On January 7, 2003, on the day of the Nativity of Christ, Archbishop of Saratov and Volsky Alexander (Timofeev) reposed in the Lord. More than thirty years of his life were spent in Moscow theological schools; of which ten, from 1982 to 1992, he was rector of the Moscow Academy of Sciences and Sports. The ever-memorable Archbishop Alexander is remembered by Metropolitan Dimitry of Tobolsk and Tyumen, Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov, Abbot Vsevolod (Varyushchenko), Metropolitan of Saratov and Volsky Longin
Archpastor and teacher
Memories of Archbishop Alexander (Timofeev) are largely connected with memories of Moscow theological schools of the 1980-90s of the 20th century. For a complete understanding of his archpastoral service, it would be appropriate to point out the position of the Church in society and the state, as well as some features of church service at that time.
In August, many young people came and are coming to the theological schools located in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, wanting to enroll in the seminary and the Academy. In times of militant atheism, such a gathering of young people in the church fence was a unique phenomenon, since the entire state machine, including the security forces, was aimed at fighting religion. A special place in this struggle was given to working with young people. The education system in the USSR was strictly ideological, aimed at destroying centuries-old Orthodox traditions and the foundations of faith among the people. Parish life was also under special supervision. Young people who visited the temple came to the attention of observers and were subjected to so-called “processing.” Not every person could withstand such pressure; for this reason, there were very few young people in the parishes, and it was forbidden to carry out any work with young people at churches. Clergy who paid attention to young people were persecuted. The law allowed only the performance of divine services - “correction of the cult.” That is why the gathering of hundreds of young people who came from different parts of the Soviet Union within the walls of a theological school was a unique phenomenon for us. The joy of meeting people and communicating was combined with the excitement before the entrance exams. The competition was great, some people entered for the second and third time.
One of the important stages during admission was an interview with the rector, Archimandrite Alexander (later a bishop, and then archbishop of Dmitrovsky). At the interview, the rector asked about my childhood, inquired about my studies, work, asked several questions about the rules of the daily service, and asked me to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan. Finishing the interview, he asked to peacefully settle all claims against me from the authorities at my place of residence: since I was a deputy of the local council, the district authorities demanded that I write a statement renouncing my deputy mandate, which was done with the blessing of the rector.
After the end of the entrance exams and all the interviews, the agonizing wait began. We, the applicants, learned that the rector had to agree on the list of those admitted to the seminary with the Council for Religious Affairs. As it turned out later, those with higher education were especially prevented from entering. We again felt the manifestation of the “wiles of the evil one,” preventing educated youth from devoting themselves to serving the Church. On the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the names of those admitted were announced. Theological schools began to seethe: those who entered were rejoicing, those who did not pass the competition were in great disappointment... All of us, having become seminary students, could not get enough of the new status of students of the theological school and the fact that we would live within the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.
The academic year began with review lectures, which ended with a meeting with the rector. The simple kind words of Archimandrite Alexander’s parting words were remembered for the rest of my life. He called from the first days to focus on studying and cherish the most valuable thing - the student’s happy time, and to remember that the centuries-old way of spiritual education is a fertile environment for our spiritual growth. He called on us to strive to become church people, learning the life of the Church from the inside, and to preserve the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, since without this there will be no true service.
A new life began for us - lectures, evening classes, essays, abstracts, sermons... Obedience was assigned to each student, the older the course, the more responsible the obedience. When I became a subdeacon, I had to be next to the Bishop Rector and see the tension and responsibility that he bore in his ministry.
As a tour guide for the church-archaeological office at the Moscow Theological Academy, I conducted excursions for delegations visiting theological schools. The Lavra and the Academy were visited by delegations of various levels. Among the guests were astronauts, writers, famous scientists, doctors, diplomats, and ambassadors of foreign countries. Famous statesmen also came to the Lavra, such as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR E.A. Shevardnadze, secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee. Among the heads of foreign states - British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, First Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party Janos Kadar. I had to see with what responsibility Bishop Alexander approached the reception of guests; he was very hospitable and always tried to show the true position of the Church in a correct manner.
My next obedience was the obedience of the assistant to the rector and the receptionist on duty. Prepared draft responses to incoming letters, information on emerging issues, prepared meetings and official receptions. I had to see how difficult the service of the archpastors of the Church was in those days, how much patience, humility and strength was needed to take care of the good of the Church and achieve what was necessary.
Vladyka Rector was sympathetic to the fate of the applicants and tried to help them resolve issues related to the obstacles imposed by the authorities. I have a particularly painful memory of a trip with Bishop to Moscow to the Council for Religious Affairs, where he had to agree on the list of applicants to the seminary. As assistant to the rector, I accompanied him on this trip. We drove up to the gloomy building, Vladyka took off his cassock and cassock, put on his jacket, and we headed towards the entrance. I was assigned to carry a briefcase with documents. Approaching the door, we rang the bell, the lock clicked, the door opened, Vladyka walked in, I followed him. But then the duty officer - in civilian clothes, but with a military bearing - stopped me and asked me to leave. I looked at the lord. He stopped, and I saw bewilderment and confusion on his face. The duty officer repeated his warning, then Vladyka took the diplomat from me and quietly said: “Wait in the car.” After spending more than two hours at that agreement, the bishop left. He looked tired and seemed upset. Getting into the car, he took some medicine because he had a heart condition. When we returned to the Lavra, the realization came to me of what humiliation the hierarchs of the Church were subjected to, and how much physical and mental strength was needed to endure this the mystery of lawlessness(cf.: 2 Thess. 2:7)...
Metropolitan of Tobolsk and Tyumen Dimitry
I saw his zeal for church affairs
When I entered the seminary, I already had three small children. Mother stayed with them in Moscow, and according to the conditions of that time, I had to live in Zagorsk (Sergiev Posad) and attend classes every day. The scholarship was 15 rubles. I tried to work on prosphora in the monastery, but it was a pittance. Thank God, kind people helped me somehow survive, but I couldn’t stay in day care for a long time. Therefore, already at the beginning of the second semester, I went to Archimandrite Alexander, who was then the inspector of theological schools, and told him: “Father Alexander, I cannot study for my own pleasure as a full-time student. I need to go to the parish as soon as possible, support my family and study further in the correspondence department.” The inspector father sent me to the rector, who blessed me to take holy orders. And then a characteristic conversation took place with Father Alexander. He said: “All the documents that we submit for consecration to the Patriarchate are sent to the Council for Religious Affairs, and they will not let you through, because you are a candidate of science.” Father Alexander had a relative who worked in the Council for Religious Affairs, held a major post, and he was well aware of what would happen and how it would happen. I ask: “How can this be? I was accepted into the seminary!” “They accepted me into the seminary, but they won’t let me in for ordination. But there is one way... Write a request, and we will time your ordination to coincide with Holy or Easter Week. At this time, the Patriarchate is closed, because divine services are held in the morning and evening, and documents are not accepted or transmitted to the Council, and we have especially many proteges, so that even the bishop’s services are not enough to ordain everyone (for Only one priest can be ordained by the Liturgy). Therefore, we cannot stop ordinations, and the documents are sent to the Council for Religious Affairs retroactively..."
That's how I became a priest. The Commissioner was angry - he even banned the ordination of Muscovites for three months.
I am eternally grateful to Father Alexander for his help: after all, all this had to be organized. He really wanted to help me and he did! He treated me like a family member, believed in the sincerity of my intentions and sincerely tried to help.
