Распутин
Ольга, Yes, this isn't really a priority, it was mainly a detour for me. I have no obligation to rehabiliate Rasputin or Nicholas II. It's his prophecies that are my main focus.
Александр,
The supposed fight you described was largely hearsay reported by his enemies (i.e. Iliodor). Rodionov exaggerates greatly when he depicts Rasputin as aggressive, uttering threats and curses. Mystics cultivate utter harmlessness, they bear no ill will or grudge towards anyone. They're not ascetics, they don't keep up appearances/semblance of piety.
How was it that Papus and Philippe Nizier, who were both far from behaving like holy fools, could gain access to the Tsar? Why couldn't Rasputin conduct himself in their sane manner? The fact is, most people are ignorant of the social conditions in those times, they're not in a position to objectively assess the situation in the Tsar's court. Most biographies only offer a distorted interpretation, usually in service to ruling interests. Biographers are also gossipers with itchy ears, they're almost graverobbers in a sense, digging up the dead to examine their remains. When they lack facts, they substitute it with assumptions. It should speak volumes about their overall unreliability. It's better to examine the subject's memoirs/writings directly rather than making judgment from snippets, fragments, axioms, utterances attributed to them.
Regarding mysticism in the Tsar's court, I read in a biography:
Александр,
The supposed fight you described was largely hearsay reported by his enemies (i.e. Iliodor). Rodionov exaggerates greatly when he depicts Rasputin as aggressive, uttering threats and curses. Mystics cultivate utter harmlessness, they bear no ill will or grudge towards anyone. They're not ascetics, they don't keep up appearances/semblance of piety.
How was it that Papus and Philippe Nizier, who were both far from behaving like holy fools, could gain access to the Tsar? Why couldn't Rasputin conduct himself in their sane manner? The fact is, most people are ignorant of the social conditions in those times, they're not in a position to objectively assess the situation in the Tsar's court. Most biographies only offer a distorted interpretation, usually in service to ruling interests. Biographers are also gossipers with itchy ears, they're almost graverobbers in a sense, digging up the dead to examine their remains. When they lack facts, they substitute it with assumptions. It should speak volumes about their overall unreliability. It's better to examine the subject's memoirs/writings directly rather than making judgment from snippets, fragments, axioms, utterances attributed to them.
Regarding mysticism in the Tsar's court, I read in a biography:
As for holy fools, I do not understand the contempt being levied against them. They are not heretical: https://citydesert.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/iurodivye-юродивый-fools-for-christ/
Today, I have read reports of Natalia Poklonskaya's conversion to Hinduism, what a storm this caused among the religious. None of them knew why she converted, they invented motives for her conversion. I have come to see her in the above light.
Редактирование:
