Cultural Russian words about democracy. Feelings of compassion Without a doubt, people are not equal

Option No. 1 Part 2

(1) Without a doubt, people are not equal. (2) Inequality has been and will always remain a test of the heart and a reason for self-determination of equally free people. (3) King Herod the Great, the great Napoleon Bonaparte, the great Inquisitor... (4) Their greatness is measured by the size of the spilled blood of others. (5) Jesus Christ, Janusz Korczak, Alexander Pushkin, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Raphael, Mozart, St. Sergius of Radonezh... (6) Behind these names is fulfilled duty, personal sacrifice, divine love. (7) No, it seems to me that people are mediocre from birth.

(8) Every person who comes into life carries within himself a spark of God and the consciousness of voluntary sacrifice as a necessity for his fulfillment. (9) He who voluntarily takes upon himself the labor and hardships of this life, gives himself to others in the service of his talent, shines with the “light of the sun” on others. (10) A person who sacrifices others to his talent, of course, also shines, but with a sunset light. (11) The point is not in experiencing your talent, not in the feeling and awareness of your calling, but in how this talent is affirmed: is it your personal sacrifice to humanity, or are you ready to sacrifice another in your place. (12) Circumstances are only a way of manifestation of our essence, only the implementation of a choice: to sacrifice ourselves or another. (13) Big man- one in whom the willingness to sacrifice others for oneself is less than the willingness to self-sacrifice. (14) One of the priests, our contemporaries, formulates it this way: “The father of all sins is fear, and their mother is laziness.”

For each task A1-A7 There are 4 answer options, of which only one is correct. Circle the number of this answer.

1) artistic; description; 2) journalistic; reasoning;

A2. In which word are all consonants soft?1) overcoat; 2) theory; 3) dash; 4) you appreciate it.

AZ. In which word are all consonants voiced?1) threshing; 2) luggage; 3) burn; 4) you will save.

A4. In which word are all consonants unvoiced?1) glass; 2) eat; 3) clinging; 4) departure.

A5. Which word is stressed incorrectly?1) bows; 2) twirls; 3) started; 4) tableYar.

A6. Which word has the stress on the second syllable?1) communicated; 2) teenage; 3) call; 4) deepen.

A7. Which word has the stress on the third syllable?1) provision; 2) agreement; 3) seal; 4) bow.

Write down answers to tasks B1-B14 in words or numbers, separating them, if necessary, with commas.

B1. Replace the word “entity” from sentence 12 with a stylistically neutral synonym.Write this synonym.

B2. From sentences 8-10, write down the word with alternating unstressed vowel in the root.

B3. From sentences 7-9, write down the word whose spelling of the prefix is ​​determined by the rule:“The end of the prefix is ​​written -C if it is followed by a letter indicating a voiceless consonant.”

Q 4. From sentences 6-8, write down a word in which the spelling of НН is determined by the rule:“In an adjective formed with the suffix -N- from a noun whose stem ends in -N, NN is written.”

B5. In the sentence below from the text read, all commas are numbered.Write down the numbers indicating commas in the introductory word.

A person (I) who sacrifices others to his talent (2) of course (3) also shines (4) but with a sunset light.

At 6 . In the sentence below from the text read, all commas are numbered.

The point is not in experiencing your talent (1) not in the feeling and awareness of your calling (2) but in (3) how this talent is affirmed: is it your personal sacrifice to humanity (4) or are you ready to sacrifice someone else instead of yourself .

At 7 . In the sentence below from the text read, all punctuation marks are numbered.Write down the numbers indicating commas between parts of a complex sentence.

A big man (1) is one (2) in whom the willingness to sacrifice others for oneself is less than the willingness to sacrifice oneself.

At 8. Replace phrase (sentence 9) built on the basis of connection coordination , a synonymous phrase with connection control . Write the resulting phrase.

Q 9. Write down the grammatical basis of sentence 1.

At 10. Among sentences 2-6, find sentences withhomogeneous members. Write the numbers of these sentences.

At 11. Among sentences 9-11, find a sentence withseparate definition

Q 12. Please indicate the number of grammatical bases in the sentence is 14.

At 13 . Find among sentences 10-13 complex sentence Withnon-union connection. Write the number of this offer.

At 14. Among sentences 1-4, find a one-part nominative offer. Write the number of this offer.

OPTION 1 Part 3

Explain how you understand the meaning of the phrase in the text:“A great man is one in whom the willingness to sacrifice others for himself is less than the willingness to sacrifice himself.”

Bring it in your essaytwo arguments from the text read, confirming your reasoning. When giving examples, indicate the numbers of the required sentences or use citations (avoid excessive citations).

The essay must be at least 50 words.

Write your essay neatly and in legible handwriting.

OPTION 2 Part 1

Listen to the text and complete task C1 on a separate signed sheet. First write the task number, and then the text of the concise summary.

C1. Listen to the text and write summary. Please note that you must convey the main content of both each micro-topic and the entire text as a whole. The volume of presentation is at least 90 words. Write your summary in neat, legible handwriting.

Therefore, take care of your youth until old age. Appreciate all the good things you acquired in your youth, do not waste the riches of your youth. Nothing acquired in youth passes without a trace. Habits developed in youth last a lifetime. Skills in work - too. Get used to work - and work will always bring joy. And how important this is for human happiness! No more miserable than a man lazy, always avoiding work, effort... Both in youth and in old age. Good youth skills will make life easier, bad ones will complicate it and make it difficult.

And one more thing. There is a Russian proverb: “Take care of your honor from a young age.” All the actions committed in youth remain in memory. The good ones will make you happy, the bad ones will not let you sleep!

OPTION 2 Part 2

Read the text and complete tasks A1-A7; B1-B14.

(1) I believe that the best and unforgettable years in the life of every person are the years of his youth.

(2) Why did I have this opinion? (3) Because it is during this period that the most exciting events occur in a person’s life, which are usually remembered for life.

(4) Youth is the time when young men build “castles in the air” and girls dream of a “prince on a white horse.” (5) Both have young blood seething in their veins, which excites the mind and pushes them to take active action. (6) Everyone wants to succeed in everything, show themselves everywhere, try everything. (7) Desires and ideas flow like a river...

(8) ...And how much joy does studying bring us? (9) Every day you come to school, where you meet your friends and acquaintances, communicate with them, discuss latest news. (10) I think that old people who have long stopped studying and working will tell you that school was their second home, where they had a second family - classmates with whom they spent a lot of time. (11) Of course, some regular visitors to such institutions call the school a prison, or a “place of forced confinement” that lasts at least nine years. (12) It’s a long time, isn’t it?