The bishops of the Soviet era had to make compromises, they had to accept some conditions of the authorities. Patriarch Pimen received this situation as a given, and it was almost impossible to change anything at that time. This time can be compared with the period when the Church was in captivity, such as, for example, during Turkish rule in Greece. What could the bishops do if they were already in captivity? Just somehow adapt, preserve what you have, trying to come to an agreement with the authorities so that it won’t be so difficult. In the last years of Soviet power, it was impossible to ordain a bishop without the sanction of the Council for Religious Affairs. But if you stopped ordaining, then the apostolic succession would cease, the life of the Church would simply stop...
Now, looking back, we see how much the bishops of that time did for the Church.
As for Bishop Alexander, I personally saw his sincere zeal for church affairs. He loved theological schools very much and wanted only good for the Church and for theological schools.
Once he asked me: “You studied at Moscow State University, worked at the Academy of Sciences, tell me what we need to do to raise the level of our theological school?” I replied: “We need to invite university teachers.” He looked at me: “Jackets? Well, no, we can’t do that.” And then he invited me, I myself recommended some of them to him, and they really helped the development of theological schools. Later, when I served in the parish, I once asked him to help a university graduate enter the seminary, and he immediately agreed and helped. This graduate became, thank God, a very good priest.
Vladyka Alexander was a decisive man. There was a time in the early 1990s when the Patriarchate could not transfer the necessary money to theological schools. Vladyka Alexander asked, but they did not give him money. Then he cut all the “jackets” and the “white” clergy, i.e. part-time teachers who taught at the seminary and the Academy. He fired about 30 people, and it looked demonstrative: “If you don’t give money, I fire you.” It was a kind of protest, which, of course, could not pass without consequences. And after some time he was removed from the rectorship...
Vladyka Alexander had a majestic appearance, very suitable for his position as senior inspector, then rector. Only after some time did I find out that he, it turns out, was a little younger than me. He seemed much older to me - I was and felt like a student. He was a good person, and, of course, I still have a very warm feeling for him.
Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov
Vladyka had a very good understanding of people
I had the opportunity to work with Bishop Alexander for several years. For about four years I was his assistant, and for almost two years I worked under him as a seminary inspector, responsible for the behavior of students.
While I was a referent and looked at the bishop’s activities as if from the outside, it sometimes seemed to me that he was too strict and demanding. But then, interestingly, it almost always turned out that he was right.
Almost every day at 8 am, when the students were at breakfast, that is, when no one could disturb him and when he, in turn, did not embarrass anyone, he walked throughout the entire territory of the Academy: he looked in and looked everywhere. And when he later held some kind of administrative meeting, he said something very specific - what he saw with his own eyes, and not what someone reported to him. In general, he didn’t like it when someone’s shortcomings were reported to him “from the outside.” He directly said: “Can you say this in the presence of the one about whom you are now complaining?” He didn't like wearing headphones and tried to avoid it, although, of course, there were times when he listened in such cases.
He looked closely at the students, making sure that worthy priests graduated from the seminary. And in this he was sometimes even cruel and cruel. I remember such an incident. The waitress in the dining room did not give one priest a second helping, she said: “It may not be enough for others, but if there is enough for everyone, then I’ll give it to him.” And so he began to threaten her with some kind of punishment: “I will forbid you to receive communion!” - and something else like that. It reached the rector, he called this priest to him and said: “If you want to leave here not with a wolf ticket, not with a ban on the priesthood, then I will never hear such things from you and about you.” He didn’t shout, he was generally a fairly restrained person and taught me this when I was already an inspector.
I must say that Vladyka had a very good understanding of people. He tried to get rid of unworthy candidates for the priesthood even here, in the seminary, despite the fact that, as he told me, the Patriarchate seriously punished him if a person reached, say, the graduating class and was expelled. The Bishop said: “Sometimes it is clear that a person will be a disgrace to the Church; he must not be released.” On the other hand, he always took care of the students, so that they were well-fed, so that they felt good and comfortable, as much as possible at that time.
In general, it must be said, it rarely happened that he did not forgive a person if he saw that he understood his offense and sincerely repented of it. Only in relation to those who persisted in their malice and were still making excuses were extreme measures taken. He showed leniency towards those who even committed fines several times but repented, and often these people later became good priests.
An example of how the ruler of people felt was the following incident. A priest from the Moscow region entered the final courses of the Academy to complete his studies and immediately expressed a desire to become a monk. And the bishop, after communicating with him, said: “I cannot not accept him, there are no formal obstacles for not accepting him. But it feels like he’s a real careerist.” We did not immediately appreciate these words. And then, indeed, he took monastic vows here, returned to the diocese near Moscow, and after some time went into schism with Filaret. Once, Bishop Rector (and he was then the chairman of the Educational Committee) showed me with a laugh a telegram from this, now archimandrite, from Noginsk: “I report to Your Eminence that the Noginsk Theological Seminary is ready for the beginning of the academic year.” This is a big, lavishly decorated telegram. And then a note: “Students, books and teachers are needed.” That is, there are neither one nor the other, send it to us, and the seminary is ready! Vladyka was worried: “I wish I hadn’t taken him, I wish I hadn’t tonsured him! But formally, the man expressed a desire to become a monk, how could I prevent him? How could I prove to someone that I don’t see sincerity in him?”
Vladyka loved to joke. Everything is strict, strict - and suddenly a joke. Once he calls a student whom they wanted to assign to economic obedience. He called and said in the presence of the entire administration at the meeting: “You (calls him by name) are doing the wrong thing with us.” But the student was active, energetic, and, like all bright personalities, he had his weaknesses. “Vladyka, I know, I sometimes stay late after lights out...” - “That’s not what you’re doing with us...” - “Yes, Vladyka, I go to the city without asking...” - something else, then he admitted that he was drinking... He was already thinking: “Well, that’s it, they’ll expel me.” And the bishop: “We appoint you as head of the canteen.” Then he was a diligent student...
We liked the way he served. His services were not as prayerful and reverent as, say, those of the late Metropolitan Simon of Ryazan. He truly was a great man of prayer. Vladyka Alexander served majestically, even strictly. But you could see in his eyes how his heart was touched by what happened during the service, you could feel what he was going through. He really didn’t like it when people approached him at the altar with extraneous questions.
I remember how they sent some Catholics to us, led by a cardinal from France, and it was ordered to show them the entire temple, that is, to actually lead them into the altar, but the bishop really didn’t want to do this. They opened the Royal Doors, he stood with them in the Royal Doors, showed them from a distance the throne, the painting in the altar, and while the translator was explaining something to them, the Bishop waved his hand, the Royal Doors were closed and he somehow smoothly, gently, politely led them away. Everything went very calmly, and the bishop later recalled with a smile: “But I still didn’t let them into the altar!”
Sometimes there is feigned, feigned grandeur, a person portrays it. And with him it was natural, he has always been like that. In general, he was a very large-scale person. He could not be accused of any pettiness, and he himself did not tolerate it; it was felt that he did not like it when people get hung up on trifles. Although he formed his general idea of people and events from little things, he knew how to do it.
We had one teacher, a hieromonk, of very short stature. And he really wanted to be like Vladyka Alexander. And this priest tried to walk along the rector’s path under the windows of the Academy when no one was there - with the same gait, the same long steps, he had a similar cassock. And he did all this, but he never succeeded.
They probably loved the bishop. I believe that when they love someone, they jokingly parody it; this is an indirect sign of respect and love. Many of our students portrayed Vladyka Rector. There was such a case. My classmate, a hieromonk, was in the isolation ward, and while the nurse was away, he was on duty at the telephone. Call. He picks up the phone and answers in the rector’s voice: “The isolation ward is on the phone.” And from the receiver - the voice of a real rector: “What does this say?” He hung up in fright. After some time the call rang again, he again grabbed the phone: “Hieromonk Namek is listening” - “Oh, that’s who is parodying me there!” And he immediately began asking about the matter, and said nothing more.
