Archimandrite Savva (Majuko)

The locked garden is my sister, my bride,
an enclosed well, a sealed spring.()

Frowning autumn evening. Brest railway station. In a secluded corner, “all in suitcases,” sits a young monk and timidly touches his rosary. A man walks by looking bored. Noticed the monk:

How are you, virgin?

Usually, when I tell this, everyone laughs or, at worst, smiles. Funny. Laughter is always born where there is a subtle and delicate situation. Everything related to gender is always delicate, so as long as people are alive, the lion's share of humor will come from “gender” jokes. Or in another way: laughter can be considered as a mechanism of mental defense - where a person is too vulnerable, that is, in the sphere of sex, laughter is the last defense, and this must be accepted as a fact that needs to be understood.

The feat of virginity is when smart and healthy people take upon themselves the cross of keeping themselves pure not for a while, but for their entire lives, and carry out this work defiantly openly is a delicate situation. When there are young people who, contrary to fashion and even the opinion of adults, keep themselves pure before marriage, but live in marriage defiantly honest and pure is also a delicate situation, which means it runs the risk of being ridiculed.

Nowadays, a conversation about virginity, oddly enough, is a serious conversation about something funny, and nothing can be done about it: the word itself virginity for most of us lives exclusively in an ironic context. Foolish word. And this is true not only for secular vocabulary. Can we imagine the Patriarch addressing a message to virgins? It is clear that in our time this is completely impossible - our own people will not understand, others will mock. But in the ancient Church such messages were commonplace, and almost every saint of those times had such texts. It’s just that the word itself is so overgrown with ambiguities that I wouldn’t be surprised if very soon they will be ashamed to pronounce it in decent society, if there is any left. The disease of profanation of the sacred, suspicion of the sacred did not begin today, and at the beginning of the 20th century N.A. Berdyaev wrote with bitterness that “love is so distorted, profaned and vulgarized in the fallen world.” human life, that it has become almost impossible to pronounce words of love, you need to find new words.”

Old words cannot be given up without a fight, especially since intuitively we all, even non-believers, understand that virginity is a shrine and a miracle of beauty. One of the chants in honor Mother of God begins with the words “The angels are amazed at the beauty of Your virginity.” Virginity is beauty, and it is with beauty that the lives of holy ascetics and ascetics captivate us. No books or articles about the benefits of virginity and chastity are capable of infecting with the beauty of virginity as much as the true story of a holy virgin or an ascetic shining with purity. We are comforted by these stories, and perhaps that feeling of “unspoken silence” (in the word) that you experience over the pages of lives is the experience of encountering the beauty of virginity. “Christ Himself,” writes Hieromartyr Methodius of Patara, “praising those who remain firmly in virginity, says: Like the lily among the thorns, so is my beloved among the maidens.(), comparing the gift of virginity with the lily in purity, fragrance, pleasantness and beauty. Truly virginity is a spring flower, the color of incorruption gently growing on its ever-white leaves” (Pir VII 1). Lilies, tenderness, spring, flowering - these are the words the Saint breathes when he speaks of virginity.

But we ask ourselves: is it possible for a healthy young man to keep himself clean? Let's write down the names: Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Newton, Leibniz. This is not a listing of the pillars of modern philosophy, these are the names of people who were in a celibate state and at the same time were not noticed in perversions. History remembers them as honest scientists, dedicated to their work, loving philosophy so much that this love did not work out for them harass on someone else. All these people grew up in Christian Europe, and the fact that the ability to spend the power of love on spiritual work was a natural skill for them is the merit of Christianity. “Through centuries of educational exercises,” says C. G. Jung, “Christianity has achieved a very significant weakening of the animal instincts and drives characteristic of the eras of barbarism and antiquity, so that a large number of instinctive energy (life force) was released for the construction of civilization.” It turns out that our civilization and culture are the fruit of an upbringing in chastity. If this is so, then civilization was given to Christians at too high a price, because the lily of virginity is very capricious and requires special care, and when we read in the lives of the exploits of the saints, it is scary to even think how much blood their struggle for purity cost them. “Reaching for the spirit, the Desert Fathers mortified their flesh in order to escape the extreme brutality of the decadent Roman culture,” continues C. G. Jung. “Asceticism is forced sublimation, and it always takes place where animal instincts are still so strong that they have to be exorcised by force.” So the ancient ascetics bore their heavy cross of feat among an obstinate and depraved generation(). And of course, if we talk about the social benefits, about the role in history - this is wonderful and commendable - but - here is a young man entering life - how will those near and far pity him, how will they dissuade him if they find out that he decided to become a monk! Where does this fear come from? church people? Why is virginity scary?

Ghost of the Waters

Pious Milanese aunties and mothers did not allow their daughters to go to church if the saint preached there: he spoke so much about virginity that the girls left their suitors - the most successful matches - forgot the light, luxurious life and joined the ranks of virgins. However, the modern reader is unlikely to be moved by the speeches of St. Ambrose. The remarkable Russian philosopher found the classic text on the virginity of the holy martyr Methodius of Patara, “The Feast of Ten Virgins,” mediocre. V.V. Rozanov called the saint’s message to the virgins “a message to the old fly agarics.” Of course, we can say that you still need to learn to read such texts, but at a young age, when you already need to decide something about virginity, you simply do not yet have the proper skill to read serious literature, and when the skill appears, it happens that there is nothing left to store - not all processes are reversible! And at the same time, for most of our contemporaries it is not so obvious that virginity has any value at all. Isn’t it ugliness to restrain the natural impulse, the natural, it must be said, desire for procreation and the normal need for bodily joys? Who will take upon himself the power to take away man's natural right to the joy of the body? And if this joy is natural, then keeping virginity is unnatural; it is a perversion, a delay in development, a disease, an infection on the body of humanity. Did Christ command the preservation of virginity? Didn't the Apostle say: regarding virginity I have no commandment from the Lord()? And isn’t all this preaching of abstinence, developed by monastic Christianity, a crime against humanity, and isn’t it the cause of various kinds of family ailments, misfortunes - isn’t it this constraint, constriction, fear of bodily communication? - This is how you can pose the question, and this is how V.V. Rozanov posed it in his time! Vasily Vasilyevich was tormented by this topic at the beginning of the 20th century and longed for deliverance from the dominance of the monastic “seedless” type of holiness for the sake of a different religious ideal - fertility, family, solar religion of gender. Now beginning of XXI centuries: the people have become liberated, the monasteries are empty, Christianity no longer has the same influence, and yet the birth rate is falling, families are falling apart; Without chastity, Europe is dying out faster.

There is, however, an option for reconciliation, proposed by the famous German virgin I. Kant: maintaining chastity - healthy: “chastity(pudicitia) - self-constraint that hides passion - is nevertheless very useful as an illusion in order to maintain a certain distance between one sex and the other, necessary so as not to make one sex a simple instrument of pleasure for the other. - In general, everything that is called decorum(decorum), this is exactly what it is, namely, it is nothing more than a beautiful appearance.” Chastity is a social virtue, and it appeared at a certain moment in the development of mankind as a necessary condition for the comfortable coexistence of people. But for the Christian reader it is obvious that this remark captured a change in ideals: the measure in which a person grew was called holiness, that is, organic, existential permeation with Divine energies; when Christians looked up to the image of the saint, the virtues were real and living, and Protestantism and rationalism put a decent man in the place of the holy man. But they will come up and ask: is it really bad to be a decent person? No, this is a normal and necessary stage of human moral development, but we are called to more, to better, and how can we call St. Seraphim or St. Sergius decent people? Can we call Christ a decent person? They are holy, their faces exude light, light living goodness, and not its imitation. We can say that Kant is an ethical nominalist: for him, chastity is just a name, while Christian ascetic writers were characterized by ethical realism: chastity exists real introduction to holiness and true purity. After all, if chastity is just a name, a beautiful appearance, an illusion that has absolutely nothing behind it, then maintaining virginity is just a kind of flirtatious game of virtue - why hold on to such a candy wrapper? Then the attitude towards chastity and the sanctity of virginity becomes different: “Women, priests and Jews usually do not get drunk, at least they carefully avoid appearing in this form, since in civil they are weak in relation and need restraint (and this, of course, requires sobriety). Indeed, their external dignity rests only on faith others in their chastity, piety and separate laws.”

Kant, however, clarifies that “even the appearance of goodness in another person should be dear to us, for from this game of pretense, which perhaps undeservedly earns respect, in the end something serious can come out.” But illusions do not warm you, and the elder of Königsberg himself said that 100 talers in my imagination are not yet 100 talers in my pocket, which is why the image of a chaste person, born of contractual morality, happily collapsed under the blows of psychoanalysis. “What glittered in the 19th century,” Jung wrote, “of course, was not always gold, and this applies equally to religion. Freud was a great disruptor, but the advent of the new century provided so many opportunities for disruption that even Nietzsche was not enough for this. Freud still had some unfinished work to do, which he tackled thoroughly. By awakening a healing mistrust, he thereby indirectly encouraged a sharpening of the sense of true values. Dreams of a noble man, which have dominated the minds of the public ever since they ceased to accept the dogma of original sin, dissipated to a certain extent under the influence of Freud’s ideas.”

So, a decent man fell apart, and those who saw in him the limit of human holiness rushed to glue the broken idol and scold the destroyer. Or maybe all this was allowed by Providence so that people would begin to seek true goodness and the ghost of the waters turned into a lake(cm. )? What is so important that we need to learn about virginity? First of all, it was not Christians who came up with the idea of ​​valuing it.

Empty world

The pre-Christian world clearly distinguished between natural virginity and mystical virginity. The first is very clear to us: a girl must protect herself until marriage. But why? Historians most often give explanations in terms of legal and property relations. The owner, that is, the husband, must be sure that the firstborn, to whom everything will pass, will be his son. Therefore, the bride must be a virgin by definition. Ours itself ancient word“bride”, which is often deciphered as “unknown”, “unknown”, is a hint for us. When in ancient times a ransom was paid for a bride, it was virginity that was bought, and there was a bargain for it. In one of his wedding songs, Catullus conveys the words of parents reproaching their daughter-bride:

Is all your virginity yours? Parents also have a share in it:

The third part is from the father, and also the third from the mother,

Only the third part is yours! So don’t persist against two,

If the rights over you with a dowry were given to your son-in-law.

(Catullus 62, 60–65)

Rights are claimed to virginity as to real estate, and there is a temptation to believe that everything boils down to this legal moment. But virginity is also beautiful, and in ancient times they knew how to appreciate beauty no worse than we do. The ever-memorable Catullus, who was never accused of excessive chastity in his poetry, nevertheless has the following lines:

But as soon as the flower, cut by a thin nail, withers,

Boys no longer like him, and girls no longer like him.

The girl is the same: as long as she is not touched, everyone loves her.

But only the desecrated body will lose its color of innocence,

She is no longer attracted to young men, nor is she attractive to her friends.

(Catullus 62, 43–45)

Let us note two points: the pagan poet speaks of the beauty of virginity as an obvious fact, without explaining, like an intelligent person, why virginity is considered beautiful. Second: a body that has lost its virginity is desecrated, desecrated, profaned. That is, the beauty of virginity is sacred, holy. And this is not a legal language, but a religious one. Here natural virginity coincides with mystical virginity, and it seems to me that the observance of virginity before marriage was not so much connected with the requirements of law, but rather carried within itself the deep intuition of virginity as the storage of the power of love, creative power, and therefore the mystical power that was necessary for creation of family and clan, was considered exhaustible, and therefore needed a talisman.

