IX. Письмо восьмое: Геенна

My old man! I cannot tell you with what fearful feeling I approach this letter. Don't I see how difficult it is to express this? The framework of our crude concepts is too rough, and by putting on it the almost intangible fabric of experience, it is too easy to destroy its integrity. Maybe only your hands will accept it without torn. Only yours... After all, the second question about death is a painful, sincere question. Once in a dream I experienced it with all specificity. I had no images, but only purely internal experiences. An impenetrable darkness, almost materially dense, surrounded me. Some forces drew me to the edge, and I felt that this was the edge of God’s existence, that outside it there was absolute Nothing. I wanted to scream, but I couldn’t. I knew that one more moment and I would be cast out into outer darkness. Darkness began to pour into my entire being. Self-awareness was half lost, and I knew that this was absolute, metaphysical destruction. In final despair, I screamed in a voice that was not my own: “Out of the depths I cried to You, Lord. Lord, hear my voice!..” 347 The soul then poured out in these words. Someone's hands powerfully grabbed me, drowning, and threw me somewhere, far from the abyss. The push was sudden and powerful. Suddenly I found myself in an ordinary environment, in my room, it seemed: from mystical non-existence I found myself in ordinary everyday life. Then I immediately felt myself before the face of God and then woke up, all wet from cold sweat. – Now, almost four years have passed, but I shudder at the word about the second death, about outer darkness and about the eruption from the Kingdom. And now I tremble with all my being when I read: “For I will not be the only one besides You who gives life, my breath, my life, my joy, my salvation,” 348 that is, not in total darkness, outside of Life, Breath and Joy. And now with longing and excitement I listen to the word of the Psalmist: “Do not cast me away from Your presence and do not take Your Holy Spirit from Me.” 349 But my sleepy dreams, my worries are a pure joke before thirty years of burning in fiery hell, in reality, before thirty years of dying a second death. And such a case actually happened. In the papers of the famous “servant of the Mother of God and Serafimov” Nikolai Aleksandrovich Motovilov, Sergei Nilus found a description of the beginning of demonic possession that is amazing in its clarity and specificity. The torments of Gehenna, insofar as they are comprehensible to our present consciousness, - here they are in their life truth: “At one of the post stations on the road from Kursk,” S. Nilus retells Motovilov’s words, “Motovilov had to spend the night. Left completely alone in the room of the travelers, he took out his manuscripts [materials for the Life of St. Mitrofan of Voronezh] and began to sort them out in the dim light of a lone candle that barely illuminated the spacious room. One of the first he came across was a note about the healing of a demon-possessed noblewoman, Eropkina, at the shrine of St. Mitrophan of Voronezh. “I wondered,” writes Motovilov, “how can it happen that an Orthodox Christian woman, partaking of the Most Pure and Life-Giving Mysteries of the Lord, is suddenly possessed by a demon and, moreover, for such a long time, like more than thirty years. And I thought: Nonsense! This can't be! I wish I could see how a demon would dare to possess me, since I often resort to the Sacrament of Holy Communion,” and at that very moment a terrible, cold, fetid cloud surrounded him and began to enter his convulsively clenched lips. No matter how the unfortunate Motovilov fought, no matter how hard he tried to protect himself from the ice and the stench of the cloud creeping into him, it all entered him, despite all his inhuman efforts. The hands were as if paralyzed and could not make the sign of the cross; the thought, frozen with horror, could not remember the saving name of Jesus. A disgusting, terrible thing happened, and for Nikolai Alexandrovich a period of grave torment began. In these sufferings, he returned to Voronezh to [Archbishop] Anthony. His manuscript gives the following description of the torment: “The Lord vouchsafed me to experience truly, and not in a dream or in a ghost, the three torments of Gehenna: the first - unluminous and unquenchable fire, especially as only by the grace of the Holy Spirit. This torment continued for three days, so that I felt like I was burning, but was not burned out. This hellish soot was removed from all over me 16 or 17 times a day, which was visible to everyone. These torments ceased only after confession and communion of the Holy Mysteries of the Lord, through the prayers of Archbishop Anthony and the litanies he ordered for all 47 Voronezh churches and all monasteries for the sick Bolyarin servant of God Nicholas. The second torment for two days was the fierce tartar of Gehenna, so that the fire not only did not burn, but could not warm me. At the request of His Eminence, I held my hand over the candle for half an hour, and it became completely smoky, but did not even warm up. I wrote down this confirmatory experience on a whole sheet of paper and placed my hand on that part of the description with candle soot. But both of these pangs of Communion gave me the opportunity to drink and eat, and I could sleep a little with them, and they were visible to everyone. But the third torment of hell, although it decreased by half a day, for it lasted only 1½ days and hardly more, but the horror and suffering from the indescribable and incomprehensible was great. How I survived from her! She also disappeared from confession and Communion of the Holy Mysteries of the Lord. This time Archbishop Anthony himself gave me communion with it from his own hands. This torment was the worm of the everlasting Gehenna, and this worm was not visible to anyone else except myself and His Eminence Anthony, but at the same time I could neither sleep, nor eat, nor drink anything, because not only I myself was completely filled with this most vile worm, which crawled inside me in everything and inexplicably gnawed my entire insides and, crawling out through my mouth, ears and nose, again into my insides were returning. God gave me strength on it, and I could pick it up and stretch it. I declare all this out of necessity, for it was not without reason that this vision was given to me from above from the Lord, and no one would think that I dare to call on the Name of the Lord in vain. No! on the day of the Last Judgment of the Lord, He Himself, God, my Helper and Patron, will testify that I did not lie against Him, the Lord, and against His Divine Providence, the act He performed in me.” Soon after this terrible and inaccessible test for an ordinary person, Motovilov had a vision of His Patron, St. Seraphim, who consoled the sufferer with the promise that he would be given healing upon the discovery of the relics of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk and that until that time the demon that had possessed him would no longer torment him so cruelly. Only after more than thirty years did this event take place, and Motovilov waited for it, and waited for healing out of his great faith.” 350 Ultimate destinies! But who does not know that now more or less vulgar Origenism has crept into almost every soul - a secret confidence in the final “forgiveness” of God? 351 People of the most varied states and positions admit this so often that you begin to think: “There is some kind of internal inevitability here.” Indeed, there is an inevitability here. Consciousness comes from the idea of ​​God as Love. Love cannot create in order to destroy; it cannot create, knowing about destruction; Love cannot help but forgive. In the brilliance of immeasurable Divine Love, like fog in the rays of the all-victorious sun, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bretribution of both the creature and all created things dissipates. From the perspective of eternity, everything is forgiven, everything is forgotten: “God will be all things in everyone” (1 Cor. 15:28). In a word, the impossibility of universal salvation is impossible. So, from the height of the idea of ​​God. But, taking a dualistic point of view, proceeding not from God’s Love for creation, but from the creature’s love for God, the same consciousness inevitably comes to the exact opposite conclusion. Now consciousness cannot admit that there could be salvation without reciprocal love for God. And since it is impossible to admit that love was not free, that God would force the creature to love, then the conclusion inevitably follows: it is possible that the love of God will remain without the reciprocal love of the creature, that is, the impossibility of universal salvation is possible. The thesis – “the impossibility of universal salvation is impossible” – and the antithesis – “the impossibility of universal salvation is possible” – are clearly antinomic. But as long as the Love of God is recognized, the thesis is inevitable, and as long as the freedom of the creature is recognized, which itself constitutes a necessary consequence of the love of God, the antithesis is inevitable. The idea of ​​the Triune God as Essential Love, in relation to the idea of ​​creation, is revealed in the mutually exclusive terms of forgiveness and retribution, salvation and destruction, love and righteousness, Savior and Punisher - aspects rationally as intolerant of each other, as trinity with unity - in the intra-Divine life. The unity of God corresponds to retribution, and the trinity corresponds to forgiveness. So, historically we have severe monarchianism and laxative tritheism. If human freedom is genuine freedom of self-determination, then forgiveness of evil will is impossible, because it is a creative product of this freedom. Not to consider evil will as evil would mean not to recognize the authenticity of freedom. But if freedom is not genuine, then God’s love for creation is not genuine; if there is no real freedom of the creature, then there is no real self-restraint of the Divine during creation, there is no “exhaustion” and, therefore, there is no love. And if there is no love, then there is no forgiveness. And vice versa, if there is God’s forgiveness, then there is also God’s love, and, therefore, there is genuine freedom of the creature. If there is genuine freedom, then its inevitable consequence is the possibility of evil will, and, consequently, the impossibility of forgiveness. The denial of the antithesis also denies the thesis; the statement of the antithesis affirms the thesis, and vice versa. Thesis and antithesis are inseparable, like an object and its shadow. The antinomy of the dogma of final destinies is logically undeniable. But - not only logically: it is also psychologically obvious. The soul demands forgiveness for everyone, the soul thirsts for universal salvation, the soul yearns for the peace of the whole world.” 352 But, with the presence of an evil will, a perverted and rabid will, striving for evil for the sake of evil, seeking it as such - a will that denies God for the sake of denial and hates Him only because He is Love, 353 - in a word, with the presence of cynicism, 354 "love of evil" 355 and, - in the words of Edgar Allan Poe 356 – “the demon of perversity”, the soul curses the very forgiveness of God, denies and does not accept it. “People never,” says Pascal, 357, “do evil so much and so willingly as when they do it consciously.” And so, “for those, hell is already voluntary and insatiable; those are already willing martyrs. For they themselves cursed themselves, cursing God and life. They feed on their evil pride, as if a hungry man in the desert began to suck his own blood from his own body. But they are insatiable forever and ever and reject forgiveness; they curse God who calls them. They cannot contemplate the living God without hatred and demand that there be no God of life, that God destroy himself and all his creation. And they will burn in the fire of their wrath forever, thirsting for death and non-existence. But they will not receive death...” This is what Elder Zosima says in Dostoevsky. 358 Here it is no longer God who does not reconcile with the creature and does not forgive the evil soul filled with hatred, but the soul itself does not reconcile with God. In order to force her to reconcile, in order to forcefully make the soul loving, God would have to take away her freedom, that is, he himself would have to stop being a lover and become a hater. But, being Love, he does not destroy anyone’s freedom, and therefore “those who of their own free will depart from Him, He subjects them to excommunication from Himself, which they themselves have chosen.” 359 God's love, from which the inevitability of forgiveness was previously deduced, stands in the way of this very forgiveness. If we previously demanded universal salvation, now we ourselves “revolt” 360 against it. There is and cannot be a resolution to this antinomy within the limits of reason. It is only in the actual transformation of reality itself, in which the synthesis of thesis and antithesis is experienced as a fact, as a direct experimental reality, based in its justification on the Trinitarian Truth. In other words, synthesis can be finally given only in the experience of the very final destinies of the creature, where the complete transubstantiation of the world is given; and first it is experienced in the sacraments, where a particular transubstantiation is given (-you understand what I’m talking about-). But, one asks, what are the logical postulates of this future and present synthesis, i.e., in other words, what conditions that are jointly unthinkable in reason must be fulfilled in order for our antinomy to be thought of as synthesized? Or again: in what mutually incompatible logical terms is the single super-logical idea of ​​eschatology revealed? A synthesis of an ever-boiling bubbling bogeyman and a blowing heavenly coolness? Again coincidentia oppositorum! – poetry and prose, ice and fire not so different from each other.” So what are the inconceivable conditions of conceivability? However, even before answering the question posed, we must see that its solution cannot be sought on the plane of moralism and all kinds of legalism - where it is often sought - and that our searching eyes must be directed to the plane of ontology. “Legal” and “fair” will not be our categories, but “necessary” and “because.” Μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος - this is a necessary precondition for an answer. Let us now try to give it greater formal certainty. A personality created by God, which means holy and unconditionally valuable in its inner core, has a free creative will, which is revealed as a system of actions, i.e. as an empirical character. Personality, in this sense of the word, is character. 361 But God's creature is a person, and she must be saved; an evil character is precisely what prevents a person from being saved. Therefore, it is clear from here that salvation postulates the separation of personality and character, the separation of both. The one must become different. How is this possible? – Just as the threefold is one in God. Essentially one, I splits, i.e., while remaining I, at the same time ceases to be I. Psychologically, this means that the evil will of a person, revealing itself in lusts and pride of character, is separated from the person himself, receiving an independent position without substance in being and, at the same time, appearing “for another” (in the mode of “You” - which is the metaphysical synthesis of “I” and “He” of the personality split) absolute nothing. In other words, the essentially holy “about itself” of the personality (according to the “He” mode) is separated from its “for itself” (according to the “I” mode), since it is evil. Moments of being acquire independent meaning, diverging from each other, and my “for myself,” since it is evil, moves away from my “about myself” into “outer darkness,” that is, outside of God, into “utter darkness,” that is, “except,” “besides” God who is located, 362 — into that metaphysical place where there is no God. The Triune is the Light of Love, in which He is Being; outside of Him there is darkness of hatred, and therefore eternal destruction. “The Trinity is an Unshakable Power” 363 and the Affirmation of all steadfastness. Denial of the Most Holy Trinity, turning away from Her, moving away from Her deprives the self - this is my “for myself” - of firmness and betrays it to a circle within itself. After all, Gehenna is the denial of the dogma of the Trinity. It is not without reason that it is the denial behind the symbol “three” of its own, threefold nature that lies at the basis of the dark evil of witchcraft. I happened to hear that one confessor asked a certain sorcerer in confession how he did magic; he admitted that he was only saying: “Three is not three, nine is not nine.” The meaning of this blasphemous spell is clear: three is the sacred number of Truth, and nine is the same trinity, but taken in an intensified sense, “potentiated” (this is at least its meaning in symbolic arithmology), i.e., again, the number of Truth. And so, for the trinity its trinity is rejected, for the nine its nineness: behind the numbers of Truth, what makes them numbers of Truth is rejected - their true nature. Consequently, with the spell “Three is not three, nine is not nine,” a powerless attempt is made to overthrow the “pillar of Truth” and establish the “pillar of God’s wickedness” 364, i.e., Lie is affirmed as a lie, Evil as evil, Ugly as ugliness—Satan himself. After all, the essence of evil is in the rejection of ὁμοούσιος, and only in this. In the “outer darkness”, where my “for myself” is cast down, that is, my selfhood, through its rejection of ὁμοούσιος, through its stubborn “Three is not three, nine is not nine” - there it, torn off from Being, is at once being and non-being. The evil self, devoid of all objectivity - for the source of objectivity is the Light of God - becomes naked subjectivity, eternally existing and preserving its freedom, but only for itself, - and therefore - not valid. And my “about myself” becomes, after a mysterious dissection, pure objectivity, eternally real, but only “for another,” since it has not revealed itself for itself in a loving self, and therefore, being real “for another,” it is eternally real. In oneself, the evil and angry “for oneself” is an everlasting agony, an incessant powerless attempt to get out of the state of naked selfhood (only “for oneself”) and therefore constantly burning in the unquenchable fire of hatred. This is one of the aspects of the creature’s evil self-perception - a living picture frozen in its subjectless ghostliness. This is the empty self-identity of the “I”, which cannot go beyond the boundaries of a single, eternal moment of sin, torment and rage at God, at its own powerlessness - a single moment of insane ἐποχή, stretching out for eternity. This is an eternal effort, proving powerlessness, and powerlessness to make an effort. The earthly ἐποχὴ still has a creative character, but the afterlife ἐποχὴ is absolutely passive. On the contrary, the good “about itself” is an eternally beautiful object of contemplation for another, a part of the other, since it is another good for itself, i.e., therefore, it is capable of contemplating someone else’s good. After all, the one who loves transforms into himself everything that he loves, and the one who hates is deprived of what he has. The beloved belongs to the lover; but he who hates does not belong to himself. “He who saves his life will lose it; but having lost his life for My sake, he will save it” (Matthew 10:39; cf. Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24, 17:33; John 12:25). All that has been said is nothing more than a translation into ontological language of the “parable of talents.” “Talent” is the God-given spiritual creativity of one’s own personality, or the “image of God.” Just as effort applied to capital grows it, the same applies to the image of God. But just as the growth of capital depends on the size of the activity that the owner will show, and therefore it would be pointless to give him capital that he does not use, so does the growth of the soul; “type of growth” 365 each has its own, and therefore, in accordance with this “type”, each is given corresponding spiritual capital. In accordance with the life-like revelation of the image of God, in accordance with their “type” of spiritual growth and prosperity, everyone receives their talents from God: some are given one talent, some - two, some - five - “to each according to his strength, according to his ability, according to his urine - ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν": and with His holy gift God does not want to force a person, so as not to place on his shoulders “heavy and unbearable burdens” (Matthew 23:4, Luke 11:46). He who received five talents purchased another five with them; he who received two, another two. But what do these words of the parable mean? If talents are the image of God, then how can a person, through his effort, through his creativity, give himself an even more God-like existence, even double his image of God? – Of course, it is in the power of man not to create it, but only to assimilate it, just as the living force of the body does not create its nutrition, but only assimilates it. A person does not create an increase in his personality - he does not have δύναμις for this - but assimilates it through the acceptance of the images of God of other people. Love is that δύναμις through which everyone enriches and grows himself, absorbing the other. How? – Through giving of oneself. But a person receives as he gives himself; and when in love he gives himself completely, then he receives himself, but grounded, confirmed, deepened in another, that is, he doubles his being. So, having received five talents, he added the same amount to them, and having received two, he added to what he received no more and no less than two talents (Matthew 25:16-17). This doubling of oneself is “faithfulness in little things” (“ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἦς πιστός – he was faithful in little things”, Matthew 25:21–23) - in what was given to everyone, in the cage of Heavenly Jerusalem entrusted to his protection. But not only one’s own joy awaits the “good and faithful servant”: this great and immeasurable joy would be a small and insignificant drop compared to that endless ocean of spiritual joy that is prepared for the faithful servant “by the depth of riches and the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom. 11:33). What awaits him is “entering into the joy of his Master” (εἴσελθε εἰς τὴν χάραν τοῦ κυρίου σου - enter into the joy of your Master” Matthew 25:22–23), i.e. communion with the Divine all-bliss, communion of the Trinity Joy about the perfection of all God's creation, repose in the Lord's Peace, which He rested upon, having completed His all-blessed world-creative work. But joy is available only to those who have the consciousness of personality within themselves—to those who have labored, that is, to those who are faithful, even if only in small ways. The one who has not substantiated his personality, who has not earned what is given to him, becomes blind in the radiant Light of the Trinitarian Divinity, he suffocates in the fragrance of heavenly incense, he becomes deaf from hearing heavenly praises. Such a person does not tolerate the face of God and moves away from the All-Seeing One and rejects His immortal gifts. 366 Thus, a tributary slave who received one talent and did not increase it, that is, through his activity did not add anything to what was given to him, this slave says to the Master: “Master! I knew you that you were a stern man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not scatter; and, being afraid, you went and hid your talent in the ground; here's yours! (Matthew 25:24–25). Hatred towards the Good Master sounds in these words; with malice and pride the slave sweeps away the precious donation. He wants to be “on his own.” And then, fulfilling, albeit evil, but nevertheless, by the mercy of God, forever the free will of the “evil and lazy servant,” the Master orders him to take from him the already rejected talent and give the one who has ten talents, “for to the one who has it will be given everywhere and he will have it in abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he thinks he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25:29; cf. Matthew 12:13 ; Mark 11:25 ; Luke 18:13,19:26 ). If a person is lazy about spiritual achievement and, out of his cunning, wants to secure for himself, to legitimize for himself the possibility of negligence by hiding his image of God from himself, and when asking about it he rushes to proudly reject it, then what is rejected is taken away from him. But for the sin of the one who rejected, the Lord does not punish all creation by taking away the gift with which he honored it. The rejected image of God ceases to exist only for the one who rejected it - not unconditionally. The righteous, who have entered into the joy of their Master,” - into the joy of every image of God created by Him, in this joy of the Master they find and assimilate this rejected gift of the Lord; the worthless servant erupts from the joy of his Master, i.e. is done outside of it - in the darkness that is outside of God - “in outer darkness” (Matthew 25:30). The freedom of the Self is in the living creativity of its empirical content; The free I recognizes itself as the creative substance of its states, and not just their epistemological subject, that is, it recognizes itself as the active culprit, and not just the abstract subject of all its predicates. Just as the perception of a time series proves the super-temporality of the perceiver, so the perception of the empirical, as such, proves the super-empiricality of the judge of empiricality: I can rise above the conditions of the empirical, and this is proof of its higher, non-empirical nature. But, in experiencing one’s creativity, this nature is given as a fact. Holiness is a preliminary self-perception of this freedom, and sin is a preliminary slavery to oneself. “Where your treasure is, there your heart will also be” (Matthew 6:21; Luke 12:34); Where there is what you consider valuable, there will be your self-awareness - your “for yourself”. If the I did not place my treasure in my divine self-creativity, did not cleave to my image of God in Christ, but to my empirical content, i.e. to the conditional, limited, finite and, therefore, blind, then it itself blinded itself, deprived itself of its freedom, enslaved itself to itself and thereby preceded the Last Judgment. The “for oneself” of the individual is addressed to lack of freedom, to the blind self-affirmation of the I; “a dull, gloomy and irresistible desire” completely controls the personality, and she no longer needs her creative energy, her image of God, because “for herself” has fallen out of the realm of “herself,” from the realm of super-empirical freedom and has become mired in empirical slavery. Hence the state of ἐποχὴ as the impossibility of leaving empiricism. And the more the I tries to satisfy my blind desire, my senseless, self-affirming finite lust, the more the inner thirst inflames, the more violently the high-level anger rises: I am given to myself only empirically, blindly, limited, and therefore this desire to satisfy my infinite need with the finite is essentially absurd. The Koran preserves a saying attributed to Jesus Christ; although the attribution of the saying to the Lord is very doubtful, nevertheless, I will cite it because it expresses our thought well. “Whoever strives to be rich,” it says, “is like a man who drinks sea water: the more he drinks, the stronger his thirst becomes, and he will never stop drinking until he perishes.” 367 So, here - and regarding each lust placed in place of the Statement of Truth: the ideal, that is, the need for the Infinite, being projected onto the finite, creates an idol, and this idol destroys the soul, separating “the person” from his self-consciousness and thereby depriving a person of freedom. The final, last and irrevocable separation will be the Last Judgment through the coming of the Spirit - when everything that has not placed its treasure in Him will be deprived of its heart, for such a heart will have no place in existence: everything that is not from God, that “does not grow rich in God” (Luke 12:21), is destined for the spoils of the “second death” (Rev. 24:6,14). With such a division, neither freedom nor the image of God's man is destroyed, but only separated. However, an evil character, certainly not having the “Thou” moment, certainly does not exist for God and for the righteous: there is no “Thou” for anyone for whom no one is “Thou.” Such is a pure imaginary, existing only for itself, and its symbol can be a snake biting itself. H. P. Blavatsky called the 368 spiritualistic “spirits” with the expressive name “shells”, corresponding to the occult term imagines. 369 Without entering into a discussion of the connection between a person’s imago and his bare “for himself,” I will say that, in any case, the word “shell” is very suitable for designating “for himself.” This is, precisely, the empty “skin” of a person, but without a body, a guise, imago, without substance. However, of course, I take the extreme case of complete frenzy. Generally speaking, this process of separation is partial, so that only the damaged and sin-affected part of the self is cut off. The proposed solution, essentially based on the distinction in personality between the “image of God” and the “likeness of God,” is a solution that, as it turns out, was publicly stated by a Syrian slave. “I remember that once, when I was in Syria,” said the famous Protestant missionary Lord Redstock in one of his Moscow interviews in 1877, “I saw three elders of one village who, sitting in the evening under the shade of palm trees, talked about the infinity of justice and mercy of God. “How can this be?” they said. If God is merciful, He will forgive the sinner all his sins; if He is just, He will punish the sinner without mercy.” Then one of the slaves approached them and asked permission to communicate his opinion. “I think,” he said, “God, in his justice, will punish and destroy sin, and in his mercy, he will have mercy on the sinner.” 370 The mysterious process of God's judgment is division, dissection, selection. This is, first of all, a sacrament. No sacrament makes sin non-sin: God does not justify unrighteousness. But the sacrament cuts off the sinful part of the soul and places it before the recipient of the sacrament, objectively, as nothing (“covered”), and subjectively, as self-closed evil, directed at itself, like a Serpent biting itself: this is how the Devil is depicted on ancient paintings of the Last Judgment. 371 Sin becomes separated from the sinner, an independent and directed act; its effect on everything external is equal to absolute zero. In the sacrament of repentance, precisely, the words of the Six Psalms become real for us: “The East is separated from the West, so our iniquities have been removed from us.” 372 – All the forces of sin, cut off by repentance, close in on themselves. That is why the holy fathers repeatedly pointed out that a sign of the effectiveness of the sacrament of repentance is the destruction of the attractive power of forgiven sin: by the sacrament “the past is destroyed - τὰ πρῶτα ἐξαλείφεται”, 373 and ἐξαλείφω means, in fact, I wipe away, I cross out, I scrape out. “Every sinful fall puts a certain stamp on a person’s soul, one way or another affects its structure,” writes one expert on asceticism. 374 – The sum of sinful actions thus constitutes a certain past of a person, which influences his behavior in the present, attracts him to certain actions. The mysteriously free revolution consists in the fact that the thread of a person’s life is, as it were, interrupted, and the sinful past that has formed in him loses its defining power, is, as it were, thrown out of the soul, and becomes alien to the person. Sin is not forgotten and is not imputed to a person due to some reasons extraneous to a person - sin in the full sense is removed from a person, destroyed in him, ceases to be part of his internal content and belongs to the past that is experienced and crossed out by grace at the moment of the revolution, which, thus, has nothing in common with the present of a person.” I will tell you one such case of a trial from my own life. There was sin in my soul. In inexpressible torment, I stood up and then fell to my knees again, almost maddened by internal struggle. Deep, in the dead of night, I prayed like this in anguish and horror—for what seemed like two hours straight. This was a precursor to the Last Judgment. I knew that I must confess my sin to you; but I also knew that to confess him did not mean saying a simple word, but tearing out a piece of my being. I don’t remember whether I deliberately or almost unconsciously unfolded my little Gospel at random. You know what text I got. If a voice had come from heaven, it could not have answered my hesitations more accurately. Like with a sword he cut me open, with one stroke he performed a terrible operation, and then I told you everything. You yourself remember how much joy and peace my soul was filled with. And here is what one monk, a 65-year-old elder, writes to me: “It was a long time ago, when I was still 31 years old. I had just been tonsured a monk and ordained a hierodeacon; it was necessary to serve with preparation. There were cases when the conscience said: “You need to confess, so you can’t start receiving Holy Communion.” Tine." My cell was next to the confessor’s cell. And so, I leave the cell, go to the confessor’s door, stop, the thought says: “Don’t, don’t go, why bother, it’s not fasting”; I’ll wait, I’ll stand at the door and go away. “No, don’t,” I’ll go out to my cell. Conscience says: “What are you doing, how will you serve mass? Go, confess,” I’ll go up to the confessor’s door again, my thought again says: “Don’t, don’t go, it’s awkward,” I’ll stand there, walk away again, and my conscience will do its own thing again: “How are you going to approach St. Secrets? And so, after a long struggle, I finally decided to say a prayer and enter... Coming out, I felt as if I had taken off a heavy, heavy fur coat, I felt that I could, it seemed, fly, it was so easy, my heart jumped from the fullness of some inexplicable lightness - there is no way to express this in words. “Such is the power of the sacrament of repentance...” 