believe the extraordinary stories about him, but we did not omit to convey these stories” (Epiphanius of Cyprus, On Origen - the 44th, and according to the general history of the 62nd heresy, chapter 3. Works, M., 1872, part 3, p. 84). This message involuntarily forces one to consider all these rumors about Origen as gossip, similar to those that surrounded St. Afanasia V., Ioanna Zlat. etc., and from the burdens of which not a single outstanding person is spared. The only thing that can be considered established is the fact of Origen’s unparalleled mental productivity and, probably in connection with this, the fact of complete abstinence. But Origen really emanates a scopal spirit, as does all souls with a rationalist system in general. Wed. “Hymn to the Sun” by Francis of Assisi, also a stern ascetic. P. Sabatier, - Life of Francis As., trans. from fr., M., 1895, pp. 313, 314, 336, 339; authentic Italian text on pp. 311–312. B. [A.] Turaev, - Some lives of the Abyssinian saints (“Byzantine Times,” T. 13, issue 2, 1906). The Life of Yafkeran-Egzie is among the collection of manuscripts of Par. National Bible (former coll. d’Abbadie, No. 56) and translated into Russian. language in uk. slave. Yes, Rev. Sergius Radon. (XIV century) and Seraphim of Sarovsk. (XIX century) hosted a bear as a guest; Pachomius Egypt. (IV century) and St. Theodora crossed the Nile on a crocodile; others were fed by ravens, lions, etc. The Lord Himself in the desert “was with the beasts” (Mark 1:13). Wed. "Salt of the earth". Wed. in the life of Francis of Assisi. a story about his meal with Clara, when all those eating were enveloped in the fire of spiritual love and were satisfied with it ("Flowers" by Francis of Assisi (Fioretti), chapter 15, translated from Italian. O.S. "New. Path", 1904, May, pp. 123–124). There is also a department. ed. M., 1913, trans. A. P. Pechkovsky, ed. "Musaget", pp. 46–49. Erm. , – Shepherd, View. I, 1 1–3 –21–4. Funk , – Apost Väter, SS. 144–146. id., View. II, 23. – id. S. 148. Wed. “Your relics are honorable, like a full and overflowing vessel of grace, left to us” (mol. 1st Sergius Rad. Ave.). Already a quick look at the correspondence of John Zlat. with Olympias convinces that they were connected by spiritual love, much more personal than just the moral connection between a bishop and a deaconess. Of course, the accusations of Chrysostom’s opponents, such as the fact that during a service he exclaimed: “I’m dying, I’m going crazy with love,” are absurd, but the aforementioned correspondence explains what exactly served as the reason for the enemies’ slander. The suffering of Olympias during Chrysostom's exile, mutual concerns about health and requests to take care of oneself, notices about one's well-being - to console and encourage - requests to write about oneself, etc. - here are all the shades of personal love. This intimacy becomes especially clear if we make some statistical calculations. Thus, in the Russian translation of Chrysostom’s correspondence, 17 letters to the Olympiad occupy 84 pages (=3612 lines), and a group of 17 letters to other persons occupies an average of 11.9 countries. (=511.7 lines). So - including empty spaces between letters of 4-6 lines. Making a reduction for these intervals, we find that the text of 17 letters to the Olympiad occupies 3544 lines, and the text of 17 letters to other persons occupies an average of 444 lines, i.e., on average, it means that one letter to the Olympiad contains 208.5 lines, and to other persons – 26.1 lines. So, a letter to the Olympics is, on average, 8 times longer than letters to other persons. This number “8” is only a confirmation of the Life of John Chrysostom, which says that John “loved the Olympiad with spiritual love, as St. ap. Pavel Persidou, oh cat. writes: “Kiss Persis, beloved, who worked hard for the Lord.” The holy Olympias created no less than Persis. When John was expelled innocently from his throne, blessed Olympias and the other honest deaconesses cried a lot about it.” The tendency of many spiritual elders, at the peak of their feats and mortification of passions, to build women’s monasteries has not yet been sufficiently taken into account. It is enough to mention at least the names of Rev. Seraphim and elders Ambrose of Optina and Barnabas of Gethsemane to clarify what has been said. D. S. Merezhkovsky, - The Last Saint (Merezhk., - “Not peace, but a sword”, St. Petersburg, 1908). John Lestv. , – Ladder, lyrics. 15 61 (in Russian p.) – Mi sr. T 88, coll. 893 c, d – 894a, Grad. XV 33. id. Sl. 1562. – id., col. 893a, Grad. XV 34. Scholium 33rd to the 15th Word of the Ladders, id., col. 916 p. Dimitri Rost. , Lives of Saints, month. Oct., day 8. (= Lippomanus, – Acta sanctorum, V. 5, p. 225. It makes no difference whether it is called Braman, Nirvana, Ensof, Tao, Good (in Tolstoy), etc. See His Life (Jan. 19). Makariy V., – Bes. 18 7–10. – Mi gr. Τ. 34, coll. 640a, b, c, d – 641a. Priest I. Chetverukhin, – Information about the teacher. Isaac Sir. (“Creations of Is. Sir.”. 3rd edition, Ser. Pos., 1911). Isaac Sir., – Sl. 48 along the river p., and according to ed. Feot. PA (81), σσ. 451–453. Conclusion in borrowing from ancient glory lane Ep. Feofan Zatv., – Wed. “As sensual people, we must kindly perceive with our senses impressions from sensory things and, through their beauty, ascend to the contemplation of their creator” (Nikita Stifat, - 3rd speculative chapter of hundreds, 72. “Good.” pp. 155–156. Open story countries, story 4th, p. 93. P. Florensky, - About superstition (“New Way”, 1903 No. 8). It speaks of a miracle as the perception of the Deities. moment of the creature; I stipulate that the article was processed by the editors in Kantian style. spirit, and therefore no. thoughts included in it, I cannot accept. L. Belsky, - How an earthly creature prays to God (story by a wanderer) (“Spring”, 1897, T. II, pp. 900–913).