Khajuraho is a small village in India in the state of Madhya Pradesh, which has preserved a unique architectural complex built in the 9th-12th centuries AD. e. The temples of love in Khajuraho were found by the British military in the jungle in 1838. These unique architectural buildings are world famous for their erotic sculptures.

The city of Khajuraho was once the cultural and religious capital of the Chandela dynasty, which ruled in the 9th-12th centuries. n. e. Representatives of this dynasty are famous for stopping the invasion of the Muslim army, as well as for creating temples with elegant sculpture. The temples of Khajuraho have become the most iconic in medieval Indian architecture. They are devoted to such areas of Hinduism as Shaivism, Vaishnaism, as well as the ancient dharmic Indian religion Jainism.

All surviving temples are symmetrical along the east-west axis. The temples of Khajuraho are compact, elongated, richly decorated with sculpture and surrounded by open galleries. Among the architectural features of the buildings, one can also distinguish the absence of walls around the temples and the presence of high terrace platforms. Each temple consists of an entrance pavilion, a place for worshipers, a central hall and a sanctuary.

Exquisite sculptural groups that adorn the walls of Khajuraho temples depict scenes from the life of the gods. Each statue impresses with its sophistication, the cult of perfection and grace, therefore temple sculpture is the most attractive attraction of Khajuraho temples. All Khajuraho sculpture is divided into five categories. Canonical religious images are present only along the facades of temples.

Images of the gods, their entourage and servants are found both on the external and internal decoration of the temples. A distinctive feature of the sculptures of the gods is the presence of a headdress, a sacred object in the hands, a mount. Also, these sculptures are richly decorated.

Apsara and sura-sundaris are the most widespread sculpture of Khajuraho. Sura-sundaris is a graceful nymph in beautiful jewelry and clothes, who is depicted in various poses and activities that are characteristic of an ordinary woman. Apsara is depicted dancing in various poses and holding lotus flowers, a mirror, a vessel or incense in her hands.

Secular sculpture depicts rulers, their loved ones, domestic scenes, and erotic couples and groups. It is the erotic secular sculpture of Khajuraho that is most famous in the world. According to one version, the topic of sex was at that time publicly available to society, so they did not see anything shameful in it. According to another version, the erotic sculpture of Khajuraho illustrates the texts of the Kamasutra, in which the combination of spiritual knowledge and physical pleasure is described as a path to achieving liberation. In addition, there is a version that suggests that the placement of erotic sculpture on the lower levels of the temples served good example places of sexual relations in the hierarchy of human values. There is a fairly widespread opinion that the Orthodox Church prohibits sculptural images. Not only ordinary parishioners think so, but also art historians, and even some theologians: for example, Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin.). He builds his theoretical objections, referring to the VII Ecumenical Council, which "did not bless the use of three-dimensional images (sculptures) in the Church" . In turn, M. V. Alpatov was deeply convinced that in Perm, “in defiance of the strict ban of the Orthodox Church, a custom arose to depict the suffering Christ in wooden statues” (Table 114). V. M. Polevoy refers us to the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council, which allegedly condemned round sculpture already in the 4th century.

Nevertheless, there is still no unanimity among art historians and among Orthodox theologians about the ban. “It has become almost a walking truth that the Russian Orthodox Church was extremely hostile to the art of sculpture. But then why was plastic art so popular in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'? And in the Kiev-Chernigov art of the XI-XII centuries, it occupied far from the last place, ”says the well-known researcher of ancient Russian culture G.K. Wagner. And the most authoritative theorist of church art, L. A. Uspensky, notes: “The Orthodox Church has not only never banned sculptural images, but ... such a ban cannot exist at all, since it could not be justified by anything.”

Who is right in this case?

In order to answer this question, we must turn to the Acts of the VII Ecumenical (II Nicene) Council.

And what do we find there?

The Second Council of Nicaea focused all its attention on the development of the dogma of icon veneration, and not on some kind of compulsory prohibition.

The only time a cautious attitude towards sculpture is expressed by St. Patriarch Herman in a message to Bishop Thomas of Claudiapolis (this message was read at a meeting of the Council): “Eusebius says that he also saw the preserved picturesque icons of the Apostles Peter and Paul and Christ Himself, painted with paints. We say this not because we ourselves want to erect copper statues, but only in order to show that the Lord did not reject even what was done according to pagan custom, but that He also favored through this statue (erected out of a sense of gratitude from the gospel bleeding wife. VC.) manifest the miraculous effect of His grace. With us, this custom has taken a much more decent form.

If from this Archimandrite Raphael concluded that the Cathedral had a negative attitude towards sculptural images, then, without a doubt, it should be considered arbitrary.