375 The Holy Eucharist pours a healing balm on the wound of repentance, but it also judges the communicant. Isn’t it so that the Anointing and Comforting Spirit will come to heal the wounds of the creature with fiery baptism, after the Terrible Day of the world operation, after the Judgment of the Son of God and the Word of God, that very Hypostatic Word, which is “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,” which “pierces to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart” ( Hebrews 34:12). It would be ridiculous to consider all these questions “from your own mind.” What I have outlined to you is a retelling in philosophical terms of what I read in Holy Scripture; I prefaced the exegetical analysis of passages from Scripture with what was written so that it would be easier to follow the interpretations. The key to these passages is the text from 1 Cor. 3; I give it in context: 10. “By the grace of God given to me, as a provident builder I laid a foundation - θεμέλιον - and another is building on it; but let everyone watch how he builds. 11. For no one can lay any other foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12. But if anyone builds on a foundation of gold, silver, 13. precious stones, wood, straw, reeds, then everyone’s work - ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον - will be revealed; the day - ἡ γὰρ, ἡμέρα - will show, because it is revealed in fire - ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται - and the fire will test everyone’s work, what it is - ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον ὁποῖον ἐστίν τὸ πῦρ αὐτὸ δοκιμάσει –. 14. If whose work, which he has built on the foundation, continues, then he will receive payment - λήμψεται –. I give this translation (“subsiste”) of the word μενει in verse 14 according to Godet, who sees here the form μένει instead of the usually understood μενεῖ, “will remain,” “demeurera.” – The latter is introduced for the sake of parallelism, followed by κατακαήσεται, “will burn.” “But,” notes Gaudet, “this motive has no value; the act of combustion is instantaneous, while that which remains remains forever: this is what expresses the present tense μένει.” 376 15. If whose work is burned, he will lose it - he will suffer loss - and he himself will be saved, but as from fire - αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός –.” The Apostle speaks about the building of the Church of Christ (see 1 Corinthians ch.) According to him, the grace bestowed on him gave him the strength to wisely lay a reliable foundation - “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23): the sermon, arousing faith in souls, mysteriously instilled in them “Christ, God’s power and God’s Wisdom” (Compare 1 Cor. 2:2; Isa.28:16; 1Pet.2:5, etc.). The Corinthians began construction flawlessly, by the power of God (3:1a). And since there is no other foundation than that laid by the Apostle, since there is nothing solid except that which rests on Christ, since every attempt to build without Christ does not achieve the goal (3:11, cf. the parable of those who were built on stone and sand, Matthew 7:24-27), then the question of the foundation is over: there should no longer be any doubts about it and, therefore, the direct work of the Apostle is done. But, in the future, when this foundation is built on by “others” (3:10), attentiveness and thoroughness in the choice of material is necessary, because on the proper foundation one can erect either a capital building from durable and fire-resistant expensive materials such as valuable stone - for example, marble, jasper, alabaster - decorated with gold and silver, as is usually done when building rich houses in the East - or a light construction from cheap but but fragile and flammable: wood, straw, reeds. All the huts of the East belong to the latter type, consisting of a wooden base and clay covering it, which is mixed with adobe - that’s what crushed straw is called there - and topped with a reed covering on top. A rich man's palace, richly decorated with gold and silver, and a miserable hovel - these are the types of buildings. So, the Apostle says that “everyone” must in time “look” at what material (πῶς - “how?”) the “other” builds on the foundation (3:10). Who do we mean by “other”? - First - Apollos, then - all the teachers and leaders of the Church, generally speaking - all members of the Church, for everyone builds some corner of it - his own personality. Activity according to Christ, on Christ, by the power of Christ is the building of the Church of Christ - the real revelation of the divine possibilities given to humanity. And since the Church is built from the people themselves, then by the materials for construction we must first of all understand what people are in their actual-revealed, empirical character. The nobility and ignobility of one’s empirical character is what must first of all be weighed by everyone. The believer considers his internal and the external activity that follows from it as material for construction, that is, himself as empirical, for empirically a person for himself is not what he is, as God’s creation, as the image of God, but only as he freely expresses himself in the feat that overcomes the evil self. But this empirical nature of man is revealed in the system of thoughts, feelings, desires and is revealed in actions. And the latter gain independence by inducing corresponding thoughts, feelings, desires and actions in other people, regardless of the initial impulse that aroused them. The empirical character in action - and action is predominantly the word - receives a kind of material body and distributes spiritual power in it. In this sense, the interpretations (of Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Osiander, Godet) are correct, seeing in these materials for construction “religious and moral fruits generated in the Church through preaching.” 377 The holy, spiritual life of other people, caused by the activity of a believer, is to the highest degree his life, the objectification of his inner world, just as a work of art is the objectification of the artist’s creative idea and just as his parents live bodily in a child. It is not for nothing that the Apostle talks about architecture all the time; here, indeed, there is a deep similarity: religious-educational creativity and artistic creativity are similar. After all, spiritual asceticism is an art par excellence, an art that gives the highest beauty to the creature; The one who works here is not working on impersonal matter and impersonal words, but on a personal body and a personal soul, which make a person a verbal creature. And if the artist gives beauty to the world, then from the artist of artists the beauty of beauties shines into the universe. Yes, there is nothing more beautiful than a person who, in the mysterious darkness of inner activity, has defended the dregs of sinful anxieties and, clarified, allows one to see the image of God shimmering like a precious margarite. And not only the energy of good will, but also the energy of evil will finds its own independent expression, further independent of the will, in religious society. An evil or good wave, once excited on the surface of the human sea, never disappears, but always disperses in widening circles, and the one who excited it is caught by it just like all the others. Pygmalion, who fell in love with Galatea, and Gogol’s artist, who hated the portrait he painted, treat their creations as if they were alive, as if they were people. A thought is conceived and embodied, born and grown; nothing will return her to her mother’s womb: thought is an independent center of action. In this sense, the correct interpretation (Pelagius, Bengel, Hoffmann) sees various members of the Church in the “materials”: ​​after all, these latter are an outward revelation and the fruit of the inner life of a religious figure. The word, in a broad sense, is that by which external movements are excited; the word is an instrument of the soul. This may not be a sound symbol, but any other - any action, since it is not only what it is in itself, but also something more - since it is the visible body of some invisible soul, a “spark of the soul” 378 or, in other words, a symbol. 379 And since, of all words, the word associated with logical content has the most significant meaning, this makes acceptable the opinion of the majority of exegetes (Clement of Alexandria, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Neander, de Wette, Meyer, etc.), by “materials” they mean the doctrines taught by preachers. 380 But, first of all, these are the religious leaders themselves in their empirical reality, that is, the people themselves, “each” in his own religious “work” (3:13). Here ends the first half of the Apostle’s thought. Contrasting himself (adversative δὲ in 3:12: εἰ δὲ τις) with everyone else (3:10: ἔθηκα, ἄλλος δὲ), he seems to say: “As for me, my work is done, and done well, because otherwise it cannot be done in any way. I have laid the necessary and only foundation. But let those who build this foundation take care of their work and consider the choice of material.” - Why? – “Because everyone’s work (ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον, 3:13a) will be revealed, the material released into the superstructure will reveal its nature, and the work of a whole life (and there is only one life! -) may turn out to be nothing. After all (γὰρ, 3:13b) the day will show the true value of the matter.” -What is this “day”? – Of course, the day of absolute evaluation of every human deed, the day of judgment, the day of the coming of the Lord, the day of the fiery test of everything earthly. The Author of the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” also speaks about him: 381 “Watch,” he advises, motivating his warning with the anxieties of the last days; and then adds: “Then the Son of God will appear, the seducer of the world, and the human race will enter the fire of testing - εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν της - an expression perhaps borrowed from 1 Cor. 3:13. This is “the day of evil” (Eph.6:13), “the day of temptation” (Heb.3:8), “the day of visitation” (1 Pet.2:12), “the day of testing” (Rev.3:10) and so on, which is also spoken of in 1 Cor.1:8, 4:5. Undoubtedly, the word “day” has an eschatological meaning, and even if we think of it as “history” or “time”, or “the moment of remembrance,” as some exegetes have interpreted it, then nevertheless, the context casts an eschatological light on these concepts, so that they are precursors to the Last Judgment. The test, says the Apostle, will be carried out through fire. The word fire here is the same metaphor as the whole conversation about the building. But the image of fire is too often found in Scripture to denote the all-pervading and all-purifying judgment of God to see in it only a figurative turn: fire, by its nature, stands in some closer connection with this judgment, with the cleansing wrath of God. That is why it is said that the Lord Jesus will appear from heaven and will “take vengeance in flaming fire” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8) and, similarly in Ps.49:3: “Our God comes and not in silence; before Him is a consuming fire, after which the judgment of Israel is described. And the Son of Thunders must point out to the Angel of the Thyatira church that the Lord has “eyes like a flame of fire” (Rev. 2:13) - a feeling, from personal experience, painfully familiar to everyone and experienced every time a spiritually superior person looks into the soul, penetrating with his gaze the ugly traits of character. The Apostle even explains his thought: “because - ὅτι - in fire it is revealed - ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται.” But what is the subject of ἀποκαλύπτεται? What or who is revealed in the fire? – You can mean “day” (and then the translation will be: “the day of Christ reveals itself by fire or with fire”), or, which gives almost the same result, take the subject from verse 11 – “Lord” (it turns out: “The Lord is revealed in fire, with fire”, cf. 2 Thess. 1:7). If so, then the word fire finally acquires a real character, and, therefore, tautegory breaks through the allegory, the allegory imperceptibly passes into the thing itself; but, however, both subjects give the same meaning. One can also understand ἀποκαλύπτεται impersonally, so that the previous position is proven even more; the translation will then have a gnomic meaning, a general principle: “For in general it is through fire that such a discovery of the true nature of things occurs.” With this assumption, the indefinite present ἀποκαλύπτεται is well explained, sharply separated from the actual futures standing before it - δηλώσει - and after it - δοκιμάσει. – Essentially speaking, the meaning of the entire verse with the latest interpretation remains the same as with the previous ones. But, in any case, it is impossible to understand the word “deed” as the subject, which would give, as Godet puts it, an “unbearable tautology” 382 of the previous one. The end of verse 11 presents no difficulty in any way except the word αὐτὸ. If we relate it to τὸ πῦρ, then the translation will be: “fire itself,” that is, fire by its nature. If, with αὐτὸ, we understand τὸ ἔργον as a direct addition to δοκιμάσει, then it will turn out: “the fire tests it [everyone’s work], so that it will become clear what it is.” The following verses (14-15) depict the possible twofold outcome of this fiery trial on the day of the Lord. “If a work that someone builds continues, he will receive a reward for it” (3:14). What work remains? – Having finished with a number of “current affairs”, the Apostle surrenders to an inspired lyrical impulse and here, in his hymn of love (1 Cor. 13), he himself gives the answer to the question just posed: “And now faith, hope, love - this trinity abides; but love is the greatest of them all - δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη” (1 Cor. 13:13). There remains (–again “μένει”! –) faith, hope, love—love par excellence. A person’s work stands before the fiery eyes of the All-Seeing Judge (Rev. 2:18), and turns out to be truly valuable if it is built from faith, hope and love, mainly from the latter. The entire empirical personality of a Christian must be woven from faith, hope, love, and Christian society itself must be an embodied triad of virtues. It abides. But if this is not the case, then it will burn. The one who worked will lose his reward and suffer loss; however, he himself will be saved, but as from fire (3:15). The apostle continues his figurative speech. A building built from poor quality material will catch fire, and its builder will not only lose remuneration for his work, but also risk perishing along with the work of his hands. However, the latter will not happen. The Apostle assures that “he himself, αὐτὸς,” that is, the builder, as opposed to “the work, τὸ ἔργον,” will be saved—so to speak, will have time to escape from the building engulfed in fire. The word “will be saved - σωθήσεται” has been subject to various reinterpretations; but, contrary to Chrysostom and the ancient Greek commentators, it should be noted that σώζειν does not mean “preserve” in general, for example in Gehenna, for eternal torment, as Chrysostom explains (- it would then stand τηρήσεται 383), but rather to save, in a favorable sense. This is also indicated by the opposition of the matter itself and the expression διὰ πυρός, which is far from identical with ἐν πυρὶ - in the fire, and translated: “through the fire” or “from the fire.” Thus, Strabo has an expression: αὐτὸς ἐσώθη διὰ ναυαγίας - he himself was saved from shipwreck; Svida 384 has a similar phrase: διὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ πυρὸς ῥίπτειν χρή, δι’ ὀξείας δραμεῖν (implying λόγχης). Also Is.43:2: καὶ ἐάν διέλθης μετὰ σοῦ εἰμι – καὶ ἐὰν διέλθης διὰ πυρός, οὐ μὴ κατακαυθῇς. - However, a more common phrase, used in votive inscriptions by travelers who escaped from danger, a phrase equivalent to the one just considered, was σωθεὶς ἐκ (from the birth). This turn of phrase is often found, for example, in Ptolemaidan inscriptions found by Maspero. 385 In the passage under discussion, through the adversative δὲ (v. 15), a decisive division is made between the “himself” of the person and his “deed.” Everyone’s work will be subjected to a fiery test, in which everything unclean and filthy will be burned out, just as gold and silver are purified by fire (cf. Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:2-3), in which the mysterious separation of the worthless empirical personality will take place from the God-created “image of God” and from the “likeness of God,” i.e., the revelation of the former, since man “himself” has accomplished this. 386 This fire is not punishment or retribution, but a necessary test, that is, a test, a study of how a person used the “foundation” given to him - God’s condescension, “proof” of personality. If it turns out that the hidden image of God has not been revealed in the concrete likeness of God, if a person has buried the image of God given to him in the ground without using it, without increasing it, without deifying his self, without proving himself, then the image of God will be taken away from his undeified self; if the self is transformed into the likeness of God, then a person will receive - “a reward, μισθόν” - the inner bliss of seeing the likeness of God in oneself, - the creative joy of an artist contemplating his creation. The foundation is common to all - the unconditional deification of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ, and no one can lay a different foundation. But each person’s freedom determines his character, his superstructure. The foundation is the saved point revealed by Christ in each of us - the beginning of salvation - the image of God, cleansed from original sin. In Himself, the Lord showed each of us exactly himself, in his imperishable, original beauty; as in a pure mirror He allowed everyone to see the holiness of his own undefiled image of God. In “Man” or “Son of Man” 387 the fullness of his own personality is revealed to everyone. This gives the “appercipient mass” for internal quests; This bright point sets the direction for the wandering conscience. Without contemplating oneself and one's brother in Christ, conscience gropes, torments, tosses from side to side, and, languishing without a way out, wanders and makes one wander, rather than guiding one towards a specific goal. Outside of Christ, love is impossible either for oneself or for another, because if it is sincere and not egoism in disguise (“a beautiful vice” 388), then it inevitably leads to ἐποχή, to powerless agony. Conscience itself can make mistakes, and the greatest atrocities come precisely from “delusion,” from a perverse movement along a crookedly guiding conscience. 389 We, in the empirical human reality, have nothing unconditional, not even conscience. The conscience itself must be verified and corrected according to an unconditional model. But its subordination to a formula, even if given above, would be the destruction of the uniqueness and irreplaceability of the personality, its unconditional value: the sanctity of the personality lies precisely in its living freedom, in being above any scheme. A personality can and should correct itself, but not according to an external norm, even if it is the most perfect, but only according to itself, but in its ideal form. An example for a personality can be itself and only itself, because otherwise it would be possible to mechanically, from what is foreign and foreign to the personality, draw upon its life and give it norms. The uniqueness of each personality, its absolute irreplaceability by anything else - it requires that the personality itself be an example for itself; but in order to be an example to yourself, you must already achieve an ideal state. To become a saint, you have to be a saint: you have to pull yourself up by your hair. This is possible in Christ, in His Flesh, showing everyone God’s idea of ​​him; that is, this is possible only through experience, through personal communication, through constant looking at the Face of Christ, through finding in the Son of Man your true self, your true humanity. 390 – What has been said can be further explained by the following consideration: a philosophical ideal, that is, abstract, expressed, communicated, is a universal human ideal, for everyone. But this, although intended for everyone, is therefore external to oneself and to everyone, is an externally imposed and deadening scheme. The philosophical ideal is a Procrustean bed, intended for everyone, but not adapted for anyone. On the contrary, a high personality - a hero, a sage, even a saint - if we take his human perfection, - a high personality is an ideal only of himself, and even then not complete, not completely. For others, it is indifferent, because otherwise they would have to blindly imitate someone else’s personality. But “what do I care what’s good for Peter or Ivan. “I live my own life and follow my own path, drawn on the earth by the finger of God.” One ideal is necessary, or in the limit it should be necessary, but, as a formal one, it is not applicable to any specific person; the other ideal is specific, but random and not connected with the personality of everyone. The Lord Jesus Christ alone is the ideal of every person, that is, not an abstract concept, not an empty norm of humanity in general, not a diagram of every personality, but an image, an idea of ​​every person with all its living content. He is not a walking moral rule, 391 but also not a model to be copied; 392 He is the beginning of a new life, which, once received in the heart from Him, itself already develops according to its own laws. Not only by preserving his personal freedom and originality, but also by finding them anew, more excellently, a person receives a life that itself transforms or, according to the word of the parable (Matthew 13:33, Luke 13:21), “leavens” his empirical personality - “flour” - in accordance with the image of God in him. In Christ, everyone is given a “foundation”—his, every foundation, “himself,” he is genuine. And, if he built this “foundation” poorly and not in accordance with “himself,” then his superstructure will burn before the gaze of the One who embodies the fullness of his ideal. But,” says the Apostle, “despite the destruction of the “work,” despite the fire that has engulfed the whole person, “he himself” will be saved. Emphasizing the word “despite”, I want to note the decisive discrepancy between the view of judgment presented here and the Catholic teaching about purgatory, where a person is saved, but not despite, but thanks to, as a result of the torment of purification. That's why the ap. Paul, it is not the person as a whole who is saved, but only “himself,” his God-created “about himself,” whereas, according to Catholic teaching, the whole person is saved, but only under the disciplinary retribution of purgatory, having come to his senses and changed for the better. The deeply mysterious and super-rational metaphysical act of separating two moments of existence (“about oneself” and “for oneself”) is transformed, in the vulgar idea of ​​Catholic purgatory, into something psychological, thoroughly understandable - into justification through torment and education through punishment. In the subsequent verse (16) the Apostle hastens to explain why “he himself will be saved.” Because you, believers, he writes to the Corinthians, are “the church of God,” and “this church is holy,” and the Spirit of God lives in it. What is holy cannot perish, disappear, or remain in fire. What is given by Christ to man, as a man, cannot pass away. Otherwise, the image of God would perish. But he must stay; the holy remains, the holy essence of man is saved. As for her “business,” it may perish for her. What will perish, or, more precisely, will perish incessantly in the eternal moment of combustion, is that work, that result of internal activity that “ourselves” produced during one’s life. The entire content of consciousness will perish, since it is not from faith, hope and love. He will be saved - αὐτός, naked God-consciousness without self-consciousness, for self-consciousness without concrete content, without consciousness of its self-activity, is only pure possibility. Self-consciousness is the consciousness of one’s creativity, one’s activity. And the “work” of a person, his self-consciousness, separated from “himself”, will become a pure imaginary, eternally burning, eternally destroyed, burned by the gaze of God, a vile dream without a dreaming subject, a nightmare without the one seeing this dream. Such a “thing” exists only subjectively, as a bare “for oneself”: the moment “about oneself” is completely absent from it. For every “self” there is absolutely no “thing”, this “self”, because it is absolutely devoid of objective existence. “Self” without “itself” is a painful haze that arises in the emptiness of non-existence, “groaning and gnashing of teeth”, which is inaudible to anyone - like an incessant hallucination of Nothing, not existing for anyone - an eternally burning and eternally perishing unreality, in a word - a complete metaphysical μἠ ὄν. Yet everything that is real is holy, for “saints,” according to the definition of the Author of the “Instructions for the Morals of Men,” once attributed to St. Anthony the Great, - a saint is one who is pure from evil and sins"; 393 and this is precisely – God-created reality. This is being experienced to a certain extent even now. By plunging into sin, we lose the sense of objectively real existence. Plunging into sin, the spirit forgets itself, loses itself, disappears for itself. “The final abyss of sins has passed over me, and my spirit disappears,” we hear the testimony of St. Churches. 394 The self stings itself with its sin, but the main torment is that it appears to itself as something without subject. The self loses solid support and begins to spin, closing in on itself, like a dust whirlwind in the hot air. “Bound with captives, that is, with ropes, of the passions,” she is a captive of the law of sin. Three is no longer an arbitrary act, but the very being or substance of the self, and it is entirely determined by it. Seeing nothing but the sin that lies at its core, she can only be tormented, but not escape from the fiery wheel of increasing sinfulness. Only objective contemplation of her “herself” in the face of Jesus Christ allows her to realize her condition and strive towards the true path that sparkles like a silent summer lightning, to finding herself. 2 Corinthians 5:1–3 makes a related point; It says here: “When our earthly house, this hut, is destroyed, we have from God a dwelling in heaven, a house not made with hands, eternal. That is why we sigh, wanting to put on our heavenly dwelling; as long as we don’t end up naked even when we’re clothed – εὑρεθησόμεθα.” In the previously analyzed text it was said that “himself” will be saved, but - having lost his “work”, his life, as a work of art - that, if you like, the church that the person built for himself, the clothes in which she put on, weaving it for herself during her earthly life. But when a person with his earthly church, in his earthly clothing, appears before the flame-blazing eyes of Christ, when he hears the word of God, cutting like a two-edged sword, then, in the event of its unworthiness, by a mysterious act this clothing will flare up and separate from “itself,” and the church will be destroyed. Having been deprived of this covering, this church-clothing, having been clothed in the clothing that is in Christ (cf. Rev. 3:5, 4:4, 6:11, 7:13–14), in that ideal of his, which pre-existed in the flesh of the Lord, “he himself” may find himself naked, acutely aware of his nakedness and poverty, his beggarly position, like a beggar “naked”, even if he was dressed in an ermine, but someone else’s, mantle; he is naked in his consciousness, and this nakedness of him is only emphasized, only intensified, only made more sensitive by the splendor of the clothes given to him, but not woven by him, not earned by him. Each of us begins to recognize ourselves as naked in this life when, at evening prayer, we pray with the words of St. Macarius the Great: “Be merciful to me, a sinner and naked of every good deed.” 395 “Nakedness” and “clothedness,” as mystical-metaphysical definitions, are found at every step in spiritual writing, and not only in Christian, but also in non-Christian literature. An interesting illustration of this idea of ​​the empirical character as the metaphysical clothing of “oneself,” and the resulting metaphysical nakedness of the sinner after his trial can be provided by Lucian of Samossat’s dialogue “Charon and the Shadows” (from the series “Conversations of the Dead” 396). When crossing to the other world, the ferryman Charon forces souls to undress and leave all unnecessary things on the earthly shore (“deeds” - for the Apostle). Mercury the psychopomp “must see to it that not a single soul gets into the boat who has not thrown off everything: the shadows have to part with everything. The lover of women must leave behind beauty; king - royal attire, wealth, pride and contempt for people, crown and purple, inhumanity, madness, arrogance, anger, etc. d.; the rich man is deprived of his trophies of victory and his fat body; the noble remains without a pedigree, without honors and statues in honor of him; the commander strips himself of victories and trophies; the philosopher - his cloak, all the learned nonsense with which his soul is littered, his ignorance, arrogance, idle talk, lies, cunning questions along with confused reasoning, in a word - vanity, madness and pettiness, made up of gold coins, shamelessness, intemperate life and laziness, as well as deception, feigned importance, and the thought of his superiority, finally, a beard, frowning eyebrows and flattery, etc. d. In the face of eternity, everyone must undress from everything corruptible and become naked. And this explains the emptiness of the soul, which has lost most of its content. The idea of ​​division and dissection hidden from the mind is found in many places in Scripture. I won’t cite them all, I’ll just mention a few. So, the influx Master will come to his house unexpectedly and “cut up” the careless slave, who was entrusted with house-building, “and will subject him to the same fate as the hypocrites: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 24:51). This “will cut him - διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν” is very remarkable: it does not say “kill” or “execute” him, it does not say “hack to death” or “chop into pieces,” etc., but namely “cut in two - διχοτομήσει.” – Exactly the same – in Luke 12:46: “And he will cut him up and subject him to the same fate as the unbelievers”; and here: διχοτομήσει αὐτόν. Origen interprets this saying of the Savior in precisely this ontological sense. “The Gospel says about unkind stewards that they must be cut up, and part of them should be placed with the infidels, that is, that part that, as it were, is no longer their own, should be sent to another place. This saying, no doubt, indicates a special kind of punishment for those in whom, as it seems to me, according to this instruction, the spirit should be separated from the soul. 397 This is the mystical division of the human being into two, into “itself” and into “the work,” especially since here we are not talking about infidels or hypocrites, but about the servants of God who have not completed their economy. He who “stores up treasures for himself, and is not rich in God” (Luke 12:21), who does not become rich in good works (Tim.6:18), will lose his treasures and with them his heart, which has grown to them (Matt. 6:21, Luke 12:34). Every unclean thought, every idle word, every evil deed - everything that does not have its source in God, the roots of which are not nourished by the moisture of eternal life, which is internally condemned by its inconsistency with the Ideal, which is in Christ, and by its inability to accept the Spirit - all this will be torn out of the formed empirical personality, from the self of man: “Every plant that is not the Father “My Heavenly One planted,” says the Lord, “it will be uprooted” (Matthew 15:13), it will be uprooted. And His Forerunner preached the need for spiritual fruitfulness: “Even the ax lies at the root of the tree; every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 3:8, 10). But until this judgment, the enemy’s tares are allowed to grow freely along with the wheat, and the barren fig tree is allowed to grow green, like the fruit-bearing one. A similar, but voluntary, cutting off or tearing out of the sinful part from the empirical personality is necessary during life, before this part has time to infect all the others. This is like an operation on a gangrenous penis. So, for example, regarding lust it is said: “If your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it away from you - for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not your whole body should be cast into hell. And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it away from you - ἔκκοφον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ; “For it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell” (Matt. 5:29–30; cf. Matt. 18:8–9). At the service of the “Week of the Prodigal Son,” when the soul is at once awakened from its sinful slumber, when the soul remembers about its heavenly homeland and, looking around itself, suddenly, as if in a lightning illumination, it realizes that it has corrupted itself and that it is all a complete sinful ulcer—in this week of the anticipation of the Last Judgment of God, we assimilate in the church the same idea of separation, clothed in the image of winnowing the grain from the chaff. Everything I did turns out to be illusory, and there is nothing solid. The images of the stichera are exquisitely rounded off: “Trust yourself in a sinless country and animal, having sowed sin, reaped the blades of sloth with a sickle, and bound the sheaves of my deeds with the handle, even if they did not fast on the threshing floor of repentance: but I pray to you, our eternal worker God, by the wind of your love and give wheat for my soul to leave, shut me up into your heavenly granary, and save me.” 398 And in the first week of Great Lent, when everyone should become a monk; when for internal work, that is, for the rebirth of oneself, “the time is favorable”; when the “light-giving time, which the Father of lights gave,” comes, that is, the time of the creation of light in his entire personality, - in this great time of the universal schema, with a loud cry, the sinful soul begs the One who tore the church veil for her sake: tear away the deplorable robe of passion, divine clothing is acceptable.” 