(13) However, the statement “forced imprisonment” is just a joke, since everyone understands well that it is difficult to succeed in life without education. (14) Moreover, studying gives young people a unique opportunity to self-realize and improve. (15) Of course, you just can’t help but remember the cool evenings at New Year, about joint tourist trips abroad, about a graduation party in an expensive restaurant. (16) It seems to me that the last one is remembered best, because this is perhaps the last meeting of all classmates in one place. (17) Everyone is happy and having fun. (18) Everyone is happy.

(19) Girls and boys meet, meet, fall in love. (10) They have love. (11) They have a holiday.

(12) All the events that happen in youth, and all the feelings that young people experience at this time, can be called priceless. (13) They must not be forgotten. (14) There should be a separate “box” in the memory for them, which later, in adulthood, will be very pleasant to open - leafing through an old photo album or watching a video film shot with a video camera presented for the eighteenth birthday. (15) Look and experience the same feelings as then. (16) Be a participant in the events of that time, a participant in the holiday.

For each task A1-A74 answer options are given, of whichonly one is correct. Circle the number of this answer.

A1. Determine the style and type of speech.1) Artistic; description; 2) journalistic; reasoning;

3) scientific; description; 4) journalistic; narration.

A2. What word consists of a prefix, a root, one suffix and an ending?

1) Writing out; 2) pre-dawn; 3) weighted; 4) spurred on.

AZ. Which word has the suffix -NESS-?1) Liberty; 2) hotness; 3) antiquity; 4) tact.

A4. Which word has the suffix -INK- meaning “small”?1) Pearl; 2) snowflake; 3) cabin; 4) back.

A5. What word consists of a prefix, a root, one suffix and an ending?

1) Gutted; 2) bouncing; 3) piling up; 4) high-rise.

A 6. In which word is -EY the ending?1) Anniversary; 2) more fun; 3) footman; 4) rays.

A7. What word consists of a prefix, a root, one suffix and an ending?

1) Reliable; 2) knocked out; 3) covered; 4) cowardly.

Tasks B1-B14 can be developed by the teacher according to the model presented in OPTION 1, taking into account the sections of the language being studied and the level of preparation of the students in the class.

OPTION 2 Part 3

Using the text you read from Part 2, write an essay-reasoning essay.

Explain how you understand the meaning of the phrase in the text: “All the events that happen in youth, and all the feelings that young people experience at this time can be called priceless.”

Bring it in your essay two arguments from the text you read, confirming your reasoning. When giving examples, indicate the numbers of the required sentences or use citations (avoid excessive citations). The essay must be at least 50 words. Write your essay carefully and legibly.

Well, the specific, small “goal” is this: to understand whether art has something to do with life, or whether all the concepts it produces are just fun? We can talk for a long time about destruction, trans-avant-garde, contextuality-narrative, but the questions remain: what to do? The most relevant at all times.

And who should do it?

In general, we are trying to find out whether the inventions of great literature have anything to do with life: great and little man.

K. Sutyagin

GEORGIY VASILEVICH, director of the Pushkin Museum-Reserve “Mikhailovskoye” (Pushkinogorye)

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

Without a doubt, there are people big and small. Height and weight determine clothing sizes, including tuxedos, club jackets and ballgowns. This is assuming that we are all? We are still emerging into the world from “Gogol’s overcoat.” But just recently, during the 41st Pushkin holiday poetry, actors of the "Young Man's Theater" from Izhevsk and artist Igor Shaimardanov in a poetic clearing in the village of Mikhailovsky brought out a new "breed" of people from ... Pushkin's tailcoat. Its size was impressive: 500, probably! Among this Pushkin, tail-coated people, there were no “little” people. Brave and timid, smiling and serious, fat and thin, remembering Pushkin’s poems by heart and not learning them at all, different, but “big”, great, significant, unique and irreplaceable.

Without a doubt, people are not equal. Inequality has been and will always remain a test of the heart and a reason for self-determination of equally free people. After the “little man,” Jesus of Nazareth, we live, it seems to me, under “a new democracy, the democracy of the Kingdom of God.” It is based on the free will of a person to accept or not accept the Creator, to follow or not to follow the path that is open to Him. We have been given, if you like, a “new constitution” of humanity, initially greater than all declarations of human and civil rights. Again, we are free to make decisions and act before God as we see fit. The consequences of these decisions are our personal and social lives. In this freedom we are all equal to each other, because we are equal in Christ. Neither the collar of a Russian official's overcoat from the Pushkin era, nor the brand of a modern car (...the amount of capital, the sophistication of a yacht, the number of rooms in a palace-castle, time on TV, the gloss of a magazine, etc.) will cancel this Equality.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it, great from birth. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

This concept of “great man” is interesting. King Herod the Great, the great Napoleon Bonaparte, the great Lenin, the great Inquisitor... Their greatness is measured by the size of someone else's blood spilled. Jesus Christ, Janusz Korczak, Alexander Pushkin, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Raphael, Mozart, St. Sergius of Radonezh... Behind these names there is fulfilled duty, personal sacrifice, divine love. No, it seems to me that people are mediocre from birth.
Every person who comes into life carries within himself a spark of God and the consciousness of voluntary sacrifice as a necessity for his fulfillment. The one who voluntarily takes upon himself the labor and hardships of this life, gives himself to others in the service of his talent, shines with the “light of the sun” on others. He who sacrifices his talent also shines on others, but with a sunset light. The point is not in experiencing your talent, not in the feeling and awareness of your calling, but in how this talent is affirmed: is it your personal sacrifice to humanity, or are you ready to sacrifice someone else in your place.
Here is the literary Salieri in Pushkin’s “Mozart and Salieri”, asserting his superiority and greatness with the help of poison).

Beyond (any) doubt/doubt

in the meaning of the predicate, particle and introductory expression

1. In the meaning of the predicate. The same as “undoubtedly, obviously.” Does not require punctuation.

Where he managed to get drunk before daylight was his secret, but what he got drunk was beyond any doubt. L. Andreev, Bargamot and Garaska.

2. Particle, emphasizing the statement. It is issued as a separate replica-sentence.

“I’m a captain,” Volodya answered sadly. “Besides, I already knew that we had to go back.” We will return to the Key, Sash!” – “Without a doubt", said Sasha. Yu. Vizbor, Alternative to the Klyuch peak.

3. Introductory expression. The same as “indisputably, undoubtedly.” Identified by punctuation marks, usually commas. Details about punctuation when introductory words see Appendix 2. ()

He was a man of ideas, remarkable abilities, and, without a doubt, if I dedicated myself government activities, he would have advanced not only among his contemporaries, but also would have taken one of the very first places in history. N. Garin-Mikhailovsky, Gymnasium students.

Dictionary-reference book on punctuation. - M.: Reference and information Internet portal GRAMOTA.RU. V. V. Svintsov, V. M. Pakhomov, I. V. Filatova. 2010 .

