Part III

Tengri-Khan and Christ, His Foster Son

     In consciousness of billions of people Europe is the bulwark of Christianity. And it seems it has always been so for that was religion that has formed that culture which is known as "European" for about a thousand and a half years. And whatever differences there are between the worlds of a German, an Englishman, a French, an Italian or a Russian, the unity of belief binds them uniting into one single thing which is called a European. Which also means a Christian.
    Rome is deemed to be the cradle of European Christianity since, as the Catholic doctrine asserts, apostle Peter was the first head of the Church there who has supposedly headed the college of the twelve apostles after Christ's departure - the highest instance of the Church. That's why Popes still consider themselves the leaders of the Christian world.
    That version of the "apostolic throne" in Rome was put forward by Damassius I, the Roman bishop (366 - 384 - years of papacy), who had a very high prestige. The clergy of the Western provinces of the Empire supported him for it understood that innovation as consolidation of the Church as a governing institution. It is obvious that no documents have been provided for the "apostolic throne", they were accepted on trust as well as many other religious innovations of those times.
    Although Eastern provinces of the Empire were in a strong opposition to self-exaltation of Rome. Later similar opposed opinions were also expressed by the Protestants who have found serious reasons to doubt that seeming entity. One cannot ignore their reasons.
    That's true, no documents confirming the supremacy of apostle Peter over the other apostles remained. Christ also never spoke about that. Why was Pope Damasius that sure?
    Furthermore, neither in the epistle of the year 58 addressed to the Romans, nor in other epistles written in Rome itself apostle Paul from Tars doesn't even mention the presence of Peter there let alone his papacy. Know he that fact he couldn't have passed it over in silence. And according to official information provided by the Roman Church itself apostle Peter was supposedly the head of the Roman Church until the year 67… It turns out one apostle hasn't been noticing the other in Rome for many years. He didn't even know about him.
    Who actually was the first bishop in Rome? That's not known. Who was the second? The tenth? That's not known either. When was the Church founded and how did the first Christian communities appear in the Eternal City; how big were they? These questions are opened for disputes and discussions. They are covered with mystery.
    Not only evidences are absent but even indirect confirmations or lame hints. There was nothing. But there is a tradition to think so and not otherwise, not analyzing the reliability of the facts that, perhaps, have never taken place.
    The first records of Popes appeared only in IV century. To tell the truth, opposite almost every name there the words "no information" or "information not available" can be seen. But the list of Popes appeared after the lapse of several centuries.
    Of course this information is not reliable from the historical viewpoint; they are valuable for another reason - they allow to analyze the history of the Church as a power institution. That approach reveals the things usually "not mentioned" in the church literature… It seems the names of the first Popes as well as another information about them have been usually pronounced not very confidently. No one would guarantee the truthfulness of the things said, but no one would reject them.
    That is true, not only the supremacy of the Catholic Church itself is doubtful, but also know information about the early Christianity. And it looks like a tail to a certain extent - there are too many rosy colors.
Certain Christian legends and stories, as the historians have found out, appeared centuries after what is supposed to have happened. Later the texts were edited many times. The New Testament or any other book of the Bible is a good example of it. They were "corrected" by the editors in black gowns more than once for political reasons… For at first the Christian Church was intended to be and created as a power institution standing over the colonies of the former Roman Empire.
     The legends of its divine origin appeared much later - with the appearance of the image of Heavenly God. Before that there wasn't a religion as such: there wasn't even a canon, i.e. the ceremonies in the early Christianity! It was a small sect of Judaism. For example, in Rome with its population of 300 thousand people there were several dozens of Christians at most.
     But everybody knew them and tried to stay away from them considering that they had performed ritual infanticides. There were even witnesses having seen the Christians eating human flesh and drinking human blood. And their famous "agapes" were called the orgies by the people; legends were written about them.
     All that can be called a religious ceremony with great reserve… People were against the early Christians for the reason that the Christians negated existence of gods and any morals! They caked themselves the atheists, hid in the catacombs; they were deemed to be the dregs of society… Thus it happened until IV century. Rome would tolerate the atheists persecuting them from time to time.
     In the year 380 everything changed in Rome. After the unsuccessful attempts to impose the new religion (Mitreism) on the pagan society, the emperor Feodosius was forced to recognize the head of the Christian community - Damasius I.    
     That Pope went to down to history in 366; he occupied the "throne of St. Peter" by force having killed more than 160 of his opponents, and started to apply new ceremonies in the Christian communities which they hadn't known. As a matter of fact the new Christianity originated in Rome, it was rising from day to day, making its way to the society with great difficulties.
     Bloody conflicts became usual for, as it was marked by the Latin historian Ammian Marcellin (330 - 400), "the one getting the dignity of the bishop could be sure he would have plenty of gold (bold provided. - M.A.)…". Some was deliberately sending gold and arms to the Christian Church. And even providing the troops to it… It turns innovation came to the Christian Church not by itself.
     Having realized his power and strength, Pope Damasius made a list of books of the Holy Scripture and ordered the church writer Hieronimus "to work" with the texts of the New Testament; there were more than hundred of them those days. Other biblical books were also written by the Roman and Byzantine writers.

     One the icons the Savior was depicted in the image of a Lamb until the end of VII century. It was only in 691 (692?) when the Trull Council ordered to paint Christ as a human being instead of an "old lamb"

     Pope Damasius gathered the people who knew all the new Christian ceremonies around him (later they've become the doctors of the Church): Wasil, Gregory Nasiansine, John Chrysostom, Hieronimus, Ambrosium, Augustin and others…But where could they gain the knowledge in theology while there wasn't an opportunity either in Europe or in Palestine? What language did the new ecclesiastics speck? Where were they born? Unfortunately, the historians neglected this important information.
And it is not injudicious to remind that only in the year 312 a prayer in the name of Heavenly God was read for the European audience for the first time. Christ wasn't mentioned in it… That holy prayer was read in the Turkic language. It means the Turki who worshipped Heavenly God were the only ones possessing theological knowledge those days. The were the only ones, indeed.
     Europe was pagan! And the Christians were the atheists.
     At that time, in IV century, modern Europe was born - the bulwark of the Christian world. Events of the Church were fixed in the chronicles. Rosy colors are kind washed out in them and the world becomes a reality.
     In Byzantium and in Caucasus the new belief was recognized by the local rulers only in IV century (a little bit earlier than in Rome) having got a sort of "assistance"…
     If one thinks over the events of those tough years, or all the logic of what has happened he cannot stay calm: the River of Time somehow unexpectedly turned aside in Europe. The Roman Empire has fallen while those times (after the glorious victories of the emperor Diocletian) it was supposed to live in the Golden Age and stability. Another new mental culture appeared on the continent which was violently persecuted yesterday; Jupiter, the highest God of the Roman Empire, its highest guardian, was thrown out of temples!.. Could this happen by itself?
    No. It's never like that…
    There is a plain legend according to which it is deemed that Christianity, as a sprout, penetrated into the souls of the pagans and grew into a religion there. But it is unlikely; the whole history of religions evidences of another thing: crusades, inquisition, wars of the Arab caliphate.
    Religion is the part of ideology and the latter is the element of politics, or power, to put it more preciously, which has been becoming firmly established only by force. Gold and sword are always near; they embody power…
    Let us remember what was happening in Europe then? The Great Nations Migration. The Turkic Kipchaks came there in the beginning of IV century, they dictated their will, they turned the River of Time in Europe at their discretion…
    This "forgotten" but undisputable historic fact gives lost orderliness to the whole human history: it ties the events of the early Middle Ages with a logic thread marking conjectures and concealments.
    These were the Turki who brought an equilateral cross to Europe on their flags, they prayed to Heavenly God; and the historians of antiquity (Prisk, Jordan and others) called Attila, his father Mundzuk and other Kipchaks "the Christians" although it is evident that this is not the correct word here. They weren't the Christians.
    Before their acquaintance with the "barbarians" the Christians didn't know not only Heavenly God, but either a cross - their modern symbol. They didn't know the sign if the cross, churches, icons, peal, modern prayers. Once again, there was no Christian religion!.. Not only the symbol of belief was absent but also the canon, i.e. the devotions! And what religion without a canon and a symbol can be called into question?..
    Earlier Christianity was notable for pared-down ceremonies, it they ever existed at all. For example, circumcision was obligatory for men. What was the ritual of a prayer like? It is not known. Church literature keeps silence.
    Historical literature is more concrete… It convinces of the fact that the cross was brought not by Christ but Attila. Alas, that's really so… Nowadays there are many crosses - Latin, Greek, patriarchal, St. Andrew's and a dozen of others, - but nobody would manage to say which is connected with Christ?
    Neither of them!
    In fact Christ didn't bear a cross to Calvary but a T-beam - they used to execute on them. St. Apostle Barnabas, as well as all ancient Christian authors, taught: "You have a cross in the letter "T".
    And early Christians called an equilateral Turkic cross "the sign of the beast". One can read the Bible dozens of times, but there is not a single word there about the fact that some of the Christians made the sign of the cross. Even Christ. They really didn't have neither a cross, not a sign of the cross!
    The first (or the earliest) Christianity, which is deemed to appear in the times of Christ, remained until now as a belief. And this is perhaps the most astonishing fact in the history of religions… The relict of belief! Its traces can be found in Palestine and Minor Asia and not in Rome. And they are the only left by Christ on the road of Christianity. There are no other traces.
    Let's think about it, could the followers of Christ's teaching accept his disciples together with him? Never. The disciples ran away in a cowardly manner during the savage punishment of Christ. How can one follow them after they have betrayed their master and left him alone in a deadly moment? In neither religion, for neither nation a betrayal has ever been respected and esteemed.
    That's why the Old Testament, on which Christ based, became the teaching of the first Christians. And the ceremony passed from the Jews to them. The words "Christian" and "Jew" were of the same meaning; they didn't differ. That's why early Christianity was the sect of Judaism.
    Amidst the Jews there were other sects apart from the Christians, zelots for example. The Christians were different from other Jews just because they believed in soon arrival of Messiah - thus was pronounced the name of Hero - Savior (but not Christ!) who was supposed to save Europe from the Roman yoke, thus was written in Apocalypse.   
    The evidences to the things aforesaid are in the history of communities called Jewish in Russia. They are the most ancient branch of the Christian religion, the first one! At first it found its followers in Palestine, later, due to refusal to take part in Judaic War (66 - 73) the Jews turned the Christians out to the Minor Asia. After that they settled in Rome. (Because Rome was considered to be the cradle of Christianity in Europe. But which Christianity?)
    Apostle Paul addressed his "Epistle to the Romans" to them - to those Jewish Christians! In faraway Rome, the capital of the Empire, Paul saw the followers of Christ's teaching.
    The fourth chapter of that "Epistle" is dedicated to circumcision being obligatory for the Christians. For example, there are the following words there: "And he got the sign of circumcision as a righteous mark through belief". Or: "This bliss relates to circumcision". That sacred ceremony of initiation which Christ has also passed is performed on the eighth day.
    Circumcision was deemed to be christening, i.e. becoming a Christian.
    Jewish Christians are still notable for astonishing conservatism, they recognize no innovations in their belief. They honor only religion accepted from Christ's hands. Unfortunately (or luckily) not much is known about this most ancient branch of Christianity; its followers have been persecuted by the official Church since IV century.
    However some notes by the travelers remained. In XIX century there was a Privolnoye settlement in Baku province (Djalalabad region now) which inhabitants are still adhered to the most ancient, "pure" Christian traditions.
    An eyewitness described them as follows: "Heresy of the Jewish, as we know, appeared in Russia in XV century in Novgorod for the first time, from where it got to Moscow; a Jew Skharia brought it to Novgorod. The essence of that early teaching, as we can judge by available scant sources, is in negation of basic dogmas of Christianity (trinity, divine nature of Jesus Christ), certain sacraments, spiritual hierarchy, obeisance to icons, monkhood, and from the other hand - in recognition of Judaic ceremonies. Heresy of the Jews was convicted at Moscow Council in 1504 and put down".
    They punished the followers of the true Christianity especially violently in XIX century in Russia. At that time that found a response in Russian souls and mass banishment and killing of the followers of that teaching began. That was the time when Privolnoye settlement and other settlements appeared in Baku province; their founders were the natives of the Central Russia ( The Karaites - the Turki living in the Crimea and in Lithuania are of a special interest for an historian of religions. They are also the followers of the Old Testament. But can they be called "Jewish"? Or they are the bearers of a more ancient teaching which appeared before Christianity and even Judaism? The latter is more likely. In Altai and in other Siberian regions where the Turki lived (not connected with Palestine) ancient folk legends remained which nonplus the scientists, - as a matter of fact these are the fragments of the Old Testament, its outline. Where from? The priest Stephan Landyshev, the Russian missionary, was the first who found them in XIX century and published them. A striking similarity with biblical legends about creation of the world, creation of man, the Fall, true belief etc.).
    Privolnoye inhabitants, no doubt, didn't call themselves with an irritating word "Jewish", they said: "We are the Sabbatarians". Otherwise, the followers of pure Judaism. All doubtful extraneous features which appeared later in Christ's teaching, including the New Testament, they decidedly rejected seeing heresy in them. Because those books were not from Christ!
    Indeed, they were not from him. Canonization of Christian books, including New Testament, commenced from the end of IV century which was called the "Golden Age" for East and West. That was an epoch of united church Councils, theological disputes and even hand-to-hand fighting in the name of consolidation of a new belief.
    Everything was mixed up - lust for power and ambition, greed and envy, - bishops knew what to fight for… And there was nothing "apostolic"… Except for the names. Church was built by the people who were common but not simple-minded.

    The name "Jesus Christ" appeared in II century; before that the hero was called Joshua. Many facts about him became known due to pains of apostle Paul who lived after Christ. But… he, as the Church asserts, as though "used to see and listen to" Christ, even talk to him having a certain ecstatic experience… Later the number of "talkers" and "eyewitnesses" of Christ became dozens of times more. And each of them tried to report about his "meeting"… Books were written as well as the Gospels not recognized later (Apocrypha).
    … During the prayers "pure" Christians, according to Christ's precept, use only ancient Jewish words. Churches in Privolnoye settlement, according to the witnesses, looked like synagogues. Church or cathedral features were absent in their architecture. Again, that is natural. Besides the synagogues, the Christians, having become a little bit farther form Judaism, couldn't and didn't have the right to invent other ritual places.
    Privolnoye settlement inhabitants emphasized Saturday in the course of the whole year as a holiday, the same as Purim, Jewish Easter with matzoth and some other holidays.
    "Pure" Christians don't ever cross themselves - they simply don't have the sign of the cross. But exterior observers used to talk about licentiousness, or about free relations inside a community, which wasn't recognized as a sin. That is an ancient Judaic tradition. People live according to their laws, with their morals. And they call a church another construction - not one to which official Christians are accustomed.    
    Sabbatarians lived according to the ancient testaments of the Bible! As it was in the time of Christ.
    Inside the "Christian" synagogue (which literally means "house for a meeting") there were vast rectangular halls, further in the hall there was a bookcase curtained with a coverlet. The synagogues - their purpose and arrangement - were repeated by the first Christians! There was no church architecture in the time if Christ.
    Unfortunately, representatives of the official Church have never performed an investigation of the Jewish ceremonies; that was excused for the reason that heresy is out of its interest… But what is "heresy" in this particular case?
    Who deviated from Christ's symbol? Were these the Jewish?.. It seems nobody has ever asked this question. It's a pity. Because the sources of Christianity are littered with undisguised aversion which has been accumulating for centuries.
    The Jewish reject "traditional Christians" because of their innovation, insisting that it is impossible to correct Christ.