There was also an old joke from the period when Archbishop Vladimir (Sabodan) was the rector, and Archimandrite Alexander was the inspector. They said that once the Bishop Rector at night had to literally remove from the fence a student who was returning to the Academy at an inopportune hour. He was so drunk that he didn’t knit the bast. Vladyka helps him, and he, seeing that it is the rector, asks: “Vladyka Rector, please don’t tell the inspector!”
He had, of course, a very great work ethic. He felt responsible and thereby determined for himself how much he needed to work. True, he demanded this from others too. I remember that sitting in the waiting room until eleven at night was practically the norm. And when I became an inspector, he could call at any time of the day if, as it seemed to him, there was an important matter or he wanted to ask my opinion in order to evaluate some event or get an idea about the personality of this or that student.
He demanded a lot from people, and at the same time, he said to me, as a reviewer: “Look at the person, and if you see that he is tired and exhausted, then tell me.” And after that, he gave such a person an extraordinary vacation for a week or two, and often this was accompanied by a trip to some good sanatorium.
He greatly respected work - from the professor to the cleaner. He always appreciated cleaning ladies, he even tried to wipe his feet better once again. He amazingly appreciated, loved, and cared for some ordinary people.
His secretary was Maria Ivanovna, and I remember how he scolded her, how much in vain: she forgot someone’s name day, but had to inform him that the person had a birthday tomorrow, he needed to prepare a gift, a congratulation... And here the bishop is so strict the boss scolded her for what she missed.
As far as I remember, he was always cheerful, and when there were some difficult moments, he experienced them within himself. I think that’s why he had a heart attack - because he seemed to keep everything inside himself - these pains, sores, both his own and those of others - he carried it all inside himself and was rooting for everyone. And, on the one hand, he took medications, illnesses made him feel, and on the other hand, he didn’t just stay invigorated, but forced himself to work.
He treated the Lavra brethren very reverently. It seems that he himself was a bishop, a rector, but sometimes he went to a fraternal prayer service. He spoke very respectfully of the Lavra elders and always listened to the opinion of Father Kirill (Pavlov).
There were times when he sent me to call Father Kirill when it was hard for him, when he needed to confess or consult. Usually before Easter and Christmas the priest came, and the bishop confessed to him at the altar. But there were also such rare cases when the bishop himself invited him. In general, he loved monks and priests.
Vladyka loved strictness in clothing, neatness, and cleanliness. In particular, he really disliked long hair, especially when it was dirty, careless, and loose. He strictly punished for this and said: “Father, if it’s difficult for you to keep your hair in order, it’s better to cut your hair.” When I became a monk, he asked me too, even demanded: “Take tonsure.” And Father Kirill, my confessor, said: “No need, don’t cut your hair, because you are still a monk.” And one day I said: “Vladika, forgive me, Father Kirill does not allow me to cut my hair.” And then the bishop answered quite calmly: “Okay, since Father Kirill doesn’t allow it, don’t cut the hair, just hide it somehow.”
He understood that, sitting in the waiting room, with all this fuss, I did not always have time to study and fulfill the monastic rule. He says: “Go to Father Kirill, explain what your situation is, maybe he will reduce your monastic rule while you are on this obedience.” I consulted with the priest, he said: “Do it while you can, but if it’s difficult, then come and let’s talk.” I didn’t report this to the Bishop, but left my rule as it was, but there was such an initiative on his part.
What else do you remember? He was a very persistent person, and if he saw the benefit of the Church, he achieved it. He simply awed one of our classmates with his desire to tonsure him as a monk: he was a truly talented and deeply religious person, and Vladyka really wanted him to be at the Academy, and he wanted to go to the Lavra. Vladyka called him, convinced him... This future monk came to our sacristy for obedience. He inevitably had to come to the altar during services and catch the eye of the bishop. He asked everyone: “Go, marry me, I’m afraid.” Although he was afraid, of course, not of the bishop himself, but of this insistence of his.
And Vladyka also called me, called me, called me... I didn’t give up, because Father Kirill said: “Wait for now, wait.” And then something happened: either a turning point occurred in me, or something else. After yet another persistent persuasion from the Bishop, I went to Father Kirill, and he said: “Now come on, otherwise it will be too late.” What, why is that? And then I applied for tonsure.
I have already said that Vladyka had a good understanding of people and assessed the situation very soberly. Although he met and actively communicated with representatives of the Council for Religious Affairs, and often some people from the President’s circle came to see him, he never relied on secular authorities. He always believed that the Church itself: here, there is God and there is the Church. Yes, we must try to do everything so that there is no interference from the authorities, but do not exaggerate the importance of relationships with them. He quite calmly and soberly assessed perestroika even at a time when many of our young teachers thought: “Oh, this is good, this is progress, this is joy”... He did not foresee anything good in the changes that were happening to the country, and in relations between Church and state. He thought that this was not the best thing that could happen - probably because he saw what kind of people were doing this.
I studied at the Academy just at the beginning of perestroika, and I saw that the situation was very difficult. Vladyka told me that he had an extremely difficult time, perhaps even more difficult than the fire, during the period when he ran out of funds. The Patriarchate continued to issue salaries at pre-perestroika rates, and he was forced to lay off many good teachers - everyone who had some other source of income, for example, those priests who served in parishes. Only those who did not teach or serve anywhere other than the Academy remained. At that time, many people were offended by him, but he was not even upset because of this, but because the Academy had lost serious, good personnel. Of course, later, when the situation improved a little, he again recruited very good teachers, tried to find people who would really advance church science.
He was very sensitive to the fact that he was removed from the post of rector, without even explaining why. He later told me that His Holiness Patriarch Alexy suggested to him: “Write a letter of repentance, we will consider it by the Synod and send you to the pulpit.” And the bishop said: “Explain, what should I repent of? I would love to repent, but I don’t know what.” Various commissions came to the Academy, on finance and others, and of course, they found nothing. The Bishop was actually worried: maybe there really was something in his activities as rector that he did not understand, that he misjudged.
The period when he lived in Sergiev Posad after his resignation was very difficult for him - financially and morally difficult. Many left him, many turned away, as if they were afraid that the new leadership of the Academy would look askance at the kind attitude towards the former rector.
Some of his students visited him, fellow monks visited him. Then they told each other how he was and what. He refused financial help - he didn’t refuse it on principle, but said: “Thank God, I don’t need it yet,” that is, he didn’t reject help at all. But it was felt that he was missing a lot, and, above all, the active activity in which he lived for many years.
I always saw that the bishop was completely absorbed in his care, in the work that was entrusted to him. He tried to do everything so that the Church would be better. Maybe he was wrong about something, maybe he misunderstood something, like any person, but all his actions were aimed at caring for the Church. This is absolutely certain. Although he could be cool, I even had to cry from him. But even though I was offended, I realized that he was right. And I see a great sin behind me: when he went to the pulpit after this forced downtime, he invited me with him, and then I had only my mother and she was seriously ill for a long time, and then he just sat in one place, I didn’t want to move out, and I didn’t help him. And then I reproached myself all my life.
Hegumen Vsevolod (Varyushchenko)
Man of Duty
People treated Vladyka Alexander differently during his lifetime, and he is characterized differently in the memoirs collected in this book. But absolutely everyone, even people who don’t know each other, unanimously note his greatness and devotion to the Church.