399 Even during life, the evil, lustful side of the self must be “truncated” and “thrown away completely”; while still alive, the “chaff of affairs” must be cleared away; Even during life, the “deplorable robe of passions” must be torn apart. The sinful “deed,” separated from “itself,” is thrown out of the realm of God, from existence and is pushed to the edge of it, into the agony of eternal destruction, into the confines of the icy and burning death of the second, into “outer darkness” or “utter darkness,” that is, “outside” or “except for” God found, about which Scripture speaks so many times. The “worthless slave” (Matthew 25:14-30), who did not put into circulation the talent given to him and returned it to the Master, that is, an honest person, but who did not create a high empirical personality on a divine basis, the Master deprives him of what was given to him, and then orders him to throw him away (“ἐκ βάλετε”) “into outer darkness - εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον, - where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” that is, torment and powerless rage, however, inaccessible to any perception, for it is “outside” the reach and no one’s. After all, what was valuable to the slave—his talent—remained in the hands of the Master, and only his worthless self, unsuitable for the Kingdom, like the guest in non-wedding clothing (in the parable of the wedding feast, Matthew 22:12-13) is cast out. The decisive parable word of Jesus Christ about the eternity of torment for people who did not love (Matthew 25:31-46), as well as the word of the Bridegroom to the foolish virgins who were not stocked with the oil of deified flesh (for a grace-filled and spirit-bearing person is deified flesh -) and therefore left outside, outside the banquet room, has the goal of mathematically accurately expressing the perception of judgment by the self of the condemned, his the subjective experience of this judgment, and not the metaphysical state of affairs, does not belong to the realm of being, but to the realm of non-being, existing only for itself. For the self expelled from the Kingdom, it cannot be otherwise, for all self-consciousness of the evil will is expelled into the fiery darkness of the black and unluminous fire of Gehenna. Yes, it’s subjective. But objectively, for Existence, God, and for Existence, the righteous, “he himself” was saved, having gone through the moment of the fiery operation, but only saved naked, in a state of pure potentiality of self-consciousness. This very moment of terrible contemplation of the Holy Face of Christ, like fire burning the chaff of the self, is forever imprinted by an obsession on the self, which is no longer creative, for it does not have the substantial basis of “itself.” And the entire further fate of this ghostly self is determined by the motionless idea of ​​one’s own sin and the fiery torment of Truth. Both do not exist objectively; they are pure subjectivities. But, not having creativity - since it does not have “itself”, substance - the self is completely filled with them and cannot even mentally escape from them, become above them - for this requires a creative act - and therefore cannot be destroyed. Its existence is exhausted by its “psychic content”; it really corresponds to the “soul”, according to the empirical school of psychology; the self is only a psychic phenomenon without a noumenon, a frozen phenomenon without an appearance. Something similar represents the consciousness of a person to whom a post-hypnotic suggestion has been made. From now on, selfhood forever is an imaginary, self-conscious idea of ​​self-affirming sin and torment. The sowing wind of sins will reap in that century a storm of passion: and, captured by the sinful whirlwind, will not stop spinning by it and will not break out of it, and he will not even have the thought of breaking out of it, for there will be no dispassionate point of support. The self is now given to itself completely blindly, for it has blinded itself, neglecting the purity of the heart. This is the horror that the insane self will not have the mind to understand what is wrong with it: everything is only “here” and “now”. Dostoevsky depicts this idea figuratively in a conversation between Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov, who drowned in the depths of Satan and was corrupted to the very heart. “I don’t believe in a future life,” said Raskolnikov. Svidrigailov sat thoughtfully. “What if there are only spiders or something like that,” he said suddenly. “He’s crazy,” thought Raskolnikov. We all see eternity as an idea that cannot be understood, something huge, enormous! But why does it have to be huge? And suddenly, instead of all this, imagine there will be one room there, sort of like a village bathhouse; smoky, and there are spiders in all corners - and that’s all eternity. You know, I sometimes imagine things like this. “And really, really, nothing seems more comforting and fair to you than this,” Raskolnikov cried out with a painful feeling (before he did not want to say anything to Svidrigailov). - Fairer? But who knows, maybe this is fair, and, you know, I would definitely do this on purpose,” Svidrigailov answered, smiling vaguely. A kind of coldness overtook Raskolnikov at this ugly answer.” 400 This is Gehenna - the only reality in one’s own consciousness, and nothing in the consciousness of God and the righteous. Do we feel sorry for cut nails or even a cut off penis? Likewise, the righteous do not at all feel sorry for the ever-burning selves, which exist as little for them as alien thoughts absolutely unknown to them do not exist for living people. There is no pity for the fact that, by the very essence of the matter, it is absolutely not accessible to anyone’s perception. – The Self received what it wanted and what it continues to want: to be a kind of absolute, to be independent of God, self-affirming against God. She was given this independence, this absolute negative freedom of egoism. She wanted to be lonely, and she became lonely; she wanted isolation - and she became isolated. From now on, neither God nor anything other than herself affects her. She is “like God”; but since she does not have creativity (all creativity is in God and only in God), then she is enslaved to herself in her accidental content, obsessed with the finite. The thoughts already revealed above are also contained in Mark 9:43–49, but with some important addition for us; it says here: 43. “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44. where their worm does not die and the fire does not go out. 45. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life lame than to have two feet and be cast into hell, into the unquenchable fire. 46. where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 47. And if your eye offends you, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than with two eyes to be cast into fiery hell, 48. where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 49. For everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.” Here the “work” of “itself” is the body. The unusable part of it, corresponding to the combustible material of the building (1 Cor. 3:13), will be here the tempting member of the body. It is better to pull it out in time, to cut it off completely, rather than endanger the entire body, that is, the entire empirical personality. The undying worm of “him,” this seducing member, that is, the worm of sinful self-consciousness, will forever erode the cut off and removed member; the unquenchable fire of pain from separation from the body - invariably consuming it. Historically, the image of the “undying worm” is explained from the Talmud, according to the teaching of which the souls of sinners are punished by worms devouring their dead bodies. Tractate Berakhot says: “A worm is as painful to the dead as a pin in the body of the living. The soul is greatly depressed by sadness and sorrow when it sees that the body, once its vessel and refuge, is being devoured from the inside and destroyed by a worm, so that even a completely just person fears this grief.” 401 “The Cause” is threatened with eternal destruction, the eternal agony of the second death. This will be so, for “everyone” (i.e. “himself”; cf. “everyone” in 1 Cor. 3:10) will be “salted by fire,” that is, through the fire he will receive a purified being, incapable of decomposing or being devoured by worms, while for a rotting member this salting is death. And what was previously designated by the Apostle as deprivation of a reward (“suffer loss”) or deprivation of clothing (“unless we find ourselves naked”) - it is characterized here as a state of mutilation, as deprivation of a member. This is the incompleteness of self-consciousness, in its highest degree, with the will, as they say, “rabid”, equal to zero “being for oneself.” The latter is possible with a complete falling away from the Life-Creating Spirit, with blasphemy against the Spirit, that is, with conscious opposition to the Truth, the Bearer of which is the Holy Spirit: “all sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to people; but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven to men; if anyone speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; But if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31–32). The denial of Truth as Truth leads to a complete separation of “oneself” and “selfhood,” that is, the death of the soul, the second death, just as the separation of soul and body is the death of the body, the first death. “He who turns a sinner from his false path will save a soul from death” (James 5:20), and therefore we must pray for him; but if a person clearly and consciously goes to death, if he has “sin leading to death,” then prayer is also in vain (1 John 5:16–17). The Word of God is the sword with which a human being is cut (Heb. 4:12; cf. Rev. 1:16: “out of His mouth came a sword, sharp on both sides”); The gaze of God is the fire that turns all sin into nothing (Rev. 1:14, 2:18, 1:5). The word-sword and gaze-flame penetrate into the innermost depths of creation, “and His tongue is like a consuming Fire” (Is. 30:27). The image of burning is tirelessly repeated in the language of Scripture, and in this image one cannot see a simple comparison taken at random. But, behind all this, an essential sign is introduced into the concept of combustion - a sign of eternity. “Burn”, but not “burn out” - this is “eternal burning”. If in the eyes of existence, for “itself,” the eternity of torment is in its absolute moment; when sin and the gaze of God come into contact, which cannot touch for more than a moment, then for the non-existent this eternity is in unceasing continuation into evil infinity, in the absurd and non-existent extension of the dying of the evil self into the infinity of purely internal, no longer restrained lust. Being bad absoluteness and complete independence from everything - as the self wants it - and at the same time lacking creative activity, this self is deprived of both external and internal incentives to stop, to put a limit to its lust. Left to itself, the self becomes its slave and, in the bare self-identity of the sinful Self, a dusty, eternally exhausting and never stopping whirlwind meaninglessly circles in the darkness of non-existence and torment: achieved, here it is, “You will be like gods”! Who, if not the pagans, knew about the illusory nature of the afterlife and the evil infinity of hellish torment? Not knowing during their lives liberation from the power of this whirlwind of selfhood, from the painful work of Gehenna, they expressed this experience with amazing plasticity in a whole series of hellish images. “The punishments themselves are depicted in such a way,” makes the observation of a researcher of Hellenic ideas about the afterlife, 402, “that more than anything else, they indicate here only the futility, the futility of the eternal efforts of the punished to achieve some of the most important goals for him - futility, apparently hinting at the futility and vanity of all efforts and aspirations of a person in general during the period of his earthly existence.” The Danaids, condemned after death for their murder of husbands, eternally and fruitlessly carry water into the underworld into a bottomless, never-filled barrel or, according to vase images, into a huge pithos; The window with a donkey constantly devouring a rope is the fruit of his uninterrupted labor (- according to Bachofen’s explanation, 403 these symbols have a sexual meaning, the first - feminine receptivity, the second - male productivity, and then, if this is really so, then the images of Danaids and Windows become especially instructive -); chained Tityus, with his liver constantly tormented by a kite, which keeps growing back (the same with Prometheus); Ixion - spinning in the fiery wheel of unquenchable passion; 404 Tantalus, tormented by thirst and hunger, but only teased by the sight of cold water running from him and branches with golden fruits rising from him; Sisyphus, in vain dragging a heavy stone up the mountain, which at the very top falls back onto the plain; the “aerial ghost” of Herakles with a tense bow, suddenly looking around, constantly intending to shoot, 405, etc. - these are always important images for the ascetic, the content of which indisputably reveals in contrast what kind of gift a Christian received from the Lord. The Hindus expressed the evil infinity of passion in Gehenna and its insatiability even more clearly, precisely in the image of the hellish monsters of the Praets. Buddhists say that these are “eternally hungry monsters, with a thick head, a fierce look and a huge stomach that is never filled, with dry members like a skeleton, naked, overgrown with hair, with lips and a mouth as thin as the eye of a needle. They are always hungry and always thirsty. Hardly once every hundred thousand years do they hear the word “water,” and when they find it, it turns into uncleanness before them. Some of them devour sparks of fire, others - corpses, or their own body, but cannot get enough due to the narrow structure of their mouths. It seems,” notes the Most Reverend Chrysanthus, “it seems that in the person of these pitiful creatures, the fantasy of Buddhists wanted to embody the concept of that thirst for being, which leads to passion and serves as the cause of rebirth itself - this evil of life. The eternal thirst for existence is never satisfied.” 406 The idea of the evil continuation of this burning in Gehenna fire is clearly expressed in John 15:6: “I am the Vine, and you are the branches,” says the Lord, “whoever does not remain, μένη, in Me will be cast out,” ἐβλήθη ἔξω, “like a branch [that does not bear fruit, see 15:4–5] and dry up, - ἐ ηράνθη; - and such branches are collected and thrown into the fire, and they burn, - καίεται." He who does not abid in Jesus Christ will be cast out and dry up, that is, he will undergo a mysterious cutting off from the Root of Life and, therefore, deprived of the juices of being - the Holy Spirit - will also lose the creative function of growth, self-creation in Christ, will become dead and dry up in monoideism, frozen in the eternal contemplation of sin and torment. Until now, speech is still in the country of existence. But then she comes to the necessary consequences of the process, which already occur at the turn of existence: the branches are collected and thrown into the fire, and they burn. In a textual sense, one can, however, explain the present tense of these forms as the “present of the maxim,” that is, interpret the passage under discussion as a general thought about the constant connection of phenomena, about “in general.” But even if this were so, then still this “in general,” like every “in general,” is only an expression of the bad infinity inherent in the phenomenon, that is, again, some long and infinitely tedious “now.” The process of eruption is, for the erupted self, an eternal, frozen “now” that never becomes past; for herself - she is eternally ejected from the Kingdom, thrown into the fire, where she burns, although both eruption and fire do not exist and only selves are seen in dreams. Everything is good, everything is perfect, everything is holy, and God is in every way in everyone; but the evil self remained numb at the terrible and vile vision. High-pitched anger inflames and inflames her. In helpless rage and torment, with a scream and a grinding sound, she threatens with her fist... and to whom? - To God and the righteous... But neither she nor her torment exists, and the former subject of them - “himself” - has long forgotten that he once had an eye that seduced him, which he tore out and threw away from himself. Only ghostly “dreams of shadows” and dark “shadows of dreams” swarm in Gehenna, to use Pindar’s beautiful word. It would be frivolous to think that pre-Christian ideas about the afterlife were a complete invention: the Jews with their idea of ​​Sheol, and the Hellenes with their Hades, and other languages ​​spoke the truth - about what they knew; but they knew, albeit vaguely, existence only outside of God, falling away from God. That is why, metaphysically characteristic of all graceless humanity, it was and is and will be what Euripides thought about death; and in his eyes, death is the complete destruction of the one who was previously called man; and the one who before birth was nothing, dying, according to the Poet, is again, in the sense of personal existence, nothing more than nothing: that is, τὸ μηδὲν, apparent, illusory being or half-being, graceless, and therefore semi-real existence passes into pure non-existence, into pure nothingness, into οὐδέν. However, this is the self-feeling of the individual; As for concepts, then, of course, the belief about the immortality of the soul was widespread. But what is significant is that this concept of an afterlife existence is filled with the experience of its ghostliness and emptiness. This is what Gehenna is. This is also the experience of modern pagans. The thoughts of a sinner, they say, “are the echo of his gloomy soul; the vibration of these thoughts forms dark, oppressive currents above him in space.” 