    Which are those innovations? What are they? When did they appear? And why?
    Early Christians don't recognize divine nature of Christ and Trinity. In other words they reject the most important dogmas of official Christianity. What does it witness about? That those dogmas appeared after Christ, apparently. It means they came to religion form the Evil One, Sabbatarians reckon.
    And that's true, at the beginning of IV century at Ecumenical Council I of the year 325 Constantine, the Byzantine emperor, ordered the Christians to respect the Christ equally with God. He really ordered basing its conception of "consubstantiality" as follows: "one shouldn't object to determinations of the autocrat directed to protection of the truth".
    A weighty statement…
    The first important church dogma appeared under tough pressure of temporal power. Is this approach correct for a spiritual meditation? Theologians should answer. But the most important testament of Christ was uttered by the emperor Constantine who… wasn't a Christian! He was the high pagan priest in his life.
    And what is a dogma? That is the corner stone of religion, its base. It is notable that Constantine's idea wasn't new; it has been already stated in 268, discussed and … rejected as it was recognized as a heretical one.
    Constantine's suggestion was not a dogma but rather an excellent political finding of Byzantium compared with which the Grecian horse of ancient Greeks is a miserable child's play. The Greeks have skillfully hidden the poison of delayed-action then: they killed the Turkic religion.
    "God is eternal for it is the World and the Creator of the World", - ancient Turki used to say.
    Consequently Christ isn't equal to God just because he was born, and a birth is connected with origin. He couldn't die for the same reason - death is connected with the end. If he was dead on the cross it turns out God dies together with him. And this is absurd since God is eternal…
    And this is a double absurd. In Matthew's Gospel it is said in the very first line: "The family tree of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham…" How should that phrase be interpreted? What about God?   
    Ignorance of Constantine - the pagan! - led the Church to absurdity. Sabbatarians were the first who objected it. Certain church officials and even separate Churches followed them. All in vain. They weren't heard.
    For example, the bishop Arius tried to explain Constantine and others that a son cannot be his father at the same time. But the reasoned voice drowned in the scream of opponents who saw other things in that dogma - expanding of Greek power over other territories. Those territories where people believed in Heavenly God. In other words, over the Turkic lands! The Greeks prepared their new wooden horse to be sent there. They dreamt to get into the churches of the Turki with a laureate wreath, being their spiritual brothers and, usurping their culture, to subdue them. It happened almost that way.
    Byzantium, having become the leader of the Christian world, ignored everything being an obstacle on the way to their secret goal… And that is not a religion - that is politics! Pure, or better to say, dirty politics. Self-assured Turki, being accustomed to see white as white and black as black didn't suspect a craft. The Romans were the only ones who guessed it and at first they secretly supported the Greeks.
Creating the state church the emperor Constantine became firmly established in the Mediterranean region and that fact, for sure, started to bother Rome. Especially since Byzantium began to perform different plays demonstrating personal friendship of its emperor with God - as though "God marvelously, through the visions, disclosed intention of the enemies" to him, "favored him with theophany repeatedly". That was a real mess… But thus the character of saint emperor was created.
    Eusebius, a well-known historian, used to write about him as of the "saint", although neglecting the fact that the "saint" smothered his nearest relatives - his wife and his son - with his own hands. And after that it is assumed to call Constantine the main hero of Christianity - "the emperor equal to an apostle"…, "The Great"… in the history of the Church.

    In 430 Nestor, the bishop, doubted another dogma of Christianity, so called "unity of divine Trinity".
    Theological disputes became the screen for simpletons again. In practice a material problem was to be solved: who is to predominate over Mediterranean region - either Byzantium or Egypt. Both parties searched for allies through the Church.
    Eusebius ascertained, anticipating those events, that: "… envy didn't loose sight of our welfare; it… caused the bishops to quarrel and, under the pretext of defense, gave rise to disagreement and discord between them. After that, as though out of sparkles, a great fire was set on and, commencing from the head, from Alexandrine Church, spread over the whole Egypt, Lybia and beyond the bounds of Finaida… The look of those events was driven to such indecency that Right Worthy divine doctrine became the most abusive mockery…"
    It took a long time for the parties to meet, and the combat was heated. Egyptians won a victory at the Ephesian Council II in 449. They beat the Greeks unmercifully, at that the head of Council kicked one of dissidents with his legs. But Byzantines gained revenge in 451… At that time the Act under which "divinity should more likely be trine than binary" was adopted at Halchidon Council.
    Another Grecian horse!
    Saint Trinity was present in Turkic religion. Now the Greeks turned to it… The dispute was not finally settled at the Council of Chalcedon and not all Churches accepted the "doctrine of divine Trinity". Debates about Trinity continue until now - Nestorians (Trinity's opponents) remain in Christianity… Entire communities and landed Churches.
    How can opinion of another Byzantine politician (or someone else) which failed to settle during a thousand and a half years be considered an essential dogma of world religion? Theologians have to make another decision; it's an internal matter of the Church.
    But Turkic understanding of conception of Trinity and trine was completely different. Besides, the Greeks borrowed only exterior form. And again they made a philosophic category absurd.

    One would think: why should Polovtsians mind discords in the circles of Christians? After all, they were free in their choice… It turned out that everything was not that simple - everything was too much interrelated.
    Europe turned to Heavenly God - Tengri-Khan in IV century. Europeans rejected all other religions - modern as well as ancient - because they realized that Polovtsians won not because of their arm or unknown combat tactics - these were progressing. The force of the Turki was in their spirit! They won due to force of Heavenly God.
    To steal a foreign God, that's what Byzantine emperor, dreaming of world supremacy, intended to do. That's why he invented "new" Christianity in which omnipotent God, the Creator of this world, would present. That became the subject of disputes at church Councils; the split in early Christian communities happened for that reason. Everything was made imperceptibly and gradually.
    The stealing of God… It thrilled the minds of Byzantium rulers and later of Roman ones.
    Tengirchilik was the name of the Turkic religion.
    What kind of a belief is it? Why there is not a single word in the church history about it? Why do the describers of European life demonstrate their emphatic ignorance of that ancient religion of mankind?.. Why do they all keep silence presenting the Turki as "nasty Tatars" having no cultural sources?
    But in Siberia remained several monuments embodying the Turkic clergy. Ritual inventory was also found… And all that was before the appearance of legends about Christ. Those are very important findings which allow an unprejudiced person to start thinking and to have another look at the roots of European spiritual culture… But there is another thing!
    History of Buddhism, for instance. IV Council of I century is described there as well as the split and acceptance of Tengirchilik traditions borrowed from the Turki by some Buddhists (the northern branch). That is really interesting information but unfortunately it is not called for by scientists studying religions.
    There is also the history of Armenian, Albanian and Georgian Christian churches where the early period of Christianity is stated otherwise as compared with power-loving Greeks or Romans who have put themselves in the center of the world.
    Finally, there are Syrian and Copt churches which also reject supremacy of the Greeks as well as the whole scheme of development of spiritual culture of Europe usual for a European… Independent Persian and Arab chronicles are very interesting…
    How can one neglect all these facts?
    When and where was the new tradition formed? That tradition split early Christian communities, brought them new ceremonies and gave rise to a new European religion which is known to everybody.

    It originated in the Caucasus - in Armenia, to put it more preciously - in the year 301. It is indicative: they suppose that divine service there was performed in Syrian (?) language but according to other ceremonies which wre different as compared with the rest of the Christian world.
    However, it is not clear why the Armenians assert that Syrian language was their religious language? And what made them reject it?.. All this is to be confirmed.
    And the facts witness of other things.
    There are ancient holy books in Armenia which were written in Armenian graphics but in Turkic language. It seems Turkic and not Syrian language was the language of divine service for Armenians for the prayers of early Armenia were written in it (This supposition is in accordance with the history of the Georgian Church. Ancient church written language there was called "khutsuri", it appeared at the same time with Christianity, i.e. in the beginning of IV century. There are thirty-eight letters in it, as well as in Turkic language. An interesting comparison: after the government of David the Builder, who, as we know, invited the Kipchaks to his army, mkhedruli (written language of the warriors) appeared in Georgia, and it also contained thirty-eight letters. By XVIII century the number of the letters was increased up to forty. Those two written languages were notable for the fact the church one was also called "angular" reminding of ancient runes. But according to folk legends written language of the warriors was deemed to be more ancient. There are no direct evidences of Turkic roots of both languages; the question hasn't been investigated by science. But what language could speak the Kipchaks having got Georgia? It is evident that only Turkic. It became the part of the Georgian language.). There are weighty confirmations, but they are to be considered later.
    The Armenian Church, as we know, exists since 301 keeping its individuality. Armenian nation scattered over the whole world united around it. Much is known about its sources. For example, in "History of Armenia" by Moses Khorenskiy communication between the Armenians and the Turki is marked from the edge of II century; those Armenians were developing the steppes near Khazar (Caspian). There is information that the Turki waged wars as the mercenaries in the army of Khosroi I, the Armenian ruler.
    And Favst Buzand was openly speaking about participation of the Turki in the events connected with establishment of Christianity in flat Caspian region in the beginning of IV century. Armenian, Albanian and Iberian churches were formed then. Patriarchy which united those three first Churches in the world was in Derbent - the world center of "new" Christianity! Byzantium joined them in 311 - 312 and Rome did it much later.
    At that time Derbent was under the power of the Turki; Christian churches, the most ancient in the world, remained there!
    The beginning of "renewal" of early Christianity was set by Armenian George the Enlightener and his grandson, bishop Gregoris (known as St. George). His speech gave rise to spiritual communication between "Western" and "Eastern" cultures, which led to the traditional Christianity.
    A grand event. It didn't leave without a trace. It was fixed not only by historians but also by people's memory which turns all important events into legends. In the beginning of IV century the first version of the legend about St. George appeared, apparently.
    Mythological interpretation was put on a strict historical base in it.
    And the church biography of St. George provides only mythical information. It is not in accordance with historic reality. Everything is invented there: all events are fragrantly contradictory. However, it can also be explained.
    In the year 494 at the Roman Council I Gelacius, the Pope, prohibited to mention the name and deeds of that saint. For that reason it is not known that St. George was the first European who accepted Heavenly God and acquainted Europe with Him. He was the first Christian who was christened with water. George is the only saint being recognized by both: Christians and Moslems. (Khyzri, Djirdjis, Khyzr-Ilias are the Moslem names).
    This information was dangerous for Rome and for Byzantium as well. Because it contained the truth about the Turki and their culture. Thus they prohibited even to mention the name and the deeds of the great saint who, having visited the Kipchaks, opened the knowledge of the divine Truth to the western world.
    The fate of George and the fate of Gregoris, the Armenian bishop, are strangely similar. It is one and the same person: "Gregoris" is the secular name of St. George. (The tradition to change secular names for the church ones appeared in VI century. The name "George" instead of former "Gregoris" appeared at that time.)
    Constantine, the Byzantine emperor, built a church in his honor in IV century - this fact is fixed in history of the Church. As well as another fact: this church is known as St. George Church since VI century!..
    In later legends about St. George historical reality is evident: a serpent was the symbol of the Turki in medieval Europe. Peaceful nature of their "duel" (there was a theological dialogue, apparently?) is witnessed by the early text of the legend, the story by the ancient chronicler Favst Buzand and Apocrypha… Ecclesiastics were met! This fact is described in the appendix to this book in detail.

    In the beginning of IV century, due to the Turki, Transcaucasia was no longer a Roman colony.
    Divine afflatus of George the Enlightener gave rise to a "new", "traditional" Christianity here (it is confirmed by the famous decree of the Roman emperor Galerius of the year 311). Armenians were the first ones who recognized the Turki as God's servants! They understood that, having accepted the Turkic God, they could get a strong ally. Bishop Gregoris went to search for a spiritual union which could have consolidated the military one.
    Later the Turki were also visited by an Armenian bishop Kardost and an embassy of seven clergies headed by him. They lived for 14 years with the Kipchaks and issued "The Scripture in Hun Language". Bishop Kardost was changed by bishop Makar. A representative of the Armenian Church was permanently living in Derbent, and an Armenian quarter appeared in the city… This information makes one sure that only the Turkic language could be religious in Armenia. It wasn't forgotten until VI - VII centuries.
    Armenians adopted a lot from the Turki at that time. For example, they still cross themselves according to Tengirchilik traditions putting two fingers together - a thumb and a third finger. That is the symbol of pacification in the East. Armenian Church also retained other traditions of Tengirchilik. But the most important thing is that it has been always acting in defence of the purest look of Heavenly God. That is an undoubted feat of the wise Armenian clergy. Armenian nation is one of the few which opposed to the strong pressure of the Greek and didn't equal Christ to Tengri! They retained their Church in primeval purity. They even still have a cross of Tengirchilik. And that should give rise to admiration.

    The head of Armenian apostolic church carried a Tengirchilik rod with two serpents through the centuries. And the title granted by the Turki some time. "Catholicos" (without a Greek "-os" ending, of course) is translated from ancient Turkic as "ally", "companion"… Alas, that is a forgotten history. The history of union of East and West - the Turki and the Armenians were the first in it.

