Hesychasm in the History of Christianity in Russia. Part II
In the epoch of personal and social degradation, find salvation, one must turn to pure sources of spirit, which appeared in ‘Axial age’ (8th-2th cc. BC) and classic examples of philosophical thought and world religions. For Old Rus, such a source was Hesychasm that came from Byzantine and grew ripe in old monk’s cells. However, in the following centuries, even during the Europeanization of Russian society, Hesychasm remained the basis and essence of the path to salvation. Development of Hesychastic tradition in 16th-19th cc. is a subject matter of the second part of my article. Using historical-philosophical, historical-genetic, source and textual analysis, historical reconstruction, system analysis and hermeneutics, I examine presentation of Hesychasm the cultural and mental context of Russia in the times of confrontation between non-possessors and followers of Joseph of Volokolamsk (Josephites, proponents of ecclesiastical land-ownership) in 16th c., Russian Schism of 17th-18th cc., and in Russian Empire of 18th - early 20th cc. St. Nilus of Sora was one of the first who applied Hesychastic theory to social reality, and from this time a paradoxical feature of Russian hesychasm was that its practice began to develop in the most difficult conditions for this, when the state actually opposed both the ideas and practice of Hesychasm. It was during the period of confrontation between non-possessors and Josephites that certain features of the Russian mentality were finally formed: (i) a practical orientation, but no abstract theorizing; (ii) increased attention to socio-political issues, an active journalistic character, the comprehension of philosophical problems on specific social material; (iii) interest in the past, the depth of historical vision of the world, the desire to inscribe the life of each people in the world process; (iv) the moral experience of being, the desire to comprehend the irreconcilable struggle between good and evil, through which the living dialectics of nature, society and man are revealed. Since Russian culture was still guided by the sources of book wisdom, which in the 17th and 18th centuries found themselves in the West, the combination of these factors led to a sharp and irreconcilable conflict between supporters and opponents of renewal in the Church and society in the 17th century, which led to the Russian schism. At a later stage, the combination of these factors stimulated both the Latinization of Russian elitist culture and the reform of Peter I, and a rigid opposition of the conservative part of Russian society to all innovations. However, Peter's reforms did not cause a significant damage to Hesychasm, and in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it actively developed among the Russian spiritual elders (in the Monastery of Optina, first of all). To a certain extent, the traditions of Russian Hesychasm also revived in the works of Slavophiles and writers such as Gogol and, especially, Dostoevsky. I conclude that Russian intelligentsia, which has lost its national tradition even in the Petrine era, has not yet overcome alienation from its own spiritual culture, and the restoration of this lost bond requires the not theatrical religiosity of the modern Russian political and cultural elite, but the essential rethinking of Russian Hesychast heritage.