408 “Hell is the madhouse of the universe, where people will be haunted by memories,” 409 a place of unquenchable, tormenting desires. – Like an inflamed and thirsty larynx, the soul languishes, but there is no satisfaction. Thus, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man’s piercing cry tears apart the ears: “Father Abraham! have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I suffer in this flame” (Luke 16:24). The idea of ​​purifying fire runs like a red thread throughout the entire New Testament. But now I will draw your attention to Matthew 3:11. Connection of thoughts before Art. 11 is: The Pharisees and Sadducees come to John the Baptist (v. 7). John points out to them the need for repentance - that is, rejection of everything that tempts them - in order to avoid “future wrath”, and threatens them with some kind of fire (let’s denote it by the letter A), into which they throw a tree that does not bear fruit; this is the same thing that in other places was designated as a barren branch, worthless clothing, a building made of bad material, etc. John also threatens with an ax - the same as in another place - “a two-edged sword.” – Repentance is followed by a new cleansing process: “I baptize you in the water of repentance, but He who comes after me is stronger than I; I am not worthy to bear His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (we denote this fire with the letter B); a spade, (- as an instrument of separation and purification it has approximately the same meaning as an ax and a sword -), His shovel is in His hand, and He will cleanse His threshing floor, and gather the wheat (= “himself”) into the granary (“Heavenly Jerusalem”, “abode”, etc.), and the straw (= barren branches, etc.) He will burn with unquenchable fire (let us denote it with the letter B)” ( Matthew 3:11). What kind of fire is this? – Fire A = fire B, as a combustion that comprehends what has already been thrown, has already been thrown “outside” or “except”, like chaff during winnowing. Both fires burn out what is incompatible with being in God, what does not have the density of being, what is pushed out of the depths of the Trinity Life, like a cork from water. But - apparently, the properties of fire B are completely different. As can be seen, this is not an unquenchable fire of torment, but a cleansing fire, a fire separating God from the unconditionally extra-divine; in other words, fire B is the very one that completes the baptismal process, separating “itself” from the other-natural, non-divine layering on it - the fire that “salts every sacrifice” (Mark 9:49). What kind of fire is this? It is not given in baptism, it is not spoken of anywhere in relation to actual baptism, and only the Apostles received the baptism with tongues of fire. The Spirit of Christ coming to the sinful creature will be that fire of testing that will cleanse everything, save everything, and fill everything with itself. But what for “himself” is a moment of purification (fire B), for his sinful self will be the fire of torment (fire A and B). Both fires are different aspects of the same Divine revelation - a revelation for the creature of the Comforter. The eternal bliss of the “self” and the eternal torment of the “self” - these are the two antinomically related sides of the final, Third Testament. Thus, the Revelation of Eternal Truth is revealed in a dual phenomenon: salvation-destruction, light-darkness, spirituality-gehenna. An important agraph, or unwritten saying of the Savior, has been preserved, in which this duality of God's revelation is quite clearly noted. “He who is near Me,” says the Lord in this agraph, “is near the fire, but he who is far from Me is far from the Kingdom.” In other words, the same Lord gives the Kingdom and burns everything unworthy: the Spirit of Christ is a Kingdom for the worthy, and fire for the unworthy. This agraph is reported by: Origen, in the bl. preserved in the Latin translation. Jerome's Commentary on Jeremiah, and Didymus' Commentary on Psalm 88. And since both of them were Alexandrians, we can assume the influence of a local source here, especially since no church writer, besides the named Alexandrians, has any indication of the agraph in question. One can further assume that such a source was the locally revered “Gospel of the Egyptians.” In approximately the same way as was done above, Didymus and Origen interpret the sayings of the Savior. Here are the words of Origen (†254): “The Savior says: “Whoever is near Me is near the fire; whoever is far from Me is far from the Kingdom; – qui juxta me est, juxta ignem est; Qui longe est a me, longe est a regno.” After all, just as the one who is near Me is near salvation, so is he near fire. And whoever listens to Me and distorts what he hears has become a vessel prepared for destruction, because whoever is near Me is near the fire. And if someone, fearing that whoever is near Me is near the fire, has become far from Me so as not to be near the fire, then such a one, on the other hand - quidem - has become far from the Kingdom. And like an athlete who is not registered in a competition, he is not afraid of the scourge, nor does he expect a crown; and whoever announces the name, if defeated, is flogged and dismissed, but if he wins, he is crowned; in the same way, whoever has entered the Church - O catechumen, listen! - whoever approaches the word of God is nothing other than what is written down; if he does not compete properly, he is beaten with whips, which are not used for those who are not registered at the beginning; and if he fought deftly to avoid blows and punishments, then he will not only be freed from insult, but will receive an imperishable wreath of glory.” 410 Didymus, the blind man of Alexandria (†396), says in a similar way: “And in imposing punishment on opponents, He, the Lord, is terrible. For if someone approaches Him through having received the Divine teaching, then by his sinfulness he finds himself near this fire - ἐγγὺς γίνεται τοῦ πυρὸς. That is why the Savior says: “He who is near Me is near the fire; he who is far from Me is far from the Kingdom; – ὁ ἐγγύς μου ἐγγὺς τοῦ πυρός, ὁ δὲ μακράν απ’ ἑμοῦ, μακράν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας.” And now, that means, He tells those who listen to the circle of His commandments that He is “terrible and great” for those who turn away from His virtue.” 411 This is the dual action or, to put it scientifically, the “polarization” of grace. But only this word may seem not quite familiar. The essence of the matter is the all too well-known truth that God is not only good, but also terrible, terrible precisely because of His unbearable goodness, this “scourge of love,” 412 for every violator of His Holy Truth. Just as the same flame shines and warms for some, and burns and exposes others with its light, so the Tri-radiant Luminary “is light for some, and fire for others, depending on what substance and quality it encounters in each.” 413 For some, the grace of God makes the oven “bearing fruit”, while for others it “scorches” even in the coolness. 414 If “our womb clings to the earth” (Ps. 43:26), then any upward ascent is painful, for it tears the “womb” from the “earth”, tears out the “earth” from our heart. The sun, shining on the clearly visual, soaring Eagle, blinds the underground mole with eyes half-atrophied from lack of exercise. That is why it is sung in church: “The night is not bright for the unfaithful Christ, the sweetness of Your words." 415 But the idea of ​​“polarization” of grace is most clearly and consistently expressed in “Following to Holy Communion.” Here, in essence, there is only one idea at the core: “Thou art fire, scorching the unworthy.” The clothes of worldly vanity, indecently dressed at a wedding feast, may turn out to be the shirt of Deianira; Thus, we read in the parable about those called and chosen: “The king came in to see those reclining, and saw a man there, not dressed in wedding clothes, and said to him: “Friend! How did you come here not wearing wedding clothes?” He was silent. Then the king said to the servants: “Binding his hands and feet, take him and throw him into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 22:11-13). The bridal chamber is the environment of the Spirit; clothing is an empirical personality, while knitting arms and legs is deprivation of creative activity. Thus, grace that shines on some becomes a reason for blinding others. This same reciprocity of grace-filled power is also expressed in the image of a “stone.” The “stone” that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner” (Ps. 117:22 = Matt. 21:42 = Luke 20:17). This stone is the basis for the balance of the entire building of the Church, 416 the entire environment of spiritual life or salvation. But “whoever falls on that stone will be broken; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him” (Luke 20:18 = Matthew 21:44). Last question: How does the view presented here regarding the posthumous existence of sinners relate to current views, on the one hand, and to Origenistic views, on the other? In other words, how does this thesis and this antithesis, together forming the antinomy of Gehenna, fit into it? – I think he represents an antinomic synthesis of both. This is not a softening or weakening of the thesis and antithesis, but, on the contrary, their strengthening and strengthening: both views are brought to their utmost development, taken in their idea. The sequence of development of both views can be visualized in the form of two columns, and the view presented here will then be their architrave. The first group of ideas begins with the idea of ​​the absolute nature of evil: “All are condemned, all will perish.” Approximately this view was developed in our country by K. Leontiev. 417 The next step will be a popular picture of hell, where sinners lick hot frying pans and will be boiled in cauldrons of tar forever and ever. 418 Further, this view is refined to the idea of ​​the internal source of hellish torment, of torment through too late repentance and distance from God. This is the thought of some ascetics. Finally, all torment comes down to the “scourge of God’s love” and to repentance - to a shameful feeling of one’s unworthiness, undeservingness of bliss. 419 But even this light shadow of the summer clouds will slide and disappear from the spiritual horizon - this is the view of some Athonites. Here is one group of views. The other group also begins with a statement about the indifference of everything human, but sees everything not in the black tones of demonism, but in the pink tones of pantheism. In essence, they say, everything human is so petty that everyone is right, everything is good. Vulgar Origenism—of which, by the way, the “adamantite” Alexandrian is not at all guilty—vulgar Origenism proceeds from this state of indifference; but, according to such Origenism, there is a “secret” in the doctrine of hell, and “smart people” have long understood this Divine trick. It is that there is no hell, “of course,” and there never will be; God will forgive everyone and only now “scares” sinners so that they reform. 420 The form that follows this is true Origenism, according to which afterlife torment serves to educate the individual and partly to repay her for her sins. Having passed through a succession of many existences in many worlds, the soul is finally corrected and forgiven. 421 – The doctrine of purifying fire in both Gregori, the Theologian 422 and Nyssa, 423, leads to an even higher level. The afterlife is just a necessary surgery that corrects the soul. Just as a rope pulled through a thin hole is cleared of dirt, so a soul subjected to torment is freed from vices. 424 And in the same Gregory of Nyssa, torment is presented in an even more refined form, namely, as an accidental consequence of cleansing, as a side effect during the cleansing process - like pain during surgery, like an unpleasant taste of medicine. 425 Here are two sets of thinning views. It is easy to notice that they have the same drawback: they both rationalize the mystical process of punishment and purification, so that, according to the law of identity, sin appears either as the very substance of the soul (the first row of views, “Protestant” -), or purely external in relation to the soul (- the second row, “Catholic” -). But neither one nor the other can be recognized. A person who has an evil will cannot be forced to change it; and until he changes it, he will not correct himself: it is impossible to remove sin from a person without affecting his inner essence (against the second row). But, on the other hand, we cannot imagine a person who is absolutely and thoroughly corrupted, for this would mean that God’s creation failed: the image of God cannot perish (against the first row). From here, only the conclusion that we have already made earlier is possible, i.e., antinomy. If, therefore, you ask me: “Well, will there be eternal torment?”, then I will say: “Yes.” But if you also ask me: “Will there be a universal restoration in bliss?”, then again I will say: “Yes.” Both; thesis and antithesis. And I think that only the view presented here satisfies the spirit and letter of Holy Scripture and the spirit of patristic writing. But, being internally antinomic, it requires faith and certainly does not fit into the plane of reason. He is neither a simple “yes” nor a simple “no”, he is both “yes” and “no”. He is an antinomy. This is the best proof of its religious significance. The antinomy of Gehenna is not alien to the universal, “national” consciousness. So, for example, its thoughtful expression is already in the Odyssey in verse: 426 Τὸν δὲ μετ’ εἰσενόησα βίην Ἡρακληείην, εἴδωλον αὐτὸς δὲ μετ’ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν τέρπεται ἐν θαλίης, καὶ ἔχει καλλίσφυρον Ἥβην. παῖδα Διὸς μεγάλοιο καὶ Ἥρης χρυσοπεδίλου – I finally saw Iraklov’s power there, only air ghost; and he himself is with the gods on bright Olympus tasted the sweetness of bliss near his wife Hebea, blooming daughter of Zeus from the golden-shod mistress Ira", 427 – Odysseus tells King Alcinous. This ghost of Hercules, like a frozen vision of a terrible dream, is forever taking aim, preparing to shoot from a bow; but he is not Hercules “himself,” but only “his aerial ghost,” since the hero has committed a crime before the superhuman world. “The dead flew noisily over him, as if they fly in fear birds of prey; and like a dark night, he held a tense bow with an arrow on a tight string, and terribly suddenly looked around, as if preparing to shoot; scary the bandage gave off a shine as it cut him Fixing his gaze on me, he immediately guessed who I was, He sighed pitifully and heavily and threw at me a winged word: “O Laertides, man of many cunnings, noble Odysseus, “or you, ill-fated one, fate inexorably plays “just as she played with me under the rays of the all-seeing sun.” So having said this to me, the ghost retired to the monastery of Hades.” 428 Thus, Homer already had a vague guess or dark memory that “εἴδωλον, the ghost” of a person could be in Gehenna, and “αὐτός, himself” he could be in the heavenly world. This Homeric distinction between “self” and “ghost” has a curious parallel in the distinction between a person’s “name” and his “soul.” “Lord, remember the name and his soul” An old woman from Sergiev Posad once told me after receiving alms. In other words, she expressed a wish that the following be mentioned: “the person himself,” represented by his name, and “his soul,” i.e., the old woman thought of them as something in the afterlife that could each be in a special state. Similar ideas could be indicated in the religious ideas of the most diverse peoples and times. 