The patriarch speaks out against the pagan tradition of erecting monuments (by the way, to this day, secular society has not overcome it): “In our country, this custom has taken a much more decent form.” This refers, of course, to the construction of temples and the writing of icons for them. But where is the prohibition that has coercive force? It is only about the preference of painting over sculpture. The opinion of a saint can become the opinion of a Council only on one condition: if it is reflected in decisions taken, i.e. in canons.

The entire controversy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council focused on the defense of the icon, on the fundamental possibility, on the direct necessity of a visible liturgical image, and not on objections to statues. On the contrary, the Fathers repeatedly refer to the existence of carved cherubs in the Old Testament tabernacle and to the decoration of the temple by King Solomon with sculptures of copper.

Even the ancient "idols" stood untouched on the streets of Constantinople for almost 800 years, until one batch of them in 1204 was barbarously destroyed by the crusaders, and the other was dragged to Italy.

From its first centuries, the Church did not reject sculpture. This is evidenced at least by the quite numerous statues of the “Good Shepherd” that have come down to our time. And could she forbid the sculpture, if the living "statue" of God is the man himself?

It is correct to raise the question not about the prohibition of sculpted images in Orthodoxy, but about their place and originality.. After all, painting, as a means brighter, more mobile and materially cheaper than sculpture, in the process of building church art, has another fundamental role - to be the language of showing the heavenly world. Greek culture replaced the ancient antinomy "cosmos-chaos" with the Christian one - "light-darkness". Theologically and aesthetically, only painting, but not plastic, could cope with such a task. On the one hand, through the conciliar experience of the fathers and icon painters, and on the other, the main one, as Revelation, as the spiritual reality of the Church, painting becomes a mystical conductor of transcendent light.

And, nevertheless, bans on sculpture still took place.

They appear relatively late: in the Synodal period of the Russian Orthodox Church, i.e. after the abolition of the patriarchate and the beginning of its leadership by a state official in the person of the chief prosecutor (the title alone is worth something!), who sometimes was of a heterodox religion.

This is the period - when, with the virtual complete denial of icon-painting canons, church art for almost 200 years was subjected to unprecedented regulation from above. This circumstance can be explained by only one thing: the fewer restrictions remained inside a person, the more they appeared from outside.

Already the second resolution of the Holy Synod of May 21, 1722. forbids “to have icons in churches carved, or hewn, gouged, sculpted”, “made up from unskillful or insidious icon-painters, because we don’t have, says the decree, God-chosen artists, but the uncouth ignoramuses themselves dare to carve them.” "This custom crept into Russia from the infidels, and most of all from the Romans and their subsequent, bordering Poles."

And now let's think: can the resolutions of the Synod of one or another Local Church be binding on all other Local Churches? The answer is clear... Even in their own canonical territory, the duration of such decrees is usually limited. And looking ahead, let's say: that's why it took a whole series of them to extend the "ban" on sculptural images in Russian churches. Otherwise, one order would be enough.

This can be regarded as a temporary disciplinary measure, because there is no dogmatic basis here. Comparing the sculptures of the masters of classicism for St. Petersburg churches with the statue of St. Paraskeva Pyatnitsa (XVI century) from the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral or with numerous statues of St. Nicholas of Mozhaisky (also in the 16th century), one can easily be convinced of the later “Catholicization” of Russian plastic arts. Its excessive abundance, of course, required a struggle with the damaged spirit of the times. But after all, the struggle was not for the recovery of the spirit, but against art (including against the canonical style of icon painting).

Moreover, the Ecumenical Councils even introduced dogmas mainly according to the formula "we bless" any position, not "prohibit" him the opposite. This is the norm for the Orthodox.

And if heretics were anathematized at the Councils, then the anathema, as a rule, was a signal of an unrepentant departure from the dogma, but not a curse.

Speak Today about the ban all Orthodox Church sculptures means not understanding elementary legal norms, not understanding the mechanism of the operation of church law.

In order to insist on such a ban, it is necessary to find confirmation for it in the canons of one of the Ecumenical or Local (recognized by the fullness of the Church) Councils. But no such evidence has yet been presented. We wrote about this in detail on the pages of the New Europe magazine.

In the words of the May Synodal Decree, “one can assume echoes of those fluctuations between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, which at that time characterized the church policy of Peter’s associates. Thus, the “Latin” Stefan Yavorsky was a supporter of sculpture in the Roman Catholic spirit. Feofan Prokopovich", - wrote L.A. Uspensky.

Thus, the first ban on sculpture stems not from canonical formulations and definitions, but more from political preferences.

