We first encounter such an idea in the Roman poet Lucretius Carus, who viewed the history of mankind as an ascent upward: from darkness, barbarism, ignorance and savagery to civilization. True, Lucretius Carus believed that then everything would fall apart and degrade, but this is another matter. In the nineteenth century, it was thought that there would be no degradation. Borrowing from Christianity the idea of the Kingdom of God as the goal of human existence, as the goal of history, many thinkers of the nineteenth century, and the educated strata of society in general, for some reason came to believe that the world was flying upward like a rocket, and nothing could stop its progressive movement. The word "progress" has become something of a "sacred" term. When they said "progressive," it automatically meant "good." And it seemed that every conquest of man, every step he took on the path of complication of technology or new discoveries in the field of science, contributed to progress, and only darkness was behind, the darkness of the dark Middle Ages. Of course, there was a small gap in antiquity, and then the darkness of the East and, finally, the long darkness of primitive life.

Of course, this idea had to be confirmed by something, and confirmation began to be sought from the time of the great geographical discoveries, when Europeans first moved across the ocean, when they discovered America, when they first really got acquainted with the black inhabitants of Africa, the inhabitants of China and generally unknown countries until then. But at the same time, when faced with people standing at the lowest stage of material civilization, many decided that this was the same wild, ancient primitive man, and they were sure that these newly discovered people were creatures not much different from animals. In the late 19th century, Darwin's evolutionist Ernst Haeckel argued that savages had more in common with highly evolved animals such as apes and dogs than with advanced European humans. When Darwin came to Tierra del Fuego in his youth, he described the Fuegians as follows: wild people, eyes popping out of their sockets, a dull expression on their faces, foam on their lips – there is nothing human. And this opinion very quickly took root in science in general, and, in particular, in anthropology, which was emerging at that time. The thought arose that a person has everything bright only ahead of him and the sooner he gets rid of what was in the past, the better for him. And since everyone knew well that primitive people had some kind of religion, faith, they hastened to belittle this faith, to depict it as just a crude superstition, as some kind of barbarism; In general, they wanted to show that the beginnings of religion are rooted in the darkness of ignorance, in man's fear of the forces of nature, in powerlessness, in limitation, in other words, in something that progress can and must overcome.

Such was the ideology of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but gradually this myth of inferior, savage people began to dissipate. Probably, many of you have heard the names of famous scientists in their time (about 100 years ago), such as Edward Taylor (he was one of the greatest specialists in mythology and primitive religions) and James George Frazer, whose books, for example, "The Golden Bough", have recently been republished in our country. Without communicating with people of the primitive level, with the so-called savages, receiving materials from third hands, they created their own constructions about the savagery, darkness, naivety and primitiveness of a person standing at a low material level of civilization development. But then many of them were forced to abandon this view. Miklouho-Maclay was one of the first who, albeit for a short time, entered the world of these people. And what did he discover? That these are the same people, with the same experiences, passions, sins, mistakes, with the ability to think logically, clearly. Miklouho-Maclay wrote: "I tried not to penetrate into their intimate life." He was a very tactful man; And in general, he believed that such a short time as he lived on the Guinea coast was not enough to understand the soul of primitive man. But Miklouho-Maclay and other pioneer explorers were followed by whole armies of new explorers of the mysterious inhabitants of forests, savannahs and prairies. What did they discover? It turned out that in the wilds of the Amazon or in the semi-deserts of Australia live people of high ancient culture. It is different, unlike ours. Australians, for example, have a complex system of relationships and rituals; They have a huge number of legends, tales, myths. Australians have a certain idea of man, nature and the supreme principle, and on the basis of these ideas they build social relations and culture. It began to become clear that primitive man is primitive only in one thing – in technology, in civilization, and mentally he is by no means primitive.

One of the researchers said: if you see a so-called savage who sits under a tree, motionless staring at one point, do not rush to think that he is simply sitting without a purpose, these people are characterized by a deep inner life. One of the travelers, who lived for a long time in the heart of Africa, in the dense forests of the Congo, where the oldest animals that have already become extinct all over the world have survived after meeting with pygmies, noted that these people have sincerity, wit, intelligence, and they have a number of the highest religious ideas. The moral level of these savages turned out to be not only not lower than European, but much higher. This does not mean that primitive man is necessarily virtuous, there is no direct connection. But low civilization and primitive way of life do not interfere with the development of a very delicate spiritual structure.

Eventually, many scholars began to come to the conclusion that there was an important spiritual element underlying these cultures, which gave us an outline, however inaccurate, of how our ancestors lived many millennia ago. And if this outline is at least partially correct, we must admit: yes, the supreme, spiritual, sacred, religious, moral were fundamental in their lives.

Here we come to a very important thing. Take, for example, a quaint Indian temple, Hindu or Buddhist, a stupa or a Muslim mosque with its austere forms, the Cathedral of St. Catherine. The Cathedrals of Christ the Savior, the Intercession on the Nerl, the Egyptian pyramids, the project of the Palace of the Soviets, in a word, any work of architecture or painting, ecclesiastical or secular: each of these structures is the inner embodiment of the vision that people have, the way they intuitively realize the essence of existence, the embodiment of their faith in the broad sense of the word. And if the Egyptian felt the life of the spirit as eternity, then the works of Egyptian art were the embodiment of eternity. If the ancient Greek felt that here, next to him, in his small secluded world, lived some living forces of the universe, he depicted them so humanly, so closely, that nymphs, satyrs and gods looked like his brothers and sisters.