See what “beyond (all) doubt/doubt” is in other dictionaries:

doubt- I, Wed. 1. Uncertainty about the truth of something, the thought of a possible inconsistency of something. reality. Raise doubts. Leave no doubt. □ There is no doubt: alas! Evgeniy is in love with Tatiana like a child. Pushkin, Evgeny Onegin. And then... ... Small academic dictionary

Pushkin, Alexander Sergeevich- - born on May 26, 1799 in Moscow, on Nemetskaya Street in Skvortsov’s house; died January 29, 1837 in St. Petersburg. On his father’s side, Pushkin belonged to an old noble family, descended, according to genealogies, from a descendant “from ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

Well, the specific, small “goal” is this: to understand whether art has something to do with life, or whether all the concepts it produces are just fun? We can talk for a long time about destruction, trans-avant-garde, contextuality-narrative, but the questions remain: what to do? The most relevant at all times.

And who should do it?

In general, we are trying to find out whether the inventions of great literature: the big and the little man have anything to do with life.

K. Sutyagin

GEORGIY VASILEVICH, director of the Pushkin Museum-Reserve “Mikhailovskoye” (Pushkinogorye)

Without a doubt, there are people big and small. Height and weight determine clothing sizes, including tuxedos, club jackets and ballgowns. This is assuming that we are still emerging into the world from “Gogol’s overcoat.” But just recently, during the 41st Pushkin Poetry Festival, the actors of the “Young Man’s Theater” from Izhevsk and the artist Igor Shaimardanov, in a poetic clearing in the village of Mikhailovsky, brought out a new “breed” of people from... Pushkin’s tailcoat. Its size was impressive: 500, probably! Among this Pushkin, tail-coated people, there were no “little” people. Brave and timid, smiling and serious, fat and thin, remembering Pushkin’s poems by heart and not learning them at all, different, but “big”, great, significant, unique and irreplaceable.

Without a doubt, people are not equal. Inequality has been and will always remain a test of the heart and a reason for self-determination of equally free people. After the “little man,” Jesus of Nazareth, we live, it seems to me, under “a new democracy, the democracy of the Kingdom of God.” It is based on the free will of a person to accept or not accept the Creator, to follow or not to follow the path that is open to Him. We have been given, if you like, a “new constitution” of humanity, initially greater than all declarations of human and civil rights. Again, we are free to make decisions and act before God as we see fit. The consequences of these decisions are our personal and public lives. In this freedom we are all equal to each other, because we are equal in Christ. Neither the collar of a Russian official's overcoat from the Pushkin era, nor the brand of a modern car (...the amount of capital, the sophistication of a yacht, the number of rooms in a palace-castle, time on TV, the gloss of a magazine, etc.) will cancel this Equality.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it, great from birth. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

This concept of “great man” is interesting. King Herod the Great, the great Napoleon Bonaparte, the great Lenin, the great Inquisitor... Their greatness is measured by the size of someone else's blood spilled. Jesus Christ, Janusz Korczak, Alexander Pushkin, Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Raphael, Mozart, St. Sergius of Radonezh... Behind these names there is fulfilled duty, personal sacrifice, divine love. No, it seems to me that people are mediocre from birth.
Every person who comes into life carries within himself a spark of God and the consciousness of voluntary sacrifice as a necessity for his fulfillment. The one who voluntarily takes on the labor and hardships of this life, gives himself to others in the service of his talent, shines with the “light of the sun” on others. He who sacrifices his talent also shines on others, but with a sunset light. The point is not in experiencing your talent, not in the feeling and awareness of your calling, but in how this talent is affirmed: is it your personal sacrifice to humanity, or are you ready to sacrifice someone else in your place.
Here is the literary Salieri in Pushkin’s “Mozart and Salieri”, asserting his superiority and greatness with the help of poison).

There is also an opinion that circumstances make one great. A “big” person is a “small” person who suddenly decided to do a great deed. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

The writer O'Henry has a story called "The Roads We Take." One of his heroes in a dream sees himself as a heroic raider, a robber of a train carrying a large sum of money. A successful robbery, the path with the loot taken by two “friends-accomplices”, the horse of one of them that broke its leg, the need to escape from the chase and... the “philosophy” of choice. Pointing a pistol at his comrade, who lost his horse, the bandit-philosopher wonders what would have happened if he had chosen a different path. We receive the answer at the moment of awakening of this hero, a prosperous entrepreneur, who is awakened by his old friend with a request for a deferred payment, due to the loss of his fortune in the era of the great economic crisis. The answer is a refusal to a friend. Suicide of a former friend. The awareness that it is not about the roads we choose, but about what drives our choices, in our hearts. Circumstances are only a way of manifestation of our essence, only the implementation of a choice: to sacrifice ourselves or another. A big man is one in whom the willingness to sacrifice others for himself is less than the willingness to sacrifice himself. One of the priests, our contemporaries, formulates it this way: “The father of all sins is fear, and their mother is laziness.”

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not today? Why?

Okay, let this be an example from “controversial literature”. An example of a great person is the mother of Harry Potter, who with her love saved her son and instilled in him immunity to evil, giving him the strength to resist evil. For this reason alone, the book can be given to children without fear. She teaches loyalty, kindness, personal heroism, which can motivate sacrifice in the name of saving another person, to the readiness to give life “for one’s friends.”
Today in Russia, more than before, there is a need for people whose “greatness” lies in the honest and non-covetous fulfillment of their duties to God and people. The responsibility of a person in power - which is always a difficult test due to the possibility of replacing personal sacrifice by sacrificing the lives of other people on the altar - is the battlefield on which the future of our Fatherland is being decided. Here, in this battle, great characters, lives and destinies are forged and destroyed. And every day, along with fresh news, brings examples of true greatness and deplorable insignificance. The question of “great” and “small” people is decided every minute in the heart and mind of every person. Let's stop there.

LEV PIROGOV, critic (Moscow)

Yeah, I agree. "Little people" are those who are many. And the “big” ones are few. That's all - if we ignore moral assessments, that is, if we don't talk about whether Hitler deserves to be called great.

As for literature, everything is “a little bit the other way around”: let’s say, Akaki Akakievich Bashmachnikov, snatched from a million others like him, contrary to his typological name, turns into a “big” man. And some “recipient of the Golden Star,” a war hero and chairman of a collective farm, having dissolved in the mediocrity of the author and in dozens of opportunistic imitations, on the contrary, becomes a small person. Although in life everything remains the same: Akaki Akakievich is small, no matter how well we know him and no matter how much we love him, and the “gentleman” is big, even if we don’t care about him.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

I suspect that “a sense of greater purpose” tends to confine life energy and spiritual force rather than release it. The most significant thoughts come to your mind while running, by chance, and not when you are sitting at your desk and pushing. Great battles are also started and won “by chance”, because “it had to”, “it was impossible otherwise”, and “there was a nail in the forge”, and not in order to “win” great battle"However, this is the opinion of a small person. It is difficult to judge an elephant by holding its tail.