The priestesses of Vesta were virgins. Vesta is the ancient Roman goddess of the hearth, earth goddess, and maiden goddess. The preservation of the family and the well-being of the Roman state was entrusted to the virgins. The Vestals were deeply respected by the Romans, as evidenced by their unusual privileges: wherever a Vestal went, she was always accompanied by a lictor, who cleared the way for her, if she acted as a witness, she was not required to take an oath, if she happened to meet a criminal being led to execution, he was left to live; the Vestals had the right to be buried within the city. Outwardly, the Vestals looked like nuns: they were initiated through tonsure, and they wore a special ascetic robe. However, the holiness of the Vestal Virgin was directly connected with her purity, and for violating the vow of virginity, the priestess could be buried alive in the ground, because violating her virginity promised misfortune to the Roman Republic. The body of a vestal virgin was considered sacred, and although the priestesses were allowed to marry after 30 years of service, few of them, as Plutarch wrote, used this right, “and those who did this did not bring themselves any benefit, while the majority spent the rest their days in repentance and despondency, and brought such religious horror to others that they preferred virginity to marriage until old age, until death.” The nature of Vesta is fire; she, the disembodied virgin goddess, demanded servants like herself. But is it really a coincidence that the family was preserved by virginity? In Greece, Vesta corresponded to Hestia, the patroness of the hearth. The Inca religion knew Alcas- “virgins of the sun”, guardians of the solar fire - they lived in a special temple, and only they were allowed to sew clothes for the emperor and prepare food for him.

The cult of Artemis demonstrates a similar connection between virginity and marriage. On the one hand, she is the patroness of childbirth, the guardian of marriage, on the other, she is the virgin goddess and protector of chastity. Before the wedding, the girls donated a lock of hair to her in honor of Hippolytus, who suffered for his chastity. Euripides' hero Hippolytus, who preserves his virginity for the sake of Artemis, brings her a wreath from a virgin reserved meadow, which was not touched by a sickle, on which no goats were grazed. Hippolytus lives like a monk: he does not eat “anything that breathes,” he studies prophetic books, and participates in mysteries. The religion of Mithra also knew a kind of monasticism, both female and male.

There is also another aspect: virginity as a condition for access to wisdom and knowledge. The virgin (παρθένος) was the owl-eyed Athena, highly revered in Greece, the goddess of wisdom, patroness of creativity and giver of beauty. In the temple of Athena there was a room where clothes for her statue were spun - this work was trusted only to maidens. The famous prophetess Kuma Sibyl was a virgin. In ancient India, as soon as a young man entered the age of a student and was given over to be raised by a brahman, he certainly had to take a vow of chastity, because it was believed that a person who has lost his virginity already loses the ability to bear knowledge and mature spiritually. Training stopped immediately as soon as they learned about the violation of the vow of chastity. Pythagoras and Empedocles taught abstinence from communicating with wives for the sake of preserving wisdom.

In any case, the virgin was always considered the best, therefore religions that knew human sacrifices gave preference untouched young people: the Mayans sacrificed beautiful virgins to appease the rain gods; At the end of the year, the Incas buried about 500 virgin boys and girls alive in the ground.

The history of religion knows many examples of the simple magic of virginity. The Germans had maiden soothsayers who looked after the springs and prophesied by water; the heroine of the Nibelung epic Brunhild (Brünnhilde) possessed a frantic power that was directly associated with her virginity: she loses this power with the loss of her virginity. In Belarus, during the rainless period, it was the girl who went to the well with a jug, threw it there and whispered spells. For many traditions, e.g. Ancient Egypt, it was typical to treat children as prophets: children are pure and blameless, they are closer to heaven and hear his will more clearly. It must be said that the magical perception of virginity is the most tenacious of the above intuitions. An insidious villain or vampire cannot do anything to a virgin and waits, hidden, for her status to change - this is one of the motives of American horror films. Celibate Jedi Knights in “ Star Wars” is also an example of modern ideas about the magic of virginity. It is curious that all the truly cosmic troubles in this film begin when main character Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker breaks his vow of chastity.

We should pause here and make two caveats. First. After all of the above, there is a temptation to think that Christianity actually did not offer anything original, but simply borrowed an already known form religious life, which was called monasticism. In the postmodern age, it is natural to talk about endless quotation and the death of the author, and the reader along with him, but here, it seems to me, everything is simpler. Kant showed us that our reason works only within 12 categories, and even geniuses cannot break out of the boundaries of this cognitive grid, which we seem to throw on the world in the act of cognition and are forced to create within its boundaries, if only to be understood. And these limits of reason not only do not interfere with originality, but rather help its birth. Religious archetypes are also universal. Any more or less developed religious tradition certainly comes to temple worship, ritual, the institution of the priesthood, monasticism - all these are universal forms that are sometimes filled with completely different materials. Our Christian worldview tells us that this net religious archetypes are a consequence of the single very ancient first religion of Eden, from which we all originate, and a Christian can and even should learn husk of the wildest beliefs and rituals, premonitions of true revelation, fully revealed in Christianity.

Second. The virginity of the pagan world is a different virginity. In that world, magic and unconscious premonitions of the truth about man reigned. The pagan world was drowning in debauchery, and virginity was treated rather magically. The same Vestals, according to the testimony of many ancient historians, allowed themselves to participate in the most disgusting amusements - the main thing was that their bodily virginity was preserved. he writes with disgust about the galli - the servants of the Great Mother, who castrated themselves in her honor (On the City of God VII 24–25), and pagan authors share this disgust with him. Suetonius wrote about the great Virgil: “Moderate in food and wine, he had a love for boys<…>Otherwise, all his life he was so pure in thought and speech that in Naples he was usually called Parthenius (virgin).” Comparing pagan virginity with the Christian ideal, it should be noted that only the same name connects these phenomena.

Having mentioned Virgil, one cannot help but emphasize the fact that shortly before the birth of Christ the word “virginity” began to be used in relation to men. After all, virginity is an exclusively female property and virtue, and so Virgil is called a virgin in the novel by Achilles Tatius (2nd century) “Leucippe and Clitophon” main character repeatedly calls himself a virgin, proving his fidelity to his beloved (V 20; VI 16; VIII 5), constantly making the reservation: “I have still retained my virginity, if such a concept is appropriate in relation to a man.” All this was unusual, because the four classical virtues ancient world- prudence, justice, courage and moderation - were exclusively male virtues, at least the first three were inaccessible to a woman, she seemed to fall out of ethics, and she was left with only moderation, which was often identified with chastity. And here is such a strange exchange of virtues. And already among Christians, who considered a woman to be the same image of God as a man, capable of acquiring grace-filled gifts and deification, virgins were not ashamed to bear the label of female origin.

However, our review will be incomplete without referring to the Old Testament church. Here we see both universal and specific aspects. Every time God came out to meet people, or people approached the shrine, a demand appeared: don't touch your wives(; cf.). Closeness to God required a special holiness and a special state from a person. This is a universal moment. Among the Jews there were people who observed this state long time, and sometimes throughout life, and in the 6th chapter of the book of Leviticus the rules of the Nazirite vow are described. But these were still temporary vows, which is explained by the special value of family and clan. The Jews were waiting for the birth of the messiah; any newborn boy could be it, and any girl could become his mother. The seven deadly sins for a Jew begin like this: a man who has no wife or has a wife but no children. Such people kill their people and violate the first mitzvah - “be fruitful and multiply.” Therefore, every Jew upon reaching 18 years of age was required to marry. Blessed Jerome very accurately explains this arrangement of value priorities: “Then the world was empty and, with the exception of prototypes, all blessing lay in children.” And although Blessed Jerome points to the figures of virgins that occasionally appeared in the Old Testament (Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Daniel), the rooting and understanding of this state became possible only after the appearance of the First Virgin Christ.

Virgin Logos

Saint Chrysostom begins his “Book of Virginity” with the words “the Jews despise the beauty of virginity, and this is not at all surprising if they did not honor Christ Himself, born of the Virgin.” However, in fairness it must be said that in philosophical and theological usage the word virginity It was the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria (1st century) who introduced it. Continuing Plato's philosophy of eros and trying to combine it with biblical Revelation, Philo taught about heavenly eros as the source of all virtue. Eros is the desire and love for virtue; the eros of knowledge as a gift of God is the force that encourages knowledge. “Communication between God and man at the highest levels is designated by Philo by the name of virgin charisma, gift (τ¾ν παρθένον χάριτα), - writes I. I. Adamov, - here we mean the stage of the closest communication with God, when there is nothing left between God and the soul average." An attentive and grateful reader of Philo, the saint already spoke about the Virgin Logos (παρθενικός λόγος), which he identified with the face of the Savior. “The soul enjoys joy and gladness when it has the παρθενικός λόγος virgin Logos, because for it Christ suffered and was crucified, Who is the παρθενικός λόγος virgin Logos. The possession of this Logos also obviously takes place at the highest levels, because it is characterized by joy, and the deprivation of the Logos is accompanied by sadness and repentance: the soul in which, due to its incontinence, the word of God, or παρθενικός λόγος, has died, falls into pity.”

It even looks somehow unusual - “virgin logos”: “logos” is an extremely spiritual term, purified from any admixture of the bodily, and “virginity” is a term taken from the field of physiology, denoting, of course, special purity and holiness, but - holiness of the body, - the very combination “holiness of the body” for ancient philosopher was as much an oxymoron as “fiery snow.” Plotinus, I remember, was generally ashamed that he had a body. But - The Word became flesh() - which means it not only sanctified physicality, but also justified the body, showed that holiness is the normal and only natural state for the body. Therefore, only in Christianity it became possible to talk about the true holiness of a person who does not need to get rid of the body to achieve deification, and virginity became synonymous with the perfection of a justified and deified person. Therefore, as Hieromartyr Methodius of Patara wrote, “the high priest, the first prophet and the first angel should have been called the first virgin. In ancient times, man was not yet perfect and therefore was not yet able to accommodate perfection - virginity. He, created in the image of God, still had the need to be in the likeness of God<…>For this reason, He, being God, deigned to put on human flesh, so that we, looking as if in a picture at His Divine image of life, could imitate the one who painted it” (Pir. I 4). The mystery of virginity, only anticipated in the pre-Christian world, was revealed in the God-man when Christ was born of the Virgin and chose the lifestyle of a virgin. Hieromartyr Methodius compares the Savior with the Artist, who drew for people the image of a virgin life. The fullness of communion with God, granted in Christ, the closeness to God that we received in Him, requires special, extreme holiness from a person, and if the Lord, appearing to Israel at Sinai through the images of fire, smoke, earthquake, that is, indirectly, commanded people to refrain from carnal communion, then what kind of holiness does the gift of being one-blooded and one-body with Christ require from us? People quickly get used to everything and easily lose the ability to be surprised, but if you think about a rather simple and obvious fact for everyone: in the city of Polotsk the relics of St. Euphrosyne are venerated - that is, the body (!) of a dead (!) woman (!) is considered holy. For the world of antiquity this is madness! For the Jews it is a temptation, but for us, the called ones, God's power and God's wisdom (cf.).