When we speak of the foundations of any culture, we must first of all ask ourselves not what material forms forge it, but what spirit underlies it. And running through the history of civilization in our mind's eye, we can always determine exactly what spirit is behind the culture. Moreover, we know that when a person begins to be destabilized, confused, or crisis in the spiritual sphere, then destabilization embraces the entire culture. That is why today we want to look into the history of spirituality, into the past of the civilization of our country and the whole world, not out of idle curiosity ("how was it before?"), but in order to understand the deep and indissoluble connection between culture and faith, the connection that was forgotten, discarded, and deliberately denied. Life and practice have confirmed the old truth: when the roots are undermined, the tree also dries up, and in order to revive the roots, it is necessary to understand: what do they need? They need life-giving moisture and soil. Soil is life, earthly existence; The life-giving moisture is the spirit that nourishes it. That is why it is so important for us today to think about where a person comes from and where he is going. Of course, in the textbooks you have read, you have often come across the idea that primitive man was an atheist or, as we have been taught, a spontaneous materialist. It is rather difficult to accept this point of view, if only because if an idol can remain from a pagan, a fetish from a fetishist, a cross or some other sacred sign from a Christian, then what material sign can the spontaneous materialism of primitive man leave behind it? It is something like the wireless telegraph that the ancients had in one story: wireless because no wire was found in the ground.

Numerous facts completely refute this point of view. I began with the fact that already the predecessor of man, the Neanderthal, had some vague (we will not try to define him precisely) feeling that there is some other being. And as soon as a person becomes a person, he immediately acquires a connection with the eternal, that is, he has a religion. In fact, art, religion and man are the same age. True, in some textbooks I have come across such a statement that man has existed for many millions of years without religion. We had one historian who even wrote several books on this topic, one of which was called "The Pre-Religious Era". But he considered mainly australopithecines and pithecanthropus, which cannot be considered humans in the true sense of the word. Biologically, they may have belonged to the genus Homo, but this is not enough to be human.

What kind of movement can we see here? Man has always stood on some kind of spiritual platform. Is there development? No. And here is the proof. In the caves of Spain, drawings with paints were found: a primitive artist of the Paleolithic era painted standing and running bison, mammoths, rhinoceroses on the walls. Bold lines, wonderful colors, the spirit of the beast. Not every modern master will be able to convey the image of an animal so concisely, so inspired, so beautifully.

Тогда спрашивается: развивалось ли искусство? Нет. Прекрасное в истории человеческой культуры всегда было прекрасным. Да, оно имело историю, то есть были различные фазы, различные типы искусства, духовности, но развития в том смысле, что искусство сначала было примитивным, а потом поднималось все выше и выше, не было. Если вы вспомните классические скульптуры Древней Греции (они воспроизведены в любом школьном учебнике), — не надо думать, что вот они достигли какой–то высоты, а предшествующее искусство было низким. Любой современный художник или искусствовед скажет вам, что в архаическом греческом искусстве была своя особенная красота.

В конце ХIХ в. писатель и историк искусства Петр Гнедич в своей огромной трехтомной «Истории искусств с древнейших времен» посвятил древнерусской иконописи две страницы, заметив, что древние просто не умели рисовать и поэтому они так писали свои иконы, а потом узнали анатомию и стали писать правильно. Сегодня мы знаем, что это наивный взгляд. Переход к реалистическому искусству вовсе не был прогрессом; это лишь одна из фаз истории. История — это судьба человеческого творчества. В духовном мире, безусловно, есть восхождение, но оно совершается по совсем иным законам, и об этом мы с вами будем говорить в процессе анализа духовной жизни человечества.

Но к этому надо добавить следующее: мы привыкли рассматривать материальные явления и процессы как подлинную реальность, дескать, это и есть реализм. Но откуда мы узнаем о материальной реальности? Из опыта своих чувств. Но ведь те же чувства, которые есть у нас, есть и у шимпанзе, и у собаки. Однако у человека иное восприятие; есть нечто, что поднимает нас над животным миром. Человек — существо духовное, существо, способное иметь иной опыт, нежели опыт чувственный. Этот духовный дар, полученный человеком, является самым драгоценным и самым священным. Это дар бессмертный. И он требует к себе особенного отношения, потому что он в человека посеян, подобно семени, и из этого семени что–то должно вырасти.

Я говорил о примитивных формах предчеловеческих существ. Дело в том, что мы ведь родственники не только им, мы кровные родственники любому живому существу на земле, мы связаны со всеми существами. Как устроена клетка человека? Так же, как клетка любого растения, любого животного. Поэтому мы неотделимы от окружающего нас мира, нас нельзя выкинуть из этого мира — нас всех связывают воздух, пища, вода, гравитация. Я недавно был в Звездном городке, беседовал с космонавтами, и они показывали мне скафандр, в котором выходят в космос. Это совершенно автономное образование, как и космический корабль. Но почему? Потому что человек всеми своими узами привязан к окружающему миру. Человек есть земля. Библия говорит о нем: ты, человек, есть земля и в землю отыдешь. Плоть человека создана по Слову Божию из праха земного, то есть из пыли, из самой материи, из вещества, и мы несем этот прах в себе и возвращаемся в него.

Но человек не только прах. Он родствен и другому измерению бытия, которое нельзя увидеть, и это очень важный момент.