    And what kind of belief is it - Tengirchilik?
    According to Jean-Paul Rus, the famous expert in the religions, the Turki who lived in Altai worshipped "heaven man", "sun man" - Tengri - long before the Common Era. Chinese historians mark the appearance of the cult of Tengri with the Turki not later than in V - III centuries B.C. Rock paintings with religious themes fully confirm the information provided by the French scientist and Chinese chronicles…Everything seems to be in its right place, everything is known, everything was fixed in different and independent sources. But… it is neglected for some reason.
    Although Tengri-Khan has never been the spiritual property of the Turki. He is the priceless wealth of other nations of the Central Asia. Its image is the most ancient mythological image of the East. For he is the spirit of heaven. The lord of heaven and of the world.
    The Turki say "Tengri" or "Tangri", the Buryats - "Tangari", the Mongolians - "Tanger", the Chuvashes - "Tura". The Turki themselves have several variants of pronunciation of his name: from "Danyir", "Dandyr" to "Donar"… The sounds seem to be different, but the sense of the word is the same for all nations: the spirit, male divine origin. The title "khan" points to its superior role in the Universe.
    For the Eastern culture hierarchy of celestials is obligatory. (The same as the hierarchy of masters of the nether world). For the Turki heaven was divided into nine circles; and a deep sense was seen in it. Hence is hierarchy in the churches - Tengirchilik clergy had nine ranks. Everything is from God. Everything is the same with God.
    Each circle of heaven reflected a dichotomy (i.e. division by two): light and dark, benevolent and demonic. It means God can be kind and strict, saving and retributive. He sees everything; and human fate depends only upon him, God will treat him according to his deeds and thoughts.
    And that is the deep wisdom of Tengirchilik religion; it doesn't humiliate man, it raises him, it prepares him for a deed, for a treat. Anyone of us makes himself happy or unhappy by his conduct. Our sorrow and joy come for ourselves… For one cannon deceive God. He is the High Judge and he rewards according to the merits.
    A simple wisdom. The Buddhists were the first who comprehended the profundity of that simple philosophy. And they accepted it. Nowhere, in neither country of the world, there is another wisdom as clear as that one… Of course, Turkic religion wasn't formed right away; it was developing gradually until the number of circles reached nine.
    Nine was the figure of Tengri. Three is contained three times in it; here it is - the image of Divine Trinity united in three shapes. The Turki comprehended the Trinity as the space of spirit: contemplating, saving and retributive God in one shape. He is one but he shows himself in different ways. People knew: God sees everything and it depends upon your deeds whether he is going to save you or to punish.
    The Christians, knowing no basics of theology (and maybe knowingly!) disfigured the Trinity of Tengirchilik. At first they made it "double" having equated Christ to God. Then their "Trinity" appeared. And later the fourth element was added to it, and the whole conception of monotheism was left out…

    The Turki ascribed natural, superhuman forces only to will of Tengri. That's why He was called the Most High. If He wishes man can move mountains. Even feelings and passion are given to man by will of omnipotent Tengri - the Lord of the world. Indeed, everything is from Him: "Good and evil, poverty and wealth are given only by God". The Turki used to cut these words with the runes on rocks as an oath - everybody, young and old, remembered that first commandment of life.
    "Akhta chin ash Izhesi…", i.e. "Father, God of spiritual food…" - was the beginning of an ancient Turkic prayer in the name of the Most High Tengri.
    And cannot those sounds being holy for an ancient Turki be recognized in the Russian prayer "Our Father…"?.. An interesting question, isn't it?.. It could have interested the theologians and they, having access to old church literature, could have reconstructed the whole text of the prayer. In old times it was read only in Turkic language in Russia.
    There is a work by G. Derfer, the German scientist, relating to this point; he traced the formation of the term "Tengri" from its early shaman image to the highest form of development. In the opinion of the scientist one of the first monotheistic religions of mankind is in question. If not the very first.
    Turkic spiritual culture gave rise to a philosophical construction which is known as a religion nowadays: spirit dominates, not a subject.
    The Europeans didn't completely understand the idea of monotheism and they still don't. In many respects it is explained by the pagan traditions of the Ancient Greece and Rome to which polytheism was peculiar; they couldn't abandon the ancient traditions. (Stereotype of thinking mattered!) Hence is a disfigured understanding of Trinity and the term "Heavenly God" in Christianity… Hence is deification of hundreds and hundreds of saints whose deeds one can hardly remember now.
    It is interesting that the words Father God appeared in the IV century in Christianity; there weren't and there aren't such words in Judaism. Thus the Christians used to call the Judaic tsar David from whom Jesus Christ was supposed to originate; he is called David's son in the Bible. It turns out Heavenly God wasn't in question in communities of the early Christians. A concrete person was in question! A living person - tsar David.
    Literally: religion of the Kipchaks opened the way to understanding of the divine truth.
    … Tengri traditions are eternal. Some time the clergy and the pulpit controlled compliance therewith. Tengirchilik religion had its canon. S. N. Atabaev, the Kazakh professor, has done a lot for investigation of Turkic spiritual culture; unfortunately his works are not known to public. Another Kazakh professor, B. E. Kumekov, really succeeded in research of the Kipchak culture. There are other works by other researchers… No, Tengirchilik is not a blank page of science.

    Unfortunately, the Turki were too self-assured and too careless with others; they lived holding a hope for better future not realizing that the future won't come by itself; it should be created, one should work at it. Ideology, even if it is really good, requires efforts: trees in the garden are to be treated for vermin spoil big trees.
    Having recognized Christ as Tengri's son, the Turki created their Christian Church in IV century to please their allies (the Church of Caucasian Albania is in question, apparently), its representative attended Ecumenical Council II in 381, which was fixed in the acts of the Council. Certainly he was at the Council of 325.
    The Great Steppe didn't feel the mortal danger in the named cognation of Tengri and Christ. It missed the fatal stroke itself… And maybe all this had another simple explanation: the Turkic clergy knew other sons of Tengri-Khan, and European politicians took that fact into consideration for their plans.   
    Gaesar is one of the three sons of Tengri. He was an envoy sent by heaven, he was born by an ordinary woman on the Earth, in childhood he showed really good abilities, he banished the demons… Much is known about him, huge treatises were written. "Gaesariade" is popular in the East; it goes back to pre-Buddhist traditions with its roots… And in Europe it is strangely neglected. Otherwise even laymen would have wondered why Christ's deeds seem to be the copies of those from ancient books. Sometimes coincidences are almost textual. Gasar lived much earlier than Christ, which is witnessed by a big religious mythological layer of the Eastern culture.
    It turns out the Greeks were writing the "biography" of their Christ not inventing it. Maybe they had "Gasariads" before them or Buddha's biography from which they borrowed certain facts; and other facts they indented.

    The Turki have never understood the Greek politicians who used to say one thing and do another. The word "honor" was unknown to them; hence they were ready for everything inclining the Turki to unification against Rome and Egypt. Yes, they paid levy, but in fact, playing with morbid ambition of the Turki, they treated them as mercenaries… They commanded abasing themselves.
    Isn't the appearance of Byzantium, its separation from Rome and rise the evidences of aforesaid? Byzantium would have remained the colony of Rome forever without a powerful ally - The Greeks had no troops, they couldn't wage a war, their army was hired. And all of a sudden in 312 they defeated the Roman army. Near Rome!.. An unexpected cavalry attack took the legionaries unawares. How could that happen? Where did Constantine, the emperor, take a cavalry? When were the Greeks taught the basics of dzhigit skills? And who taught them? Those questions are not casual.
    And is it casual that not long before that victory Constantine saw a Turkic cross in his dream and heard the voice "You'll win with it"? Is it casual that on Byzantine coins Turkic symbols appeared and the day of rest was changed by Sunday as it was in the Great Steppe? Is it casual that just after that victory the prayer in the name of Tengri - Heavenly God - was for the first time officially read in Byzantium? Was it casually that Christianity became the official religion of Byzantium at that time?..
    And of course it is casual that Turkic language became the "language of soldiers" in the Greek army. They gave orders in it! The Greek army waged a war under the flags with a cross… The same as the Turki. Of course there were explanations to everything.
    Assistance of the Kipchaks, Jordan writes, "was used so that [Constantine] is able to found a famous town in his name to make it a rival to Rome: they entered into an alliance with the emperor and brought 40 thousand of their [warriors] to struggle against different tribes. Their army remains in the Empire until now; it is called the federates"… This chain of historical events cannot be ignored.
    In fact, the Byzantines paid levy to the Kipchaks, it was "a kind of gift" and the Turki worked it off in full. The weak paid for safety, defence and protection. And the strong (as they should have done according to the Turkic outlook) acted honestly, as an ally. Thus the Kipchaks were strengthening in Europe. And no one has the right to judge them for immeasurable magnanimity; it was another tradition of the Great Steppe.

    Byzantine example inspired Rome. The Romans also began to search for approaches to the Turki trying to find their weakest parts first of all. But Rome had another position. Its rulers still didn't recognize Tengri. To tell the truth, the emperor Galerius in 311 was forced to make a step on the way to partial legalization of the "new" Christianity. Choosing between life and death, he expressed benevolence to the Turkic variant.
    But halved measures weren't suitable any longer. In 380 Rome was forced to obey, and the emperor Feodosius proclaimed Christianity as the national religion and thus added the Western Empire to a new All-European spiritual culture in which the Greeks were dominating. That was the morning of Byzantium directly after which the height of its fame followed.

    The center of Europe moved to Constantinople from Rome… The Pope became dependent from the Greek patriarchy. And the Romans themselves receded into the background in spiritual life of Europe having got a scornful cognomen - "Catholics" which meant "the ones having joined" in Turkic.
    These were the Turki who, having assumed the part of a guardian and a preceptor of Byzantium, opened the road to the position in Europe which it still cannot forget.
    It seems that fact gives rise to hatred to the Turki which hasn't been hidden in Europe in the course of several centuries. Having ascribed the achievements of foreign culture to them, Greek rulers didn't think about a shameful exposure which is inevitable… As the saying goes, - "One in fetters won't go far".
    Greek emperors ascribed a great deal of things to them at that time. Including a cross, having called it Byzantine. And even a double eagle which was the symbol of one family (ulus) in II century B.C., - it was on the flags while the Turki were smashing China.
    A majestic bird expressed the structure of the Turkic society where a chagan and an isha were ruling as equals. The former possessed temporal power but didn't own any property. Isha dealt with treasury. A chagan was elected from the number of khans; isha obtained his rights as a successor.
    The steppe democracy… Turkic religion was also based on it. Election commenced in the settlements - from the circle of settlements. A chagan, a metropolitan-abys, a ruler of lands and an ataman of the yurt appeared by election. Power of the elected was consecrated by the clergy. That ceremony was called "abishik" ("apizik").
    Of course the Turki could teach one many things; a lot could be borrowed from them.
    The Byzantines took the fancy of the double eagle and made it the emblem of Constantinople… Later it flushed above Russia: Peter I violently robbed the Steppe.

    Many things have been forgotten since the time known as the Middle Ages.
    But the traces of the past remained! Icons, iconostases, churches with their unique architecture, icon-lamps, incense, brocade clothes of the clergy, prayers with kowtows - these were the attributes of Tengirchilik. They lead to the Christian Church.
    They are the only and the most reliable evidence of acceptance of the Turkic canon by the Christians. There are no other evidences and there cannot be any.
    Of course, centuries have passed, ritual part of a service has changed, but the traces remained. They are like a genetic code, like the patterns on human skin, they cannot be washed, one cannot get rid of them. The main traces are the "Apostolic Rules".
    That is the name of the code of resolutions determining the hierarchy of the church titles, the procedure of performance of holidays, fasts, prayers… In a word, the consent of the whole divine service. That is an "instruction" according to which the Christian Church was built. There is no another document being more important than that, although there are many disputes concerning its origin.
    Not going into the essence of those disputes we should mention that "Apostolic Rules" have been written by a Turkic hand - by the bishop Dionysus the Small who lived in V - VI centuries He was called a "Scythian abbot" in Europe. Here is the line from the "Christianity" encyclopedia: "In 500 - 510 Dionysus issued the code of apostolic and church rules in two editions". The Christian procedure of divine service became similar with that of Tengirchilik since then.
    It is copied from it!..
    History is an interesting thing. One can argue, scream and prove something in it, but disputes and proves are idle words while there are facts which cannot be refuted. Church historians may stamp their feet as loud as possible but still they can't say "no" here.
    Dionysus the Small, the Turki, taught the Europeans the sacraments of the new religion while another Turki, Jordan, at the same time, being in the same city of Rome, was inventing a new history of his nation from dictation representing it as wild and ignorant. Dionysus the Small translated holy books into Greek and Latin because nobody knew languages and - which is the most important thing - the texts themselves better than him in Greece as well as in Rome. Besides, he calculated the modern calendar; that one according to which it is XXI century today. That was an outstanding astronomer and mathematician of his time. Jordan was also an enlightened person, but in other things.
    Two contemporaries - two histories! And both about the Turki. Isn't it interesting?
    … Later Rome changed the "Apostolic Rules" written by father Dionysus the Small. And the Greeks also succeeded in it. Hence are their secular disputes and struggle: each Church, covering up the traces of the past, proved its understanding of correctness of the apostolic traditions… But can one deceive God who has given those traditions and ceremonies to people? The Europeans got it from the Turkic lips, which is witnessed even by encyclopedias.
    Umai - the female origin of the earth, the patroness of the infants, mother of fertility, was also respected by the Turki together with Heavenly Tengri. She was depicted with an infant on her on her hands. The Christians disfigured her image having borrowed it; - they called her the Blessed Virgin (Mother of God).
    Of course, connection of cultures and nations has always existed, every nation has the right to interpret the images borrowed from the neighbors in its own way. Hence is similarity of the ceremonies and different interpretation thereof. It is enough to remember, for instance, gonfalon and religious procession. Gonfalon means "sign of defence" in Turkic. The sense of a religious procession with gonfalons is the prayer for defence; Tengirchilik followers have it as well as Buddhists and Christians.
    And the word "God"? It also came form the East. It means "clarification", "to find peace" in Turkic. Or "icon"; it turns out that is also a specific word… (* By the way, before Trull Council (691 - 695), i.e. till the end of VII century, they painted an ewe (a lamb) instead of Christ on the icons; they bowed to it. And it was the 82nd rule accepted at that Council that for the first time ordered to paint "Christ as a human being instead of an old lamb…". It turns out known icons supposed to be early Christian ones had nothing to do with Christianity? It means not Christ is painted on them?.. But who? ) But we will speak about it in detail in the next chapter.
    The main symbol of the Christians - a cross (It should be mentioned that there are a lot of interpretations of appearance of a cross and its meaning. Each Church interprets it in its way. The Orthodox Christians, for example, call its vertical line the line of love to God, and the horizontal line - the line of love to man, neglecting the fact that a cross appeared in Christianity in IV century; or the fact that in Orthodoxy it is eight-pointed, i.e. it is not a crossing of two lines.) - probably deserves special attention. The Turki had an equilateral cross and it was called "adji" or "khach".
    Here is the phrase dotting all "i's" and crossing all "t's"; it is by an outstanding Christian author of III century, Felix Minitsius: "As for the crosses, we don't respect them at all; we, the Christians, don't need them. You, the pagans, for whom wooden idols are sacred, you respect wooden crosses, perhaps as the parts of your deities, and your flags, banners, military badges - what are they if not the crosses, gilded and decorated? "
    Are any comments necessary? And that phrase is not the only one remaining in ancient chronicles. An equilateral cross is the sign of Heavenly Tengri, which means it is also the sign of a Turki. The pagans called it "the sign of the beast" at first.   