429 Before finishing this letter, with a feeling of deep gratitude, I will remind you of an incident from my own life, when I realized that there is an undying worm and an unquenchable fire - when I perceived in my soul that there is rest and the coolness of peace. An evil, July passion, like a dog, barked obsessively after me; thoughts swirled like a whirlwind, the heat of Gehenna ignited in the soul: “Passion,” says the Rev. Macarius the Great, 430 – they are a burning fiery flame and kindled arrows of the Evil One.” The unbearable burning made me lose my mind. And, losing myself, I either lay on the floor before the Face of the Savior, or in despair gave up my soul to the destructive samoum. “There is an unclean fire,” says the same Ascetic, 431, “which inflames the heart, runs through all the members and awakens people to lewdness and thousands of evil deeds.” In vain I tried to tell my heart: “Don’t eat - mahar.” The red-hot thoughts swirled faster and faster, and it became increasingly difficult to pray to the Lord for mercy. I saw that I was a slave, that I had no freedom. But I could not throw off my slavery, and what I was afraid of most of all was that I would soon cease to be aware of my slavery. With dull hopelessness I watched the fall looming like a thundercloud. There was no respite either day or night: no peace, no rest, even for the smallest minute. I tried in vain to follow the advice of Rev. Isaac the Syrian: 432 “If you do not have the strength to control yourself and fall on your face in prayer, then cover your head with a mantle and sleep until this hour of darkness passes for you, but do not leave your cell.” I could neither sleep nor eat, and only in front of others, gathering all my self-control, tried to assume a calm appearance; but I saw how my cheeks were getting thinner every day. In a word, the fiery “wheel of existence” 433 captured my soul and rushed it towards death. Then I would be glad to die, to perish sooner: whatever the end would be, if only this torment would stop! And you?.. You, like a meek Angel, endured my whims and encouraged me. I remember how you baptized me, how you chanted in a quiet voice: “Virgin Mother of God, rejoice, Blessed Mary, the Lord is with you..." With constant patience you tried to drive away the evil obsession and again sang my favorite: “The angel cried out Good-o-o-da-at-nay: Pure girl ra-a-a-a-du-uy-sya..." It's Saturday. I almost didn’t remember myself when you led me to the all-night vigil. Here, after just a quarter of an hour, I felt that your prayers were heard. It was as if the angry, destructive sun had been obscured by a cloud. A refreshing wind blew from somewhere, and there was a breath of coolness and silence. Silver clumps of dense clouds, like snowy peaks, stuck into the azure. The whirling pillars of dusty thoughts were carried away somewhere: “lust completely ceased, faded and faded,” as Macarius the Great says 434. Something solid, like a rock, unshakable, like Truth Itself, opened in the soul. I recovered, took heart, and cried throughout the service out of excitement. Of course! I think those saved from the simoom do not feel the same way as I, healed from a passionate thought. The soul became like a spring birch tree, like a still transparent grove after a May thunderstorm. Like the dew of virgin life, like a drop of fragrant myrrh quietly dripping onto the ground, the help of the Spirit descended to me, and the inflamed members were pacified and straightened with a new peace. And then a beneficial force flowed into the inside in wide streams - a pacifying coolness for the soul. Eternity sang in the cool silence of the spring sunset an enthusiastic hymn to the Most Pure Virgin - the Culprit and “Source” 435 of all purity. I felt myself torn from the fiery whirlwind, and all temptations seemed distant, insignificant and pitiful when “sovereign freedom” returned: I and my terrible Tempter seemed almost worthy of laughter. I found the longed-for κατάπαυσις, I then comprehended what μακάριος means. But it was through you, Friend, that I received my peace, through you, Friend, I was saved from the undying worm - through your friendly prayers I saw the “spiritual dawn” of the triumphant Heaven. The soul, in the words of Isaac the Syrian, began to “bloom in spirit.” 436 And the words of the same teacher about the need for temptations clearly arose in the mind: 437 “Pray that the Angel of your chastity does not depart from you, so that sin does not raise a fiery battle against you and separate you from him. – And get ready to accept bodily temptations with all your soul, and overcome them with all your members; and fill your eyes with tears, so that your Guardian does not depart from you. For outside of temptations the providence of God is not discernible, it is impossible to acquire boldness before God, it is impossible to learn the wisdom of the Spirit, and there is also no possibility for Divine love to be established in your soul. Before temptations, a person prays to God, like a stranger. When he enters into temptations out of love for God and does not allow himself to change; then he stands before God, as if having Him as his debtor, and as a sincere friend; because, in fulfillment of the will of God, he fought with the enemy of God and defeated him.” In temptation we find ourselves; in the victory over passion we first recognize ourselves as free; in the realized triumph over sin we make our empirical nature super-empirical. Without recognizing the factual givenness of thought, which, although in us, is not ours, 438 we overcome the law of identity, we make our Self not the actual Self, but the spiritual, that is in God, the Truth itself. Through temptation, the Self proves itself, hitherto blindly given to itself, and the Truth becomes its “Friend,” living in it, and not only given to it. Thus, overcoming theoretical skepticism is possible only through actual victory over the fire of Gehenna, ready to ignite in our entire being. To see the “Pillar of Truth”, you need to tame Gehenna, you need to destroy the “God-hating Pillar of Malice”. My letter begins with a confession that I saw the second death, and ends with a confession about the fire of hell. Here are samples of the experimental data on which the doctrine of Hell presented here is based. Clarescit aetere claro. Brightens towards the light. Simeon Nov. God. , – Mol. 7th to St. communion. S. Nilus, - Servant of the Mother of God and the Seraphim (placed in the collection: S. Nilus, - The Great in the Small and the Antichrist, as a close political opportunity. Notes of the Orthodox. 2nd edition. Tsarskoe Selo, 1905, pp. 151–153 and 162). A wonderful example of the experience of “the worm that never sleeps.” see in “Letters of the Svyatogorets”, part I, page 75. – The word tartar “expresses a place of eternal, unbearable cold, where the souls of sinful people will be sent. Lexicographers associate the most Greek τάρταρος with ταρταρίω - trembling from the cold, and by tartarus they mean an underground abyss, never illuminated or warmed by the sun, where the cold rages (Λεξικον Βαρινου Φαβωρίνου, Λεξικον Ανθ, Ben. In the word of Cyril of Alexandria about the exodus of the soul, placed in the Sobornik, on the meat-eating week, at the beginning it reads: I am afraid of tartar (τάρταρον), I am not involved in eating heat. In the apocryphal tale of the appearance of an angel, St. Macarius of Egypt - the same thing is said: and behold the worm that never sleeps, and behold the word tartar - the winter is not warmed and the filth is fierce. In the parable of Kirill of Turov about a man from Belarus (Monuments of the 12th century, p. 130): let us not become weakened... let us become a desert of hell with carnal lusts... tormented by fire and filled with gnashing of teeth and pitch darkness and unwarmed Tartarus. In the life of Rev. Joseph Volokolamsky, ed. 1865, p. 21, Savva Krutitsky says that the monks of Volokolamsk, in the most severe frosts, patiently stood in their cold church at mass, in one robe, without fur coats, commemorating the unheated tartar. Often this same Greek τάρταρος was translated by the word “thunderstorm,” but this word was also used in the sense of cold. Thus, in the ancient Russian teaching about monasticism, printed in the Spiritual Bulletin of 1862, July, in Materials, page 152: and there (in hell) there will be inconsolable crying and gnashing, an indefatigable worm, an unheated thunderstorm. Similarly, in the life of St. Nikita Stylite on Sind. RKP. No. 885, XVI century, l. 416: and according to the court - condemned to fire and darkness and gnashing of teeth, to a never-sleeping worm and to an unheated thunderstorm.” K. Nevostruev, – Tartar (Materials for the Archaeological Dictionary”, placed in “Antiquities. Proceedings of the Moscow Archaeological Society” T. I, M. 1865, Dept. II, pp. 74–75). “If it were possible,” says Hippolyte Denoir Rivel, who received the name Allan Kardec after a spiritualist conversion, “to force all different people to speak out, on the basis of their innermost thoughts, regarding eternal punishment, then we would soon see in which direction the majority of them are inclined. In fact, the idea of ​​eternal punishment is an obvious denial of the inexhaustible mercy of God” (Allan Kardec. Qu’est-ce-que le spiritisme. Paris, 1859). From the petitions of the Great and Petitionary Litany. Love of evil is the most expressive manifestation of the corruption of human nature, and no one can say that he is completely free from this perversity. Even the most innocent of the human race, children, are not alien to evil will, the manifestations of which are described, for example, by Bl. Augustine. The latest research has not only confirmed, but even strengthened the testimony of Bl. Augustine. The children's questionnaire revealed the amazing cruelty and bloodthirstiness of many children (see Yanzhul, - From the psychology of children, "Bulletin of Europe", 1900, No. 2), and numerous researchers of gender issues recognize that children are very often depraved in a sensual sense. What can we say after this about adults? Growing much faster than the number of years, sinfulness has as its sting the love of evil; but hidden among the majority, this love is stronger and more open among others. Artists like Edgar Allan Poe, C. Baudelaire, P. Verlaine, G. Flaubert, Barbey d'Aurevilly, Villiers de Lisle Adan, J. Peladan, Catulle Mendez, Huysmans, F. Sologub, V. Bryusov, F. Rops, Odilon Redon, O. Wilde, F. Dostoevsky, Przybyshevsky and partly Hoffman and others - I mention at random the first names that came to mind - in their creations, verbal or graphic, they allow us to penetrate the secrets of these aspirations. Others, like Graaf, known under the title of Marquis de Sade, Richard III, Alexander VI, Caesar Borgia and others, with their very life show clearly what is swarming at the bottom of everyone. But everyone seems to be surpassed by the richly gifted and brilliant Marshal of France Gilles de Laval, Baron de Rais or Re (Rais, Retz and Raiz), who lived in the first half of the 15th century and sacrificed several hundred children desecrated, tortured and brutally killed by him to Beelzebub, Satan, Belial, Barron and Oriant. However, no matter how incredibly terrible the crimes of the famous baron were, the art of the arts, and behind it just art, clearly showed that the seeds of the same passions live in everyone. From the cruelty of an innocent child, with mysterious curiosity tearing off the wings of a butterfly, to the brutal abuse of this child - the path is continuous, and no one can say what further he will not go, what is “absolutely impossible” for him. As soon as the obstacles placed by external life on the germs of evil are removed, these latter sprout rich pastures, unless there is grace that destroys sin. Power, wealth, independence from public opinion, driving out fear from the soul of a graceless person, allow the development of such traits that, in another time, he would be horrified to even think about. Thus, the most cultured peoples, far from their homeland, display predatory cruelty and vile shamelessness, aimless, beyond the measure of any imagination, and among whom the behavior of Gilles de Rais does not seem at all unusual. Having no space here to provide bibliographical information, I will limit myself to references to: Huysmans, - La bas (this novel includes a study about J. de Rais; there are two Russian translations). – Petrov, – Louis XI (“From World History”). – L’abbé Migne, – Encyclopédie Théologique, T. 49: Dictionnaire des sciences occultes, T. 2, Paris, 1848, col, 364–365: Raiz. – The penetrating gaze of the ancients already saw in the soul “the serpent nesting there,” at least the old man - Plato, when he moved far enough from Socratic intellectualism, speaks with complete certainty about what is now called “love of evil.” To the question: “What ignorance – ἀμαθία – can be considered the most dangerous?” “I consider,” he answers, “the most dangerous... if there is no love for that which we consider good and beautiful, but hatred towards them reigns, if we love and idolize that which we ourselves recognize as vicious and unjust - εἶναι μὴ φιλῇ τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ μίσῃ, τὸ δὲ πονρὸν καὶ ἄδικον δοκοῦν εἶναι φιλῇ τε καὶ – ταύτην τὴν διαφωνίαν λύπης τε καὶ ἡδονῆς πρὸς τὸν κατὰ λόγον δόξαν – ἀσπάζηται [cf. Rom.7:15-19]. I call this contradiction of sorrow and pleasure with the truth the deepest ignorance - the deepest because these passions constitute the mob - therefore, the majority of the soul - sorrow and pleasure are for the soul the same as a crowded mob in the state. The ever-present contradiction to knowledge, opinions, reason, these powers assigned to man by nature itself, a contradiction to the soul, which can only be called ignorance...” (Plato, Zak., III 689 A, B. pp. 307–308. Russian translation, p. 111). E. Tardieu, – Le cynisme: étude psychologique (“Rev. philos.”, 1904, No. 1 January). Paulan, – L’amour du mal (id., 1887, No. 6). – Cam. Bos, – Du plaisir de la douleur (id., 1902, no. 7). Edgar Allan Poe, “The Demon of Perversity” (“Collected works” translated by K. Balmont, M, T. I, pp. 174 ff., etc. Bl. Pascal, - Thoughts (“On Religion”) 24, 39. Trans. Pervova, p. 235. F. M. Ven. , - The Karamazov Brothers, “From the conversations and teachings of Elder Zosima”, “Mystical reasoning about hell and hellish fire.” Irenaeus Lyon ., - Five books of denunciation of false knowledge, V 272 ("Works", Russian translation by P. Preobrazhensky, 1871, p. 656). Hint of “rebellion” Iv. Karamazov - the various moves and exits of this rebellion in all possible aspects were studied by S. N. Bulgakov, - From Marxism to Idealism, St. Petersburg, 1904; Two hail, M., 1911; Philosophy of farming. Part I, M., 1912; Man-God and Man-Beast, M., 1913. So - in Kant, in Schopenhauer, in Weininger and “Last Words”, ed. "Sphinx". – See Daniel Greiner, – Der Begriff der Persönlichkeit bei Kant (“Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos.” Bd. 10, N.F. Bd. 3, 1897, S. 40–84). The phrase “utter darkness” is a translation of the Greek “τὸ σκότος τὸ εξώτερον” (Matthew 25:30). Old Russian kromeshniy or kromeshnyi, as well as kromnyi, means external, exterior. So, for example, in the Pandect of Antiochus according to the list of the 11th century. Voskresenskaya New Jerusalem Bible., M., 1880, 6 it says: “moreover, from other countries the coming to worship in these places is ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξω χωρῶν.” We are rooted in this: kroma - the crust of bread; in Russian - edge; krom - agh, kremlin, Vyshegorodets, etc. The preposition except or krame means “extra, besides”; then “without”, “ἔξω, out”, “outside”, “against”, and the adverb except - “away, to the side, κεχωρισμένως”, “aside, away, πόῤῥω”, “strange, ξένου” (I. I. Sreznevsky, St. Petersburg, 1893, T. I, columns 1327–1329 – Numerous usages here. Wed: God – “stabilis Veritas”, according to bl. Augustine, i.e. motionless, stable, strong Truth. In order not to be without support, it is necessary to strengthen your “mind”, your soul in this strong Truth; otherwise, the Gehenish whirling of thoughts is inevitable. This is what Bl. points out. Augustine: “... per animam in Deo stabilitam. Quae rursus non per se stabilitur, ser per Deum quo fruitur... ipse [vigebit] per incommutabilem Veritatem, qui Filius Dei unicus est - with a soul strengthened in God. She is strengthened not by herself, but by God, whom she enjoys; ... she herself will be strong in the motionless Truth, this is the only Son of God” (Blessed Augustine, - On true religion, 25. - S. Augustini Opera omnia, ed. parisina altera, Parisiis, 1837, T. VIII 2, col. 960). Three Songs of the Great Heel, creation of Mr. Cosmas, canto 8. See “About ascending types.” Modern Satanism and Luciferianism already in this life create such an attitude towards God. – Kant’s and Schelling’s doctrine of free will, as the self-creation of the individual, i.e., as conditional creativity, was transformed and vigorously defended by Archim in our literature. Anthony [Khrapovitsky, now Archbishop. Volynsky] in his dissertation: - “Psychological data in favor of free will and moral” (“Poln. sobr. soch.”, T. 3, Kazan, 1900, pp. 489–942, esp. see V, § 6, pp. 575, 577; IX, § 2, pp. 628–629 and p. 633–634). Schaff, - Hist. of the Chr. Church, I, pp. 162–167. Vl. S. Solovyov, – Modern priestess of Isis, St. Petersburg. 1904, pp. 44, 59, 77, 193. A. Papus, – Philosophy of the occultist. Per. V.V. Troyanovsky, St. Petersburg, 1908. - His own. Practical magic, Part II, St. Petersburg, 1912. - Leadbeater, - Astral Plane, St. Petersburg, 1909. - J. G. Bourget, - Magic, St. Petersburg. 