It is not circumstances that motivate an action - they are the same for millions of people, but only one person commits the action. I think it comes from within, not from without. Rather, it even comes from above.

In the end, we are all born small, we just grow up differently. Some inward, some in breadth, and some upward. You can still grow to the side or down. Or you can do it this way first, then that way - this makes the tree twisty, such trees are especially interesting to artists. People too.

I’m not ready to give examples - “I sense it, but I can’t justify it.” Leo Tolstoy doesn’t seem like a great person to me - he climbed into other people’s lives, taught them faith, but couldn’t cope with his own life and faith - he ended badly: his pride stuck, he became disillusioned with writing, he became embittered towards his family. And Dostoevsky doesn’t seem to, although I silently take off my hat to him. Dostoevsky is a medium, not “in himself.” God rewarded him with great suffering and great thoughts - and who played roulette?.. Or Father John of Kronstadt - it doesn’t seem, although what right do I have to judge? The Church canonized him as a saint... And so if you don’t dig into anyone, it won’t show up. Maybe because every great person is only a medium, and not “in himself.” Only God is great. People are weak and susceptible to temptation.

And Russia really needs great people, Prophets, because Russia, in my opinion, is dying. Russia needs faith - it makes people great.

SERGEY SAFONOV, artist, gallery owner, journalist (Moscow)

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

I rather agree. We are used to stewing within our own circle, but extreme circumstances - in my case it was military service after college or, say, creative trips to Dagestan - can open up a completely different human existence, the existence of which I had not previously suspected. I won’t say that in everyday life there are so many impeccably “big” people around, but the “small” ones are not attractive either.

I know people with high self-esteem - for example, among art critics. But we must be aware of who is “in charge” and who is simply accustomed to considering themselves as such. It is unlikely that, for example, the artist Illarion Golitsyn considered himself a “great man,” but everyone who interacted with him knew that he was a special person.

There is also an opinion that circumstances make one great. A “big” person is a “small” person who suddenly decided to do a great deed. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

If question number 3 is posed so pretentiously, it means that I did not fully understand and did not accurately answer question number 1. It seems to me that “big” or “small” depends not on force majeure, but on personal strategy and its implementation: education , everyday and creative guidelines - for example, decency, etc. Changing circumstances will not make you smarter.

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not today? Why?

Even with the skepticism poured into today’s Russian air, I will say: they are needed. In addition, it is necessary for society to realize the presence of such characters in it: the old expression “There is no prophet in his own country” is being realized today on a no less scale than before. It is necessary to change this, pathetically speaking, in order to improve the nation’s sense of self (what was previously called “community” Soviet people", only now they are "Russian").

VLADIMIR NAZANSKY, State Art Gallery (Novosibirsk)

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

Of course, this is a literary turn of phrase that reflects certain realities - social, political, cultural, spiritual. Basically, “big” people are born, but sometimes they become. The “big” man is a psychosomatic reality. Often a "big" person finds appropriate expression in the role of a big person. The Gerasim complex is the exception rather than the rule. Those born and raised first are first everywhere - in the zone, in politics, science, sports, business, etc.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

As a rule, a “great man” feels his scale, strives to live up to it, searches for his calling, and sometimes finds it. It is sadder in situations of “false pregnancy” associated with reading the biographies of great people. In the safe fields of literature and art, the fate of epigones and graphomaniacs is tragicomic. But not all fields are harmless. “Am I a trembling creature, or do I have the right,” asks Raskolnikov hysterically, who had all his greatness enough to hack two old women to death, and then still repent of what he had done. But how many are unrepentant! Young Blyumkin and Furmanov, shooting others, began to feel like supermen. The greatest abominations are committed by nonentities overwhelmed by big ideas. The Khmer Rouge, Mujahideen, security officers, Nazis, Jesuits, inquisitors - their name is legion.

A great man acts directly and majestically, he says, “I’m coming to you.”

There is also an opinion that circumstances make one great. A “big” person is a “small” person who suddenly decided to do a great deed. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Without a certain internal combination of qualities, a “small” person will not become a “big” person. It makes sense to talk about unmanifested, unclaimed, “sleeping” Largeness. One should also distinguish between real human size, talent and simply fame, seasonal popularity. Still, it should be recognized that there are great roles and great characters that correspond to these roles. The fate of a “little” person in the role of a big personality is tragic. It’s even worse when a small person of a cozy home format, due to diligence or origin, plays a disproportionately large role, such as Nicholas II or Gorbachev.

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not today? Why?

Great people are not always visible. Alexander I, Napoleon, Kutuzov, Pushkin. Seraphim of Sarov were contemporaries. Everyone knew the first four, almost no one knew Sarovsky. Pushkin did not know about the existence of Seraphim of Sarov. Seraphim Sarovsky did not read Pushkin. None of the Europeans really knew anything about the Dalai Lamas, just as we know nothing about the personalities of the Filipino healers.
Nowadays, in the Russian provinces there are great poets, artists, thinkers, whom the general public does not yet know about (and, perhaps, will never know).
Fame is not the main indicator. About the Novosibirsk thinker Kondratyuk, who published in the early 30s. a book with mathematical calculations of flights to the Moon (shot in the late 30s) was remembered in Russia only after the Americans told how these calculations helped them. But who will tell you about the Novosibirsk artist Nikolai Gritsyuk, about the Krasnoyarsk artist Andrei Pozdeev, about the Novosibirsk poets Vladimir Svetlosanov, Stanislav Mikhailov, Igor Loschilov, Yulia Pivovovarova? They are little known, little in demand, but this does not diminish them, does not negate the meaning of what they have done and are doing.
But it is still difficult to get rid of the feeling that the time of great artists, poets, philosophers, and scientists is passing. The time for standardization and format is coming.
The unit of civilization is the average standard person with predictable behavior.
Great people, bright, unpredictable, inconvenient, gradually die out as unnecessary. People tame and domesticate them, just as they once did horses, cows and elephants. But every civilization comes to a crisis and perishes, like Egypt, Sumer, Rome, or, if great people survived, it is rebuilt and lives, like China or Japan. Are great people needed today? Certainly. Tomorrow may be too late. Humanity faces serious challenges - environmental shocks, wars for resources, new diseases, religious fanaticism.

EVGENY DAVYDOV, cyclist (Korolev)

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

Agree.
Great is someone who looks at others like an adult looks at children, sees them beyond their whims.
Little is an offended person.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

No, you never know what anyone thinks about themselves.
Why is “big” in “1” and then “great”?

There is also an opinion that circumstances make one great. A “big” person is a “small” person who suddenly decided to do a great deed. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

One action is usually not enough, except perhaps the last one.
The little man needs to grow up at least a little, otherwise he may disappear completely.

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not today? Why?