    A Turki - the follower of Tengirchilik, having nobly finished a prayer, crossed himself and said: "Amen", tying himself with a cross and Tengri… Uttering "amen" he showed with a gesture and a sound that his soul belongs to the Lord, i.e. to God… It turns out the word "amen" also contains a specific sense.
    But we should mention that a Christian, crossing himself, also makes the sign of the Tengirchilik cross. With the Turkic adji!.. A casual coincidence? No.
    Tengirchilik followers emphasized their bondage to God by the adji sign - they used to wear equilateral crosses on their necks. The Christians borrowed that tradition. Sometimes the Kipchaks would paint a cross on their foreheads either with paint or as a tattoo. N.M. Karamzin mentions that custom but not giving any explanations. And it could also be met earlier in a Byzantine manuscript of 588: "When the autocrator asked the Turki who had black tattoos of a cross on their foreheads why had they borne that sign, the Turki answered…" that it guards them against misfortune and diseases.
    The Christians also started to paint a cross (it was equilateral in all cases) on the forehead: after the Eucharist the priest paints a cross with a brush on the parishioner's forehead… We can continue with examples of borrowings, but our book is not about them. Another thing is more interesting.
    A cross appeared in Christian ceremonies in IV century. In outward appearance it was absolutely the same as the Turkic one; later it was called Byzantine. And the history of the Latin cross started in V - VI centuries; at first it was a T-cross. Later, by VII century, an Orthodox cross appeared, which is a combination of a T-cross and adji.
    It is not inconceivable that the sign of Tengri wasn't invented by the Turki; maybe it was borrowed by them from the Tibetan culture. The Tibetans call it "vadzhra", the symbol of the strength, a kind of diamond. "Adji" is its distorted pronunciation because in ancient Turkic language the words usually didn't start with the sound "v".
    Vadzhra was the weapon of the Highest Deity - shining beams of grace dispersing form the Single Center. Hard as a diamond, pure as the sun, vadzhra protected against evil spirits which have always been afraid of light.
    Hence is a Tengirchilik tradition - to gild adji, to decorate it with precious stones for they are the signs of Heavenly, Sunny nature… "A life-giving cross" are the best words for it.
    The mysteries of a cross take away to the depths of thousands of years, into the heart of Indian mythology. There, in India, the famous Sun Dynasty was in power (an ancient royal family); Ikshvaku was its founder. According to Indian legends (!) he was a Turki. His grandfather had the name Adja… It seems this material is enough for a new investigation.
    The Christians borrowed a cross and the tradition of respecting thereof. But they did it blindly, not thinking over deep philosophical and historical sense of the cross. And their cross is a kind of a block - an instrument of death, and it is immoral to gild it and bestrew it with precious stones…
    Equilateral crosses were stamped on Turkic gravestones, a great deal of which remained in the Great Steppe since IV century due to omnipotent Time. Tengirchilik adji also remained on the clothes of Orthodox priests… Here they are, obvious witnesses of the past!
    Grave monuments, clothes of the clergy, church plate are surprisingly conservative. Fashion doesn't change here. And the sources of that "fashion" are in Altai… Nothing ever leaves without a trace and nothing appears from nowhere! In order to repeat that truth we could cite the historian of the Gospel who has the settlement of the Balkans by the Turki in 376 and marked their relics in astonishment as well as the clothes of the clergy… Everything is coinciding to everyone's surprise! These were the long black robes for which Turkic clergy was notable at ordinary days. Festive, solemn clothes were different.

    The steppe taught the Turki a lot. It was an inclement school of survival for them, it was testing their courage and sharpness; new ideas were born there.
    Maybe steppe barrows were the prototypes of the first Tengirchilik temples… Unfortunately neither of the scientists has ever seriously investigated the ceremonial part of steppe barrows. The barrows were just pillaged. However, there are several legends according to which a barrow didn't "die" together with the deceased. It remained alive: people visited it and prayed there paying tribute to the departed.
    And here is an example to confirm that idea. During the excavations in Kiev under Dessiatine Church a barrow frame was found on which the brick church has been standing more than a thousand years. And that is not the only example… It seems a barrow really played a part of the temple.
    In "Altai" times the whole world around people was the temple of Tengri; it was covered with the vault of Eternal Blue Sky. Thus it remained with the Khakases, Altai inhabitants, Kumandines, Tofalars who didn't leave their motherland and didn't learn to build temples. They retained their ancient ceremonies which usually take place near the sacred mountains.
    A Turkic temple was called "kilisa". The name is taken from the sacred mountain Kaylasa - the abode of Gods. It seems at first Kaylasa gave the idea of a barrow to the Turki and later the idea of a temple followed, or the idea of architecture, to put it more preciously.
    Turkic temples appeared during the years of the Great Nations Migration. But people prayed not inside but near them. (It is interesting, until VII - VIII centuries the Christians also didn't enter the premises but prayed near it in the street!) Walls of a kilisa were decorated the same way as the sacred mountains were decorated formerly. Here are the sources of church painting - in rock paintings!
    Kilisa was inaccessible for mere mortals; only a clergy could enter it. But he didn't have the right even to breathe there: he would run outdoors to breathe in and out. It seems this custom contains an evident similarity in construction of the first temples and barrows; the latter also had an entry to the burial-vault… Of course a special research is necessary. The topic is realizable (V. E. Voitov partly stated the stages of its formation in the mentioned work.).     The Turki built the temples on brick foundations which were in the form of an equilateral cross.

    And after they've learnt to construct beautiful buildings they forgot about the barrows being inexpressive in their appearance. The temples copied the shapes of sacred mountains as they were directed into the sky; they started to spread desired grandeur. The bells called people for a prayer to the great Tengri with their tuneful sounds.
    The altars were oriented to the East - to Altai. Later it has also become a Christian tradition.
    Archeologists write about ancient Kipchak temples as follows: the "are situated in the center of barrow groups and were notable for small sizes… Broken internal outlines form the shape of a cross… The church is oriented… to the East".
    Why to "the East"? Because Altai lay there… Why "in the center of barrow groups"? It seems this needs no explanations - new was close to old.
    Unfortunately time has the power over wooden buildings. Only brick foundations remained from many Tengirchilik temples… How can we know anything about their architecture? It turns out we can. That architecture was borrowed by the Armenians and it was developed in Armenia; but in stone.
    Who has built the first temples for the Armenians? Why were they oriented to the East? Why did they have a cross in their foundation? Answers to those questions are… on the walls of ancient Armenian temples - Turkic tamgas are there! The signs of the builders. On the walls of different temples up to twenty-three signs were counted.
    Runic writings were found in Zvartnotz, Dvina, Kotavank, Dzhvari and other settlements! It seems the stones tell where to look. Everything is visible! The Armenians look at them, publish them and… don't see them - they are Turkic. And if one casts jaundice aside and takes a strict look, for instance, at the known inscription on the wall of an ancient temple in Kotavank (it is in better state as compared with others) ancient Turkic runic inscription becomes interesting not only for the Turki. When one reads it from right to left it goes like this: "Accept for community of the monk". And two tamgas of the people having made that hereditary gift are near it.
    There is a similar inscription on the walls of the ancient temple in Shogkhagavank as well as on the ruins of the temple in Kaput settlement in the Northern Iran.
    It turns out ancient Turkic religious architecture remained. It remained regardless of evil and injustice… And there are unexplored temples of Derbent and the whole flat Daghestan. In Tatarstan and Bashkortostan there are also amazing historic places. Or in Kazakhstan, near Aktyubinsk; a forgotten Turkic cloister is situated there; only wind remembers it. An archeologist has never trod in this place.
    Nobody has ever studied archeology of those antiquities thus origin of Gothic in Europe is not known as well as its Turkic roots… It's a pity; similarity is evident even in small items.

    The Turki built octahedral walls of the temples. The domes were also constructed of eight pieces. Where is it from? Form a kuren which was octahedral, and from a terem. And the kokoshnik on the building had a religious meaning having even become an element of national clothes… In a word, many interesting things are waiting for their researcher.

    There are really many traces of Turkic spiritual heritage. It is possible to turn to another field of culture. Take, for example, famous church singings; they used to be the musical language of Tengirchilik some time. Very impressive and deep music.
    And it is a Turkic method which was known in Altai two thousand years ago and remained until now. To tell the truth, in Russia it is called "Russian", although the Russians have become aware of those heavenly singings in the time of Kiev Russia.
    And the Italians borrowed it earlier, in VI century, and they don't conceal the fact of borrowing… I'm sure many of the readers don't even know what is in question here.
    In Russian those singings were called the singings of "flags" or "hooks" (pronounced as "kryuk" in Russian)… Maybe. Let us open the ancient Turkic dictionary. Both these words mean the same. In first case it is the translation of the Turkic word "flag" which means a "mark", a "sign". In second case that is the reproduction of the ancient Turkic word kerk.
    Those unsatisfied with explanations may compare the graphics of the "hooks" themselves with ancient Turkic writing. All the questions should be no longer relevant after that…
    Majestic spirit of Altai remained even in singing.

     Two and a half thousand years ago Tibet has become the center of pilgrimages for the Turki. Everyone had a dream to see the sacred mountain Kaylasa. But nobody would take the risk to climb that mountain; they were afraid to provoke God's wrath. People lived on the bank of the sacred lake Manas and looked at Kaylasa, read prayers, held philosophical discussions.
    Thus the idea of monkhood was born.
    It should be mentioned here that the idea of cloisters and monkhood is not Turkic. The Turki borrowed it from the Tibetans and later they brought it to Europe. And that was the greatness of the Great Nations Migration!
    The word "abbot", as well as "monastery", appeared in Europe after VI century. Benedict Nursian (480 - 543), the founder of Benedict Order, was among the first who pronounced it, but of course he didn't say something new. In his order he copied the rules according to which communities of monks lived in Tibet, Altai and the Great Steppe.
    How could he know about that spiritual tradition of the East if not from the Turki? In Tengirchilik monkhood had two forms - hermits and service… Those two forms got the rights in Christianity.
It is not known who was Benedict Nursian by birth. But he grew among the Turki who have taken the side of the Romans and considered themselves the Romans.
    And here are some interesting facts from the life of another innovator of monkhood, the founder of the first monastery in the West. Pakhomius the Great (? - 348) was a Egyptian, served in the army of the emperor Constantine; as we know the backbone of that army was formed of the Turki. Pakhomius wasn't a theologian, he didn't know the Greek language, but he knew Turkic well, apparently… He took the rules for his monastery from the Kipchaks; many Turkic words have been in use by Egyptian and European monks since then.
    This fact was partly confirmed in the beginning of V century by one of the main theorists of monastic life in Europe - John Cassian, the Turki by nationality, native of Bulgarian chaganat. "A monk should avoid women and bishops in every possible way", - the elder teaches. Christian bishops, which is very important! It turns out Pakhomius was hiding from an Alexandrine bishop Athanasius not by accident…
    Christianity was alien to the first monks; they stood aside and believed only in Tengri. But finally they were forced to step back. In 451 the Greeks and Egyptians passed the monasteries and communities of the monks to the Christian jurisdiction.
    But European monks retained even the Turkic clothes!

    Their clothes are worth mentioning. One would think, where are a black gown and a cap from? A gown was called caftan, it was obligatory for Tengirchilik followers during a religious rite. Over the shoulders of any Kipchak there was a bashlyk - a woolen pointed hood. Clerics also couldn't do without a hood for their religious rite took place under the sky; they had to have firm clothes in any weather.
    Monks of Tengirchilik united a caftan and a bashlyk. Thus modern clothes of a monk appeared.

    Ancient Kipchak culture… Books are to be written about it. The truth about the Great Steppe hasn't been told in full. The Greeks were the first who started to distort it… Nowadays many things are derived "from the Greek roots" in Christianity.
    But one can easily find the Turkic traces, say, in icons' painting… What is known about Kipchak icons' painting today? Absolutely nothing! While these are the priceless masterpieces by Andrew Rublev, these are the works by tens and thousands of unknown steppe painters which are known as ancient Russian now.
    And in the meantime Russian school of icons painting appeared in XVII century after the split of the Church (Of course there are other, "non-Turkic" opinions on this point. They were expressed by academician V. L. Yanin, professor V. N. Lazarev and other prominent scientists. But none of them, as though due to ignorance, has ever mentioned the religion preceding Christianity in their works. None of them has said a word about Buddhist icons and ancient traditions of icons painting in the East… Not negating the importance of the works of abovementioned authors, it remains only to regret about their narrow-mindedness in the field and evident Europocentrism tendency. ). Russian priest Habakkuk said about it as follows: "They paint the image of Emmanuil: puffy face, dark red lips, fat arms and muscles… Good old icon-painters painted the saints otherwise: face, arms and all the feelings have become thinner".
    Those good old icon-painters were the Turki!
    An icon played an important part in a Tengirchilik church, it was a noticeable attribute there: "open your soul", "speak the truth" - these are the translations of the word from ancient Turkic. Due to this unique ability an icon has become a part of Buddhist ceremony in I century, it has become the sacred piece of art of the East.
    It is not a Christian invention at all. There were no ancient Russian icons, there were only Kipchak icons in Europe (whatever it is called!) (V. E. Voitov partly stated the stages of its formation in the mentioned work.). And it is witnesses by the documents of the Christian Church itself, aforementioned Trull Council and its famous 82nd rule. Representation of Christ's face in Christianity originates from it.
    And there is no desire even to mention Greek icons (gloomy, puffy faces, sad paintings and total poverty of plot). Although… tastes differ, as far as we know.

    And doesn't the term "Eden" - the Christian symbol of paradise - give food for thought? Why is Eden in the East? Why was it shown to the north from Palestine even on the ancient maps? Why is it the land of forebears? Why does the word "adam" mean "the first ancestor" in Turkic?.. Finally, why did all these "whys" appear?
    For example, in medieval Europe there were the legends about a Christian country situated in remote Asia, - the country of presbyter John. Plano Carpini, William Rubruk, Marco Polo and other Europeans went in search for it when they needed allies in their struggle against Islam.
    Was the presbyter John a Turki since they searched for him in Altai? It seems so. That is a real historical person, apparently; they say there are copies of Popes' letters addressed to him in Vatican… Indeed, there are many mysterious facts in Turkic history.
    There are certain facts that seems to have nothing to do with the Turki… How did Christ turn to his Father? "Eloi!" - he exclaimed on his cross. But that was the Turkic name of Tengri-Khan!.. What is it - a new mystery or another ignorance of Turkic customs?