The greatness in him was simply extraordinary, especially for today. There is a myth about the Atlanteans who hold the vault of heaven on their shoulders. Vladyka Rector looked like such an Atlantean, who held the entire system of Moscow theological schools on his shoulders. His every gesture, every movement was with power, every word he said was significant. There are many people who more or less successfully portray big bosses and play the role by “puffing out their cheeks.” The Bishop was absolutely natural in his greatness and a very complete person: he was not one in his office, another in the service, another in his home; did not allow himself to flip an internal switch, as it were, and now - one person is “on duty”, the other is on vacation... This, by the way, had very negative consequences for him, simply because it is very difficult to constantly live in such tension.
He was a man of duty to the highest degree of the word, a man who truly perceived his position as an administrator as church, monastic obedience.
He was, to hide it, a patriot of his country - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. His patriotism was absolutely sincere, absolutely honest, very organic for him. He truly served not only out of fear, but out of conscience, not only the Church, but also the Fatherland in the state in which the Fatherland was then. If this is not taken into account, then many of his problems and his life path as a whole are incomprehensible.
Here, by the way, is the key to the fact that Bishop Alexander, in modern terms, did not fit into the historical turn that took place in our country. He saw very well who was at the helm during this turn, he knew the value of the high words that were then pronounced from all the stands. Being, of course, a spiritually experienced person, he understood that this could not end in anything good, and, as we see, in general, he turned out to be right.
He loved the Church endlessly. Moreover, he himself was the Church. He felt this very clearly in himself - the way each of us should feel it, realizing that the Church is us. And this feeling was again organic and natural for him, without much reflection, it was simply the basis of his life.
He was not an open person, one who attracts everyone without exception with his charm, as they say, the soul of society. Most likely, he did not even set such a task for himself. But at the same time he was a very deep and very interesting person. He was, of course, vulnerable, sensitive, kind. Probably, some of those who knew him can say: “Wow, good …”. But I don’t know this from someone’s words. During my years of study at Moscow theological schools there was a difficult period when my life could have turned out completely differently. And only thanks to Vladyka Rector - the way he treated me, that difficult situation - I “am.” And I am grateful to him, as are many people I know who can also testify to his kindness and big heart.
His biography itself is amazing, despite its outward meagerness. You have to think about this, just imagine: a man entered the Lavra gates very young, even before the army, in order to enter the seminary. He retired from the Lavra gates as an archbishop. His whole life was spent in the Lavra and the Academy, within its walls he went through all the stages - from seminarian to rector, bishop. There was no other life for him! And, of course, when he was torn away from this life, it was extremely, indescribably difficult for him.
We are not given the right to judge who is right and who is wrong. We know that sometimes even holy people, now glorified by the Church, during their lifetime could not find a common language with each other - this has happened in history, and more than once. Most of the characters of that time are already facing God’s judgment. About that period of his life, we can only say that Vladyka Alexander found it very difficult to endure his loneliness and forced inaction, but he endured it with great dignity. We visited him with my classmate, then a hieromonk, now Bishop Justinian, and saw that he had not changed one iota - as he was in his rector’s office, he remained so in his home in Sergiev Posad - self-possessed and calm.
Of course, as a student at the seminary and the Academy, I could not even imagine that I would one day become Bishop Alexander’s successor in the department.
It was difficult for him to be a diocesan bishop, this matter was simple not his. He spoke about this himself, and it was obvious to many. First of all, as far as I understand, he could not accept the lack of executive discipline that is characteristic of the diocese, the conditions in which the diocesan bishop finds himself. When he sees, he understands that this or that person is not in place, but cannot do anything, because there is simply no one to replace him. For the same reason, I think, it was very difficult for him to establish relations with the new government - he was accustomed to different people, to different orders. This exhausted him and, of course, shortened his life.
But at the same time, I think that for the Saratov diocese, Bishop Alexander’s stay here was very important and fruitful. He was already seriously ill, he could not travel far, it was difficult for him to serve often, but still he created a fairly strong foundation for diocesan life here. When I arrived in the diocese, I was amazed that the bishop had created a clearly functioning structure and management system here. This is very important, because still not every diocese can boast of the same. Whatever Bishop Alexander could do at that time, he did. And for this the Saratov diocese should be grateful to him.
Many of Bishop Alexander’s students and subdeacons, in turn, became bishops and rectors of theological schools. Isn’t it amazing that each of them remembers their time of study and communication with the Bishop as the best time of their lives? Despite the fact that he was strict, that at times it was not easy with him - and yet this time was for them, and now they realize it, the best time of their lives and the best school that they went through.
Metropolitan Longinus of Saratov and Volsk
Based on the book “The Lord is my strength”
(Saratov Metropolitan Publishing House, 2013)
When women of the same age sighed for Alain Delon and other famous foreign beauties, the author of these lines was thrilled by the deep look of serious eyes and slightly mocking folds around the lips of the Soviet actor Mikhail Gluzsky. I believed that he was a real man...
Comes from childhood
Eighteenth year. Hard times, try to survive! The country was in a fever after the revolutions and the First World War. From the capital Petrograd, where the Bolsheviks built their new world on blood, the father of the future master of Russian cinema, Andrei Gmyrev, moved to the capital of Little Russia, Kyiv, closer to the fertile land and the sun. But there was no peace here either - Kaiser Wilhelm, the Poles, Petliura, gangs of bandits replaced each other in a frantic kaleidoscope. How can you decide to have a family, a child, when your own life hangs by a thread?
Andrei Mikhailovich - a peasant by birth, a poet by vocation - managed to build a house, albeit a small one, plant an apple orchard, and raise a daughter and son (years will pass, and he will name his first-born in honor of his father - Andrei). Unfortunately, Andrei Mikhailovich died very early; Mishka was barely four. Having been orphaned, the family could not live where everything reminded them of their father, so they moved to Moscow, to a cramped room in a communal apartment.
Misha grew up an inventive person, often getting into trouble on the verge of hooliganism, for which he was not even accepted as a pioneer; at that time he was almost an outcast. But he did not lose heart. Mom, Efrosinya Kondratievna Gluzskaya, got a job as a saleswoman in the toy department of Mur and Mereliz (today TSUM). Oh, it was a blast! Right under the counter, where she hid her little son from the authorities, he selflessly played out real lists according to his own scenarios, from time to time jumping out at the feet of customers with a toy gun at the ready, shouting “Hurray!” or in an embrace with a huge, faithful comrade.
When I started working, which was already in my teens, I enthusiastically took part in amateur performances. An apprentice electrician repaired wiring in the same Central Department Store during the day, and in the evenings he rehearsed dramas at a local club. The years 1935-36 passed under the slogan: “Take me!” Mikhail tried to enter all Moscow acting schools, but was rejected over and over again. Finally, as usually happens, he accidentally learned about additional enrollment in the film actor school at Mosfilm. The film studio decided to train its own staff, taught by the most famous acting teachers from VGIK, actors, and directors. Before the exam, the 18-year-old boy’s knees were shaking in fashionable wide pants, sewn by his mother on an old machine. Whatever he starts to read, the authoritative commission interrupts - it’s not like that, it’s not like that... “Read Zoshchenko!” - one of the masters suggested. The satirical writer was almost banned; not everyone could know him by heart. Gluzsky knew and was so infectiously funny that he was immediately enrolled in the course.