Later, on November 30, 1832, the Synod would adopt a new decree banning sculpture. At first glance, this may even seem strange, because even at the end of classicism, quite a lot of statues for temples were created. But, in all likelihood, they were referring not to the statues of the masters of classicism, who had a "significant influence on the development of fine art among the people," in the language of a synodal official, but the products of sculptors from the people who did not receive academic training and hence (judging by the decree of the Holy Synod dated April 2, 1835) sculpted "for the most part very badly, without proper correctness." However, here it was about the decoration of the ICONOSTASIS, where "the greatest command is to avoid carvings", since wooden carving was potentially a source of "danger that can also come from dilapidation." However, later, not church, but secular authorities, article 91 of the charter on the prevention and suppression of crimes (T. XIV, ed. 1890) orders "uniformly not to use carved and cast icons in Orthodox churches, except for crucifixes of skillful carving and some other stucco images supplied on high places".

Where does this state concern come from?

Why did it allow plastic to be used "in high places", but not in low places?

The answer must be sought in the 8th century. Emperor Leo III the Isaurian began his fight against icons by ordering them to be removed “from prominent outdoor places and, as they said, to raise them higher in churches” (A. V. Kartashev). The Second Iconoclastic Council of 815 "allows icons to be left in high places in exchange for edification by scriptures." This is due to the fact that the people do not venerate the icons, do not light candles and lamps in front of them, that is, do not render due reverence to the sacred images.

Aliens staged a nuclear genocide on the Martians?

Nuclear war wiped out ancient civilizations on Mars, says scientist John Brandenburg.

In connection with the struggle of earthlings for power and a new arms race, which requires that neighboring countries cannot possess atomic energy, have you ever thought about the future of the Earth and its inhabitants? Nuclear war is a possibility that has troubled mankind for decades, and we have seen first hand the effects of using such "bombs".

Maybe Mars is the home planet of a civilization that was destroyed by a nuclear war?

John Brandenburg, Ph.D. in plasma physics at Orbital Technologies in Madison, Wisconsin, believes that the Martian race ended in a nuclear explosion. In 2011, Brandenburg presented a theory according to which the red color on Mars is due to a thermonuclear explosion that took place, writes the Daily Mail.

"The surface of Mars is covered with a thin layer radioactive substances, including uranium, thorium and radioactive potassium - and this pattern radiates from hot spots on Mars," Brandenburg said earlier. "A nuclear explosion could spread debris all over the planet."

However, a scientist with a Ph.D. theoretical physics Plasma from the University of California at Davis now believes that the ancient Martians, known as the Cydonians and Utopians, were victims of genocide.

Given the large number of nuclear isotopes in the atmosphere of Mars, reminiscent of those that arose after the tests hydrogen bomb on Earth, Mars is possibly an example of a civilization destroyed by a nuclear attack from space," Brandenburg wrote in an article published in Vice.

"It is quite possible that the Fermi Paradox means that our interstellar neighborhood contains forces hostile to young, noisy civilizations like us," he writes in the article. "Such hostile forces may include, for example, aliens, an AI (artificial intelligence) population" that has accumulated resentment "against flesh and blood" as in the Terminator movie, all sorts of things, such as, unfortunately, we know as a senseless humanoid bureaucrat , Governor Tarkin from " Star Wars"who decided to destroy the planet Alderann as an example for other worlds."

A video posted on the French YouTube channel shows a "cloud of smoke" in the Mariner region, a 2,500-mile (4,000 km) canyon on Mars. "The image shows a huge mushroom, and we may wonder if this huge rare dust cloud is created by the wind, or if it is caused by a nuclear or methane explosion," the video says.

University of South Queensland, Australia astronomer Jontai Horner told the Express, "Fans would imagine that this is indicative of the use nuclear weapons on Mars, or even attributed to the influence of a fragment of the comet Siding Spring (Comet Siding Spring), crashed into the planet. But, unfortunately, that's just not the case."
According to Horner, the "cloud" is just an optical illusion.

Brandenburg, whose next paper will appear in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, claims that Mars once had an advanced Earth-like civilization, such as the ancient Egyptians. Brandenburg claims his theory relies on "high concentrations" of xenon-129 in the Martian atmosphere, as well as on the surface of uranium and thorium, as detected by NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft.

Brandenburg also used data from his studies of two sites on the Red Planet to support the theory put forward, including Cydonia, where the now discredited "Face on Mars" was found. Brandenburg claims that the "face" is an ancient artifact of the life of the Martians who previously inhabited the planet.

Brandenburg believes that the "face" on Mars is a trace left by the ancient Martians.
Later, the "face" on Mars was discredited and presented as a shift in the dunes.

One of the alleged nuclear explosions took place in Cydonia Mensah, and a smaller explosion destroyed civilization in an area called Galaxias Chaos, according to the Daily Mail.