1911, etc. Gr. M.V. Tolstoy, – The repository of my memory. M., 1893, book two, p. 52, “Redstock”. Italics are mine. [F. I.] Buslaev, - Image of the Court according to Russian originals “Essays on the Russian people. words and art”, T. 2, St. Petersburg, 1861, - here is the original. – N.V. Pokrovsky, – The Last Judgment in Byzantine monuments. and Russian claim., Odessa, 1887. - His own. Wall paintings in ancient Greek churches. and rus., M., 1890. Cyril Hierus ., – Catechetical teachings, 15 23 (Mi gr. T. 3 3, col. 904). Archim. [now Archbishop] Sergius, - Orthodox teaching on salvation, Sergiev Posad, 1895 (there is a newer edition), pp. 171–172. - In the same way, to the question: “When will a person know that he has received remission of his sins?” Rev. Isaac Sir. gives the following answer: “When he feels in his soul that it is perfect, he hates sin with all his heart, and when he clearly gives himself a direction opposite to the previous one” (Isaac the Sir., Homily 18 according to the Russian translation, and according to the Greek ed. Theotoki - 84th. “Creations” 3rd ed., Sergiev Posad, 1911, pp. 76–77). “Question. rel. myself." , pp. 28–29. F. Godet, – Commentaire sur la première Epitre aux Corinthiens, T. I, Paris-Neuchatel. 1886, p. 172. “The word spark is the soul... My spirit, hurry to eternity”, from the poems of George, the recluse of Zadonsk (“Letters in God of the resting recluse of the Zadonsk. Bogoroditsk. Monastery of George”, ed. Porfiry. Grigorov, Voronezh, 1860, part 1, p. 182 = Leonid Denisov, - Life of George, ed. Zadonsk. Bogorod. mon., M., 1896, p. 113). Elder Isidore loved to repeat these two verses, p. 51. De l'Allégorie, ou traités sur cette matière; par Winckelmann, Addison, Sulzer, etc. Paris. 1799, TT. 1 et 2. – A. White, – Symbolism; here, in the notes, especially on pp. 461–463, bibliographical instructions are given, but by no means complete. – Rich. Hamann, – Das Symbol (Dissert.). Gräfenhainichen, 1902. – Ribot, – Experience in the study of creative imagination. Per. from French St. Petersburg 1901. – Bréhier, – De l’image à l’idée. Essai sur le mécanisme psychologique de la méthode allégorique (“Rev. Philos.”, 1908, mai, no. 5). – L’Arréat, – Signes et Symboles (id., 1913, No. 1 Janv.). – R. Eucken, – Ueber Bilder und Gleichnisse in der Philosophie. 1880. – A. Chide, – La logique de l’analogie (“Rev. Philos.”, 1908, déc. 12). – S. Sageret, – L’analogie scientifique (id., 1909, Jan., No. 1); – M. Schlesinger, – Die Gesch. der Symbolbegriff in d. Philosophie (Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos., 1908, S. 49). – Fr. Th. Vischer, – Das Symbol, 1887 (in “Philosophische Aufsätzen, Ed. Zeller gewidmet, 1887”). – J. Volkelt , – Der Symbolbegriff in der neuesten Aesthetik. 1876. – E. Le Royet G. Vincent, – Sur l’idée du nombre (“Rev. de Métaphysique et de Morale”, 4 (1896), pp. 738–755). – Here a formal theory of symbol is developed, since man is only a logician. – Ferrero, – Les lois psychologiques du Symbolisme, 1895. – Max Schlesinger, – Gesch. des Symbols. Berlin, 1912, extensive research: right there lit. – Τηρέω actually - to observe, protect, keep an eye on, etc. Crem. , S. 934 ff. E. Miller, -Inscr. grecques découv. en Egypte (“Rev. Arch.” III-me sér, T. II, 1883, p. 177–180). “...the expression of a concept or property by the addition son or daughter... denotes a particularly deep assimilation of this property, as if penetration by it. In particular, the expression “Son of Man” in most places denotes humanity par excellence” (Archbishop Anthony [Khrapovitsky], “Son of Man.” Experiments in interpretation. “Poln. Collected Works,” Pochaev, 1906, T. 4, p. 217). “The Lord calls Himself the Son of Man, as the exponent and preacher of true humanity, that is, personal holiness, as opposed to those conventional, political aspirations that were placed on Him by his contemporaries” (id., p. 223). – Dostoevsky also revealed this understanding of the Son of Man in many places. This is what Tertullian and others called him. Christian writers pagan virtues. Ven. , – Diary writer. This idea, in a distorted form, is contained in “Spirit. basic life" Vl. Solovyov, - where he discusses the image of Christ - as a “verification of conscience.” How Protestantism perceives Him, due to which the dissolution of Christ into a moral scheme occurs. As Catholicism perceives it, this is where the desire for “Imitatio Christi” arises, which, in essence, cannot be translated otherwise than “Imitation of Christ.” If a Protestant destroys Christ, then a Catholic wants to put on the guise of Christ. Hence, further, the sensual nature of the service, drama, an open altar (the altar is a stage, the liturgist is an actor), plastic, sensual music, mysticism is not smart, but imaginative, leading to stigmatization (it is remarkable that in the East there was no stigmatization; but that here too they were capable of it is proven by the wounds from demons received by ascetics: the latter were represented vividly, and not just intelligently), eroticism and hysteria, etc. Hence the Catholic mysteries, processions, in general, everything that acts on the imagination is an action, a disgrace, and not contemplation, and not mental prayer. Bishop definitely speaks about the falsity of the very idea of ​​“imitating Christ”. Ignatius Brianchaninov; He calls the very book of Thomas a à Kempis “delightful” and “bloody,” that is, arising not from the grace-filled enlightenment of the soul, but from organic excitations of the body. – Wed: M. D. Muretov, – E. Renan and his "J. I.”, St. Petersburg, 1908. Anthony V., - Instructions for the morality of people, present. 161st (“Chronicles”, 1821, Part 1, p. 295). Kan. Sunday 3rd tone, ir. 6th. From prayers for the future to sleep, they say. 4th St. Macarius the Great. Lucian, - Χάρων ἢ ἐπισκοποῦντες (Lucianus ex rec. Car. Jacobitz, Lipsiae, 1836, Vol. I, pp. 281–305. - Works of Lucian. Conversations of the gods. Conversations of the dead. Translation - comp. G. In... F..., St. Petersburg, 1884, pp. 97–103. – Wed. Dostoevsky's "Bobok" with his idea "Let's get naked!" . Orig., - About the beginning. II, 10, § 7 (Mi gr., T. 11, col. 239 B): “Separandus ab anima spiritus.” etc. Week prodigal son, verse. on Gosp. cart., 1st. Tuesday morning first sed. Vel. P., can., item 2. Ven., – Crime and Punishment, “Collected. Soch.”, ed. 7th, p. 265. A. M. Mironov, – Pictures of the afterlife in Greek painting on vases. M. (“Uch. Zap.” Imperial Moscow Un., Department of History-Phil.), p. 215. J. J. Bachofen, – Das Mutterrecht, 1861, SS. 982, 147, LXXI (there is also a 2nd ed.). . Homer, - Odyssey, XI 572–626 (pp. 330–333). Chrysanthus, Vol. I, pp. 417–418. Euripides, Meleager. fr. XX (537), Fragmenta Evripidis ed. Fr. Guil. Wagner, Parisiis 1846, p. 749. The Spiritualist, 1906, p. 517. R. A. Torrey, - Hell: the certainty of its existence, etc. (“Bold Thoughts”, 1910, No. 53, p. 1111). Orig. , – On Jeremiah, homo., XX 3 (Mi gr., T. 13, col. 532 A, B). Didim Alex. , – To the psalms, ps. 88, p. 8 (Mi gr., T. 39, col. 1488 C, D). “...Those tormented in Gehenna are struck by the scourge of love! And how bitter and cruel this torment is! For those who feel that they have sinned against love endure torment greater than any torment that brings fear; The sadness that strikes the heart for sin against love is more terrible than any possible punishment. It is inappropriate for anyone to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of God’s love. Love is the product of a vision, which, as everyone agrees, is given to everyone in general. But love, with its power, acts in two ways: it torments sinners, as here a friend happens to suffer from a friend, and cheers those who keep their duty” (Isaac the Syrian, - Homily 19th, according to the Russian translation, and in Greek Theotoki - 84th (“Creations”, 3rd ed., Serg. Pos., 1911, p. 76). Kan. Sunday 6th ch., ir. 7th. “The night is not bright for those who are unfaithful, O Christ, but for those who believe, enlightenment is given by the sweetness of Thy words” (Canon of the Resurrection, Chapter 7, Irm. 7). “I remember when I was studying, this irmos was a subject of controversy among my comrades, for some considered “night” to be the subject word, while others considered “Christ.” At the first interpretation, the irmos was paraphrased as follows: “the night, that is, the time of worship, is dark, O Christ, for non-believers, but for believers it turns out to be enlightenment, for at this time they listen to divine words.” In the second interpretation, the irmos is paraphrased as follows: “You, Christ, are a dark night for unbelievers, but for believers, You are enlightenment through the sweetness of Your words.” – Greek the text shows that it is the latter interpretation that is correct. Indeed, in Irmos: “Νὺξ ἀφεγγὴς τοῖς ἀπίστοις Χριστέ, τοῖς δὲ πιστοῖς φωτισμός (mystical term) ἐν τροφῇ τῶν θείων λόγων σου" βαρὺν, ᾠδή έ. – Εἰρμολόγιον, ἐκδ. σ. 120) the word “νύξ”, as standing without a member, is a predicate, and “Χριστέ” serves as its subject. About λίθος ἀκρογωνιαῖος see: Iv. Mansvetov, - New Testament teaching about the Church, M., 1879, pp. 40–41. – Hoffmann, – Heil. Schr., Th. IV, 1, 1870, S. 104. – According to the bl. Theodoret (“Creations”, Vol. VII, p. 428), this is a stone that is placed at the head of the corner and therefore connects and restrains, “closing the two walls of the building.” According to St. To John Chrysostom, “the cornerstone is that which supports both the walls and the foundation, on which the whole building is supported” (Demon on the epilogue to Eph., p. 90). Bible uk. op. K. N. Leontyev and liter. about him, compiled A. M. Konoplyantsev, see in lit. Sat. “In memory of K. N. Leontiev”, St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 403–424. But it is necessary. supplement with recently found op. Leontiev: “Four letters from Athos” (“God. V.”, 1912, Nov. and Dec. = K. N. Leontiev, - Hermitage, monastery and the world. Their essence and mutual connection. Publ. “Rel.-phil. Bibl.”, Serg.-Pos., 1912) and “Collected. op. K. Leontyev" in volume 12, M., 1912. D. A. Rovinsky, – Rus. adv. cart., 1881, ch. VIII. You hear speeches of this kind very often, even from simple and very pious people. I now remember one elderly and respectable man, 80 years old. peasant; looking at the picture of Scary. Judge, he once said to me: “M. b., we won’t get this, but we can’t live without this fear: without it we will be completely godless.” I will also add that this old man is extremely pious and diligent of the Church. Others simply decide: “The priests made it all up so that there would be more income”; or: “Everything is a lie, God is good and will forgive”; or “And what are our sins...”, etc. Orig., – On the Beginnings, II 10 (Mi gr., T. 11, coll. 233–240). This is probably influenced by Origen. Grieg. Nis., - A word to those who mourn for those who have passed away. life into eternal life (“Tvor.”, M., 1868, Part 7, pp. 514–534). – See also the article: “St. Grieg. Nis." (“Appendix to TV. Holy Fathers”, Part 20, 1861, pp. 77–92). id. – Also comparing a sinner to a piece of iron that is forged in order to remove dross and make it suitable for delicate things. Homer, - Od. XI, 601–604. Verses 602–603 are considered absurd by critics and are therefore recognized by them as an insertion of Onomacritus, who edited Homer under Pisistratus. Concerning this suspicion, S.S. Glagolev (“Greek rel.”, p. 123) notes the following: “When Onomacritus inserted these verses, if he really inserted them, he should have been aware of them. It must be assumed that he admitted the possibility of a dual existence of the soul - and in this case, in hell this existence was illusory and sad, and on Olympus it was real and blissful. Homer names Ganymede and Cleitus among the mortals who reside on Olympus. This means that the idea that Hercules can be on Olympus does not contradict the text of the poems... Hercules differs significantly from the other inhabitants of Olympus in that his ghost is in hell. But although this is reported about Hercules alone, the poems do not say that this did not happen to anyone other than Hercules. The possibility of this, we believe, should have been allowed by Greek thought with its ideas about the illusory nature of the soul.” “This ingenious insight is of paramount importance for the history and philosophy of religion, and I am very glad that I can prove that the proposed explanation is not just a possibility, but also a historical reality.” This is what we read from the ancient philosopher and theologian: “If the soul cannot sin, then how does it happen that it is punished. This opinion is in complete disagreement with the generally accepted belief that the soul makes mistakes, that it atones for them, that it suffers punishment in Hades and that it passes into new bodies. Although it seems necessary to choose one of these two opinions, it might be possible to show that they are not incompatible. In fact, when infallibility is ascribed to the soul, it is assumed to be one and simple, identifying the soul and the essence of the soul - τὸ αὐτὸ ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ ψυχᾒ εἶναι. When it is called fallible, it is assumed to be complex, and to its essence - αὐτῇ - another kind of soul that can experience animal passions. The soul, so understood, is a complex thing that comes from various elements: it is this complex thing that experiences passions and makes mistakes; It is also this, and not the pure soul, that suffers punishment. It is about the soul considered in this state that Plato says: “We see the soul as we see Glaucus, the sea god” [Republic, X, ed. Beckeri, p. 497. – Transforming into a sea god, Glaucus was covered with shells, flints, and sea grasses, which made him unrecognizable]. And he adds: “Whoever wants to know the nature of the soul itself must, having freed it from everything that is alien to it, consider especially in it its love for truth, see what things it cleaves to and by virtue of what affinity it is what it is.” Her life and her deeds are other than what is punished, and to separate the soul is to tear it away not only from the body, but also from everything that has been added to the soul. – Birth – γένεσις – adds something to the soul, or rather it causes another form of the soul to arise. But how does this birth take place?.. When the soul descends, it produces, at the very moment when it bows to the body, an image - τὸ εἴδωλον - of itself. - Apparently Homer accepted this distinction when speaking about Hercules, since he sends the image - τὸ εἴδωλον - of this hero to Hades, and places him in the abode of the gods (Odis. XI, 602-605); this, at least, is the thought contained in this double statement that Hercules is in Hades and that he is in heaven, therefore the poet distinguishes two elements in him. Here is the explanation that can be given to this place: Hercules had active virtue, and because of his great merits was considered worthy to be elevated to the rank of gods, but since he possessed only active virtue, and not contemplative, he could not be completely admitted to heaven; at the same time that he is in heaven, there is something of him in Hades" (Plotin, - Enneads, 1, 1, 12 - Plotini Enneades edidit Ric. Volkmann, Vol. Lipsiae. 1883. Vol. I pp., 47-49. - Les Ennéades de Plotin, traduites - par M.-N. Bouillet, Paris, 1857, T. I, pp. 48–49). – Or, in another place: “when our body no longer exists, what then does the expression “soul in Hades” mean? If the soul did not have time to renounce its image, then what prevents it from being in the same place as its image or shadow? And if she has renounced the body through philosophy, then only her shadow goes to a worse place, while she herself remains in the supersensible world, leaving nothing of herself here. This is the fate of that shadow, which is inherent in the soul (during earthly life); she herself, if only she succeeds in concentrating the light shining within her, turns entirely to the supersensible world and enters there -" (Plotinus, - Ennead IV, book 4, § 16. According to the translation by G. V. Malevansky, “Faith and Reason,” 1899, T. II, Part I, philosophical department, p. 78; Bouillet, 1861, T. III, p. 339–340). Marsilio Ficino rationalizes this deep place and makes it flat, interpreting “idolum animae” as “vitale spiraculum animae circa corpus, quod in nobis est geminum.” Homer, - Od. XI, 601–627 (Russian translation, pp. 331–333). This is the Egyptian view of khu, Hindu. na pitri, parsist. on feruers or fravashes, Greek. on agathodemons, heroes, etc., Roman. on geniuses and juno, Scandinavian. on filgiev, etc. Makariy V., – Bes. 15 48 (Mi gr., T. 34, col. 609, Nom 1550) Isaac the Sir., - Word 38th in Russian. lane (ed. 1893 - p. 409), and in Greek. Feotoki - 57th, b. 345. Wed. James 36: ὁ τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως. This same saying is fundamental to the language of the Mysteries. There are numerous parallels to it from Buddhist literature. collected in: Art. Schopenhauer, – Separately, according to systems. distributor thoughts about various kind of subject, ch. XV: on religion, § 179 (“Collected works” in translation by Yu. I. Aikhenvald, M. Issue XIV, pp. 975–977). – It is very likely that the basis of the terminology of Buddhism, mysteries and ap. Jacob - one, namely the experience of the evil infinity of sin; but in any case, it is certain that the metaphysical superstructure of soul transmigration is not at all contained in the speech of the Brother of the Lord. 15 49 (Mi – col. 612, Not. 1551). Isaac Sir., – Sl. 5th in Russian n. (p. 37), and in Greek. – 44th (σσ. 275–279). His own. Sl. 5, p. 30, cf. id., pp. 28–29. Wed. Plat., – Liz. 217 S-E.