As the Steel Was Tempered
True, then Gluzsky was expelled a couple of times. But never for professional incompetence, but exclusively for “immoral behavior,” which consisted of wearing the same trousers, making too caustic jokes and, worst of all, refusing to join the Komsomol. Not because it was simply unthinkable against the Soviet regime, but simply - why? I couldn’t pass by such a bright personality. While still a student, Mikhail starred in films that became popular - a border guard in the comedy “Girl with Character”, a street servant in the historical film “Minin and Pozharsky”, a high school student in “The Oppenheim Family”, Abdurakhman in “Salavat Yulaev”. It is not surprising that the young actor, who had just completed his studies, was immediately enrolled in the Mosfilm staff. And almost immediately they were drafted into the army, and on June 22, 1941, disaster struck, which turned the fates of millions of people of all ages and professions upside down. Gluzsky was saved by the fact that, as an actor, he was not sent to the front line, but was left on the team at the Central Theater of the Soviet Army. As part of the concert brigades, Mikhail performed in front of the soldiers, each time feeling shame: “We are playing here, and they are walking on the verge of death...”. He gave his all, played the entire repertoire: from classics to front-line “propaganda”. He felt an inner kinship with every soldier: the Motherland said “must”, so do it at all costs...
I can - that means I must!
Over the years, it became the core of Gluzsky. For almost forty years he was faithful to one theater - the film actor's studio at Mosfilm. He acted in films without a break. The main role or the secondary one, the positive hero or the last scoundrel - it doesn’t matter. And there is no need to accuse him of promiscuity or the desire for easy money, that’s what was alien to Mikhail Andreevich. It is enough to remember any of his roles to understand that each one was played conscientiously. The entire Soviet Union fell in love with Gluzsky when Leonid Gaidai’s comedy “Prisoner of the Caucasus” was released. He got a small role - a hotel administrator who shared national toasts with Shurik and ultimately got him drunk to the point of semi-consciousness. Even Georgians believed that the toasting Caucasian hotel worker was played by a Georgian, the actor made his character so colorful. By the way, when they were filming “Mission in Kabul,” Gluzsky impersonated the Afghan cab driver Gadi in such a way that when he rode to the set on a cart, local residents greeted him as if he were one of their own.
And look at “The Secret of Two Oceans” - probably for the first time in Russian cinema, a foreign spy is shown as a serious, strong opponent, and not as a semi-satirical figure. The answer, of course, is in the magic of Gluzsky personally, his seriousness and fortitude “sound.”
Or let’s take “Quiet Don” by Sergei Gerasimov, because Captain Kalmykov, performed by Gluzsky, utters Sholokhov’s, but seditious words to the Bolsheviks: “You are not a party. You bunch of vile scum. Your Lenin is a convict who sold Russia for a million German marks!” And he pronounces it in such a way that it “shoots through” the consciousness of the viewer at that time - is it really true?! And the scene of the execution of the captain with his last dying words: “This is how a Russian officer dies!” did not leave anyone indifferent.
You should definitely watch “Red and Black”, “There is No Ford in Fire”, “A Soldier Came from the Front”, “Ten Little Indians”, “Monologue”, “A Man for a Young Woman” and many, many other films. For viewers with completely different tastes, Gluzsky created his own memorable image. And “Almost a Funny Story,” a subtle, ironic, almost comedy and definitely a love story, is a film that will remain for centuries. Suddenly, in his advanced years, Gluzsky got the role of a hero-lover. Another would have been embarrassed and refused, especially since in the plot his character is an ordinary business traveler with an ordinary surname Meshkov, who is literally on the heels of an eccentric older lady named Illaria, who for no apparent reason has fallen in love with him like a cat. Already comical. But what depths open up between these two yesterday strangers! It is absolutely clear, without words, that this is the kind of man you can love at first sight and forever.
In life it turned out no less romantic. Gluzsky had already gained fame as an inveterate bachelor when he met Ekaterina Pavlovna Pereguzova, Katya, Katenka. But bad luck - the chosen one turned out to be long and firmly married. The actor himself recalled, without going into personal details, this way: “In a word, I took her away from my husband.” They lived in perfect harmony for almost five decades. There wasn't a dull moment. Ekaterina was a person close to theater circles, a graduate of GITIS, and worked as a senior researcher at the Institute of Art History. They raised a son, Andrei, and a daughter, Maria, and then came grandchildren: Alexander, Mikhail, Maria, Ksenia, Elizaveta.
Wasn't there enough trouble with... But Mikhail Andreevich was enough to help complete strangers. It was the desire to help, support, warm that brought him to the board of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, where he faithfully served as secretary. He also headed the commission of cinema veterans in the same union, headed the Moscow city commission for cultural patronage of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the Commission of cinema veterans and the Military Patronage Commission of Moscow. He also taught, directed two workshops at once at the acting department of VGIK, and deservedly received a professorship. Where he got his strength from - one could only wonder. There could be no talk of any “stardom”; he called himself a draft horse. When in 1999 they awarded the Nika Prize in the category “Honor and Dignity”, I was embarrassed like a youth...
By the end of the 90s, Mikhail Andreevich was already seriously ill, but he did not refuse a single person who turned to him for help, and did not cancel a single performance.
At the beginning of May 2001 things got really bad. The temperature rose to about forty, they were hospitalized, and tomorrow the performance... It definitely needs to be cancelled, but Gluzsky persuades the director not to let the viewer down: “This is Chekhov! "Gull"! It is forbidden!" Despite the strictest bed rest, the actor literally escaped from the hospital. They carried him into the theater in their arms and rolled him onto the stage. He played brilliantly. He came out to bow on his own two feet. The next day one leg had to be amputated. Then his lungs failed, Mikhail Andreevich was connected to an artificial respiration apparatus. By the end of May there was a glimmer of hope that he would pull through. But on June 15, the heart, the generous heart of a real person, could not stand it...
Ecology of life. Psychology: If the stars light up, it means someone needs it. There is nothing superfluous about us. The flexor muscles are compensated by the extensor muscles; cut one off and your arm will hang like a whip. Egoism is complemented by altruism, pride by modesty, anger by kindness, armor by empathy, and hedonism by duty. Today is about debt.
If the stars light up, it means someone needs it. There is nothing superfluous about us. The flexor muscles are compensated by the extensor muscles; cut one off and your arm will hang like a whip. Egoism is complemented by altruism, pride by modesty, anger by kindness, armor by empathy, and hedonism by duty. Today is about debt.
Like any pendulum, deviation in one direction leads to deviation in the other. But if the pendulum hangs, the clock will die. Therefore, it is needed, and it is that “balance”. I was once struck by the thought that balance is not a statically frozen pendulum in position zero, but movement. If you deviate too much to the left, you will fall, to the right, you will fall, and then you walk, swinging, along a thin wire - right-left, right-left. If you freeze, you won’t be able to walk. I went - I deviated, I was forced to balance.
There is a big bias in our culture towards debt. We owed everything– parents, school, country, team. This deviation from balance led to a natural swing in the opposite direction: hedonism.
To live only here and now, only for myself, only for pleasure, and I don’t owe anyone anything. Hedonism is about immediate gratification: I wanted it - I did it, I felt it - I did it, I got tired of it - I quit.
There is a lot of beauty in it: attention to yourself, your body, needs, momentary hobbies and momentary impulses. Hedonism is about fast, pleasant, good and immediate. And debt is about “need”, for the sake of something intangible, distant, not guaranteed, something that you can’t pin on your lapel or mix with tonic.
I was here buying groceries while conducting a conference call on the phone. During the time that I directed the conversation, gave explanations, distributed tasks and summed up the results, I unloaded the cart, packed the groceries, entered the PIN code on the credit card, put them back in the cart, put away the card and wallet, walked to the car, found keys, opened the trunk, folded the groceries, rolled the cart, got behind the wheel and drove home without being distracted from the conversation.
While I was busy, my autopilot, the limbic system of the brain, did the rest for me. When we don't have a resource, we find support. A certain structure that allows us to survive and cope if direct willpower, attention and motivation are absent.