    It turns out the Turki had five ways to address the Most High. The first one was Tengri; the others were: Boga (Bozhat), Ala (Alla, Eloi), Khodai (Kodai), Goz-Bodi. Each form had its shade; each of them remained until now.
    "Alla Byle!" ("God be with you!") - the Kipchak riders would cry out rushing to the attack… Maybe Byzantine and Roman emperors paid their attention to it, for they willingly called the Turki into their army - they wanted to be closer to God, to be guarded by Him.

    Easter cakes, colored eggs, New Year's tree, Father Frost - they are the attributes of Tengirchilik.
    One would think, a Christmas tree… And it is a fir - not an oak, a cedar or a pine! Nowadays its appearance is connected with the name of Christ. But there are no firs in Palestine or in Egypt. The first Christians couldn't see a fir as well as a polar bear or a kangaroo.
    It means the famous holiday of the Christmas tree is an "alien" holiday in Christianity.

    The famous world map (England, 1260). As well as other maps of that time it placed Heaven in the East, where Ancient Altai was

    And for the Turki a fir has become a sacred tree long ago. And only for them but for other Siberian nations as well. A fir was placed inside the house. They used to celebrate holidays in its honor three - four thousand years ago. A very ancient tradition, it is connected with Yer-su.
    They used to worship that God before Tengirchilik was accepted. It lived in the center of the Earth, "where according to the legend the hub of the universe is situated and where a gigantic fir grows reaching the house of Ulgen with its top" - the house of the aged in a rich caftan.
    Ancient Turkic legends don't contain much information about Ulgen. Always - in winter an in summer - he wears a caftan, he has a thick white beard up to his knees. Ulgen was the head of white spirits. He would sit in a golden palace ruling over the sun and the moon.
    On December 25th, when the day won the victory over the night in a very hard struggle and the sun remained over the Earth a little bit longer, ancient Turki turned to Ulgen with a prayer. They thanked him for the returned sun.
    Later, in the times of Tengri, that day has become the day of Epiphany for the Turki - it was the main holiday during a year!
    And to make the prayers heard, according to another ancient tradition, people decorated "Ulgen's tree". They tied bright ribbons on a fir and put lavish gifts under it. They would have fun due to victory of the sun over darkness all night long. They would sing and dance in a ring around a fir.
    Hence is a stable belief which remained until now that all the inmost dreams of the New Year's night would come true. And Ulgen never let down: after the holiday the night would begin to decline. No doubt, Ulgen is the Father Frost.
    It is no wonder that a fir, having connected people with the world of Ulgen, was respected by the ancient Turki. It means "route", "road" in the Turkic language. Like an arrow, a fir showed the way to Ulgen. All those things intensified the sacred force of the image.
    It seems another ancient Turkic tradition originated here - graves of the clergies were covered with boughs of a fir. Why? He departed the kingdom of Yer-Su where a fir was highly respected.
    In Europe Christmas holiday has been celebrated since Attila's times. At first it was called a "wild Hun holiday". European pagans didn't understand it.
    The same as they didn't understand a fairy tail "About the Ryaba-hen (speckled hen)" which was to be told to little children during that night.
    Why was it a Ryaba-hen? Because each its feather meant day and night - the light and the dark, and the hen itself was the symbol of a year. It lay its egg which wasn't a common but a golden egg on December 25th - the day of Epiphany: the sun is also golden that day. Father (Frost), Mother (Blizzard) tried to crush it but they would never succeed. And a mouse was running by - it was the Day of a Mouse (the shortest night was on June 25th) - it wagged with its tail, the egg fell down and crushed… And everything started to decline. The Turki had such a cognitive fairy tail.
    December 25th - Tengri's birthday - became Christmas (?) in medieval Europe for some reason. While Christ was born on January 6th. I doubt whether anybody is able to explain anything here…
    However, ancient culture of Altai with its undisclosed mysteries and unknown secrets is really interesting.

    A custom to celebrate the holiday of spring, the Christian Easter, also has Altai roots. The Turki celebrated it in another way as compared with the Jews and first Christians. Following the Bible covenants, they still eat matzoth there - unleavened thin bread. Tengirchilik followers had it in another way, they baked Easter cakes.
    An Easter cake embodied the male origin. It was made in respective form, recipes of pastry were invented for the purpose not to reach certain flavor but to make an Easter cake hard and "fit", i.e. make it big in size. And God forbid if it falls down - it was an ill omen. The top of ready Easter cake was covered with white cream and they poured the seeds of colored millet onto it. Two colored eggs were put near it.
    The ceremony of the male origin - a phallus - worship has been known in the East from time immemorial, it was a sacred ceremony. In other words, it was connected with tillage - the origin of the future yield - and in general with birth of everything new and wishful.
    The most important ceremony of life continuation.
    It should be mentioned that Easter traditions in their modern form also came to Europe and, the same as firs, were the lot only of the Kipchaks at first…
    The whole European culture was changing; it was on its way to its present form.
       
The Vanished Heritage

    Known information concerning the spiritual heritage of the Turki is really scant. And that is strange. Where has everything disappeared? It existed and it vanished… One cannot read in the books about, one cannot see it on the stands of the museums. But still it exists! At least it existed.
    History allows to open the past anew; this History may be regarded in two ways: as the list of dates and events, as a description of battles and changes of the dynasties (which is certainly necessary) or as an evolution of ideas, feelings of the nations, states of their minds during this or that epoch. This is the only way to see the real, living history and not an invented life of the ancestors.
    Details, small features make the picture full. Absence of a single stroke, of a single paint on its linen discloses the false. Words cannot be crossed out from a song, as the saying goes. Life is the top of perfection.
    As we know, criminalists manage to reveal the most difficult crimes by barely perceptible traces. And can criminalistics methods be applied in history? Maybe this is the right moment for that?..
    They could begin from the search of "disappeared" Turkic     cultural wealth. It couldn't disappear not having left any traces. Even the pronunciation of certain words becomes the trace which leads to the goal. Here are the examples.

    Abbot - this word is derived from an Aramaic word "abo" or "avva"; it is supposed that thus they addressed to a master of the synagogue. A superior of a cloister (of Benedict or Cisterian orders) has been called so since V century.
    The word "abbot" has become the part of church everyday language since Attila's times. In the language of the ancient Turki the word "abata" (abata < aba + -ta affix) meant "close to a father". That expression reflected the idea of abbey: the followers of Benedict Nursian settled near the "saint father". A certain ritual existed.
    European abbeys copied the rules of ancient Turkic and Lamaism monasteries which followed the traditions of Tengirchilik. The rules divided the monasteries into two types: for philosophy study and for perception of the believers.
    In Kazakhstan, for example, sacred places remained in which names the word "abat" can be met. And in Aktyubinsk region, in Abat-Baytak, there are the buildings of ancient temples, traces of monks' cells; pilgrims visit these places.
    Acathistus - church songs of praise. An acathistus written in VII century on account of delivery of Constantinople from barbarian invasion by the Blessed Virgin is considered to be the most ancient in Christianity.
    According to the official version the word originates from the Greek word akathistos and means "not sitting" because, they say, an acathistus is performed standing. A questionable interpretation. Because, for instance, Greeks called reading and singing of preaches standing "stadeis" (standing).
    Another thing is correct. The word "acathistus" is an adaptation of an ancient Turkic expression aq apizik (abisik) (dedication, a special prayer). It expresses the essence of an acathistus!
    The second word - apizik - is worthy of notice in the expression aq apizik. In case of unction for the reign or ordaining the Tengirchilik followers performed the ceremony of ordaining called "apizik" (apizik, abisik), the Turki even had an expression: "?l ornili? abisikig teg" ("… as an unction for reign"). It was written in brahmi language (it appeared in I thousand years B.C.), which points to antiquity of the Turkic expression and ceremony.
    As we can see, the word "not sitting" inappropriate for a prayer is an attempt to explain an unknown Turkic expression accepted in Tengirchilik (aq apizik ~ akapizik ~ akapis ~ akaphis ~ acathistus ~ akathistos).
   
    That singing of praise of Heavenly God was borrowed by the Church form the Turki in VII century, according to its documents, on the initiative of Pope Gregory the Great.
    Altar - a place for sacrifice.
    It is considered that the word is Latin - altaria, altarium: coming from altus (high) and ara (rising) - "risen place". A table played a part of an altar in Christian synagogue; at that table "the love-feast" (agape) took place.
    Since IV century, i.e. since the churches appeared with the Christians, the name "altar" was given to a part of the church turned to the East and fenced by the icons. The most ancient altar churches are known in Caucasus, Caucasus Albania and Iberia.
    New Christian altars were made according to the Turkic example and by the Turkic workers. In is not by accident that Council of the year 363 decided: "Not to make so-called agape in God's places or in churches".
    The word "altar" is an adaptation of an ancient Turkic expression ala tor, consisting of the words ala (Taking - one of the forms of addressing to Heavenly God) and tor (place of honor, place opposite the entrance). It means "the place of honor of the Taking" (ala tor ~ alator ~ altar ~ altaria).
    This interpretation expresses the purpose of the altar and corresponds with religious customs of Tengirchilik. Christians borrowed the item and its meaning.
    Amen - "let it be right", the final word of a prayer. They consider it to be from the Old Testament. But the theologians themselves mark that in the New Testament "amen" has another meaning as compared with Jewish books.
    That contradiction is easily removed: Christians took not only the ceremony of the divine service from Tengirchilik but also many terms accompanying it.
    In Turkic amin means "I am safe", "I am guarded".
    The tradition to say amin (amin) at the end of the prayer has been marked in great antiquity with the Turki. Its history is in the cult which has been formed long before Common Era: they turned to the souls of the ancestors (amin) for help and protection.
    The Chuvashes, for example, have a prayerful formula: "Amin, Tura, help us!" ("Tura" is the way the Chuvashes address to Tengri). Thus conclusion of the prayer with the word "amen" gets its natural explanation.
    Eulogia - leavened bread consecrated on the Easter; Host is another name. It is considered to originate from the Greek word artos - "bread" (in Russian the word is also pronounced as "artos").
    But let us fix out attention upon a very important detail: the Eastern Church uses only leavened bread for that sacrament, and the Western Church - only unleavened bread (azyme). Why?
    That fundamental differences in one of the most important Christian sacraments are to be explained, but an explanation has never been given…. Where does this tradition originate? It is also from Tengirchilik.
    Tengirchilik followers used to bring leavened bread to the churches as a gift to Tengri on spring holidays; that was an ancient Turkic religious ceremony known long before Common Era. It has become obligatory for Easter celebration in the Eastern Church - hence an Easter cake comes.
    At the same time an unknown Turkic word artut (heave-offering, gift, present) entered the Church language and turned into "bread" comprehended by the Greeks (artut ~ artut ~ artus ~ artos ~ artos (eulogia)). It should be mentioned that the Turki still bake only leavened bread; they can't bale otherwise.
    God - high essence given the strongest reasoning power, absolute perfection, omnipotence, who has created the world and rules over it.
    The word God (pronounced as "God" in Russian) is usually connected with the Mongolian "Burkhan". But the word "God", as we know, was known in the Russian language long before the arrival of the Mongols.
    Sometimes the name of the Most High is taken from Sanskrit: in Vedic mythology "Bhaga" (bhaga) is a deity whose name is translated as "fate", "happiness", "property". But that version is not reasoned; only assonance has been found in it. And that's all.
    It is more convincing to search for the word "God" in the ancient Turkic bodi which is confirmed by an ancient Buddhist tradition. It is known that in I century in Buddhism after the Council IV which has approved Tengirchilik ceremonies of the divine service, "Mahayana" (wide chariot), a new teaching, became widespread as an opposition to ancient "Khinayana" (narrow chariot). It appeared under Kinishka tsar - Erk-Khan, the lord of the Kushan Empire.
    "Bodhi" (Clarification, Awakening) has become the most important term of Buddhism meaning the highest consciousness, spiritual clarification, achievement of wisdom. It Turkic language that word was pronounced as "bodi" (bodi). Here is a quotation from the Sutra "Golden Glitter": "Bodi tegma tujun-maqi? jana sozlagali boltuqmaz" ("Insight called bodhi cannot be expressed with words").
    While in Asia the word "bodi" has been transformed into "bogdokhan" (ruler having achieved Clarification), "bogdo-gegen" (the Light august), in Europe unacquainted with the Western culture it meant not "Heaven Light" but only the name of the Most High - God.
    The words pronounced as "Bog", "Bokh", "Bozhe", "Bozhich" are met only with the nations which history is connected with Turkic. It is indicative that the Turkic word boq (bo?) meant "to find peace, calm".
    It may also be that an expression "to join one's Maker", comprehended as "to die in God" today, is a distortion of the Turkic expression bodi bosa-. It is formed of two words: bodi (Clarification) and bosa- (to leave), or "to leave in Clarification".