The classic text on the topic of virginity is Matthew 19:11–12: not everyone can comprehend this word, but to whom it is given, for there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate. Here the virgins are called eunuchs not in the literal sense, but figuratively. Their skopchestvo makes sense only for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. But the Lord notes that only those to whom it is given are able to carry out this feat. “But if it depends on the will,” Chrysostom reflects, “then someone will ask: why did he say at first: not everyone can accommodate, but it is given to them to eat? So that you, on the one hand, know how great the feat is, on the other hand, so that you do not imagine it necessary for yourself. Given to those who want.” In the 7th chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul also notes that regarding virginity he does not have a command from the Lord, but gives advice as having received from the Lord the grace to be faithful to Him(). First of all, let us note that virginity is not a command of God, but advice; the feat of virginity is not a path for everyone. “Why does the Apostle not have the commandment of the Lord about virginity? - asks Blessed Jerome, - because what is brought without coercion deserves a great reward.” Another point: virginity is a grace to be faithful to God. Loyalty to God in virginity means complete surrender to God, and therefore virginity is higher than marriage: the unmarried woman cares about the Lord, how to please the Lord, in order to be holy in both body and spirit; but a married woman worries about worldly things, how to please her husband(). In other words, virginity is a special charismatic service, a special mission. And so the Apostle Paul sees this mission in the double testimony of virginity: the testimony of the Cross and the Resurrection, so that the holy ascetics of chastity are called venerables - they are likened in their purity to the First Virgin Christ, testifying with their life and holiness the reality of the life of the future century even in this life.

God paints white

The feat of virginity is in the testimony of the Cross and Resurrection. This sounds nice, but the phrase is quite vague. Firstly, how correct is such a union of words - “the feat of virginity”: after all, a feat is something active, dynamic, energetic, and virginity is a rather passive, protective state? In addition, virginity is a state inherent in a person from birth, there is no need to look for it, there is no need to fight for it, it is given, you just need to take care of it, hence - doesn’t the whole feat come down only to performing the function of a watchman, to standing guard over one’s innocence?

This is a common mistake - to see in virginity and in general in a chaste life only asceticism, that is, negative passive-protective spiritual work or suppression of passionate impulses. In addition, it is generally accepted that such suppression leads to neuroses, and this is indeed a fact that cannot be ignored. However, if we turn to the texts of ascetic writers, we will see that the feat of virginity at its core is not simple abstinence and self-restraint, without which it is, of course, impossible, but they only formalize this work, make it possible. “Chastity,” writes the monk, “is preserved not by the aid of severity (abstinence), as you think, but by love for it and the pleasure of one’s own purity.” The soul must “turn all the power of love from carnal objects to the contemplation of mental and immaterial beauty,” says St. Gregory. “The perfect soul is the one,” the monk teaches, “whose passionate power is completely directed towards God.”

This truth is universal; sometimes it is called the principle of sublimation, that is, the reorientation of the power of love, eros to the Source of love, beauty and holiness. Plato also argued that lust is curbed not only by laws, that is, by limitation and suppression, but by the best desires (Republic IX 571 b), and his entire dialogue “The Symposium” is devoted to the education of eros in the love of the truly beautiful for the sake of real communion with it. And the insights of the Fathers are not just borrowings from their predecessors, but a universal human intuition, naturally inherent in every person as a bearer of the image of God. We will find motives for the education of eros in Indian mysticism and in the teachings of the Sufis. The difference between the Christian worldview is that we know that the truly beautiful, in the love of which a person grows, is not a faceless, albeit powerful force, as it was with Plato or the Hindus, but God the Lover of Mankind, who loved me and gave himself for me(cm. ). The principle of education of eros is simply and clearly formulated by the Apostle Paul: walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh() - it is important not only to curb and suppress lusts, but also to live, that is, to actively act and build oneself in the spirit. If there is no work to cultivate eros, but there is only suppression and limitation, then the disease really begins, then the very state of neurosis that is persistently sought omniscient And ubiquitous psychologists.

A virgin ascetic is not just a timid watchman, but a person living life in its true fullness, For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control(). “Virtue,” Chesterton explains, “is not the absence of vice or flight from moral dangers; it is alive and unique, like pain or a strong smell. Mercy is not about not taking revenge or not punishing, it is concrete and bright, like the sun; you either know her or you don't. Chastity is not abstinence from debauchery; it flames like Joan of Arc. God draws different colors, but His drawing is especially bright (I would say especially daring) when He paints with white.”

Thus, the feat of virginity has two sides - negative and positive - abstinence and cultivation of the power of love - and must certainly pass along these two lines, at the intersection of which, as on the cross, the ascetic carries out his work. The path of virginity is the path of self-mortification and crucifixion. “The intervention of death is necessary,” writes H. Yannaras, “in order so that the mortal is swallowed up by life(). It is this death that monks voluntarily risk. They abandon marriage - the natural path of self-denial and love - and strive for the hypostasis of eros and flesh in the image of the Kingdom of God. Their goal is to achieve hypostatic existence through obedience and asceticism, performed in renunciation of nature. Then the only source of existence and life becomes the love call addressed to man by God.”

Prisoners of Love

Hieromartyr Methodius writes that virgins should be counted among the martyrs because they endure physical hardships “not just any short time, but suffering throughout his life and not being afraid to strive for a truly Olympic feat of virginity.” In the stichera to the holy martyrs (Octoechos on the stichera on Wednesday evening, tone 5) it is sung: “ Insatiable love of the soul(italics mine - And. WITH.) You have not rejected Christ, holy martyrs...” Virgins choose the path of abstinence because of an insatiable thirst for God, which in an ordinary person only lies dormant or manifests itself in an unconscious desire for everything beautiful and good.

“Whoever achieves love,” writes St. Macarius of Egypt, “has already become a prisoner and captive of grace. And whoever almost (παρ¦ μικρόν) approaches the measure of love, but has not yet achieved to become a prisoner of love, is still under fear, he is threatened with war and fall; and if he is not established, Satan will overthrow him. This is how others were misled. Because grace was in them, they thought that they had achieved perfection, and said: “We have had enough, we have no more need.” The Lord is infinite and incomprehensible, so Christians do not dare to say: “We have comprehended,” but they humble themselves day and night, seeking God.” “Whose mind is clinging to God with love,” says the monk, “he does not care about anything visible, nor about his body itself, as if it were alien to him.”

Ascetic writers sought an identical experience of love from the heroes of Sacred History. The saint, who looked very closely at the life of the prophet Moses, sees him as a participant in the same path: “So Moses, who had a mouth-to-mouth conversation with God, as Scripture testifies, was led into an even greater desire for such kisses, and after the Epiphany, as if not who has also seen God, asks to see the Desired One. So all the others, in whom Divine love was deeply rooted, never stopped in lust, turning everything given to them from above for the enjoyment of what they wanted into food and into maintaining the strongest lust.”

So, the Saint insists that desired strength, the power to love, or eros, cannot be left in idleness or simply suppressed, but must be purified and directed to the only worthy object of love - to God, Who is the source of beauty, goodness and love, and Himself is Love, Goodness and Beauty. And it is precisely this true beauty of God that the ascetic is wounded by and partakes of it to the extent of self-purification.

So, the meaning of the exercise in virginity becomes clear: the ascetic, who has experienced the revelation of Divine beauty, takes upon himself the dual feat of, firstly, purification, gathering and curbing his eros, and secondly, the correct direction of his energy to the source of Love and Beauty - God - for the sake of the closest union with Him.

But it’s not entirely clear what does virginity have to do with it? Why is bodily innocence so valuable among ascetics, so that even the feat itself is named after virginity?

Rotting lilies

St. Gregory of Nyssa has this unusual phrase: “We find it useful for those who are weaker that they should resort to virginity, as to some safe fortress, and not provoke temptations against themselves by descending to the custom of this life.” Why is virginity for the weak? Why is virginity a safe fortress?

This is a rather delicate topic. Both theologians and philosophers used the language of images to clarify this problem: if the power of love and eros were likened to a water stream, then the experience of sexual relations, especially the first experience, was compared to the bed that the stream lays. It is very difficult to align the current vector laid by the flow along the usual channel, or to give the flow a different direction. The monk, speaking about virginity, uses the following terrible image: “If the beast becomes accustomed to eating flesh, the most cruel will be created in old age.” Just as a bear, having tasted human meat, can no longer eat anything else, so a person who has lost his virginity, with his first sexual experience, acquires a skill that requires the realization of eros only in the usual way. This is why bodily virginity was so valued among Christians; those who preserve it find it easier to cultivate eros. The feat of virginity is the work of collecting waters of desire, - and collecting water is not easy. “If someone,” writes Saint Gregory, “connects all the randomly flowing streams, and encloses the water that has previously flowed in many places into one channel, he can use the collected and concentrated water with great benefit and benefit for life. So, it seems to me, the human mind, if it constantly spreads and dissipates towards what pleases the senses, does not have at all sufficient strength to achieve true good.”

Sometimes the Fathers use another image: bringing the best to God, so quite often we can find the motif of virginity as a sacrifice; Let us remember here about the pagans who sacrificed virgins to their gods. But here is the reasoning of the Monk Macarius of Egypt: “After all, Patriarch Abraham to the priest of God, Melchizedek, brought as a gift best of the spoils, and for this I received from him blessings(cf.). What does the Spirit give us in this fortune-telling way, leading us to higher contemplation? Is it not that we must always, first of all, offer to God the highest and fattest, the first fruits of the entire composition of our nature, that is, the very mind, the very conscience, the very disposition, our most right thought, the very power of our love, the firstfruits of our whole person, the sacred sacrifice of the heart, the best and first of the right thoughts, constantly practicing in the remembrance of God, in meditation and love? For in this way we can daily have an increase and advancement in Divine love (œρωτα) with the help of the Divine power of Christ.”

In a word, a person’s unspentness, his intactness are of great importance for success in the feat of virginity. However, bodily virginity itself acquires value only when a truly Christian meaning is imparted to it. Innocence is not yet a virtue, but only a convenient condition for its implementation. “From that time,” writes Saint Athanasius, “you began to abstain for God, your body became sanctified and the temple of God.” Abstinence then has value when the right motivation is present: when it is undertaken for God. Bodily virginity is not the goal of the feat, but a means of its implementation.

Ascetic authors, clarifying the meaning of the virgin feat, used the expression “exercise in virginity,” thereby emphasizing that the feat of virginity is intense internal work, in the absence of which the preservation of bodily virginity itself loses its true meaning. “For the Apostle,” writes the Monk Macarius of Egypt, “clearly teaching what kind of souls should be who are moving away from carnal marriage and worldly bonds and who want to fully exercise (™ξασκε‹ν) in virginity, says: The Virgin cares about the Lord in order to be holy Not only body, but also spirit(see), - to be free from real and mental, that is, from obvious and secret sins, commanding the soul as the bride of Christ, wishing to be united with the pure and undefiled Heavenly King". Saint Gregory of Nyssa speaks out a little more harshly: “Let the exercise of virginity be established as some foundation for a virtuous life; and on this foundation let all acts of virtue be based. For although virginity is recognized as a very honorable and godly deed (it really is what it is considered to be): but if all life does not agree with this good deed, if other forces of the soul are defiled by disorder, then it will be nothing more than an earring in the nose pigs or a pearl trampled under the feet of pigs.”

Thus, virginity “does not apply to the body alone, but mentally extends and penetrates into all recognized correct actions souls." We talk about virginity of the body and virginity of the soul, but we must clearly realize that for a Christian center of gravity The virtue of chastity lies primarily in the feat of the soul. , reflecting on the sad fact of the barbarians’ abuse of the nuns of Rome, writes that violence against the body cannot harm the virginity of a person who does not deign to this lawlessness: “God would never have allowed this to happen to His saints, if the holiness that He imparted to them and which He loves in them could perish in a similar way” (On the City of God I 28).