Debt is an internal structure that allows us to act “as we should” when all the standard motives: meaning, reward, benefit, will, interest have failed.
Debt is autopilot, a power that is based on our deepest values, internal intuitive knowledge of “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”.
Debt is something, which forces us to restrain anger and suppress fatigue, to give up immediate gain for something more. Debt is about the horizon.
Debt is about that that we don’t throw away the wrapper and don’t give a bribe because we want a different society for our children. Debt is about sacrificing quick gratification for long-term value. This is about not yelling or spanking when you really want to, supporting and accepting when something completely different is screaming from inside, duty is a sacrifice for the sake of a long-term perspective, it is a denial of small joys for the sake of something illusory, like correct habits. Living in accordance with a sense of duty brings us into balance with deep values, but takes us out of balance with immediate desires.
And now the child is hungry, tired and screaming. And if we give him candy now, half an hour before meals, then we will solve the immediate problem of the mouth, but complicate the relationship with disappointment and futility in the long term.
Hedonism is about the here and now, and doesn’t care about what should be. Hedonism is about the fact that if you want a cake and a dress, then you need a cake and a dress, but we’ll make it until payday and then give it up.
Hedonism is about a manicure when you need it at home, about sleeping when dad is tired too, about well, to hell with the regime, let's eat chips and watch a movie until midnight. Hedonism is wonderful, it is about the fast, immediate, sensual, it is a sacrifice of values for the sake of pleasure, a sacrifice of goals for the sake of a good mood.
Debt is very human, hedonism is very animal. And there is no judgment in this, it is rather about the origins. We live this conflict every day: to sleep or to finish, to restrain ourselves or to allow ourselves, quickly and easily or difficultly, but correctly.
Serious, thankless, important things cannot be accomplished without duty, without refusal of immediate gratification. Joy, lightness, pleasure are impossible without the ability to allow yourself and pamper yourself. Both bring happiness, different kinds of happiness, and both bring disappointment, different kinds of disappointment. Living in hedonism brings the joy of small things and leaves the frustration of a wasted life. Living in debt brings the joy of big victories and the disappointment of missing out on daily joys.
Children learn to balance life just as much as their parents do. An indulgent hedonistic parent will teach you to live in desire, and will not teach you to cope with hardships and difficulties for the sake of a higher goal. A principled and stubborn parent will teach sacrifice and perseverance, and will not teach you to allow yourself a breath of air along the way.
I am a person of big goals, and I drag myself towards them through fatigue, reluctance, lack of sleep and denial of small joys. In many things I am rather a man of duty. And I compensate for this by spitting in the direction of the right habits, regime, order in the house, restraint, diets and other things. I have chosen for myself those areas where I have goals and go towards them in spite of them, and I have chosen those areas where I am a pure hedonist and follow myself. It’s crazy for me to set my diet by calories, but it’s not crazy to have business goals for five years in advance and follow them. This is my balance, and I am happy with it.
Debt is a borrowing of a resource from deep-seated values, the very ones that are laid very, very early. I am happy that my sense of duty calls me to hard work, devotion, perseverance, and honesty.
This might interest you:
I don’t know how I would live if my set of values included the need to be nice or always wear a neat dress. Debt is what I will do, even if I really don’t want to, duty is about my values, those that cost us a parent’s warm look.
Values are the battles we choose with our children.
What is more important for us to fight for: for the inability to commit meanness, or for cleaning up the toys? When our grown-up child finds himself without strength, desire and meaning - what will he owe? What do we fight tooth and nail for, what do we defend tooth and nail? What do we owe in front of his eyes? Survive? Defend yourself? Help your neighbor? Brush your teeth every day? Protect the weak? To not give up? Behave yourself? Do not Cry? Hang clothes in the closet? published
Svetlana Rumyantseva
The Irish writer Rafael Sabatini, through the mouth of his hero, Captain Blood, said that the main thing is duty to one’s conscience and honor, to oneself. A sense of duty is a moral motivation for actions and behavior.
A feeling is an experience in which it is associated with a significant concept. To have a sense of duty to the family, you need to understand what a family is. Feelings are sometimes called “higher emotions,” and emotions, as we know, are a reflection of the body’s needs.
In laboratory experiments, rats received positive emotions when a current charge passed through an electrode implanted in the desired area of the brain. In fact, they were "happy." For a person, such a situation is unacceptable, since happiness depends on meeting the needs of the individual, not the body. Therefore, a person cannot be happy without his actions.
A sense of duty is the experience of a moral motivation to act. It is also important that the sense of duty directly depends on the volitional qualities present in a person.
Strong-willed qualities
The “software” of our brain, which is laid down by education and self-education, has an extremely powerful effect on the body. Volitional qualities when motivated by high ideals increase many times over. Even for fear of death.
Here are some examples from history.
1) A sense of duty to the Motherland helped the Roman youth Gaius Mucius Scaevola to show courage in favor of his sense of duty: according to legend, instead of the Etruscan king, Lars Porsenna, who besieged Rome, Gaius Mucius killed his scribe. Not afraid of the king’s servants who grabbed him, Gaius Mucius announced that 300 more young men had sworn to kill Porsenna, and with the threat of torture and death, Gaius Mucius extended his right hand and held it until it was charred. As the legend says, the Etruscan king Porsenna, amazed by the Roman’s courage, released the young man and made peace with Rome.
2) The hero of the Russian people - Ivan Susanin - being a patrimonial headman, when meeting with a Polish-Lithuanian detachment, even under pain of death, he led the enemies in the opposite direction from the tsar and his wife. According to legend, Susanin was tortured and eventually brutally killed, but did not reveal information about the whereabouts of Mikhail Romanov and his wife Marfa.
But sometimes a sense of duty, on the contrary, saves a person’s life. During the polar wintering on the sixth Antarctic expedition, the Soviet surgeon Leonid Ivanovich Rogozov, feeling symptoms of appendicitis, was forced to independently open his abdominal cavity and remove the inflamed appendix. He knew that if he died, the expedition would be left without a doctor for a long time, and this motivated him to perform this almost impossible operation.
Moral strength, motivation by higher goals surpasses instincts, including the supposedly strongest instinct - . Debt to family forces a person to take an unloved but highly paid job.
Duty and Intelligence
In marsupials, kangaroos, the baby is born to term in a special cavity. Instead, a person has - . Scientific evidence suggests that the human brain has developed thanks to those areas that are responsible for the ability to share food. In order to feed the babies, the human female refused food in their favor. In men, this zone developed as a “bonus” zone and was used to develop such qualities as curiosity and the ability to make discoveries through thinking. Experiences characteristic of mental activity and the structure of motivation for knowledge appeared. Therefore, we can say that intellectual feelings are a by-product of a sense of responsibility.
Types of debt
The following types of debt are distinguished:
civil;
married;
military;
patriotic;
professional;
friendly;
parental;
children's duty to their parents;
religious;
exclusively moral.
Civic duty consists in fulfilling the norms of social behavior, the laws of life in society, which benefit it. When observing the commission of a crime, a person is obliged to report this to the police, and if in transport an elderly woman is standing in front of a young man sitting, then he gives way to her.
Marital duty- maintaining fidelity, taking into account each other’s opinions and needs, moral support, fair distribution of household responsibilities, .
Military duty called responsibilities to protect the country. It is regulated by both legal and social requirements. The sense of duty to the Motherland is based on respect for one’s country and people, the need to defend its honor.
Professional duty regulated by the rules and characteristics of the profession. In a dangerous situation, a firefighter considers it his duty to save a person from the fire, even if no one condemns him for inaction, and a doctor may agree to perform an operation on an almost hopelessly ill and poor person.
Debt of a friend- support in difficult situations, sincere advice.