    Bursa - hospice for poor students. The word is taken from the Latin word bursa - "bag", "purse" explaining it by the fact that in the Middle Ages that was the name of a fund of any union. A doubtful explanation. The idea of similar institutions and their name was borrowed from the Turki in V century and there is a series of evidences thereof.
    Translation of the ancient Turkic word bursa? (bursan ~ bursa) means "monks' community", which gives the correct sense of the word "bursa".
    Lord (pronounced as "Gospodi" in Russian) - one of the Russian forms of addressing to God. For some reasone it is taken from ho (ancient nominative of address). But another explanation is more convincing.
    According to the postulates of the Eastern philosophy, on his way to perfection man passes through five stages of perception. As if he lives five lives in one. In each stage he has his own idea about the Truth given by Eternal Blue Sky. Hence are five visions and five forms of addressing to the Most High: Tengri, Alla, God, Khodai, Lord.
    In the stem of the word "Lord" there is an expression koz bodi made of two ancient Turkic words - koz (eye) and bodi (Insight).
    A believer asks for "Insight" to be given by the Most High. Tengirchilik and Buddhism urge him to it. As we know in Christianity the objects of religion are absolutely different, they are finding salvation in humility.
    Spirit - in the Russian language (in which it is pronounced as "dukh") it is understood as "internal moral strength". Here is an obvious borrowing from the ancient Turkic word tu? - "flag".   
    It is known that a flag is covered with a halo of holiness for Asian nations. The guarding spirit lives in a flag, it gives people military success and their existence. A flag was the sacred talisman for the Turki.
    In Europe a flag in its modern form appeared only after arrival of the Turki.
    As a result of Russian phonetic adaptation the word tu? turned into "spirit" (pronounced as "dukh" in Russian) (tu? ~ tug ~ dug ~ dukh (spirit)) but it retained its sense which was put by the Turki in it.
    It was a bad omen to drop a flag or to break it. Hence are the phrases "to raise competitive spirit", "competitive spirit has fallen", "broken-down". They are all word-for-word translations of Turkic expressions, their loan transcription.
    Heresy - in Christianity - digression from the church doctrine, or an error in figurative sense.
    Origin of this word is connected with the Greek word haireses - "selected way of thought", "special dogmas". Although here is an obvious interpretation of an ancient Turkic expression jer-esiz. It consists of two words: jer- (to reject) and esiz (evil).
    After insignificant phonetic changes an unknown Turkic expression has turned into the words "choice", "special dogma" familiar for the Greeks (jer- esiz ~ eresiz ~ heresy ~ hairesis).
Another version of etymology of that word is also possible, it is also Turkic - jer-asi. The combination jer- + -asi affix (< -a + si) means "something that should be rejected" (jer-asi ~ eresy ~ heresy ~ hairesis).
    Icon - from the Greek word "image", the image of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints.
    But icon-painting couldn't begin from the times of Christ just because Christianity was the branch of Judaism to which an icon hasn't been peculiar.
    Only in VI century first icons appeared in Byzantium. In the end of VII century (Nicene Council II, 783 - 787) icons became obligatory attributes of the Christian cult in Europe. One of the icons worshippers was Saint John Damascin; it seems he was a Turki by birth. He lived in VIII century and had a name Mansur. In 787 the Oecumenical Council proclaimed him the "herald of the truth".
    First icons were marked in church everyday life in IV century in Armenia, the Caucasian Albania and Iberia.
    It is indicative that an icon is obligatory for the northern branch of Buddhism based, as we know, on Tengirchilik traditions. Buddha is depicted with his hand risen in a gesture of pacification: thumb and third finger are put together.
    In Tengirchilik it is called the gesture of two fingers. It was borrowed and retained by the Armenian Church and other Churches which were the first to borrow spiritual traditions of the Turki.

    For the Turki the cult of sacred images is connected with rock paintings. According to remained legends they helped man to make up his mind to communicate with God, to reach Clarification.
    Ancient "rack" tradition of combining a prayer and an image was expressed in two ancient Turkic words: aj- (speak) and koni (truly). The word koni was often used in religious terminology of the ancient Turki: for example, koni kertu nom (true teaching).
    Borrowing the ceremony of icons worshipping from Tengirchilik, the Christians, which is seen from their explanation (!), accepted only external part, they didn't understand the hidden essence of an icon (hence are iconoclastic distempers!). As a result the Trukic precept "speak the truth" or "open your soul" has turned into a poor Greek "image".
    The word "icon" sounds the same perhaps in all European languages (aj- koni ~ aiconi ~ icon ~ eikon).
    Heirmos - in Christianity - liturgical singing of the morning canon connecting the songs from the Holy Scripture and the troparions. The title is deemed to be connected therewith: from the Greek word heirmos - "interlacement". Here, the same as in the case with an icon, we can see an example of external borrowing.
    Heirmons appeared among the Byzantine hymns not earlier than VII century. The word "heirmos" has the Turkic root jir (song) + -maz affix; literally it means "our songs".
    It is evident that as a result of the phonetic adaptation Turkic "yurmaz" has turned into the Greek "heirmos" (jir-maz ~ irmaz ~ irmoz ~ heirmos).
    As we know, singing is an obligatory element of the Turkic spiritual culture, especially for the tradition of Tengirchilik. It was marked by the Pope Gregory the Great who has borrowed that ceremony from the Turkic followers of Tengirchilik: hence is Gregorian singing in the Catholic Church.
    Origin of the word "heirmos" from the "Turkic" song is also confirmed by the fact that the sacred book "Heirmology" contains prayers designed only for singing. One of the first authors of the heirmoses was Saint John Damaskin (Mansur).
    Censer (pronounced as "kadilo in Russian") - a vessel for incense during a Christian service. In antiquity it had the form of a cup fixed on a wooden handle; it was called catsia. (Thus an incensory of the Russian Old Believers is still made). Today a censer is fixed with a chain, they put burning coal into it and pour incense onto it. According to ancient beliefs incense frightens the evil spirits away.
   

The name "catsia" goes back to the complex word qa cajti (qa cajti ~ cachaiti ~ catsaiti ~ catsai ~ catsia) which consists of two ancient Turkic words qa (vessel) and cajti (relic).
    The translation of that word - "vessel with a relic" - reflects not only the purpose of the catsia, but also devout attitude to incense placed in it.
    Kamelaukion - in Christianity - headdress of the clergy. In IX century that was the name of the emperors' wreaths and the Pope's tiara. The clergy wear a kamelaukion since XV century.
    Origin of the word is connected with the Greek word kamelos (camel). The name is supposed to go back to the name of the hat made of camel-hair (kamelos). An unconvincing version. How is a camel connected with emperor's wreath and Pope's tiara?
    Another borrowing from Tengirchilik is evident. The name of the headdress goes back to qam jelvi, consisting of two ancient Turkic words: qam (clergyman) and jelvi (religious rite).
    The scenes of the religious rite remained in rock paintings of Altai. It is known that a Turkic clergyman would always wear headdress of that king during a religious rite. The Christians didn't have a similar headdress.
    Having accepted it in their ceremonies, the Christians began to search for an explanation to an unknown title. Apart from an awkward Greek "camel" nothing was suggested.
    Klobuk - headdress of the monks consisting of a kamelaukion and a crepe. Modern form is taken by the Russian Church from the Greeks in XVII century. Earlier that cover was made not of the light material but of thick one. It was the copy of a bashlyk for the monks in IV century.
    No doubt that a klobuk is of the Turkic origin. The Christians themselves derive it from the Turkic word "cap" - a hat. However, that is not correct. The basis for that name is the expression qul ba? consisting of two ancient Turkic words: qul ("God's slave") and ba? ("coverlet"). In other words, "coverlet of God's slave".
    The name also witnesses of the form of the klobuk and expresses its symbolic meaning.
    Bell - Christians connect its appearance with the name of the bishop Paulinius (353 - 431); they say the look of the wildflowers suggested the idea to him. But that is more than fondly. Due to ignorance the Latin name of the bell (campana) (pronounced as "colocol" in Russian) is explained by the name of the province where they started to found them.
    The documents witness of absolutely other things. In Italy bells appeared in the time of Pope Sabinian, near the year 604, in France - in the year 550. The Greeks weren't acquainted with bells until IX century. Parishioners were called there by the beater (wooden board) or the riveter (iron strip).
    Tibet is the motherland of the bells; they were invented by Abloma, the son of Aboteni and his fourth wife Dzhamir Gimbare. That is witnessed by the legends of the East which were created before Common Era.

    Armenians were the first to borrow the tradition to gather the parishioners with the bells from the Turki. In Echmiadzine - the spiritual center of the Armenian Apostolic Church - the ancient bell from Tibet is kept; it was presented by the Turki, apparently.
    It isn't by accident that the Russian word colocol, the German word Glock and the French word cloche have the same root. But an explanation according to which it is formed by the Latin word clocca isn't suitable. Here a Latin adaptation of the foreign word is evident - the word which replaced the former campana.
    The name is taken from the expression qalik qol-, it consists of two ancient Turkic words: qalik (cky, heavens) and qol- (ask, beg). Translation "beg the heavens" points to the purpose of the bell (qalik qol ~ calyccol ~ calykol ~ colocol (bell)).
    These are the right words, indeed: "A bell is mysteriously connected with holy forces and human souls; it awakens the earth and the sky".

    However, another interpretation of that word is also possible and it is also connected with the Turkic language: qol (meaning "hand") and oqi- (to call), "to call with a hand".
    The history of Italian word "campana" also looks otherwise - it has nothing to do with Italian provinces. The name was made of two ancient Turkic words: cam (clergyman) and pan (board), which means "clergyman's board". That expresses the purpose of the beater (campana ~ campan ~ cam pan).
    Furthermore, it explains why the word campana was replaced by the word clocca when real bells appeared.
    And that's not all. In the Church Rules, apart form the word "campana" the word "heavy" is used; it is considered to be the translation of the Greek word "baraya" ("heavy"). It is deemed that big bells were called thus due to their strong sound.
    Here is an obvious combination of two ancient Turkic words: bar- (disappear) and aja? (sin) (bar- aja? ~ barayag ~ baraya). The translation "sin, disappear" expresses the symbolic essence of the ring when the bells sound on the days of glorious events in churches. On Easter, for instance.
    In the northern branch of Buddhism there is a special ceremony of destruction of sins. That ceremony is performed near the entrance to the cloister.
    By the way, a sleight-bell is the attribute of the Buddhist altar; it is the symbol of the highest wisdom.
    Kondak - genre of Byzantine church poetry. The word is considered to go back to the Greek word kontakion - "brief".
    In the Christian Church Roman Sweet-Singer was the creator of the kondaks; born in Syria, he lived in V - VI centuries. However, the earliest pieces are ascribed to Methodius, the bishop from Lykia, who died in 311.
    Kondak as a genre of church creativity rose due to the Turki in the Western world. It is witnessed by Syrian sources of VI century. That allows to suppose that the term "kondak", as well as "heirmos", is of the Turkic origin. It comes from the ancient Turkic word kondgar- (to direct to the right way). The combination kondgar- + -k affix means "direction to the right way". That's why the kondaks state the contest of a holiday or life of the saint!
    Such interpretation is more appropriate as compared with the Greek "brief" (kondgar ~ kondgark ~ kondark ~ kondak ~ kontakion).
    In Russia singing manuscripts of XI - XIV centuries included a collection of kondaks and were called "kondakar". That phonetic adaptation is closer to the Turkic origin than the Greek (kondgark ~ kondgark ~ kondagark ~ kondakar).
    Kondakar writing hasn't been enciphered, unfortunately. And the reason of the failure lies in ignorance of the Turkic traditions. Europe isn't willing to see that kondakar writing has Turkic roots.
    Koukul - head cover of the monks. As against a klobuk it covers the head and falls onto both shoulders, breast and back and it is all covered with images of the holy equilateral crosses. A koukul is the sign of kindness, reminding a monk of placability and infantile simplicity.
    No doubt that a koukul, as well as a klobuk, is of the Turkic origin, the word consists of two words: ku (to guard) and qul ("God's slave"). The translation "to guard God's slave" witnesses of the direct purpose of a kloubuk and expresses its symbolical essence.
    Labarum - the name of the flag with a cross which was approved by the emperor Constantine. Origin of the word "labarum" is deemed to be unknown.
    The cult of the cross came to Europe together with the Turkic Kipchaks. An equilateral cross is the symbol of Tengri.
    Byzantium, borrowing the ceremonies of worshipping the Heavenly God and adopting Christianity to them, also imitated the cult of the cross. That's why in IV century an equilateral cross appeared on the flags of Constantine.
    "Labarum" is an evident adaptation of the Turkic expression ala barim (ala barim ~ alabarym ~ alabarum ~ labarum). In its stem there are the words ala (meaning "evil thoughts", "intrigues") and barim (perdition), formed by combination if the verb bar- (to disappear, to die) + -im affix.

    The translation of that expression - "death of evil thoughts" - reflects the situation after which little-known Greek Constantine became the great emperor. Having the Turkic army behind, it wasn't difficult to do that.
    Monastery - communities of the monks or the nuns.
    First western monasteries appeared one thousand years after the Buddhist ones, in III - IV centuries. Those were the settlements of the hermits in Egypt and they looked like fortresses. But only in the middle of V century, according to the rules of Oecumenical Council IV (year 451) the monks were reckoned among the Christians and put into the jurisdiction of the diocesan eparch.
    This fact means that the idea of monkery couldn't appear in the Christian society.
    But the official version derives the word "monastery" from the Greek word "monos" (one), hence is monasterion (hermit's cell). But that fails to be in accordance with the history of the monasteries.
    Another lame Greek "adaptation" is evident! The ancient Turki had the prayer manastar ?irz-a ("forgive my sins"). That formula came from Sanskrit. The first word manastar deserves special attention. It consists of two words: manasa (soul) and tar (to save), which is translated as "save the soul".

    The Turki used to read that short prayer in the monasteries or near the sacred places, apparently. It expresses the feelings of those having searched for salvation from worldly nasty in the monasteries.
    Nimbus - image of shining around a head (the symbol of sanctity). Its origin hasn't been determined.
    In Europe the word "nimbus" is usually derived from the Latin word nimbus (cloud). In the meantime a nimbus is one of the most ancient symbols of the Eastern culture meaning the outflow of vital energy, wisdom, shining of sanctity. Nimbuses were of different shapes and color.   
    The term is an evident adaptation of the ancient Turkic expression ja? im ba (ja? im ba ~ janimba ~ nimba ~ nimbus) consisting of three words: ja? (shine), im (sign) and ba- (to tie up).

    The translation is clear - "surround with the sign of the light", "make it bright". It is a precept for icon-painters.
    Orarion - long ribbon which a Christian clergyman wears on his shoulders.
    The historians of the Church haven't determined when an orarion had become the vestments of the clergy. Their views in relation to origin of the word "orarion" are also different.
    According to a bad tradition the word "orarion" is deemed to be Greek. Some insist on the Greek words "to see", "to observe". Others derive it form the words "keeping safe", "care" meaning that people having an orarion care for the souls of the believers. There is also the Latin version - orarium from orare (to pray).
    Such discrepancy is explicable. That is a Turkic word, in its stem there are the words or- ari- consisting of or- (to tie, to braid) and ari (to clear) (or- ari- ~ orary ~ orari ~ orarion).
    In the expression or- ari- special attention should be focused on the word ari-. In ancient Turkic religious texts the word ari- means "to clear of the sins". Here is a quotation: "jazuqu? ari?a mujan bul?a s?n" ("your sins will be erased and you will find justice").
    Thus the translation of the word "orarion" from ancient Turkic language expresses the symbolic essence of the worn vestments. The slightest reserve is absent here.
    Putting an orarion on the clergy puts its ends down and having read a prayer he ties an orarion round himself showing his mental purity. That is the tradition of Tengirchilik.
    Pagan - polytheism adherent, an idolater.
    The word "pagan" (pronounced as "yazychnik" in Russian) has an evident ancient Turkic stem jaz- (to sin). The combination jaz- + igci affix is translated as "sinner". (jaz- + igci ~ yazygchi ~ yazychig ~ yazychnik (pagan)).
Another version of etymology of that word is also possible: the Turkic stem jazinc (sin) +nik, the Russian affix (jazinc + -nik ~ yazynchnik ~ yazychnik (pagan)). But that is less likely.
    Thus one could say that the Russian word "pagan" is a borrowing of the Turkic word "sinner".