Ascetics certainly mention these seemingly clear truths in their texts, because man has always been distinguished by his ability to distort any correct idea, and therefore, as one of Dickens’ characters said, “vice is virtue taken to the extreme.” There have always been, are and will be people who are capable of taking the idea of ​​virginity to the point of absurdity, even fanaticism. The English have a saying: “rotting lilies smell worse than weeds.” If the Lord allowed manna, the heavenly bread, to rot, He gave freedom to rot and the lily of virginity. Kinds rotting varied. Firstly, the already mentioned neglect of internal work: “if you outwardly keep your body from corruption and fornication, but inwardly commit adultery before God and commit fornication in your thoughts, then your virgin body will not bring you any benefit.” Secondly, excessive, even excessive enthusiasm for external feats, when virginity turns from a means into a goal, when the very meaning of the exercise in virginity is forgotten, so that ascetics “are unable to freely ascend with their minds and contemplate what is above, being immersed in the concern that oppress and crush your flesh.”

But the most terrible rot is pride and the associated hatred of one’s neighbors. Saint Athanasius warns: “If a person bothers himself in asceticism, but does not have love for his neighbor, then he bothers in vain.”

Return of the Monks

One of the varieties of oppression of neighbors is condemnation of marriage. Such a view of marriage can only appear in a person who has not understood the most important thing: Christianity generally does not know and does not accept the celibate state, because virginity itself is a spiritual marriage, a real one, not a metaphorical one. St. Gregory even allowed himself to talk about the marriage contract with God: “The soul that has clung to the Lord in order to be with Him in one spirit, having concluded, as it were, some agreement of a common life, to love Him alone with all my heart and soul, will no longer cleave to fornication, so as not to be one body with him.”

If God is real - and He is too real - if a person burning with love for Him is real, if the dialogue of love between God and man is real - and ascetics testify to the authenticity of this dialogue with their lives and their appearance - then we have before us a genuine marriage, the ideal marriage union, because it is selfless and eternal. Therefore it is wrong to name it monk to the adjective μόνος ‘lonely’ - this is true linguistically, but not in essence. It’s better to say this: “monk” means “monogamous.” Monks are not single or lonely, they are in a very serious and responsible marriage state (although marriage is serious and responsible by definition).

But we all know very well how stable and tenacious the opposition between monasticism and family life. Why is that?

Why lay people don't like monks is not that important. Most often this is due to misunderstanding or unwillingness to understand; in any case, here we will find more emotions than thoughts. But the monks’ claims are sometimes formulated into a clear position, the main element of which is a suspicious attitude towards the physical communication of spouses. We can find reflections on this matter in many ascetic writers. Published and widely distributed, these texts confuse many Christian spouses, but it is important to understand their origin: these texts are part of monastic spiritual exercises, meditations on the themes of corruption and sinful defeat of man and the entire cosmos, in a word, monastic didactics, and as such this didactics is useful and good in its place, but elevating it to an absolute is unreasonable and even harmful.

Marriage and virginity are so closely connected that neglect of one element entails the death and decay of the other. Marriage explains the virgin feat, virgin life grounds marriage. True virginity is not opposed to marriage, but itself, being an ideal marriage, pulls out natural marriage to its true height and integrity. Where there is no such aspiration, where natural marriage has nowhere to grow, the very idea of ​​marriage is vulgarized and profaned. “For marriage is not dishonorable only because,” says the saint, “that virginity is more honest than it. I will imitate Christ, the pure Bridegroom and Bridegroom, who works miracles in marriage and brings honor to the marriage by His presence.”

Ancient Christian writers always fought for marriage, fought with heretics who abhorred married life, and since then, the attitude towards marriage as a blessed and sacred feat has become a criterion of orthodoxy and fidelity Apostolic Church. “The Church,” writes Hieromartyr Methodius, “is likened to a flowering and most varied meadow, as decorated and crowned not only with the flowers of virginity, but also with the flowers of childbirth and abstinence.” This will seem strange to many modern Christians, but the Holy Fathers wrote with particular reverence about such things as, for example, the conception of children, calling it a sacred act, because, as the saint says, “man, by contributing to the origin of man, becomes the image of God” (Educator II 10) . The same thoughts are expressed by the Hieromartyr Methodius, and where! - in a treatise on virginity! The husband, “having united with his wife in the embrace of love, becomes a participant in fruitfulness, allowing the Divine Creator to take a rib from him in order to become a father from a son. So, if even now God forms man, is it not impudent to turn away from procreation, which the Almighty Himself is not ashamed to perform with His pure hands” (Pir II 2). Here our holy writers are not creating some new view of sexual intercourse and conception, but are continuing the biblical tradition. Let us at least remember with what virginal and childlike wonder and gratitude the book of Job speaks about the conception of man: You poured me out like milk and thickened me like cottage cheese(cm. ). We have become too spoiled to read such texts! The fathers teach us pure vision and reverence for man, not only for his soul, but also for his body. “We are not at all ashamed,” writes Saint Clement, “to name the organs in which the conception of the fetus occurs, for God Himself was not ashamed of their creation” (Teacher II 10); This sounds unexpected and reproachful to us, but this is a very important lesson in asceticism. A person who has not learned to accept his gender, to accept it with gratitude, cannot achieve the feat of virginity. You must understand and accept that you are a man or a woman, this is how the Lord created you and this is how He accepts and loves you. You are not an incorporeal spirit, and no one expects from you the life of an incorporeal angel, you are beautiful in the eyes of God and pleasing to Him as a person, precisely as a person, woven by Him from bones and lived, and the body is your closest neighbor, in need of care and understanding , requiring a reverent attitude as a partner in your eternity. Therefore, the ministry of a virgin is the ministry of justification of the body, faith in the body, no matter how strange it may sound. Monasticism does not outgrow Christianity, it is not something that is higher than it, more esoteric. “Both paths - monasticism and marriage - are equally recognized and revered by the Church, since they lead to a common goal: “true life”, independent of space, time, decay and death.”

At the beginning of the last century, Archpriest P.I. Alfeev wrote: “The ideal of Christian marriage follows from the ideal of Christian virginity. Where virginity is trampled upon, polluted and cast down from the height of its moral greatness of purity and holiness, there marriage is destroyed.” When they lower top bar moral values, this entails deformation of the entire structure of life. To confirm this idea, G. K. Chesterton even wrote an entire novel, “The Return of Don Quixote,” which he ended with the amazing words: “One thing I know for sure, although many would laugh. When the monks return, marriage returns.”

There is an unwritten law in choral singing, okay known to musicians: the upper voice in the choir should sing positionally slightly higher than the general key, then the choir will be comfortable, without lowering it, to sing the work in its own key. When monasticism is humiliated in society (often by the monks themselves), and they try to adapt this service to some social or even educational goals, this will certainly have a very bad effect on the institution of the family. “One can sometimes hear such a judgment: we do not understand the meaning of those women’s monasteries, where, apparently, there is no service to others,” the holy martyr writes in his diary, “let the answer to this be given by the very name of these monasteries, which we often have in Rus' they are assimilated. We often call them “maidens,” meaning that virginal purity is their calling, their service to the Lord. Service to suffering humanity is inexplicably high, but the development of purity of heart should be the first and indispensable goal of all women’s abodes without exception, and at the same time such a goal that sometimes may be sufficient for salvation. Without this first goal, the second one, that is, serving one’s neighbors, will be carried out under compulsion, with grumbling, and will be dead and unfruitful.”

According to the Fathers, even the problem of demography directly depends on the virginal service: “If anyone thinks that the human race is decreasing as a result of the dedication of maidens,” argues St. Ambrose, “then let him pay attention to the following circumstance: where there are few virgins, there are fewer people; and where the desire for chastity is stronger, there is comparatively more people <…>According to the experience of the universe itself, a virgin lifestyle is not considered harmful, especially after salvation came through the Virgin, fertilizing the Roman land.”

Thus, in our discussion of virginity, we have identified three interrelated positions: virginity is called

1) natural virginity of the body, or innocence;

2) spiritual exercise, possible even for those who have lost their virginity;

3) a state of perfection, the deification of man, Christification.

In patristic writing, virginity is a spiritual exercise traditional for Christian asceticism, the purpose of which is to cultivate the power of love, or eros, for the sake of total aspiration towards the only object of the ascetic’s love - Christ. In this sense, the natural virginity of the body is the basis for the exercise of virginity. Virginity has nothing to do with a celibate or unmarried state, because virginity is the spiritual marriage of the ascetic with God. As a true marriage, virginity is not opposed to natural marital relations, but is the ideal to which natural marriage is equal, finding in it its true spiritual basis. Marriage is not the image of virginity, but virginity is the image of marriage, if you like, eidos marriage. Christian virginity is marriage, the unity of a believer with Christ without an intermediary, a school of love in which a person’s personality is enriched, revealing itself in love for Christ, to whom it has become a bride. Both in marriage and in virginal service, Scripture and the Holy Fathers see the path to communion with God, a necessary condition which is the growth of a person in love. The meaning of marriage is not limited to childbearing: its essence is in the mutual love of the spouses, which develops into love for God. In the same way, virginity is not only abstinence from sexual intercourse, but first of all the acquisition of love for God, a genuine union with Christ.

Round Dance of Angels

On Cheese Week, people usually don’t go to church - they gain strength before Lent. And this, oddly enough, always suits me gourmets divine services: there are few people in the temple, and with pleasure and knowledge you unravel the elegant pattern of the most complex services of the annual circle. And on Friday evening - main course- canon To all reverend fathers who shone in feat. Anyone who has read this text at least once will fall in love with it forever and will look forward to this service as a miracle of meeting with the blessed elders and elders, whose feat the canon sings. “Flowers of the desert”, “kind beads”, “flowers of ever-animals”, “living life of birds” - peaceful elders, fragile and simple-minded, like flowers, thin, like birds, barely touching the ground with their feet - and a lot, a lot of light - “light shining”, “brightly fasting”, “brilliant miracles”, “luminaries of reasoning”, “rays of the sun of truth”; with them are the wives of the godly wise - “fiery Theodula”, “unwise Marina”, “Christ-bearer Bryena”. Not a canon, but a celebration of light and purity! Stung by love for truly beautiful things, did they know rest in their labors, did the world not abhor them as eccentrics and freethinkers? I walked in sheepskin and goatskin, in deprivation, in sorrow, in embitterment. The whole world is not worthy of them, wandering in the deserts and in the mountains and in dens and in the abysses of the earth ().

They - the prophets of Beauty - imitated their Lord in everything and became like Him, like Him in their abundance of beauty and love for mankind. “You are truly beautiful,” St. Gregory addresses the Savior, “and not only beautiful, but always so in the very essence of beauty, constantly remaining in the fact that You Yourself do not bloom for time, and at another time you cease to bloom again, but for eternity.” Life is extended by Your beauty; her name is philanthropy.”

But many are choked with love

You won’t finish shouting, no matter how much you call,

They are counted by rumor and idle talk,

But this score involves blood.

And we will put candles at the head of the room

Those who died from unprecedented love... (Vysotsky).

“Blessed is the one who fasts all the time of this life, because, having settled in the heavenly Jerusalem, he will spin with the Angels in a joyful round dance and will rest together with the holy prophets and Apostles.”

Berdyaev N. A. Reflections on Eros // Eros and personality. St. Petersburg, 2006. P. 201.

Bitter experience shows that the greatest harm to chastity is caused by books in defense of chastity. Why? There is no intrigue in virtue in itself, and if there is no intrigue there is nothing to write about. All virtuous people are the same, Aristotle noted this, and only a genius can find success in describing goodness, but something needs to be written about chastity, and they write according to the principle of “by contradiction”: “Long live chastity, because,” they knew “Would you like to know what they are doing there”; Then there is a detailed listing of what chastity is not, with a large number of examples from life, to the great delight of the “sober” reader, and you thank God only for the fact that it never occurred to any of these authors to publish their masterpieces with illustrations.