I think O.A. I was big.
“Great” people themselves are found when needed.
Now they are not needed, now everyone is making money.

MIKHAIL ZAKHAROV, columnist for Polit.ru

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

There is a great temptation to say that there are just people, and there are no great or, conversely, small people in nature. That the problematic of “greatness” is a literary category. But that would be the end of the conversation. But the problem, as usual, is much more complicated. They call a big boss a “big” man. That is, some reflection on the topic of the “big-small” opposition also exists in the mass consciousness.

The “big-small” opposition is not quite the same, by the way, as the “great-small” opposition. “Great” would be a stronger word, with some kind of reference to “eternity” and, of course, publicity and media. Thus, a “great” historical figure (artist, writer, rock musician) is still “great” or “not great,” but a mechanic can be a “great master of his craft,” but the phrase “great mechanics Ivanov and Feldman” is already hurts the ear. Greatness, apparently, is assessed only at a distance (the locksmith is an everyday figure) and after a certain amount of time.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

I disagree, and for a variety of reasons. First of all, because “greatness” is an “external” evaluative category. Many graphomaniacs consider themselves great writers (and, at the same time, great people), feel their calling and strive to live up to the title of a great writer. It’s the same with thinkers (Vasisualiy Lokhankin, of course, a comic character, but meanwhile), artists or, excuse me, politicians.

There is also an opinion that circumstances make one great. A “big” person is a “small” person who suddenly decided to do a great deed. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Hegel generally believed that history is made by people “inspired” by Zeitgeist. Circumstances influence everyone and everything. If the First World War had not happened and February Revolution, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov would be an average fighter against the regime, and even “barred from entry” to boot. Avon, how the circumstances developed - it is difficult to believe that Vladimir Ilyich decided on a certain act that caused the First World War. And upon his arrival in the raging Petrograd, Vladimir Lenin committed enough of these actions to call him “great,” with all the attendant connotations (“saved the country” or “destroyed Russia and plunged it into 70 years of darkness”).

I remember I had to take part in a small test for history students, during which they had to name three historical figures (Russian and world). Based on the results (and this, from my point of view, is symptomatic), several trends were visible. First, among the “great” there were practically no religious figures (with the exception of Christ, who, as is clear, certain part humanity is considered “not quite human”). This is most likely a sign of a locally historical (cultural, even, sorry, civilizational) order, and somewhere in Guatemala or Poland the Pope would still take his rightful place among the greats.

Secondly, among the “greats” there were mainly political figures with an extremely controversial reputation (the most popular figures were Stalin, Peter I, Ivan the Terrible, Lenin, Hitler). Judging by the assessment of that local audience, greatness in the mass consciousness is present primarily where there is both a “golden” and a “black” myth (a necessary but not sufficient condition), and both myths are widely known.

Significantly fewer people were named as artists. But there were no figures in the “humanitarian sphere” (like Mahatma Gandhi, who was locally appointed as Vladimir Putin’s main interlocutor) or scientists (with the possible exception of Einstein).

And the third - all the “great” ones have already died. How is this “great contemporary”? He eats, drinks, and, excuse me, fulfills other natural needs. If the “death of history” occurs, then new “great ones” may not be needed. And if not, then their appearance is inevitable.

As for the “small” ones. Well, here I am, for example.

BORIS DOLGIN, deputy editor-in-chief of Polit.ru

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

It is difficult to agree with the statement about the “objective” existence or non-existence of great / small people (as well as books, films, paintings), but, of course, there is a fundamental possibility of using such a classification (along with many others).

The phrase “great man” is not in my active vocabulary (except when quoted). At the same time, since it is so widely used, I, like those who use it, find myself obliged to develop some interpretation in order to interpret the statements of other people. That is, to have a certain attitude towards certain attempts to classify people using the sign of “greatness”.

As in the case of books, we certainly will not be mistaken if we say that for each culture/subculture there is a historical, and for some, also a modern, canon. Only in this case it will no longer be “great literature” (in the understanding of this culture/subculture), but a phenomenon much more difficult to define – “great man”. More difficult to define, if only because for all the diversity of literature, people are much more diverse. And in their studies, and in their aspirations, and in their methods of assessment.

There is one more fundamental difference: people call books “great,” but people also call people great. That is, the subject and object of classification belong to the same set of potentially classified ones.

Having slipped from "great literature" to "great man" past "great writer" we have missed the question of whether "industrial" greatness is determined by the greatness of individual products ("great books", ...), the resulting greatness or great "industrial" behavior ( "literary behavior"...). And the next question: a “great man” is a person who was recognized as “great” in at least some area ( great writer, great turner, great doctor...), recognized as “great” in more than a certain number of areas, recognized as great in some resultant, or recognized as “great” in his own human behavior (“great man II”)?

The simplest option is in which the set of great people will be a union of the set of “great playwrights”, “great financiers”, “great grandmothers”, etc. There is, however, a suspicion that with a sufficiently scrupulous analysis such a set will turn out to be congruent with the set of people of all times and peoples.

Trying to agree on the number of areas in which a person must be “great” in order to be considered truly “great” is unlikely to lead to anything worthwhile. And an attempt to find the resultant requires postulating the existence of “anti-greatness”, which can partially compensate for or even block some sectoral “greatness”.

And a completely separate question: what to do with such an “industry” as human life itself? Should it be adjacent to the sphere of literature or turning? Is it possible to speak of a “great man” in everyday life, in relationships with other people, as a “great man II”? Isn’t “anti-greatness” in this area an absolute block to recognizing someone not just as a “great photographer”, but as a “great man” (then there will be no question about obviously negative “branches” in a given culture, for example: “great executioner”, “great dictator”, “great serial killer”...)? And isn’t it really meaningful to equate “great man” with “great man II”, ignoring all “industry” indicators?

Another set of problems is the mechanism of “greatness,” that is, the relationship between the canon revealed by a given “great man” and the canon that existed before him. Is “Great” the one that most closely matches canon (and as such becomes canonical)? “Great” is the one who creates his own canon, obviously different from the existing one? “The Great” is the one who supposedly abandons the canons altogether, that is, creates his own canon, but does not know how to realize it? Is the “great” the one who forces others to change their understanding of the canons? All these definitions may correspond to the same person, or they may be completely different.

People define a given person as “great.” One of these people is the person himself.

The position of a classifier does not necessarily mean belittling oneself to “smallness,” nor does it necessarily mean exalting oneself to “greatness.” The declaration of certain historical characters as “great” is typical for other historical characters who claim “greatness”, trying to build a genealogy of their “greatness”, the same is with writers; there are attempts by those who identify themselves as “great” to find fellow “greatness” nearby , in other areas, considering them not as competitors, but as “brother captains”.

At the same time, awareness/declaration of oneself as a “great man” much more often indicates mental illness or simply human inadequacy of the classifier than understanding one’s significance within the framework of the currently existing “industrial” value system.