    As we can see, the criminalists have a lot to do in relation to historical investigations. Their methods are suitable here. And we have taken only one area of the "crimes" - religious crimes… Where has the Turkic cultural wealth disappeared? That question doesn't seem that strange as it was before.
    Bur the religious history wasn't over with "lost" words; it is to be continued.

        Splits and Splitters

    By the end of the first thousand years the lands of Europe were split into two hostile parts - Rome and Constantinople came to hate each other. The reasons for their secret and open hostility were old.
    Firstly, there were economic reasons. Byzantine has been successfully communicating with the Turki for a long time: the famous Silk Route had its final point in Byzantium crossing Desht-I-Kipchak. The route from the Varangians to the Greeks also led to Byzantium through Desht-I-Kipchak. Successful trade with eastern neighbors strengthened the positions of the Greeks in their confrontation with Rome. Thus Rome was seeking for the changes being advantageous for it.
    Second reason of confrontation between Rome and Constantinople was not less important - religious controversies. They formed the basis of the whole political life of Europe: "Who's got power has also got belief". These words were the motto. World domination was in question - pretensions of two powers who were only hiding their wishes behind the theological disputes: not God but the golden calf inspired the rulers.
    Having accepted Christianity in IV century both Rome and Constantinople turned into the masters from the slaves and they were ready for anything to purify their slavish past after Attila's death. The Greek emperors were the first who understood how to do that - using religion which was accepted by force by both countries and which it was very important to bring under their control.
    Religion was the only thing which pointed them to the past.    
    In the Central and Western Europe the Romans succeeded having called many Kipchaks on their side. The Eastern Europe remained under the Greeks' control who were skillfully balancing between Rome and steppe inhabitants. And since in Europe political pressure was performed through the Church, the rulers of two hostile countries turned their looks to it hoping to have an impact on their enemies and their neighbors, to rise through it and to create their future and the past. Christianity was becoming a political instrument to an increasing extent. Just a political instrument.
    Up to IX century temporal power in Rome had the affairs of the papacy under its control - church innovations, dogmas and rules were determined, as a rule, by temporal politicians to whom the Church used to serve.
    And that was explicable. After Attila's glorious victories the Western empire couldn't reinstate itself for a long while - it was attacked by the "barbarians" and numerous "barbarian kingdoms" which appeared in Europe.
    Only in the year 591, having buried the hatchet, Roman authorities managed to have a break. And the Church which center was in Byzantine those days, started to act, - Pope was obliged to agree his actions with the Ecumenical Patriarchy but he didn't always do it.
    In VII - VIII centuries the Roma Church, having got a benediction of the Pope Gregory the Great, started a secret excellent ideological aggression to the north, to the Turki, where Tengirchilik was dominating (or "Heteroousian" religion, according to Christian terminology). Thousands and thousands of people were taken prisoners by Rome. And they didn't even know it!
    Pope started a dialogue with the king of Spain, found many things in common with martial Brunghilda - the queen of Austrasia, he has become "the boy next door" in the southern lands of the British Isles. The whole Western Europe felt peacemaking activity of Rome - everybody was tired of the wars.
    Skillfully using established relations, not making them visible, Pope was getting power turning papacy into an active power institution… Secret army, court, finances… And the main weapon was a word (ideology).
    Pope Gregory the Great intended to create a state over the states… The Western Church was secretly and vigorously building it for three hundred years. Just when everything was ready, Pope Nicolas I (858 - 867) declared about the independent Roman Church. That was a very heavy stroke for the prestige of Byzantium. Hard-won independence! It couldn't be neglected; it couldn't be disrespected.

    In Byzantium, since the emperor Constantine, the Church was behind the emperor's back relying on his strength and power. It was resting on the laurels. Its dependence was revealed in everything, it avoided active politics. Its power was quiet.
    Struggling for leadership Rome has chosen the most difficult but the most profitable way: it relied only on itself. Gradually strengthening its power, its finances and at the same time making the canon of Tengirchilik simpler, it was forming its ceremonies and its service. In other words, it was looking for its face, its identity. That was the only way to get the church leadership having deprived Byzantium of it and to become the master of Europe again.
    In the Western Church they easily rejected old ceremonies and invented new ones which were closer to the Europeans in spiritual sense. And although the image of the Turkic Heavenly God was still present in its pantheon… it wasn't in the foreground any more. It was rather a background for Christ, Mary and different saints. Religion was moving far from its divine essence. Its external, ceremonial part prevailed in the innovations of Rome.
    However, it should have happened that way: otherwise papacy wouldn't have got its face and the right for its own church policy which couldn't be neglected. In the Middle Ages special attention was focused on the ceremonial part. The paradox was that external pomposity led the people away from God. Rome, struggling for power, was growing poor in spiritual sense: wealth and luxury were killing it and calling for the congregations of the dissidents.
    Constantinople was loosing one position after another to Rome - the Greek policy was even not conservative but numb. Greek rulers were quietly freeloading on religion being like a bear in the lair who lives in winter due to fat accumulated in summer. However in history it couldn't have lasted for a long time - ideas also grow old. Life, taking its idleness and conservatism into consideration, won't stand stagnation; otherwise it turns into a slough.
    Byzantium was doomed. Sooner or later the country was to fall into that infamous slough: its wealth was fully dependent on Desht-I-Kipchak. It couldn't have neglected the Turki. That's why the Greeks stood a little bit to the east for the West and a little bit to the west for the East.
    Of course there were certain innovations in the Greek Church as well, but they were inconsequent, unreasoned (aniconism, for example). Constantinople was forced to show restraint, laudable conservatism which finally led Europe to division of the single Christian Church into Byzantine and Roman Churches. It happened on July 16th, 1054, when the deed of mutual excommunication was signed.
    East and West declared to the world that they have different world outlooks. That grand event was the final point of the policy which was followed by both sides this or that way since IV century - from the moment settlement of the Turki in Europe and acceptance of Christianity in the colonies of the Roman Empire and in Rome itself as well (As a matter of fact, Christianity in its modern (!) sense was accepted by Europe only by XIII century. The last pagan countries disappeared, canon still being in force without any material alterations was formed in general and accepted. Although some differences (significant and insignificant) remained in the current Churches until now.).
    The first big conflict inside the Church arose. Unfortunately it was not the only one for Europe: church and political controversies have always been forming a certain diplomatic background filled by the mutual accusations of heresy. There was a feeling that each European Church had a certain divine truth to determine what went right and what went wrong. Pope Gelacius I, for example, at the Council in Rome solemnly proclaimed himself "Christ's deputy on the Earth" on May 13th, 495. Just like that. The churchmen retained the right to call heresy anything they liked. Wars, secret murders, public executions were justified by the struggle against heresy… The policy was dirty and it was far from being ecclesiastic! Stench was over Europe.
    For example, what was the meaning of the church find which was called "inquisition" later? Or what have the Councils and church courts always been urging to?.. Much has been written about them, but it was all one-sided. For the sake of Rome or Byzantium. It was nowhere determined what actually was called heresy.
    Church ideologists skillfully created the opinions of millions of people; people were forced to consider that there was the enemy of Christ against whom pious Church was struggling. The enemy was deemed to act against the Church and against "Christ's deputy on the Earth", i.e. against living God… Everything was mixed up and called the unknown (Turkic!) word "heresy".
    Brushwood was not the source of the fires of the inquisition.
    Those were the Kipchaks who, having been brought up with other spiritual traditions, were burning in the fires being sure that Christ wasn't a god; they were tortured and tormented; they were forced to give up their belief in Heavenly God - Tebgri; churchmen were destroying the Turkic divine literature having translated it into their languages and using the abstract word "heresy" as a cover… Thus the Turki were being made disaccustomed to their culture and history for centuries. And it seems they were made so.
    Generally speaking, Rome was preparing the massacre of St. Bartholomew many centuries before the year 1572 killing everyone not agreeing with its spiritual policy. Hands of certain Roman and Byzantine hypocrites are covered with blood.
    Only in France over 30 thousand of people were killed during that "night" (by the way, it lasted for several days), those people were the enemies of the Roman Christianity; of course the Genevans didn't recognize their Tengirchilik roots, apparently - time was the reason - but they didn't loose their hatred to Rome passing the dislike to Catholicism across the generations. Any European could hardly explain the reasons of his dislike of the Catholics - half of Europe simply always hated them. No explanations were necessary.
    Repressions, falsifications, blackmail, threatening were the policy of the Church. Before the massacre of St. Bartholomew and after it as well… It was loosing in the open dialogue with its opponents thus an absurd rule appeared in Christianity - "to believe without thinking". The Christians were prohibited to discuss the dogmas of belief.
    …The Catholics made more than 60 alterations of the Tengirchilik canon for the sake of their policy. Sometimes "novelty" was taken from Mitraism - the religion being the competitor of Christianity; some time it was widespread in the Roman Empire.
    But certain innovations weren't recognized at one stroke even by the Roman Church. For example origin of the Holy Spirit, the dogma appeared in the end of VII century as an addition to those accepted in IV century. At first it was recognized by the Spaniards and in 1009 it was accepted by Rome.
    This and other examples (and there are many of them!) show that the history of the Great Steppe has been forgotten in Italy, France, Spain, England - it was wiped out by the inquisitors. But it's not dead! It has been living all these centuries with Attila's descendants passing from generation to generation. It is neglected but it hasn't been forgotten.

    Division of the Church is the division of the fields of supremacy. And nothing more. And this division was formed by XI - XII centuries because the Kipchaks have let it happen: they were desperately resisting the Fate and thus made their inevitable end nearer - their endless brawls were to exhaust the great nation. They, as though being childish, wanted to prove something to somebody. And generosity is disastrous in the world of adults; it requires a very high price.
    In VI century, for example, the Kipchaks threw down a challenge to the rest of Europe. Religious bigots of Rome organized the massacre of the Jews and their proscription from Palestine: Rome was strengthening its positions through purification of Christianity from Judaism on which the Greeks insisted. And they partly succeeded in it.
    It should be mentioned that Christianity didn't stand the Jewish nation in good stead. It roughly intruded into the spiritual life of the Jews having invented the one they didn't have - Christ!.. He was supposed to be God's son.
    But there is no Father God in Judaism. Thus a son couldn't appear. And that is clear from the original text of the Old Testament. The Jews learnt that history (or the details of the life of the Jew who was called Jesus Christ in II century, to put it more preciously) much later (Desire to connect that event with Joseph Flabius (37 - 100), the ancient Jewish historian who has taken the side of Rome in the Jewish War, is not in compliance, for example, with Apocalypse. Even with its edited (!) version. Interferences in the texts by ancient authors were traditional for the Christian clergy - they corrected everything and everybody. Thus "editing" of the translations of the Old Testament and other holy books has been practiced since IX century . So what can be said about Joseph Flabius.). Not before the Oecumenical Council II of the year 381 at which the Gospels - the New Testament were approved. Before that there were more than a hundred of variants of his life contradicting with each other - the so-called Apocrypha.    
    It turns out the history about Christ is a Greek invention. And not a Jewish one.
    The first Christian communities appeared, as we know, on the territory of the Minor Asia (Byzantium!) and not in Palestine. And those communities didn't break with Judaism. Isn't it indicative - almost all the "sacred" texts of the first Christians were written in the Greek language and with the Greek letters?..
    In VI century Rome started a campaign against Palestine in order not to arrange theological disputes there but to beat the Jews to spite Byzantium.
    But in politics, as well as in chess, one should make a move after the opponent. The Greeks kept silent cowardly; the Kipchaks replied for them: they gave a shelter to the Jewish nation beaten without being guilty, to spite Rome but to their own detriment. Desht-I-Kipchak gave a hand to the weak showing that the Turki were following the commandment "The kind are blessed". Jewish quarters with the synagogues appeared in the steppe settlements in VI century. The Jews were granted the rights of the citizens and not the slaves and they were allowed to take part in the life of Desht-I-Kipchak apart from military service which was impossible due to their physical state and, besides, they couldn't follow their Moses' laws there.
    Neither nation was as free as the Jews. In Khazaria, for example, the Jews were trading. They communicated with their fellows hiding from the Roman legionaries in Spain. In a word, the Turki fully trusted them and suffered for that reason.
    Their protection was the reason of discussion of "Judaisation" of the Khazar chaganat and, consequently, of isolation of Desht-I-Kipchak itself as "Jewish" disease bearer. Though no traces of "Judaisation" were ever found by the archeologists. But the opinion about it is stable.
    Sometimes the interest of the Khazars to the Jewish belief is mentioned in historical works of that time, but they are read only in the context of acceptance of the outcast Jews by the Turki - one thing has no sense without the other. And besides, one should remember that the words "Christian" and "Jews" were the synonyms for the Turki.
    Khazar chagan has become interested in Christianity by example of the ruler of the Caucasian Albania, which is quiet possible: there was the Caucasian patriarchal throne in Derbent… Anyway, the chronicles never mention Judaism of the Turki while they mention Christianity (The example of the Karaites is convincing. They are Jewish but not the Jews.).
    The story about the choice of belief by the chagan is another falsification. It is not by accident that the legend having the same plot but with the "positive" end was written by the same hand for Russian Kiev.
    … Of course the neighborhood of two free nations - the Kipchaks and the Jews - led to a mutual profit. The Jews showed themselves as good craftsmen and traders. The Kipchaks guarded their settlements as their own ones. It is important to mention that the Turki lived in peace with their neighbors and didn't intend to suppress their culture or to appropriate it. But they loved foreign women.
    Without any exaggeration, that was only the magnanimity of the Kipchaks that saved the Jews from inevitable death to which they were doomed by the Europeans. Unfortunately, that has also been forgotten, although there are many Jews having Turkic appearance nowadays - blue-eyed and broad-faced. The "traces" of community of two nations… And even those blue-eyed Jews represent their saviors as the scoundrels.
    Historians (including the Jewish ones) sooner or later will have to take the Great steppe country from the strong paws of oblivion - that is our common Motherland; they will have to investigate the cobwebs of intrigues and conjectures forming a material part of the history.
    Byzantine, Roman, Russian historiographs have erased Desht-I-Kipchak from the map. As though there were no Kipchaks who gave the belief in Heavenly God to Europe.