Such “wild” morals reigned in Koenigsberg at the end of the 18th century. . Book of poems. M., b. pp. 47–52. Saint Gregory of Nyssa Decree. op. P. 395.

Of course, this damage should not be underestimated. In the experience of sex one should always remember Gorgon principle: from the gaze of the Gorgon Medusa, a man turned to stone, and only Perseus thought of looking at her indirectly, through a polished shield - that’s why he was able to win. Concern for chastity requires us to be extremely careful, and everything related to sex, be it positive experience or the experience of mistakes, should not be looked at directly, we must resort to mediation: carefully choosing words, avoiding remembering the sins of our own and others, clearing meanings.

Saint Clement of Alexandria. Decree. op. P. 188.

Yannaras X. Decree. op. P. 121.

Quote By: Neganova E. The ideal of marriage in Orthodoxy // Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church“The Church’s Teaching about Man.” Moscow, November 5–8, 2001. Materials. M., 2002. P. 278.

Chesterton G.K. Return of Don Quixote // Favorites. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 504.

Hieromartyr. The world is quiet. M., 1996. P. 172.

Saint Ambrose of Milan. About virginity // About virginity and marriage. M., 1997. P. 147.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Exposition of the Song of Solomon. P. 110.

Saint Athanasius the Great Decree. op. P. 134.

We were once sitting at a festive meal in the monastery, and I began to ask the brothers questions: who dreams of what? Our regent said, sighing: “You know, Savva, I very fervently dream of patting a wolf or a fox on the head.” Valeria Mikhailova discussed it with Archimandrite Savva (Mazhuko) new book“Orange Saints” and I understood a lot for myself.

Archimandrite Savva (Majuko). Photo: Efim Erichman

Children who don't dance to music

– It’s interesting that in the book with the cheerful title “Orange Saints. Notes of an Orthodox Optimist" first and the last onearticles related to the topic of death. Is this no coincidence?

– It so happened that all three books that I published were edited without me. I only wrote texts, and what happened to them next is the publisher’s policy. So when I saw that I was an optimist, I laughed for a long time! Because I'm not an optimist at all. I'm more of a realist.

- Why?

– Because optimism is a certain extreme, just like pessimism, and life in its integrity takes place somewhere else. Maybe you will agree with me if I say that a real work of art - in cinema or literature - touches when the plot develops on the verge of tears and laughter, when something real is highlighted. True reality is where the limit of the tragic and the comic is. Somewhere they converge, and at the junction of these two vectors something that truly touches appears. Yes, life is tragic, we will all die, this is the law. We all know this. And that's great!

– I know many people who simply don’t think about it, turn a blind eye to death and suffering and live wonderfully.

– I think that in this case a person limits himself. Why limit yourself to this? most interesting experience, wonderful experience? It is precisely on this cliff that the deepest human intuitions, the most genuine, manifest themselves, do you understand? If you live a very comfortable life, hiding from pain and joy, you are depriving yourself of something very important.

- Why hide from joy?

– But we are also afraid of joy, joy out loud, this is also inaccessible to us. Just recently we had a holiday for children from low-income families; we always organize it at Christmas. We were doing a small concert for kids, and I was surprised that when the music was playing, very cheerful, the children did not dance...

– How old were they?

– First – sixth grade – such a “running start”. They didn't dance because they were already a little crippled by school. It’s so great when music plays and a person immediately starts dancing! Yesterday I went to a book presentation, and at a pedestrian crossing we were waiting for the traffic light to turn green, and in the distance a live orchestra was playing - they were blowing brass and beating drums. “Dark Eyes,” as I remember now, was playing. And the girl, right at the pedestrian crossing, waiting for the green light, began to dance. It was so great! If I didn't wear a cassock, I would also dance.

So I felt bad for those kids because none of the adults showed them that they could dance.

– Why does this ban exist, in your opinion – a ban on expressing emotions, on joy, on grief?

– Because we live in a small world. You know, in fact, a person needs a lot of space, and we are forced to limit ourselves, because we live in small apartments, houses, travel in cramped transport, wear tight clothes. What I like about priestly clothing is that it is wide, as if wrapped in a curtain, there is some kind of spaciousness in it. On the one hand, this is some kind of limitation, on the other hand, it allows you to take a big step or something, and a big gesture. I don’t think that the closeness of people in big cities is some kind of tragedy. This is just a sketch from our reality...

But it seems to me that the most genuine feelings, the brightest, that very healthy fury in which a person is beautiful, it is highlighted only in tragic moments of life or in very joyful ones.

These extreme points of the spectrum are nothing to be afraid of, especially since none of us can escape them. Woody Allen said: “I’m not afraid of death, I just wish I was absent at this moment.” Of course, this is a pun, but on the other hand, I believe that necessary be present! Because death is part of my biography, and it needs to be experienced.

Of course, it's good to say that when you're healthy and you feel like you still have a lot of time

You know, we constantly hold Liturgy for our disabled people and disabled children on major holidays. It is always performed on a weekday, when there are practically no people in the church. And just imagine, the whole church is filled with crippled children: some cannot speak, some have cerebral palsy, some have autism, some twitch, some are in wheelchairs and cannot walk. So they come with their parents, and the whole temple is in these children and in these parents.

You know, this is always a revelation for me. I admire when I look at parents and children, because they don’t have to pull themselves together and reflect on those people who are standing next to them, justify themselves somehow, or be ashamed of their child, ashamed of his illness. They are completely open here, they are among their own, they look at their children with such delight, with such admiration! These mothers are truly proud of their children. A child who cannot say two words normally, but she is proud of him, she is happy that he exists! He is - and for her this is an infinite amount.

Ordinary people are closer to life

“Any person, looking at such children, looking at innocent suffering, probably at least once in their life asked the question: “Lord, how can this be?” Have you ever doubted God?

– No, I never had such problems, to be honest, because I was brought up among very simple people. I grew up in an area that we call Selmash - it’s a factory area, gangster-ridden. And periodically I act as a translator between the two different worlds- the world of the refined intelligentsia, and the world of these simple factory people who do not understand the tragedy and problems that plague intellectuals and “sophisticated people”, as we call them - people who are accustomed to some high aesthetic models. On the other hand, intellectuals do not understand what these people are suffering from. simple people!

You know, I just saw how my grandmother or great-grandmother, mother, grandfather, father reacted to some difficulties in life, to illness, and so on - I never saw any admixture of grumbling or any kind of protest. People took difficult circumstances for granted because that's life. Someone should have children like this - that means I had one. There is some very wise simplicity here, it seems to me.

– It turns out that ordinary people are closer to life?

– Yes, you said correctly, they are closer to life. These simple people, especially people who have known poverty and hunger, they really value the very fact that they are alive. The fact itself. Any philosophy begins with this fact, with the experience of being alive.

I recently read about Nikolai Rybnikov - he is one of my favorite Soviet actors. Remember, “Spring on Zarechnaya Street”, “Girl without an Address”? He sings famous song: “When spring comes, I don’t know...” So, at the age of 11, he and his mother were evacuated, in 1941, to the safe city of Stalingrad... No one then knew how it would end. And when the city was doused with fire, the residents simply chaotically crossed the river, as best they could. This 11-year-old boy, who did not know how to swim, grabbed onto the sides of the boats, his hands were knocked off, trying to unhook him, because the boats were overloaded, but he still clung on, held on and somehow swam across the river.

I was shocked by his phrase when he recalled this event. He said that after this crossing he was so bursting with the thirst for life that he couldn’t breathe, he couldn’t make money! This recognition is worth a lot.

It seems to me that the Lord sometimes pulls us back so that we stop chasing illusions, such as career, money, recognition, fame, and experience the very fact that we are alive.

Ordinary people who worry about their lives, they may not be able to reflect on it, but they are delighted with it!

Wonderful French writer Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt recently published a book of a very confessional nature. Maybe in literary respect she is weak, but... I just always suspected that he was a Christian! In this book he talks about how he found faith. From his idle Parisian life, he decided to indulge in extreme tourism and went to the Sahara on an excursion. And there he got lost, straying from their expedition... He spent a little over a day alone among the sand and sky, and in this horror he found God. And this writer also admits that his biography began from the moment when he began to think as a child and suddenly experienced the discovery that he was alive. It seems to me that you need to hold on to this - to the fact that you are alive, to the fact that someone is alive.

Do you know how Christianity consoles us? Because if you are alive, then it is forever, nothing can ever be done about it!

Even if your life is tragic, even if some terrible episodes happen, you are still alive. And this is so much that nothing can be added to it. What this life will be like, whether there will be a lot of happiness, joy, fun in it or not - this, in fact, even in comparison with the fact of life itself, is not so significant.

– How do you think, how can we, “refined intellectuals,” return to this simplicity? Not everyone will go to the Sahara, right?

- Necessary do. A discovery that I made in my life quite recently is that it is necessary do. We constantly think, hesitate, decide something, but we need to start doing something. One of my friends once wrote to me in a letter: “I sat on New Year’s Day sad and sad and thought that this was such a year - and here it didn’t work out for me, and there I got burned, and even then it didn’t work out. She sat there, nodding off into the salad, almost dripping tears into the champagne. And then it dawned on me: if you want to be happy, please someone else! I went into the next room, dressed up as Baba Yaga, painted on some blush, tied myself with a scarf, went in and acted out a whole scene with my friends and family. And she turned this seemingly sad and lonely evening into a fountain of joy.” You see, we have to do it!

I somehow made this discovery: I start to breathe easier when I give gifts to people. You can, of course, do something creative for yourself, but it’s good if it’s for someone else. If also with someone... Because all the most beautiful things happen to us when we do something.

The strongest friendship begins... with a fight

– There is such a judgment: that a person is always alone. No matter what we do for others, no matter who we are friends with, we are alone - at some deep level, only man and the Lord always remain. Do you agree?

- No, I don’t agree. A person is never alone. Loneliness is, most often, the reverse side of the longing for loneliness. Rilke once wrote to one of his lovers: “I want to become a hedgehog, turn my face completely and look only at myself and not show it to anyone.” But this never works out; there are always some people present, even portraits of people.

It seems to me that humanity is a single organism, and you can’t escape it. Maybe we suffer from loneliness precisely because we want to somehow be alone, but this never works out, because each person pulls behind him a whole train of other people.

– A man comes home after work, he’s alone, he sits and is sad – what does he care about humanity?

– I will say a very simple thing - you need to pray. You know, I force myself, for example. When I walk down the street or watch the news, I always try to attach a prayer to this news or to this event for the person who is participating in it. When you pray for another person, you begin to feel in your skin that you are one. You walk down the street, you see how it went Ambulance, and say to yourself: “Lord, help the patient, help the doctor,” and these are no longer strangers to you.

– Is monasticism about loneliness? About a hedgehog that curls up so that no one will disturb you?

- No. In monastic books such a paradox is found, in the Philokalia, for example - the more a monk removes himself from the world, the closer he is to it. It seems to me that holy people, the more they pray and feel themselves, the more they begin to feel other people. Hence the gift of insight, for example, it comes from the skin!

Remember, Zabolotsky has a poem about ugly girl? He admires this girl - ugly, red-haired, in a tattered dress. She sees how her father gave two boys a bicycle, and she rejoices, laughs, experiencing this joy of theirs as if it were her own. And Zabolotsky says at the end:

And if this is so, then what is beauty?
And why do people deify her?
She is a vessel in which there is emptiness,
Or a fire flickering in a vessel?