At the same time, the installation of conformity to a certain canon of “greatness” can, in one of the mentioned understandings, lead to this “greatness”.

What “makes” a person “great” are the people who define him that way. The question may be what factors of a person’s activity/behavior influence the fact that he is defined in this way (see the answer to the first question, taking into account the variability of the culture of the definers), or what factors influence a person in such a way that his activity / behavior turns out to be such that they are defined as “great”.

The last question can be safely answered: everything. Because the formation of any person is influenced in its own way by each circumstance of his life, gradually forming human individuality, which, as it develops, interacts with these circumstances. Another issue is that the scale factors will be different - for all impacts and all people.

Can you name examples of great and small people? Can one person be both great and small at the same time? For example?

Since, as mentioned above, the phrase “great people” is not in my active vocabulary, I can only, based on the understanding demonstrated above, give examples of obviously “small” people - Stalin, Chikatilo, Qin Shi Huang...

It is very easy for a person to be great and small in different “industries”; probably all people are like that. It would be better for the great artist Leonid Utesov to never write poetry, and for the great poet Boris Pasternak not to speak on socio-political topics, etc.

It is even simpler to be simultaneously a “great man” in one sense and a “little man” in another sense - so simple that even examples are superfluous.

It is possible to be “great” and “small” within the framework of one understanding either if the author of the understanding suffers from schizophrenia or does not suffer from mastery of formal logic.

Are great people needed or not today? Why?

Great people are “needed today” - in the sense in which summer or night are sometimes needed. Culture (in the broad sense) works with canons. One of the personifications of these canons is what can be called “great people” - and, in different understandings (it is quite problematic to isolate the actual mechanism of “great people” from the mechanism of the canons, as was shown above, which is why I usually do not do this) .

Great people are “not needed today” - in the sense that culture will always work with the canons (and in this sense, “today” lasts forever) - regardless of the opinion of those who argue about their necessity or uselessness.

OLEG MUDRAK, Doctor of Philology, linguist (Moscow)

Here again is a repetition of the trick that was about literature. The concept of “great” itself is important, and this is a cultural thing.

There is also an opinion that “circumstances make a man great. A great person is someone who suddenly did a great deed.” Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

They are not judged by one act, but by deeds (pl.). "The Great Alexander Sailors"?

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not today? Why?

A wonderful “need it or not” point. Answer: as long as there is culture, they are and will be. This is an accompanying characteristic of culture, regardless of the desires of the individuals entering the culture.

ALEXEY VORONIN, musician, writer (Moscow)

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

It depends on what you mean by “big man” and “small man”. In certain circles, a BC is a person in power, wealthy, influential, etc. and MCH is the one who goes to work and saves for an overcoat. And in some ways they are right - the difference in position is actually great.
You can call a small person who lives with everyday worries without any particular purpose, and a big person can be called one who strives for something more. One thing is clear - everyone is equal before the Lord, but among people everyone is different, no one is the same.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

I do not agree with this opinion. If this were true, the most great people would be found in a madhouse. I think that a great man, first of all, is a great hard worker. And the main thing that he feels is that he has received a huge and heavy cross, but at the same time he feels that he is capable of it.

There is also an opinion that “circumstances make a man great. A great person is someone who suddenly did a great deed.” Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

If a coward, finding himself in a hopeless situation, committed a brave act, perhaps we can say that he became a great man. Was this done voluntarily or under the influence of circumstances? I think that the will of a person is still the determining force. If a person does not have the mental strength to perform an Act, he will not do it under any circumstances. In life there is always the opportunity NOT to perform a feat.

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not today? Why?

In art, everyone is a genius, they are also great people. In politics - Pyotr Stolypin, Winston Churchill, de Gaulle. There are countless great people in science. Russia needs a great man - a politician, and not just one, but a whole galaxy of great ones; one cannot cope alone (please do not confuse it with stereotypes of mass consciousness such as the “strong hand”, as well as with the self-proclaimed “fathers of nations”).

ALEXEY SHIRONIN, Polit.ru (Moscow)

Do you agree with the statement that there are “big” people and there are “little” people, or is this just a literary phrase?

Agree. I immediately remember the “man in an overcoat,” but life is full of them.

There is an opinion that a “great man” is one who recognizes himself as such, feels his calling and strives to live up to it. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

I think that there are different greats - who strive to become them and who are considered such by others. That is, this is self-PR or the pursuit of some kind of goal.

There is also an opinion that circumstances make one great. A “big” person is a “small” person who suddenly decided to do a great deed. Why do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Rather, “big” is a psychological make-up. And since psychology is genes, everything depends on the parents.

Can you name examples of great and small people? Are great people needed or not? modern society? Why?

For example, S.P. Korolev.
They are always needed - in order to push forward those who prefer to be “small”. Sometimes it's for their own good. Sometimes it's the other way around.

To be continued

[a fragment of a painting by Konstantin Sutyagin is used in the design]

In my opinion, the meaning of life is to find happiness. From the moment of birth, every person strives for happiness and does not want to suffer. Neither social status, nor education, nor ideology influence this state of affairs in any way. In the very depths of our being lies a simple desire to achieve inner satisfaction.

I don't know if there is any more deep meaning in the Universe with all its countless galaxies, stars and planets, but we people living on earth are simply solving the problem of how to become happy. Therefore, it is important to understand for ourselves what brings us the highest happiness.

How to find happiness?

To begin with, we can divide all forms of happiness and suffering into two main categories: those related to the mind and those related to the body. And here it is the mind, and not the body, that has the greatest influence on us. Unless we are broken down by a serious illness or suffer from extreme poverty, then well-being plays a secondary role in our lives.

If everything is fine with the body, then we simply ignore it. The mind responds to any event, no matter how small it may be. Therefore, we must make great efforts to maintain peace of mind.

My little experience tells me that the highest degree of inner peace is born when we develop love and compassion.

The more we care about the happiness of others, the better we feel about ourselves. When we cultivate a sense of kinship and kindness towards others, it automatically makes our mind calm. It frees us from all kinds of fears and feelings of insecurity and gives us the strength to deal with any obstacles that may come our way. This is the ultimate source of success in life.

While we live in this world, we are forced to face difficulties. And, if in difficult times we lose hope and fall into despair, we thereby reduce our ability to withstand difficulties. If we remember that not only ourselves, but every being undergoes suffering, then this more realistic picture of the world will give us determination and strength to face difficulties.

Truly, with this attitude towards life, we will be able to view any new obstacle as another precious opportunity to improve our mind!

So we can try to gradually become more compassionate, that is, develop genuine empathy for the suffering of other beings and a willingness to help them overcome pain. And then we ourselves will have more serenity and inner strength.