Parents should take care of children, strive to provide them with opportunities for development, protect their interests, and raise them as worthy members of society.
Children should fulfill the requirements of parents when growing up, take care of them in adulthood. Giving back to those who gave us life and raised us is one of the most important responsibilities.
Religious duty- respect and desire to comply with the requirements of religion. Its specific manifestations vary depending on religion.
Situations in which types of debt are in conflict are quite common. For example, a police officer's professional duty may conflict with his parent's if he arrests his own son. There are individuals who can make self-sacrifice for the sake of moral values. From a moral point of view, such situations must be assessed in each specific case in its own way. The opposite situation, when different types of debt coincide, enhances motivation and an active attitude towards situations.
The struggle of two "I"
Psychology refers to the sense of duty as a manifestation of the Superego (according to Freud), that is, that part of the personality that is responsible for its direction. It is in conflict with the id, a component of personality based on instincts and the desire for pleasure. There is a struggle of motives, a sense of duty and responsibility competes with the unconscious part of the “I”, which avoids effort. The significance of a goal not only for oneself, but also for family, friends, and society establishes the value of efforts aimed at achieving it.
Foster a sense of duty and responsibility
It is necessary to lay the foundations of a sense of duty and responsibility in children and. Particularly important is the time of formation of social instincts - patterns of behavior that dominate the rest of life. The problem of re-education of teenagers prone to addiction was solved in an original way by the famous teacher Makarenko. He gave the thief money for the patient’s medicine and asked him to buy the medicine. The moral pressure was so strong that the teenager carried out the assignment without giving in to temptation.
Children cannot be put under pressure; an active life position based on is instilled by feeding them with relevant information: fairy tales, works of literature, examples from life, developmental activities. Then instead of asking: “Why me?” he, like Joan of Arc, will ask the question “If not me, then who?”
Criticism of the sense of duty
Competition between different types of sense of duty can lead to negative results in those areas of life where they manifest themselves.
Family life may collapse due to excessive professional busyness, and friendly duty may conflict with marital duty.
Excessive zeal at work is perceived by superiors as leading to overwork and health problems.
Misunderstood military duty forces some men to participate in fratricidal civil war, violating universal moral principles. Remember: Pavlik Morozov, out of a sense of duty to the ideas of the revolution, betrayed his own father.
Some people believe that there should be arguments that support debt. For example, duty to the Motherland should be based on a high standard of living. According to the principle “you owe it if they give you something.” It is easy to see that this opinion is not sufficiently reasoned. Such people do not distinguish between the state and the country, its people.
It is necessary to distinguish between a sense of duty and an unhealthy desire for self-sacrifice, when the end does not justify the means. An example of such a substitution is the guardianship of a mother over an adult.
Bottom line
The psychological technology of achieving goals is inextricably linked with motivation. Greater energy and motivation to action come from attitudes based on worthy beliefs. It has long been noted that even such an undesirable and dangerous phenomenon as war, most people are more willing to do so, guided by moral convictions rather than mercantile considerations. Life not only for yourself, but for someone close, becomes richer and brighter, and takes on meaning.
A sense of duty cannot be instilled by force; it must be based on the voluntary acceptance of moral principles. People in whom it is developed are characterized by an active attitude towards life. This feeling is natural for a person, because it is based on one of the strongest instincts - the instinct of procreation. A small sparrow can rush at a large dog, protecting its chick. Man is capable of greater self-sacrifice. For the sake of saving another, he can give up part of his organ or an organ, risking his life, saving the life of a stranger, enduring hardships for the sake of his family, risking his life for the sake of his Motherland.
Studies of successful people in various fields of activity have revealed an important character trait that unites them all - an active attitude to reality.
4 April 2014, 10:51A person has such a feeling, called a sense of duty, which is formed in him from birth, surrounded by certain people who teach and educate him. Having formed in us, this feeling tells us that we must! What and to whom we owe does not matter, but we must. True, most often we see what is owed to us and therefore we present corresponding demands to the people around us and society as a whole, being completely confident in our own rightness. But these are details, because because of our sense of debt, we all owe each other so much that, even if we want to, we are unlikely to ever be able to pay off our debts.
The sense of duty in our society is respected, praised and cultivated, because it obliges us and other people to do great things. And it doesn’t matter whether you want to do something or not, if you have to, do it! Do what you have to do, but why, why and for what - it doesn’t matter! If a sense of duty obliges a person to do something, then no questions on his part are inappropriate. In addition, not every person asks the question - why does he owe something to someone, even to himself? Because other people decided so, or because he himself decided so? Let's figure out in this article what, to whom and why we owe it and whether we really owe it.
The most interesting, and from my point of view, the most terrible thing about the sense of duty is what many people attribute to it - greatness, nobility, sincerity, spirituality, free will and responsibility. It is with these high human qualities that most people associate a sense of duty. That is, a person experiencing a sense of duty, which, it turns out, has an internal beginning, shows will and, thanks to it, performs noble, great and sincere actions, for which he is voluntarily responsible. How beautiful and how powerful it sounds, you must agree. The will of a person, it turns out, is manifested in his sense of duty, which also expresses a sense of freedom. Everything looks beautiful and neat, if you don’t think about all this nonsense. But the question arises, why should a free person with willpower owe something to someone? Why can't he want to do a noble deed? Why can’t a person want to do great things, why does he have to do it? Doesn’t this very concept of duty deny all freedom and will, all sincerity and spirituality, and therefore nobility and greatness? Doesn't duty appeal to our fear and servile guts? What does it mean - should? And if I don’t do what I have to do, then what? Will my conscience have to eat at me, or will I suffer some kind of punishment? I think it is necessary to define concepts here in order to understand all these issues.
What is a sense of duty? Well, everything is clear with feeling, feeling is a person’s ability to feel, perceive, experience. When we feel, we experience certain emotions. But as for debt, it’s not so simple; debt is an obligation that can be voluntary or imposed. Let's turn our attention to voluntary commitment. What is this, a voluntary commitment? Doesn't the word voluntary contradict the word obligation? A commitment is a promise that requires unconditional fulfillment. The question immediately arises - what if a person refuses to fulfill his promise, what then? If a person supposedly voluntarily promised something to other people, thereby taking upon himself certain obligations that formed a sense of duty in him, because he owed something to someone, voluntarily owes something, then can he not fulfill this promise? ? Well, we can say that it can, but such a person will not be trusted in the future, which, in principle, is not a problem, because in our world you cannot trust anyone. But, if a person did not make any promises to anyone, and a sense of duty was imposed on him, can he then refuse this duty, since he did not promise anything to anyone? Theoretically, maybe, but in reality, such people are condemned by society and in some cases punished by it. Let’s say a person doesn’t want to join the army and defend his homeland, although his sense of duty should, sort of, call him to this, but he doesn’t want to. Does anyone in our society care what they want or don't want? Probably not, and if the law tells a man of military age that he must serve in the army, then he will serve, or be punished for evading his duties. Maybe then we shouldn’t confuse a sense of duty with a sense of fear?
But that is not all. Debt is not just an obligation, it is also a responsibility. After all, if you are obliged to do something, then you must be responsible for your actions so that your actions are correct. After all, a person driven by a sense of duty can irresponsibly fulfill his obligations, and then what to do with him? Responsibility is the responsibility to take responsibility for one's actions and their consequences. What does it mean to have an obligation to answer? This means that if a person does something wrong, if he makes a mistake, cheats, then he will be punished. There is no responsibility without punishment; if a person is responsible for something, then he must be prepared for the punishment that he will suffer if he does not cope with what he is responsible for. For this purpose, responsibility is placed on a person in order to be able to punish him if he fails to cope with something, although not only for this. But what interests us in this case is that it all comes down to punishment, that is, to violence, without which, apparently, our society cannot exist. So, if you simplify all of my reasoning, it turns out that behind such a noble and high feeling as a sense of duty, there is hidden primitive violence that is used against a person who does not want to repay his debts. But you can’t ask everyone, that’s right, but only those who are weak, because a weak person cannot fight back. In other words, debts have always been and will be collected primarily from weak people. That is, from those who can be punished with impunity. So much for the noble, high sense of duty that a person supposedly should experience voluntarily.