When someone else's joy is experienced as your own, you don't have the barrier of possessiveness. It seems to me that holy people, getting closer and closer to God, understand that everything is ours, everything is mine. And I am someone’s, and not only God’s, but also yours. “Sincerely yours” means this must be taken literally.

– Sounds great, why can’t everyone do it?

- We have cowardice, we are afraid - we are afraid to be friends, we are afraid to love.

Any friendship and love, for example, for me, is always a kind of struggle. In general, I believe that the strongest friendship should certainly begin with a fight, just like the strongest love.

– Fighting with what, with whom?

– This is not an aggressive fight, but rather sports passion, you know? When you read a book, you are fighting with the author. You enter into combat, for example, with Leo Tolstoy, grab his beard, try to pull it out, that is, understand what he wants to say. Understanding is also a kind of struggle, and here the author puts me on my back. I read “Anna Karenina” five times and could not finish reading it to the end, I threw away this thick volume! In the end, on the sixth time I read the novel in one sitting, something dawned on me, something happened. I won this sparring, it seems to me.

– What does struggle in friendship mean?

– It’s the same in friendship. We must constantly make efforts to confirm our friendship. The effort is that we get to know each other every time we meet that person. And it's the same in the family. Why do spouses need to be together more often, under no circumstances be separated for a long time, and not let go of each other, because every morning a wife gets to know her husband, and a husband gets to know his wife. By the way, it’s the same with raising children. You fight with children - who will win!

– What about Saint-Exupery? Who wrote that love is when you look in one direction, and not at all when you fight...

- The wife forces her husband to look in one direction, her husband in another, and - who will win! Eventually, the very side that they both need to look at will appear. Vasily Rozanov said that in fact, a girl is only half made by her parents, everything else is completed by her husband. The same is true for a man - it is his wife who makes the man in marriage. This is a fight!

Like a sculptor... You know, as Michelangelo said: “I take a piece of marble and cut off all that is unnecessary.” It's a lot of effort to work with stone, to turn it into something elegant, to give it shape is very difficult. In a marriage, this is exactly what happens: the wife molds something out of her husband, the husband creates something out of his wife, and in the end, something beautiful comes out.

A person is never alone, he is always “married” to someone. Monasticism is also a marriage, only it is a marriage concluded with the community.

The monastic community is my family, and it happens there too. Monks also sometimes give each other black eyes. What were you thinking? Before my eyes is an episode from our monastic life, when one archimandrite chases a hieromonk with a stick around a haystack, and the hierodeacon separates them. So much for the struggle...

Dream: pet a fox

– Father Savva, did you dream of becoming a priest as a child?

- No. I wanted to be many things. And when I started going to church, I didn’t dream of becoming a priest, I just knew that I would become one. It's very strange, but it's true.

I recently made an amazing discovery, and I’m still experiencing it. We were once sitting at a festive meal in the monastery, and I began to ask the brothers questions: who dreams of what? Our regent said, sighing: “You know, Savva, I very fervently dream of patting a wolf or a fox on the head.”

A man is 60 years old, and he dreams of only one thing: to pat a wolf on the head! This was a real revelation for me. I asked myself this question and realized that I was dreaming of nothing, it even somehow scared me. I somehow have everything, and for a very long time, I don’t even have to ask for anything - I have everything I need. Therefore, I did not dream of becoming a priest.

– Do you often come across people’s claims against the Church, addressed specifically to you as a priest?

- Happens. I was recently traveling from Moscow to Gomel, and not only was my compartment attacked, but I was also attacked from the side. They wanted me to answer why priests drive Mercedes. I say: “Guys, I’m going with you in a reserved seat on the top bunk. What are your complaints against me? I don’t even have a car.” But no - give me an answer, please.

Most often, when people begin to express such complaints, they do not want to hear the answer. They just want, for example, to express their grievances or lay the blame on someone. Sometimes these complaints against priests cover up elementary envy or promiscuity - this is honestly true: people are simply jealous when they see a priest, for example, driving a nice car. They're just jealous. For some reason, it is believed that it is possible to be rude to a priest, for example. In a word, all problems are caused by promiscuity and bad manners.

– It happens that a person sees such disorder in the Church, and this repels him... So in your book, for example, there is an article about bishops, about abuse of power and conflicts. Should a church person turn a blind eye to such things?

– There is no need to generalize. We're just people, we're just people. The priest may be your neighbor, he may stop by your store, buy kefir and stand in line next to you, he may have gastritis or a stomach ulcer, or diabetes. They're just people.

Why is all this? The reason for condemnation lies in our savagery. We live in a non-religious country. We are a wild people. Maybe this is felt more in Belarus than in Russia, because Belarus was the most atheistic republic. We have not yet matured into a culture of discussion - that’s the problem! Perhaps bishops and senior clergy are ready to discuss many painful things, but culturally, civilizationally, we are not ready.

You see, what the Church now lacks is civilization. After all, what is civilization? This is a set of established mechanisms that help close pain points and problems. For example, there are some issues related to church finances - a very painful point. Envelopes, various taxes, deductions, some unfair claims. There is no need to break into open door. There are mechanisms already developed in other churches or in secular institutions that make it possible to monitor finances. They just need to be implemented.

The problem is that our discussion most often turns into mutual insults and swearing. You have a discussion club “Valdai” in Russia – what I read about it impressed me very much. We need a church Valdai! Not officialdom, when a bishop or archimandrite comes out and reads a report, and everyone else is dozing, starting from the second row and even in the presidium, but a lively discussion, very frank.

But for now, if a person doesn’t agree with you, you must definitely impose an anathema on him for some reason...

How much does it cost to consecrate an apartment?

– Observing strict rules and anathematizing those who do not comply with them, maybe it’s just easier?..

– I think not everyone is simply inclined to such a conscious, free church life. It’s just that not everyone has this talent, so some small group of people have to be free for the rest of the community - this has always been and will be so. Sometimes I am asked simply as a priest who is invited, for example, to perform a funeral service for a person or to bless an apartment: “How much will it cost?” This is a very simple question and very painful, because it is more convenient for people who ask to know the exact price - it is simply more convenient for them. They don’t know how to position themselves correctly; they don’t want to offend the priest. I usually laugh it off and say in Belarusian: “I have pennies in my wallet.” Yes, just kidding! Although I had one such episode when they gave it to me just like that - all the money and the wallet together. Just creepy!…

– Do you think that Christ is for us, for our peoples, for Orthodox people- at the first place? Or is the first one more likely to involve rituals, the consecration of apartments and cars?

- Of course, Christ. Yes, maybe people are more willing to read the lives of saints than the Gospel. But it seems to me that this is reverence.

For example, I have long dreamed of writing a book about Christ. No, I’m not dreaming... I don’t dare to dream about it, but it’s just that if I managed to do it one day, it would probably be something wonderful. But I just don’t dare, you know, because this is something sacred, so deeply intimate that we don’t even mention it in speech.

It seems to me that this is precisely the point. It’s not that we are pagans, as is sometimes portrayed, that the saints are closer to us than God, and so on. The saints are really closer to us, because they are just people, and Christ is the One who invented you. This is such a dizzying feeling that I don’t even know what to say!

I was once asked to write a review of a book by Metropolitan Longin of Saratov; Christ was depicted on the cover of this book. You know, I always reverence this image, which is very dear to me, Christ of Sinai.

– Sinai Spas?

– Yes, the Sinai Spa is something, you know, completely unthinkable. I don’t keep this image in my cell, precisely because it is too expensive for me. It's so precious to me that I don't want to see it. It was enough for me to see this icon once.

I remember how Bishop Aristarchus - this is our bishop, now deceased - who read my articles and constantly criticized me, so he, having read a review of the book of Bishop Longinus, said: “It is very bad that an image of Christ is placed on the cover of the book.” Vladyka Aristarchus was a very simple man, from peasant background, but at the same time, a graduate of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. And for him it is something unthinkable - to place an image of Christ on the cover of a book.

It seems to me that our people are just like that. They are not pagans, it’s just that Christ is so dear to them that they keep His image in their hearts, because not everyone can withstand their presence before the gaze of Christ...

Of course, Christ is at the center of our worldview. But this is an intimate area of ​​some genuine depth, where we don’t always allow even our confessors, maybe...

I remember talking with one of my disciples, a student, and told him about a priest who renounced his priesthood, declaring that he did not believe in the deity of Christ and even in His reality. This guy amazed me with what he said in response (although he is not particularly religious, he is a believer): “How could you say that?! After all, the fact that God exists is much more real than the fact that I am.”

There is one more point. We do not have the language to talk about Christ. This is a feature of our Orthodox speech - we do not know how to talk about God. And maybe it’s not worth it.

Everything that is connected with the authentic is always inexpressible. A gesture is more appropriate here. The Apostle Paul says that the Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be expressed. Christ is exactly where there are unutterable sighs. That's where he is...

Therefore, do not say that our people do not love Christ, no, we live only by Him! Yes, that's exactly it.

Simpler than baby talk...

– Do you have any favorite passages from the Gospel that are especially touching?

- There are a lot of them. I will say honestly that the Gospel is a book that I am afraid to read. For me this is always a feat. This morning I opened the Gospel, and it is always a certain effort for me. It’s not due to the fact that I force myself somehow... It’s just an event, I’ll say so.

The Gospel of Mark especially touches me: there are things there that you probably won’t find in other evangelists - details of the humanity of Christ that sometimes just brought me to a kind of numbness, not even a moment.

For example, Christ prays over Jairus’s daughter, he raises her from the dead, performing this epic miracle, absolutely amazing, unthinkable, incomparable, and then says: “You give her something to eat, you feed the girl.” This is so touching!

Or in the same Gospel of Mark, the disciples receive people - such a strange detail that the apostles also had such “reception hours”, and when they were tired of people, Christ said to them: “Go, rest, because you have worked all day, all day long.” You’ve been in public all day, you need rest.” You see, this human participation, it touches me very much.

Or is this why Christ multiplies the bread? In the Gospel of Mark, there is, again, a small reservation - He, seeing the people, took pity on them: “They didn’t eat.” You see, this is so human!

There is a wonderful film, in my opinion, from the early 60s - “The House Where I Live”, the actor Zemlyanikin also starred in it. The movie is amazing, I love it very much! Even as a child, I was shocked by one scene there, when the guy played by Zemlyanikin comes from the front on leave and finds out that his beloved girlfriend is here, in the next apartment. And he runs to visit her, but she, out of powerlessness, cannot even open the door for him. He runs home, grabs a can of canned food, and says to his mother: “Mom, she’s hungry!” This is such a phrase, and it is said like that! This can probably be understood by a person who has experienced the hunger of another as if it were his own.

Christ, when he worries about a girl who has not eaten, or about tired disciples or hungry people... It feels like He himself now experienced this hunger much more vividly than their own hunger and weakness, their fatigue. If we talk about Christ, who He is and what He is like, this is who He is. Is it possible to find any suitable words to add something else to this? You see, if you talk about Him, then you need to say very simple things. The gospel is just that – it is very simple. This simplicity is even sometimes frightening, because it is much wiser than any philosophy, any Husserls and Heideggers. And at the same time, it is simpler than baby babble - this is precisely its authenticity and depth, which frightens and makes one dumb.

– You mentioned “combat” with Tolstoy. Is combat with the Gospel possible?

– This is a special book... The Gospel is a book that always puts you on your toes! And yet you enter into combat with her, knowing that you will lose. But this is a very good loss, a bright, joyful loss, a joyful failure. An encouraging failure!