We all need love

Love and compassion are the source of the greatest happiness for the simple reason that we, by nature, value them above all else. The need for love lies at the core of human existence. It is born from the subtlest interdependence of all beings. No matter how skilled and skilled we are, if we are left alone, we will not be able to survive.

No matter how strong and independent we may seem to ourselves in the best years of our lives, we still have to rely on the help of others in early infancy, in old age and in illness.

Without a doubt, interdependence is a fundamental law of nature. Not only higher forms, but also many smallest insects sometimes lead a collective lifestyle. Without any religion or education, they survive by helping each other, guided by an innate understanding of interdependence. More subtle levels of material phenomena are also subject to the law of interdependence.

All phenomena, from the planet on which we live to the oceans, clouds, forests, flowers that surround us, appear as a result of the subtle interaction of energies. If this interaction is disrupted, they dissolve and disintegrate.

It is precisely because human life itself depends so much on the help of others that the need for love forms the basis of our existence. This is why we need a genuine sense of responsibility and genuine concern for the well-being of others.

We need to think about what people really are. We are not assembled on an assembly line. If we were merely objects of mechanical assembly, then robots could save us from suffering and satisfy our needs.

But since we are not made only of matter, it would be a mistake to place all our hopes on happiness and material development alone. In order to understand your needs, you need to think about your origins and your nature.

Leaving aside the difficult question of the origin and evolution of the Universe, we can at least agree that each of us is the product of our own parents. Our conception resulted not only from sexual desire, but also from the conscious decision of our parents to have a child.

Such decisions are based on a sense of responsibility, altruism and the compassionate determination of parents to care for their child until the child is able to care for himself. So, from the moment of conception, the love of our parents was the reason for our birth.

Moreover, in the early stages of our development, we are completely dependent on maternal care. According to scientists, a pregnant woman's state of mind, whether calm or agitated, has a direct impact on her unborn child.

Showing love is also very important at the moment of birth. Having been born, a child immediately reaches out to his mother's breast - a feeling of closeness to his mother is naturally born in him, and in order to feed him, the mother must also experience love. If she feels anger or disgust, then it is quite possible that the milk will stop flowing.

This is followed by a vital period for brain development - from birth until at least three or four years of age. At this time, loving physical contact is the single most important factor for the normal growth of the child. If he is not held in his arms, hugged, caressed, or loved, then his development is hampered, and his brain may remain underdeveloped.

Since a child cannot survive without the care of others, love is the most important food for him. The happiness of childhood, the eradication of many fears and the healthy development of self-confidence are all directly dependent on love.

These days, many children grow up in unhappy families. Having not received proper care in childhood, in adulthood they rarely surround their parents with love and often have difficulty giving love to other people. It's very sad.

When children grow up and go to school, their teachers should provide them with the support they need. If a teacher not only imparts academic knowledge to them, but also takes responsibility for preparing them for life, then his students feel trust and respect, and what such a teacher teaches leaves an indelible mark on their minds.

Subjects taught by a teacher who does not show genuine concern for the well-being of his students will be considered unimportant by them and will not be remembered for long.

Similarly, on days of illness, if we are treated by a doctor who exudes kindness and humanity, then we feel very calm, and the very desire of the doctor to surround us with tender care has a healing effect on us, regardless of what his skills and abilities are. And if the doctor lacks humanity, and he greets us unfriendly, shows impatience and negligence, then we will experience anxiety - even if we have the most highly qualified doctor in front of us, who correctly diagnosed and prescribed the right medicine.

The feelings that the patient experiences inevitably influence the quality and completeness of his healing.

Even in normal conversation everyday life, if we are treated with love and attention, then we are pleased to listen to such an interlocutor, and we answer him in the same way. The conversation becomes more interesting, even if the topic is unimportant. If we are greeted coldly and harshly, we feel uncomfortable and want to end the conversation as quickly as possible.

Whether we are talking about events of little importance or extremely significant, the love and respect of others is the most important key to our happiness.

I recently met with a group of scientists in America, and they informed me that the rate of mental illness in their country is quite high, affecting about 20 percent of the total population. During our discussion, it became clear that the main cause of depression is not the lack of material wealth, but the deprivation of love.

From all that I have said, one thing becomes clear: whether we realize it or not, from the very first day of our lives, the need for love is in our blood. Even if love is shown by an animal or person whom we usually classify as our enemy, all of us - both children and adults - will naturally be drawn to this source of love.

I think that all people, without exception, come into the world with this craving for love. And this shows that although some modern schools thoughts begin to assert that man can be reduced to matter, but in reality this is not so. No material object, no matter how beautiful and valuable it may be, can give us love, because our deepest essence and true face is in the subjective nature of our mind.

Developing Compassion

One of my friends once told me that although love and compassion are wonderful and wonderful things, they are not very suitable for modern world. In our world, they say, such ideals have neither strength nor power. Anger and hatred, they argue, are to such an extent part of human nature that humanity will always remain in their clutches. I don't agree with this.

Man, in his present form, has lived on earth for about one hundred thousand years. If all this time anger and hatred had prevailed in the human heart, then the population would have decreased by to a large extent. But today, despite all the wars, the planet's population is greater than ever. To me, this is clear evidence that love and compassion dominate the world.

And this is why unpleasant events always make the news, and acts of compassion are so normal for us that we take them for granted and, for the most part, do not pay any attention to them.

So far I have mainly talked about the benefits of compassion for our consciousness, but it also has a positive effect on our health. As far as I can tell from my personal experience, mental stability and physical health are directly related.

Without a doubt, anger and anxiety make us more vulnerable to illness. If our mind is calm and has good thoughts, then the body will not be too susceptible to illness.

But, of course, it is also true that we are all born with egocentrism, which inhibits our love for others. Therefore, if we strive for true happiness, the source of which is only peace of mind, and only a compassionate attitude can generate peace of mind, then how can we develop it?

Of course, it’s not enough to just think about what a wonderful thing compassion is! We all need to make an effort to develop it; we must use all the events of daily life to transform our thoughts and actions.

First of all, we need to clearly understand what compassion is. Many forms of compassionate feelings are actually mixed with desire and attachment. For example, the love that parents feel for their child is often strongly tied to their own emotional needs, and therefore is not compassionate in the full sense of the word. Again, in a family, love between husband and wife (especially at first, when the spouses do not yet know each other’s true character very well) is more of an attachment than true love.

Our desire may be so strong that the person to whom we are attached will seem good to us, although in reality he may be very bad. In addition, [in the early stages of a relationship] we tend to exaggerate [our partner's] minor positive qualities. Therefore, when the attitude of one of the partners towards the other changes, he experiences disappointment and also changes his attitude.

This suggests that behind such love there was a desire to satisfy one’s own needs, and not genuine concern for another person.

True compassion is not just emotional reaction, but a strong conviction based on analysis. Therefore, genuine compassion for others will not lose its power even if they behave badly.

