It can only be noted that both trends, which already in the fifteenth century associated themselves with the solution of the problem of monastic property, either did not remain faithful to the Gospel precepts of Christ, or did not offer a solution adequate to the trends of the time and its challenges. The "Josephites" who gathered around Joseph of Volotsk undoubtedly did not hold on to the moral and religious height assumed by Christian doctrine, and entered into a dangerous connection with the secular authorities, which threatened the Church with the infringement of her sovereignty, "worldly" captivity, the tragedy of Russian holiness and, consequently, the living spirit of Christianity. The "Trans-Volga elders" and their spiritual leader Nil Sorsky, faithfully following the precepts of Christ [426], in fact, were unable to give an answer to the question of what the ever-increasing monasteries and brethren should do in the proposed circumstances of Russia in the second half of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. This problem of "what monasteries should do" was not invented or purely theoretical: it demanded a timely answer, because in the absence of it a natural spontaneous process would have begun, which would have led to what the "policy" and practice of Joseph of Volotsk and his associates had led to, or even to the unleashing of those chaotic forces that would inevitably have gone out of the control of the Church. and perhaps of state power. It is difficult to say what Sergius's potential solution would have been in these circumstances, but neither of the two proposed ("realistic" and "romantic") seems to have received his approval. However, the essential in this case common feature of the "non-acquisitiveness" of Gregory Palamas and Sergius of Radonezh is beyond doubt, just as there is no place for it in the assumption that the very idea of non-acquisitiveness is only an organic product of deeper moral and religious characteristics common to both figures under consideration. Mystical sojourn with God and in God is only the most general designation of this "Palamite-Sergius" commonality.

Something in the field of this "common" can also be expanded and supplemented by turning to the point of view of the opponents of Gregory Palamas at the Council of Constantinople of 1351, where the few of the "anti-Palamite" bishops who remained at large also received the floor. As could be expected, the battle could have been given in connection with a change in the text of the episcopal form of confession of faith and, accordingly, the service itself. It is also known that a particularly sharp rejection was caused by the Trinitarian troparion, the author of which was Isidore [427]. In addition, the hesychasts and Gregory Palamas himself were accused of "disrespect for holy icons, sacred vessels and other Christian deanery." Of course, even in this conflict there is already a noticeable taste of the controversy that was assumed by the disputes between the "acquirers" and the "non-possessors". But the conflict was not limited to this side of the matter. A modern researcher has rightly seen something else behind this conflict:

In addition, behind the crude and obviously unjust reproach of burning icons, there was also a deeper unconscious basis, which could only be clearly formulated by Nicephorus Gregoras: in his opinion, if God's energies deify not only the mind, the inner man, but also the external flesh, then the body of the saint is thereby excluded from the natural order of nature and can no longer be depicted as such. By the action of uncreated energies, the earthly flesh itself is "burned", as it were, it leaves the visible world, escapes the ordinary gaze. The reproach of "oikonomachy" from this standpoint, at first glance convincing, in reality only testified to the fact that hesychasm spoke with a new acuteness about the mystery of the Incarnation brought to the world by Christianity.

(Bibikhin 1995, 367).

But the same mystery of the Incarnation reveals itself in the Trinitarian idea (the Life-Giving Trinity itself is "the Incarnation of God, redemption", see Bulgakov 1991, 363) of Sergius of Radonezh, and in the experiments of iconographers, both Russian and Greek, in Russia, and above all in Andrei Rublev's "Trinity" (see Appendix IV). Since any incarnation is the creativity in which Sophia the Wisdom, the assistant and accomplice of the artist, participates, and which by its nature is artistic creativity, it acquires weight and endowment with the feeling of artistic, Sophia, and Gregory Palamas and Sergius of Radonezh. However, this is a special topic, and here we can confine ourselves to the fact that for both of these saints, the "artistically marked" are first of all the Psalms of David, independently of each other constantly quoted.

But, of course, the most important common heritage of Gregory Palamas and Sergius of Radonezh is silence and the Trinitarian idea. But the first, hesychia, has already been spoken of more than once and in some detail above in relation to Sergius (but not only to him). There is an extensive literature on the hesychia of Palamas and the hesychasts, and it is enough to refer the reader to a fundamental study of the life and works of St. Gregory Palamas — Meyendorff 1997. The spiritual situation was also indicated above, when there is a need to turn to hesychia, and when it turns out to be the most adequate response to this situation, if you will, its only solution for man, when he, almost like the God of the Old Testament, bears witness to that absolute truth, which is understood as a good that coincides with being, which is, rather, even super-being ("over-being"). its successful essence, cf. J.-Heb. *es(u), equally denoting both good and being-being: "And God saw all that he had created [i.e., the fullness of that which is and that which alone is and is important now, at any rate more important than how it was created. — V. T.], and behold, it is very good" (Genesis 1:31) [428]. This "being-good" or "good-being" present in the act of genuine creativity (and the hesychia of the "sacredly silent" is the podvig which, bringing us as close to God as possible, reveals this "good-being"), can reveal itself precisely as the fullness of the present, as an all-vision, and as an experience of the moment of revelation. M. Buber wrote about this connection between silence-hesychia and creativity in a different context:

There are moments of silent depth, when the world order is revealed to man as the fullness of the Present. Then you can hear the music of its very flow. […] These moments are immortal, and they are also the most transient of all content, but their power also flows into human creativity [...].

(Бубер 1993, 22).

В этой безмолвной глубине, в молчании скорее всего и имело место откровение Святой Живоначальной Троицы Сергию, как, вероятно, и Андрею Рублеву. Как открылся этот образ–идея Сергию, остается тайной, и все спекуляции вокруг нее излишни. Это, однако, вовсе не означает, что напрасны и сами попытки установить, чтб и откуда мог узнать Сергий относительно Троицы, идеи глубокой и сложной, над которой думали и великие Отцы Церкви тринитарного века, и позже, вплоть до века исихазма — XIV–го. Естественно, что ближайшим источником Троичной идеи для Сергия мог быть паламитский опыт, современный ему. Но сначала о том, как и где не богослов и не полигистор, человек, не собиравшийся стать учителем в этой области, к которой он, строго говоря, не был подготовлен профессионально, но разве что только провиденциально, мог выразить свое боговедение — книгами, устными поучениями или как–то иначе. «Житие» Епифания никак не поможет нам в ответе на этот вопрос: боговедение Сергия Епифания не интересует, и он, как бы из некоторой деликатности и освобождая себя от ему далекого и слишком малоизвестного, уходит от сколько–нибудь серьезного изложения троичной проблематики, хотя, конечно, о ее существовании и важности он знает или хотя бы догадывается.

О том, как выразил свое боговедение Сергий, писал отец С. Н. Булгаков:

Уже признано […], что Преп. Сергий был и остается воспитателем русского народа, его пестуном и духовным вождем. Но нам надо познать его и как благодатного руководителя русского богословствования. Свое боговедение заключил он не в книги, но в события жизни своей. Не словами, но делами и этими событиями молчаливо учит он нас боговедению). Ибо молчание есть речь будущего века, а ныне оно есть слово тех, кто еще в этом веке вступил в будущий. Молчаливое слово, сокровенное, предстоит собирать в слова, переводить на наш человеческий язык».