Interviewed by Valeria Mikhailova

Archimandrite Savva (Mazhuko) recently stated that aimlessly flailing one’s tongue is useful, and that giving up idle talk can lead to serious consequences. Speaking about the benefits of idle verbs, he refers, as an authority, to representatives of “universal spirituality” he did not name. Meanwhile, the Monk Justin (Popovich) wrote at one time that these are the forerunners of the Antichrist trying to convince everyone of the danger and murderousness of the laws of Christ.

“Pravmir” writes that at the presentation of his book, Archimandrite Savva (Mazhuko) said: “Recently I persuaded a woman parishioner to talk idle talk. Because she, an impressionable and suspicious person, needs to ventilate herself, go out into people. I am also a very suspicious person and don’t I love crowded meetings, this is a test for me. But I know that it is useful for me. There is such a practice from universal spirituality - small talk. People talk about nothing, without having time to judge anyone or get angry. Based on the instructions of the righteous fathers, you need to refuse idle talk, but in this case a person will never get out of his depression. Even Socrates said: before philosophizing, you need to learn the art of idle talk" (this "Pravmir" material is located).

At the same time, Archimandrite Savva kept silent about the fact that the Lord was the first to forbid idle talk. Christ said: “I tell you that for every idle word that people speak, they will give an answer on the day of judgment: for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 12). Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria interprets this phrase this way: “Every word that does not serve for real Christian benefit is an idle word, and therefore harmful.” Thus, Archimandrite Savva rebels not only against the words of the fathers, but also against the words of God Himself.

From the collection of sermons of St. Luke of Crimea, it is clear that the ban on idle talk, like other elements of the teachings of Christ, has not lost relevance in modern times. This saint said in the middle of the twentieth century: “We have all met many people in life, especially women, who chat uncontrollably endlessly, and at the same time their language does not know fatigue. Everything they say is empty and is of no use to anyone. Saint Ephrem the Syrian prays to God to deliver him from idle talk. He was afraid to fall, so that his tongue would not destroy him, and these unfortunate talkers are not afraid of anything. People often tolerate them - they chat and let them chat. It seems to them that they are listened to with pleasure, but in the depths of their hearts everyone are burdened by them. If the tongue chatters and idle talk, then the thoughts wander aimlessly, not focusing on anything deep, true, important. The soul is hungry, a person is disgusted with others, he causes serious harm to himself. This is the meaning of idle talk. Wise people, living a spiritual life, "They never talk idle. They are always silent and concentrated."

From the Pravmir article it is clear that Archimandrite Savva Mazhuko considers the ban on idle talk harmful. He believes that if another person does not talk idle talk, then he will be depressed. Speaking about the benefits of aimless conversations, Archimandrite Savva refers not only to the pagan Socrates, but also to “universal spirituality.” Meanwhile, there is no universal spirituality. In the realm of the spirit there is a clear division between good and evil. And those who do not serve the forces of good, in one way or another work for the forces of evil.

Reverend Justin (Popovich) writes in his work “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church: Eschatology” about those people who convince others that observing the laws of Christ is harmful: “All the activities of the Antichrist and all his forerunners in the human race have one goal: all the laws of God, the laws of Christ proclaim them bad, dangerous, murderous for people and for the human race. Therefore, they need to be rejected and replaced with other laws, the opposite content and the opposite meaning: replace Christ with the Antichrist, all Christ's laws - with the laws of the Antichrist."

From here we see that Archimandrite Savva (Mazhuko) acts as the forerunner of the Antichrist. I have long noticed that through the media and psychologists they are trying to convince people that the laws of Christ are harmful. For example, Russians are told that it is dangerous to suppress your anger, otherwise health problems will begin, and therefore you need to throw out your anger, within reasonable limits, on others. Whereas Christ forbade anger, and the venerable fathers described in many of their works how to get rid of passions, including anger. Or have modern people been told for a long time that low self-esteem spoils life, and high self-esteem leads to life successes. Meanwhile, low self-esteem is now called humility, and high self-esteem is pride. But Christ, on the contrary, taught that “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Gospel of Luke, chapter 14).

But all this is propagated by non-church people, and even outright atheists. Immediately, the archimandrite of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was not prohibited from serving, suddenly decided to convince us of the harmfulness of the laws of Christ. As they say, we survived.

Alla Tuchkova, journalist

The propaganda of the laws of the Antichrist is discussed in my LJ in articles labeled “Modern Myths”.

Featured Posts from This Journal

• 
  High self-esteem leads not to success, but to failure (Myths of mass consciousness)

  Among the numerous myths now being imposed on people through psychologists, the most dangerous is the myth that for a happy life you need to have...

• 
  People are specially instilled with addictions (Myths of mass consciousness)

  From all sides we are convinced of the extreme dependence of man on the world around him. This activity has already borne fruit: many people...

• 
  Russians are pitted against each other, distracting from serious topics (Myths of mass consciousness)

  Under lulling talk about the unity of the nation, Russians are persistently taught to tear each other apart and rip pieces out of other people's throats. No one can...

• 
  People no longer understand that you can’t break through a wall with your forehead (Myths of mass consciousness)

  “The future depends on you!” the TV kept repeating at one time. “Everything is in your hands!”, the announcer chanted in Moscow...

• 
  Physiological myths produce bitches, gays and orphans (Myths of mass consciousness)

  The myth is imposed on us that man is an animal that differs from monkeys only in the presence of intelligence. On its basis such…

• 
  Orienting people to the opinions of others, they are made into puppets (Myths of mass consciousness)

  The myth has taken root in the mass consciousness that the attitude of others towards a person depends on his behavior. And few people think about what happened to him...

• 
  We are not told what successful people pay for their careers (Myths of mass consciousness)

  The myth that a career is an undoubted blessing and can be assembled brick by brick is firmly driven into the brains of modern people. Therefore, for many...

  Thanks to continuous brainwashing, our society is increasingly turning into a bunch of schemers. Moreover, imposing manipulation techniques on people...

– Why are we afraid to be ordinary people with normal human manifestations, but we are looking for some kind of spiritual meaning in everything?

– We need to approach everything more simply. The fact is that our spiritual literature sometimes plays a bad joke on us. After all, these are all texts written by monks and for monks. And the monks of antiquity and the Middle Ages wrote those books that reflected their spiritual exercises: their level and the church, monastic context in which they lived. This is not always suitable not only for the laity, but even for the monks of our time, because quite often we have no idea what kind of spiritual exercises they were.

Here John Climacus writes about humility. We read with delight and rapture, but we bring our own meaning to this concept, which may even be erroneous, incorrect, or dangerous. And then the complaints: Climacus made me depressed. Ladder has nothing to do with it. He wrote his book with specific people, their contemporaries - the Sinai monks. It never occurred to him that his book would be read by the laity, especially by women with children in their arms or even by secular priests. We don’t take such obvious things into account and therefore we torture ourselves.

Archimandrite Savva Mazhuko. Photo: Facebook

And here is a huge field of work for modern publicists and theologians: to speak in normal modern Russian language those experiences that constitute the very essence of Christian life. If you like, this is the work of a translator from medieval church to modern language. And in this effort we ourselves find an adequate language for talking about these subtle topics. A modern Christian publicist must allow himself this noble service - to create a language of the gospel that is understandable to contemporary people.

What I am writing about is an attempt to show that spiritual things can be talked about in modern language. And I want to wake up authors who would also experiment with language and churchize modern language. And there is no need to be afraid of this matter.

When talking about language, I do not mean only literature, spoken or written. This is also a language of gestures, a style of communication, acceptable forms of relationships between Christians, no matter what hierarchical levels they occupy. This search is vitally important for us, because due to adherence to old forms we are forever losing young content. We are robbing ourselves!

How do they preach a sermon in a regular church? In those words and intonations with which normal people do not say: “So let us also follow the feat of the martyrs Galaktion and Epistimia, leave everything behind and give thanks...” - we don’t talk like that! Today it sounds very false! And if the intonation is false, it means that the content of this speech, no matter how beautiful and truthful it may be, will cause rejection in a person with a subtle sense, because people do not tolerate lies!

Young people are especially sensitive to this. They see a strangely dressed man on the pulpit talking pretentious nonsense. And they don't believe it. And that’s how they perceive the priest – like a cardboard fool.

Unfortunately it is so. But we become attached to these forms, and this very often leads to some kind of “spiritual schizophrenia,” when you are alone here and another at home. Or to manipulations associated with the same forms: I will listen to you if you have a long gray beard, no matter what nonsense you talk.

There is a YouTube channel “Raising Children. Orthodox view." 50,000 views – something unheard of for a religious program! Some barmaley, who ordained himself, is sitting in a schematic cap, against the backdrop of icons, and is carrying such a blizzard that a minute is enough to simply faint. 50,000 views! But he has a “marketable appearance”: a long gray beard, he speaks mysteriously, he is a schemer - that is, he is a well-promoted brand that touches the sensitive heart of the consumer.

I recently had a case. On the street a woman came up to me in the monastery courtyard: “Father, I have a question...”, and then our Father Pavel walks past, and he has a gray beard. And she says: “Oh, sorry! I’ll ask my father!” – and immediately switched to the “real priest”. Fraudsters and impostors are very clear about the weight of these brand markers and simply by exploiting these forms they are driving people crazy. And this is wrong.

How can we in the Church stop lying to ourselves and learn to talk about problems?

– You begin your book “The Orange Saints” with the question of death, why?

– Thinking about death is a spiritual exercise, so it is natural for any believer to practice it regularly. This is fine. It’s also normal to treat death correctly, and to cultivate the right attitude.

Death must be feared. And there is no need to beat ourselves in the chest and say that since Christ has risen, it means that now we are not afraid to die. Scary.

I too must walk this narrow path. And Christ prayed with bloody tears that this Chalice would pass by - not only crucifixion, but also death. It's very scary. You need to be prepared for this. But if so much good people died - and it’s no sin for me.

The fact is that the topic of death is being expelled from our modern discourse very intensively. For example, I watch Hollywood movies, and if someone dies in the movie, there will rarely be a coffin in the house. This almost never happens, it is not shown, everyone constantly hushes up this topic, hides it: “You don’t need to think about it.”

Why not? These are absolutely natural things. My mother is a very simple person. She and I once came to the funeral of our great-uncle. They came in: “Oh! The guy looks better today!” She walked up to the coffin, straightened the pillow, moved her head, the crown: “Oh, she looks fresh today, she looks more cheerful.” Now that's a healthy attitude! She is seriously collecting dried flowers from the cross into a pillow - it is necessary to have a mortal pillow in order to put it in the coffin. This is completely normal.

And these are the examples that teach us without words. Therefore, it is very useful for a person “spoiled” by higher education to spy on how simple people live, who, as experience shows, have more wisdom and courage than we who read Kafka and Hegel. But they haven’t read anything like that and think that Kafka is some kind of stomach disease.

– Weren’t you afraid of scaring off the reader with the theme of death?

– If I scared you away, it means this is not my reader. As I understand it, I have my own audience. I don't pretend to be all-inclusive. There are people who read. Are they interested, are they in tune? Amazing! There are a lot of authors now, and I’m glad about that. Priests, bishops, laity write; each has its own intonation, its own language, its own theme - and, therefore, its own audience. And we, different authors, need each other. We complement each other.

I am very glad that many priests are writing now. I remember the time when we only knew Kuraev, Osipov - and that’s all, and if some priest wrote on some topic, it means that I no longer need to write on this topic. I'm all for diversity. There needs to be more Christian authors - interesting, lively and different, and there should be more discussions.