Of course, developing such compassion is not at all easy! First let's consider the following facts:

Whether people are beautiful or disgusting, friendly or hostile, in the end, they are still people, just like you and me. Like us, they want happiness and do not want suffering. Moreover, they have the same right as we do to overcome suffering and find happiness. When you accept that all beings are equal in their desire for happiness and the right to achieve it, you automatically begin to feel compassion and closeness towards them.

By training your mind to this universal altruism, you cultivate a sense of responsibility for others: the desire to actively help them overcome difficulties. This feeling is not selective - it applies to everyone. Since they are all human beings who experience pleasure and pain just like you, there is no reason to make hard distinctions between them and you or to change your attitude towards them if they do wrong.

Let me emphasize: It is within your power, if you take the time and be patient enough, to develop such compassion. Of course, our egocentrism, our exclusive attachment to our supposedly independent, self-existent “I” at the deepest level inhibits compassion in us.

In fact, true compassion can only be experienced when such self-grasping is completely eradicated. But that doesn't mean we can't start now and make progress.

How to start developing compassion in yourself?

We must begin by eliminating the greatest obstacles to compassion: anger and hatred. As we all know, these are extremely powerful emotions and they can take over our entire consciousness. However, they can be brought under control.

If left unchecked, these negative emotions will torment us (with great effort on our part!) and hinder our search for true happiness, which a mind filled with love can give.

A good place to start is to consider whether anger has any value. Sometimes, when we become discouraged in the face of a difficult situation, it seems as if anger is useful to us, that it gives us strength, self-confidence and determination.

But here you need to examine your state of mind very carefully. Although anger does fill us with energy, if we carefully examine this energy, we will find that we are dealing with blind force. We cannot be sure whether the result will be positive or negative. This happens because anger overshadows the best part our brain - the one that is responsible for rational thinking.

Therefore, the energy of anger is almost always unreliable. It can push us to monstrously destructive and unseemly acts. Moreover, if anger reaches extremes, then a person begins to behave like a madman, committing actions that cause harm to himself and others.

It is possible, however, to cultivate within ourselves an equally powerful, but much more controllable energy that will enable us to cope with such difficult situations. This controlled energy comes not only from a compassionate attitude, but also from reflection and patience. These are the most effective antidotes to anger. Unfortunately, many people mistake these qualities for signs of weakness.

In my opinion, the opposite is true: they are true signs of inner strength. Compassion by nature is soft, peaceful and meek, but at the same time very strong. Those people who easily lose patience are vulnerable and unstable. And therefore for me it is anger that serves a clear sign weaknesses.

Therefore, faced with difficult situation, try to remain calm and sincere. Think about how justice will prevail in the end. Of course, others may try to deceive you, and if your detachment only increases their unfair aggression, remain steadfast.

This, however, should be done with compassion, and if necessary, openly express your beliefs and take countermeasures, but do so without anger or ill intent.

You should understand that although, at first glance, your opponents are harming you, in the end they will only harm themselves with their destructive actions. In order to stop the selfish impulse to respond to your opponent in the same coin, you should remember your desire to develop patience and take responsibility for preventing your enemy from suffering, which would be the result of his bad actions.

If the measures taken are chosen calmly by you, they will turn out to be more effective, more accurate and efficient. Resistance, which is based on the blind energy of anger, rarely achieves its goal.

Friends and enemies

I must again emphasize that just thinking about the benefits of compassion, analysis and patience is not enough to develop them. You need to wait for the moment when difficulties come, and then try to demonstrate these qualities in practice.

Who provides us with these opportunities? Not friends, of course, but our enemies. They are the ones who cause us the most trouble, and therefore, if we really want to learn something, we must consider our enemies to be our best teachers!

For a person who values ​​compassion and love, the practice of patience is vital, and an integral part of its implementation is the enemy. Therefore, we should be grateful to our enemies, for they are the ones who can best help us calm our minds!

In addition, in personal and public life It often happens that under the influence of circumstances, enemies become friends.

So, hatred and anger always cause harm, and unless we train our minds and make efforts to reduce their harmful power, they will continue to bother us and frustrate our attempts to achieve peace.

Anger and hatred are our real enemies. These are the forces that we need to subjugate and defeat, and not at all those temporary enemies that periodically appear in our lives.

Of course, it is natural and justifiable for all of us to strive to surround ourselves with friends. I often joke that if you really want to be selfish, then become altruistic! You need to surround others with all possible care, think about their well-being, help them, serve them, make friends, give them smiles. Result?

When you really need help, you will have plenty of help! If you neglect the happiness of others, you will end up losing yourself. Can friendship be born out of quarrels and anger, jealousy and unbridled rivalry? Hardly. Only love gives us true friends.

In today's materialistic society, if you have money and power, it can seem like you are always surrounded by friends. But these are not your friends, but the friends of your money and power. Once you lose your wealth and influence, all trace of these friends will disappear.

The trouble is that when everything goes well in our lives, we are filled with confidence that we can handle everything alone. We think that we have no need for friends. When our health deteriorates, we quickly realize how wrong we were.

At this moment, we clearly see who is truly useful to us, and who is of no use. In order to prepare for such a moment and surround yourself with true friends who can help in difficult moment, we must develop altruism!

Although sometimes people laugh when I say these words, I personally always wish I had more friends. I love smiles. And so I worry about how to make more friends and how to surround myself with smiles, especially sincere ones. After all, there are so many different smiles - sarcastic, artificial, diplomatic.

Some smiles do not bring a feeling of satisfaction, and sometimes only give rise to doubts and fear, don’t they? But sincere smiles always give us a feeling of freshness, and this, in my opinion, is a unique property of human beings. If we need such smiles, then we need to create reasons for them to appear.

Compassion and Peace

In conclusion, I would like to briefly touch on a subject that goes beyond the scope of this short essay and touches on a larger topic. The happiness of one person can have the most profound and positive impact on the well-being of the entire human community as a whole.

Since we are united by the equally inherent need for love in all of us, we can see in every person we meet in certain circumstances a sister or brother. No matter how unfamiliar his face may seem to us, no matter how unusual his clothes or behavior may be, there is no significant difference between us.

It’s stupid to get hung up on external differences if essentially we have the same nature.

Ultimately, humanity is a single organism, and this small planet is our only home. If we want to protect our home, then each of us must personal experience feel this universal altruism. Only altruism can eradicate the selfish motives that cause people to deceive and oppress others.

If you have a sincere and open heart, you will naturally feel confident and self-esteem, and you will not have to be afraid of others.

I believe that at any level of society - family, clan, state and international - the key to happiness and success will be the development of compassion. There is no need to accept this or that faith, there is no need to share this or that ideology. All that is needed from each of us is to develop universal human values.

I try to treat everyone I meet like an old friend. It gives me a real feeling of happiness. This is the practice of compassion.