A strong and free person owes nothing to anyone, neither himself nor others. He does not pay off debts, but collects them from others. A strong and free person can only want to do something, for himself and for other people, including something good, noble and great. Desire, not a sense of duty, guides a strong person. The sense of duty was invented to zombify slaves so that they would do something without thinking about why or why they were doing it, but only because they had to do it. And our world, as you see, is filled to capacity with debt, everyone in it owes something to someone, or almost everyone. Most of us are saddled with so much debt that we won't live long enough to pay it off. Before we even have time to be born, we already owe something to someone. We owe it to our parents, the Motherland, the state and in general to everyone who needs something from us. And they try to explain most of our debts to us in such a way that supposedly we ourselves decided that we owe something to someone. We are told that we were born with a sense of duty and that this feeling distinguishes us from animals. Debts, it turns out, make us human, who would have thought. Well, perhaps for some members of our species, owing something to someone is really the only way to become human. After all, not all people are guided by common sense when they do something; most of them prefer to do something only under pressure. And debt is a stick!
I recommend you, friends, to forget about all these debts that hang on you. There is no need to be guided by any sense of duty when making certain decisions in your life - throw this infection out of your head. What debts can there be, you were born a free person, you owe no one anything, remember this. And if you feel a sense of duty, it means that you are infected with a social virus that has subjugated your mind and your soul to its will. Or rather, he has subjected you to the will of other people to whom you believe you owe something. And since you are infected with this virus, then you need to treat it, either yourself or with the help of specialists. Otherwise, you will be pushed around all your life, you will be made a servant of your sense of duty and other people's interests. You need to get rid of the sense of duty! But this does not mean that we do not need to strive for anything great, we do not need to do anything good, noble and useful for other people and sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others. We just need to understand that we don’t have to, but we can be human if we want to. That is, you and I should have a different motivation. You and I should not have any slave debts; we can only have a desire based on our understanding of life and our truly free will. And debts and a sense of duty are not just a slavish model of thinking, it is also an addiction. People are addicted to their debts, and if they are addicted, that means they are sick. And since people are sick, then, as mentioned above, they need to be treated. After all, who knows what the crowd will be encouraged to do tomorrow with the help of a sense of duty that people will always have to impose on someone. Duty tells you how to live! But in reality, it is other people and their ideas, and therefore their interests, that tell you how to live. And debt, friends, is worth paying, if you must, then do it, do what your sense of duty tells you to do, behind which, rest assured, there is definitely a specific person and the ideology implanted by him in the public consciousness.
So, so that no one pushes us around, so that no one manipulates us and tells us what and how to do, we need to replace our sense of duty with our reasonable desires. Do what you want to do, not what you should do. You don't owe anyone anything. There is common sense, there are our desires based on this common sense, and there are opportunities that each of us currently has. It is on the basis of all this that we can make certain decisions, after which we will take certain actions to achieve the goals we need. Give this world exactly what you can and what you want to give it, and not because you have to do it, but because by giving something to this world, you will certainly receive something from it in return. A person came into this world in order to give him something and to take something from him; it is this approach to life that makes it complete. What can you give to this world? Probably what your current capabilities allow you to give him, right? You cannot demand from a person what he cannot give, because this is violence against him. If, for example, parents were unable to properly raise their child, could not prepare him for life, then there is no need to tell him that he owes them something. A normal person himself knows perfectly well that he needs to help his parents, not because he owes them, but because he wants to do it, this desire is in his blood. But a person cannot always do this, even if he wants, that’s the thing. He cannot always help his parents, he cannot always help other people and even himself. And at the same time they point out his sense of duty, put pressure on him, awaken in him a feeling of guilt, although he is not guilty of anything. Why, one might ask, drive a person into depression with a sense of duty, why force him under pressure to do what he can do at will, if only he has the opportunity to do it? People shackle each other with non-existent debts because of their selfishness. And when someone tells you that you owe someone something, you can safely regard this statement as aggression against you. But you need to be able to resist aggression, and everyone has this opportunity.
Develop a sense of self-esteem and a sense of freedom, friends, and then no debts will attach themselves to you. In any case, you definitely don’t want to owe anyone anything voluntarily; the burning passion for freedom will overcome any slavish thinking within you. Send to hell all these slavish feelings inside you, all this snot with which other people smear their base and cynical egoism, imposing their will on you. Debts, in any form at all, are not for you, they are not for people. Debts are needed by those who do not consider themselves human, who need not internal, but external strength in order to do something useful, including for themselves. I propose to you to be people, and not driven by cattle, who have neither their own opinion nor their own self. And in order to be people, you need to feel free, free from everything, from all debts and feelings associated with them. Do great things - at will, based on common sense, and not on feelings obliging you to something. Help other people, relying on your inner strength, which will be greater the more people you help. Remember, a weak person is not able to even take care of himself, while a truly strong person is able to take care of many people, he is able to take care of all the people in this world. This reveals the strength of a person’s spirit and his greatness, this reveals his Divine principle, which each of us is endowed with. A real, free, strong person will never tell himself that he owes something to someone, he will say - I Want!
What, you think society won’t accept you with your desires, do you think it will reject you? It will accept everything if you are firm in your desires. You shouldn’t be afraid to be strong and free, because society consists of individuals like you, who also want to be free and strong, and don’t owe anyone anything. Set an example for people, be firm in your decision to renounce all debts imposed on you, and the majority will definitely support you. We can be normal, responsible and decent people, useful to each other, even without any sense of duty. You are smart people, you yourself can understand what you can do in this life, and what you cannot do, and why. And if you don’t understand this, then read my articles, in them I explain to you what and why a person should be if he wants to be a man and not a monkey. After all, you and I are not sheep to always obey something or someone, are we ourselves not able to understand what is good and what is bad? We can do everything if we want. You can extend your hand to a fallen person because society requires it of you, or you can simply want to help a person who is in trouble and who is made of the same flesh and blood as you.
And you don’t need to feel guilty because of a feeling of unfulfilled debt to someone, if you have one. The feeling of guilt in yourself needs to be burned out with a hot iron, because it is a very harmful feeling. You and only you decide what is right in your life and what is wrong, and not someone else there with their own rules and procedures. You decide what, when and how you will do. Yes, other people will put pressure on you, they will judge you, they will force you to do what they need, this is natural, this is life. But, if you do not break down within yourself, if you do not recognize yourself as a slave and a weakling, then you will always have the opportunity to resist any pressure on you. Make those who tell you that you owe something to someone and in particular to them. Learn to take a psychological blow by attacking the aggressor, because the best defense is an attack. They tell you what you owe, and you answer that you owe it. Although, in some cases, you may not answer anything, why talk to those who put pressure on you, because they are your enemies. Just do as you need, as you want and as you can do and then you will defeat all your enemies.
A sense of duty is a virus that makes a person a slave, and it is activated only when a person takes it seriously, when a person believes that he owes something to someone. Stop believing in this nonsense and you will become a free person, and once you are free, you will certainly become a strong person. But a strong man, as I already said, does not know the word - I must, he knows the word - I want.