In the Church, we are still just approaching the formation of a style of talking about our problems. We have not yet learned to talk about our problems. This is a new undiscovered genre. True, we have mastered the “dialect of triumph” well: we have celebrations, we have achievements, holidays, saints and memorial plaques. This is wonderful and necessary, who can argue? But there are also problems, and only our opponents talk about problems, that is, we allowed them to do what we ourselves do not want to do. Don't want to or don't know how? But then there is no need to be offended by your critics.

And the way out is to stop lying to yourself and learn to talk about problems without anathemas and without glorification, that is, without extremes - honestly, calmly, openly, with respect for your opponent. We don't know how to do this yet. But we must come to this - this is a matter of survival, because the degree of lies within the church has already reached a critical level.

We lie to ourselves a lot - it's dangerous. The Church must regain its monopoly on discussing and solving its internal problems. This requires courage, creativity and, if you like, political will.

It is necessary with such honesty and high culture discuss our problems so that our external critics have no work left at all, so that their external criticism simply pales and hides bashfully in comparison with our discussions.

- Why are we lying?

– There is a topic that touches me to the quick - this is the crisis of monasticism. In the “dialect of triumph” we are accustomed to broadcasting that monasticism is being revived in our country. But there is no revival; monasticism is in its most difficult state. To be completely honest, there is no monasticism, or rather, it barely glimmers, barely survives. And something needs to be done about this, otherwise we will simply destroy it - it will disappear completely.

And there is a practical way out. I once spoke about this at one of our Belarusian monastic conferences, and after that they stopped inviting me. The solution is quite simple, canonical.

We only thrive stauropegic monasteries. It seems to me that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We know about the order system among Catholics, but this system is not alien to Eastern monasticism, because in the Orthodox East in the Middle Ages, each monastery was a separate order. Each monastery had its own charter and fasts and services, and it lived in the interests of its brotherhood - it did not have to serve the diocese, it did not have to forge personnel for the episcopate, or collect money for the construction of some churches, that is, the community lived its own life.

But in our time, all our monasteries canonically belong to diocesan bishops, and this is precisely what hinders the normal development of monastic communities. Because bishops are replaced, there is no unity of diocesan policy, and the bishop, canonically being in the legal field, is the ruler of the monastery, that is, he controls finances and human resource communities. He says: “Well, there is no one to serve in such and such a parish, father. You will go there to serve.”

The well-being of individual monasteries rests not on the canonical structure, but on the personal qualities and integrity of a particular bishop. Now he is favorable, but he died - another person came in his place and wanted to introduce such a charter in your monastery, or wanted to change the abbot, who inspires the entire brotherhood. And no one can do anything because the bishop is right. By definition, he is right; he has both canon law and our internal church morality on his side.

This is just one of the problems. There are problems associated with the training of the clergy (I speak as a priest), and many, many other things. There are a lot of such questions. These problems are not critical - we can talk about them calmly, there is no need to blame anyone for anything.

After my speech, one of our Belarusian bishops said: “Are you scolding us again, Father Savva?”, and accused me of being an enemy of the episcopate. I'm not an enemy. It’s just that our church community has developed a habit of dividing the world into black and white. If you criticize, it means you are an enemy of the Church and an unreliable person. But life is made up of nuances. Where will this spiritual colorblindness lead us?

The most urgent task is church-wide efforts to foster a culture of discussion with respect for the opponent. This culture does not exist yet. We are searching. But we’re not going anywhere – we’ll get there anyway. Sooner or later we will have to monopolize our problems. And now they are at the mercy of people hostile to the Church.

If some kind of misfortune suddenly happens, if some indecent, bad episode occurs in our church environment, the Church should be the first to speak about it, and not Nevzorov or other critics. It is we who must be the first to talk about this - to take away their monopoly on our issues. And this requires honesty.

– And yet, despite all these problems, what inspires you about monasticism?

– I'm not sure I'm inspired. I do not consider my monasticism to be some kind of feat. The day I decided to become a monk (I was probably 14 years old), I simply realized that this was the lifestyle that suited me best. That's all. And I still feel comfortable in this.

I like living in a monastery. We have a very unique and fun community. It's small, but that suits me - I don't want to change anything. I like to live the way I live, and the rhythm of monastic life that we have. I'm just used to it and I don't know if it inspires me. I don't know - I just live and I like it. I take this very simply.

Photo: St. Nicholas monastery Gomel / Facebook

Our relationship with God is a battle

– You write a lot and give a lot of talks. Are there any topics that you don’t like or wouldn’t like to talk about?

– Breast-feeding. This is what doesn't inspire me. I was once asked to write a review about breastfeeding for the Pravmir website. And I, of course, took advantage of this opportunity, because for a monk who has lived in a monastery for twenty-three years, there must be some outlet for his many years of experience in this area.

Of course, I am sometimes upset by the nonsense that pretends to pass itself off as Orthodox spiritual life. This is, of course, sad, but I treat it with humor. And regarding topics... The fact is that I am an irrational person, so I simply live now. Most often I go out to the audience without knowing what I will say. And the moment I see people's faces, something happens, and I say what it says; I just let it speak through me. Therefore, topics can be unexpected, and I myself am interested in hearing what I have to say.

And now my favorite topic is this one, for example, in a day it will be completely different. Everything changes. I just live, and I really like living. And I usually talk about those things that worry me this moment. I recently read a poem by Ezra Pound – it moved me and can’t get out of my head. In a week, maybe some other text or another meeting will excite me, or some movie.

Yesterday I talked about the theological meaning of the film “Suicide Squad” with Jared Leto and I was surprised that I suddenly started talking about this film. And I think: “Oh, this is even interesting. Maybe we should write it down?”

We need to live now, and I allow myself to do this. And when I communicate with people, I just live in this moment - that’s all, and I don’t set myself any super task. I don't claim anything. I'm not some certified theologian, or youth leader, or anything like that. I just live – that’s all. For some reason, people decided that they could listen to me – okay, great. If they also give you a chocolate bar for this, even better.

– What should a monk do if he is an open, sociable person, loves young people, everything modern, alternative. And for example, they “knock him on the head” for this - they say, calm down. Don't you have such a contradiction?

– We again return to the fact that there is no monk at all, there is no person at all. People are always very unique. They are original: this style suits some, but for others it will be disastrous.

I like being an adult. I am 42 years old now, and every morning I wake up with gratitude: Lord, thank you that I am an adult. And you don’t need to charm anyone, you don’t need to somehow occupy your niche, fight for something, prove something to someone.

I just live and, thank God, I’ve even earned some kind of authority. But until a certain age, I had very difficult situations, because neither our late bishop nor our late rector shared my style, and it was very difficult for me, painfully difficult, and this lasted for years. I’m even surprised how I even survived this situation, because I couldn’t do anything with myself.

How much they shamed and denounced me... Our bishop came out to preach, and everyone looked at each other as usual, because the topic was known: “The all-church struggle with the pride of Father Sava.”

I'm a proud person, but I've come to terms with it. What can you do here?

But I understand perfectly why they treated it this way, I have no resentment. I understand them - they were people of the old school, and I am not a gift. But, thank God, everything passed, and I am grateful to them even for the lessons they gave me.

I say again, this is the correct attitude - before you condemn, you need to justify. That is, if people don’t understand you, they probably have some reason to think so. But you, too, will one day be 50, 60 years old, and you will puzzle over whether it is possible to understand these young people at all... I can already afford my own judgment, I can afford to disagree with someone, and that’s great. I sincerely don’t understand adults who hide their age, or try to somehow look younger, or envy children. It's great to be an adult!

Photo: St. Nicholas Monastery, Gomel / Facebook

– How to separate situations in which you need to defend your opinion, and where, for example, you just need to listen to your elders and accept the situation?

– I proceed from the fact that all life is a battle. The process of learning is a process of battle. You discover Hegel - that means you challenge him, and most likely you will lose; This is fine. Relationships between adults and children are a constant battle. Friendship is a struggle. Love is a battle. And that's completely normal. This is how the world works.

Our relationship with God is an exit to a duel; it is no coincidence that one of the deepest plots of the book of Genesis is so moving - Jacob, who fought with Someone at the river, Israel the God-fighter. But this is not a fight against hatred, but a healthy passion, like children fighting or a father fighting with his son. This is a healthy opportunity to feel your boundaries, to know “your shores.”

Therefore, it is completely natural that someone will resist your style. This is good! It’s good that there is resistance - you have the opportunity to hone your skills, the opportunity to justify it, to love it even more, to feel even more that it is mine and not someone else’s, because if it is not yours, it will fall off in the process of this discussion, in the process battles, battles. But this is important, this is normal. Take it with a healthy passion. Now you’ve been sealed – great! - that means alive!

Lately, Pravmir has been publishing my “”, and this year it’s some kind of unprecedented stream of criticism that I haven’t encountered before. They constantly accused me: now I’m a Jewish Catholic, now I’m an ecumenist, now I’m a renovationist, now something else, a continuous stream. And at first I was puzzled, but then I even liked it, because it reveals some interesting facets, including introducing me to myself.

Archimandrite Savva (Majuko). Photo: Mikhail Tereshchenko

– Do they actually criticize?

– In fact, I very rarely encounter criticism. It's a pity. I would like to be criticized on the merits, because I myself re-read my texts and see ten claims at once, or even more, that could be promoted and presented to me, but for some reason no one notices them. Maybe those smart people consider it beneath their dignity to read such texts, and criticize mainly some stupid things, for example: “Well, how come he quotes Nietzsche, and not the holy fathers? What is it? Where is his confessor looking?

- You can have one tricky question lastly? What to do if you fall in love?

– How? It's even useful, I think. I dedicated a whole book to this, it’s called “Love and Emptiness.” It was written as a series of essays, united by an attempt to make sense of such experiences. In general, getting carried away is good. It's a rewarding experience. Any passion and passion should please you, even if they are dangerous. Passion makes you feel alive and introduces you to yourself.

However, we must not forget that any hobby carries its own threats. Passion is dangerous, like all living things. But without danger, without risk, it is impossible to get to know yourself. Therefore, of course, sensible people understand that any passions or hobbies are fraught with danger. There is no need to look for these risks, there is no need to provoke passion, but if this happens, do not become discouraged, treat it as a worthy opponent.

But from my own experience, I am convinced that falling in love is useful. You get to know yourself better. You part with illusions. If you come out of this battle unbroken, you will be much wiser. There is simply no other path to wisdom.

And that’s what we’re really looking for, wisdom. And especially from monks, from priests, this is exactly what is expected - so that at the end of our journey we can present some kind of experience of wisdom.

Young people intuitively seek wisdom from older people, but only hear talk about raising their pensions. Where does wisdom come from if you sat quietly in a greenhouse and no hostile whirlwinds tossed you around? This is exactly what John Climacus writes about - that “good is that person who, having gone through all the pits and swamps, managed to become a real teacher for another.”

– Can a feeling in monasticism be real or is it unacceptable?

– Goethe fell in love, as an elderly man, with a young girl. And Tyutchev, the smartest man, diplomat and public figure, ran across the road from his own wife to the schoolgirl. It hit him completely suddenly. But, on the other hand, there can be relationships like N.G. Chernyshevsky with his wife, who cheated on him, and he loved her selflessly and justified her until the end of his life. That is, all this is very personal. It happened to you or it didn't happen. I know people who have never fallen in love in their lives.

Love is not a program you run. She overtook you and pinned you down. And you fell in love. These are things that you cannot predict.

Archimandrite Savva (Majuko). Photo: Efim Erichman

Archimandrite Savva (Majuko)