     However, the Chinese have also done the same; they were conquered by the Turki earlier than the Europeans. The time came and the Chinese rose their heads. They started their politics playing with honesty and trustfulness of the Turki. Their motto was simple: "Who wants to rule over the Firmament should extirpate punishment (i.e. weapons) and who wants to subdue his enemies by force holds the virtue away".
    That Chinese wisdom is related to the Christian "love for the nearest"… Such words led to disorder in the Turkic society, deprived the people of their physical power which nobody could resist earlier. The Chinese skillfully set the Turkic rulers on to fight; they were the first who hit upon the idea to fight with the enemy with his own hands. The microbe of the discord, like rust, has become the part of the Turkic society since then; it was absorbed with mother milk. And it was all because they believed the foreign words.
    A lot of eastern lands of Desht-I-Kipchak became the part of the Chinese Empire without a fight. On those lands the Turki lived - those Turki who were willing to live under the Chinese emperor… They "loved their nearest", put the weapons away in order "not to make the virtues far". And the border between China was moved far to the north from the Great Wall. The Chinese made their speeches and acted; the Turki just sat and listened.
    Free people of the Steppe forgot that Tengri-Khan had made the Turkic nation free and had given the face and the vast Steppe to it… Those who believed in foreign words lost everything for they believed to a foreign God.
    To tell the truth, the chagan of the eastern Turki - Kutlug - retook the lands appropriated by the Chinese. That was a happy time when Kutlug warriors were recognized by other chagans. Order was set in Desht-I-Kipchak for several years. But after Kutlug (also known as Elterish - the uniting chagan) fratricide came back to the Steppe… And everything started over again.

    Should one be surprised that since VIII century Byzantium was trying to step back from the weakening ally. But Byzantine emperor was nothing without Turkic support: having started acting by himself he fell - provincial nobility threw him down and Esaurian (Syrian) dynasty came to power in Tsargrad.
    New Byzantine emperors declared aniconism (Aniconism - religious tendency in Byzantium in VII - IX centuries which rejected icons worshipping basing on the commandments from the Old Testament. In the course of aniconism thousands of monuments of the spiritual art which were created mostly by the Turkic craftsmen or according to the traditions of Tengirchilik were destroyed.
). Thus they were strengthening their positions having started the changes in the Church alienating the Turki from it. Declaring the turning out of the Turkic icons, the authorities didn't want a breakup but gradual submission of Desht-I-Kipchak : in IX century the Greeks laid down conditions for the first time.
    And they succeeded in it.
    The shadow of the clouds from Constantinople covered the Eastern Europe. Presence of the Jews in Desht-I-Kipchak made it darker - isolation of the Kipchaks was going on. Everything was for Rome's sake that time; again, as a hundred years ago, it was appearing in the world scene reviving the former empire: total submission of Europe through the Christian Church was a matter of time. Byzantine churchmen realized their defeat and couldn't resist to it.
    Meanwhile the Turki, having been involved into a feud by the Chinese and the Europeans, were in a desperate situation: their former might had disappeared completely. They should have protected themselves against exterior enemies and they were fighting only with internal ones - a brother was killing a brother. That's why, having seized the right moment, the Varangians easily won the Ukraine chaganat from "ill" Desht-I-Kipchak. That's why the "Russians" inexperienced in steppe fighting started a campaign against the rulers of pallid Khazaria.
    "There are no bonds more sacred than fraternity". A microbe of the discord is a judgment: the Most High deprived the steppe nation of mind.

    Unfortunately, many pages of Desht-I-Kipchak history are to remain blank - those events cannot be restored. The documents have been destroyed. Only fragments remained in the archives - information about the Greeks who were committing genocide against the Kipchaks of the Great Bulgaria chaganat in VIII - IX centuries. They "registered" their Kipchak servants as the Greeks; they added the boundary lands of the Bulgarians to them.
    There are archival evidences about how the conceited descendants of Gomer burnt spiritual literature apart form the icons, frescos and statuettes. The storages of the "ancient Bulgarian books". Where can one fond the traces of the rich libraries with which Europe was bringing up?.. And they threw thousands of books written in the runes into the fires! The fact which isn't refuted even by "Christianity" encyclopedia; for instance, it is reported there that in XIX century the Greeks burnt one of the last libraries of the "ancient Bulgarian" books… That's where the Turkic heritage has disappeared

    In our opinion, these were the Greeks who called the Kipchak language "ancient Bulgarian" during the years of another genocide and, having included a couple of dozens of Slavic words in it, proclaimed it "Church Slavonic". They, as well as the Romans, were physically destroying the alien clergy which used to follow the traditions of Tengirchilik… Persecution was violent - it was performed by the great masters in black robes.
    Disembodied information remained in the archives just by accident… that's why the Great Steppe is called the crowd of the "wild nomads" and "pagan Tatars". As though nothing else about it remained.

    The ancient Turki worshipped God solemnly, turning to Him with a pure soul. And with divine singing. That's why the Turkic spiritual spring became popular at first among the Armenian, Albanian, Iberian bishops and later among the Byzantine, Roman and other ones: they saw the new, true belief there. And they accepted its holiness.
    Europeans heard the prayers in the name of heavenly God in the Great Steppe. They took the ceremonies of worshipping from the Great Steppe… So many things have been forgotten!
    As a matter of fact, the Turkic culture was going into oblivion in different ways in different places - but everywhere is was meanly and doubly. Pope Gregory the Great (590 - 604 years of papacy) was the first who became accustomed to cutting its roots in the Western Europe. The personification of the craftiness.
    Gregory is from a noble senatorial family, he had a good legal education and excellent administrative skills. After his father's death he inherited an untold wealth which he fully invested in reconstruction of the monasteries which were languishing in poverty. He lured the Black Monks and they became his secret and reliable support in the state - his ears and eyes. Gregory didn't spare the funds for strengthening of his power - economic and political issues troubled the Pope as well as theological ones.
    In 592, having buried the hatchet with the Kipchaks who settled in the north of the Apennines Peninsula (Langobards, the ancestors of the modern Milaneses) he declared papacy the center of the Turkic spiritual culture in Europe (Although it hasn't been proved that the Langobards were the Turki, no one has disproved that after the Great Nations Migration the Central Europe was settled by the Turki; they were the majority of the population. Judging be the notes of Paul Barnefridus (VIII century) the Langobards came form the East. As well as the Goths, Izigoths, Hepids, Huns and Terings they spoke one language and were different form each other only in appearance. It is notable that one of the earliest literary monuments of that "nation" known as "Skeireins" is dated back to V century. As well as remained Goths' runic monuments, it hasn't been read by the experts. All those texts can be read by the Turkologists - the experts in ancient Turkic runic writing. And that reveals a lot! As well as the fact that all the nations worshipped only Heavenly God not recognizing Christ - the Christians called them Heteroousians. It is clear that traditions which were borrowed by the Romans from them are of the Turkic origin - at least they had no differences with the Turki. In part that is confirmed by other medieval authors alluding to cognation of the Langobards and the ancient Bulgarians. It seems the Langobards is one of the Kipchak uluses which was looking for its face in endless wars waged in Europe after Attila's death. ). Pope started an intricate game of the "learned ignorance" - Rome turned into a humble child who has declared his desire to grasp the divine truth.
    They sent a legion of the Pope's agents to the Turki, basically formed of the Black Monks. They penetrated into the Turkic temples - to the relics! - without any difficulties because Pope Gregory has been calling himself "the bishop of the Langobards but not the Romans" since 591. Did he mean the Turki?! He also called himself "the servant of God's servants"… How could an ambitious Kipchak stand that? He - being a "God's servant" - found the Pope as his servant. But that wasn't all.
    Gregory the Great, having come to the Turki, bowed down to them and humbly tied cape worn by the slaves over his Pope's clothes. "Here I Am, the servant of God's servants!..." - he introduced himself. The Kipchaks believed that sly dog.
    Black Monks were sent to the Turki not by accident. It seems they were the Turki having taken the side of Rome, they knew the language and the customs of the Great Steppe and didn't suspect that vile part chosen by the Pope for them.
    And the part was simple - to grow accustomed, to take root, to win the sympathy. In other words, to become their own people. But at that they had to implicitly spread distemper, to judge old ceremonies, to suggest new ones and to play with the national piety… In a word, to stir up.
    Pope Gregory counted everything correctly: speaking about God's son the Monks softyl-softly "imposed" his cult. Sooner or later, Pope reckoned, the Kipchaks would get accustomed to Christ and to Rome as well… Since they are friends and brothers.
    Confidence of relationship was increased for the reason that the Romans were willingly getting borrowings. For example, the tradition of the church singing which the Tengirchilik followers had at all times appeared in Christianity at that time. Furthermore, they began to perform the divine service according to "Apostolic rules" of Tengirchilik which were written by Dionysus the Small for them… In the Christian Church everything was the same as with Tengirchilik, but for the sake of Christ.
    The smile of humility didn't leave the Pope's face. In fact the Roman agents weren't destroying the temples - they were hiding in corners like mould.
    Pope Gregory instructed the delegates in his secret message: "The nation, having lately known Christianity but being accustomed to its temples (bold provided. - M.A.) would come to them as though following a custom in order to worship the true God", i.e. Christ. Pope's host was acting near the Turkic altars without a fuss. Thus it lasted for two centuries - until the Pope Nicolas the Great.
    A slave's cape has become the part of the Catholic Church everyday life since then - now it is ornamented with precious stones and golden embroidery… A rag which opened the way to the Turkic souls for the Romans.
    Pope Gregory started an actual ideological aggression. An intrusion missed by the simple-minded Turki - they still don't understand anything. They were choked in the embraces of friendship. The nation was perishing not seeing the enemy's face. In diplomacy, in the intrigues the Turki are the ignoramuses - they could wage a war only in an open fight - with arms and on a horse. So that wind whistles in their ears. Traditions of the Great Steppe are partly guilty in it - they didn't suppose meanness which was normal in the relations between the native Europeans. Rome had rich experience of the backstage fight - it could add the poison to the glass of wine even to the closest friends.
    Cited above Felix Minucius wrote about the Roman art as follows: "They build altars even to unknown unheard-of deities. Thus, appropriation of the relics of all the nations led to owning their kingdoms".
    As we see, the history repeated with the Turki. Pope Gregory the Great invented nothing new; he was acting according to an old reliable former which has already helped the Roman many times.
    Even the form of the order of Gregory the Great (later the Roman church started to award with it its glorious heroes) was the same that of all the Turkic ones known before Attila. They took everything they could.
    Oblivion of the Turkic culture in Europe continued: it wasn't officially prohibited - they just stopped mentioning it; it was forgotten by itself (The same thing is happening in modern Russia where children don't know anything about the pioneers, Lenin, Stalin who were the example for their parents. Lenin wasn't officially prohibited, they just stopped to tell children about him. And thus they don't know him.). By VIII century the policy of obtrusion of Christianity started by the Pope Gregory the Great yielded the first fruit - a lot of the Turki have taken the side of papacy, they've become its main weapon and instrument in the struggle against Tengri and the whole Turkic spiritual culture. They defeated their fellows.
    Of course truthful books are to be written about the epoch of destruction of the Great Steppe. Now it is known only from the Christian historians. That victory of the Catholics is called the victory over Heteroousians knowingly ignoring the fact that the Egyptian bishop Arius had nothing to do with the Northern Europe and that the Turkic religion (monotheism!) existed eight centuries before Arius was born!
    There are many facts of how the Catholics were strengthening their positions in the Northern Italy, on the continent, in the Southern England. Although, not everything was calm; there were certain communities which uncovered the craftsmen of Rome and resisted to it. These are the Turkic Bogomils whose movement was formed by X century on the territory of the Central Europe, the Turkic Qatars and the Turkic Albigences who continued the struggle for the purity of belief in Heavenly God. Qatars, for instance, returned Tengirchilik to themselves due to which they (inhabitants of modern France, Italy, Spain, Germany) were called the Khazars or the Bulgarians. But the forces were unequal.
    It seems to be the "inessential" historic detail which was repeatedly mentioned even in historical novels. In medieval Europe there was a rule for the noble families - an obligatory ritual combat with a dragon. Not having defeated a dragon, a young fellow couldn't be called a knight of an aristocrat; the doors to the neighboring castles were closed for him… But what dragon did he have to defeat? What or who was meant by that mythical image?
    The Turki, certainly. There were no living dragons in Europe. The image of the dragon or the serpent, as we know, was the symbol of the Turkic culture. It means a young fellow had to publicly disown his ancestors, to kill his memory. Killing of his own ancestors was meant by that ritual killing of the dragon!.. Those were really smart people in Vatican
    Or another example. The Turki, being accustomed only to an open fight, considered it a shame to make a thrusting stroke with a saber or a dagger - it was deemed to be a stroke on the quiet. The Great Steppe recognized only an open slashing stroke. Even in a stalemate the Turki had to slash but not thrust: the enemy has to see the stroke according to the rules of the fight.
    And that peculiarity of the Turkic psychology was marked by the Romans. They started to use swords, stilettos and hangers against the Turki in medieval towns. Thrust weapon. It had an evident advantage as compared with a saber in the fights in the narrow streets. According to the traditions of the Steppe it was also indecent to sit on a horse in front of the house; one had to get to the ground and lead a horse by the bridle. In the premises the Turki was forbidden to draw his arms. Everything was taken by the Romans into consideration.
    Europe wasn't about to combat fairly… A saber lost to a sword. The Europeans explained the victory of their arms by the fact that a sword copied the Latin cross in its shape. As though that symbolized the victory of Christ.
    There were the crusades in the European history which also were actually regarded otherwise as compared with the "Roman" version (that is the subject for a new book on modern history)… Only by XV century the Catholics gained a total victory over Tengirchilik - its last hearths were suppressed and coated with blood of the parishioners.
    The word "Tengri" disappeared from the church lexicon as a heretical one. (The name of father God!) But the Turkic obstinacy remained. In XVI century another spiritual movement - Protestantism - was formed in the Central Europe… Its originators were gradually expressing their position negating everything connected with Rome. And not proposing forgotten Tengirchilik.
    By that time there were no holidays dedicated to Father God in the Christian Church! Europe depersonalized Heavenly God and called its victory over it Renaissance… Certainly another book should be written about it.
    After the christening Russia was getting familiar with the prayers in the Church Slavonic language which basics were formed by the Turkic one. It was acquainting turning its face to the East - according to the traditions of Tengirchilik. And it was writing prayers in Turkic! Ancient church books are the evidence.
    Isn't it indicative that even the Russian editions of Athanasius Nikitin, the Tver merchant who has visited the lands over three seas in 1466 - 1472, contained the text of a prayer in the Turkic language:

    And the Russian land - God save it.
    God save it!
    There is no another country as beautiful as that,
    Although the begs of the Russian land are unjust.
    Let the Russian land come right
    And let the justice live there!
   
     The prayer is finished with word "God" like any prayer of Tengirchilik. That was the Turkic clergy in Russia.
    It seems they didn't know about the tragedy of the European Turki in Desht-I-Kipchak: Rome and Constantinople didn't make a show of their victories: The barrier between East and West was practically impassable. Especially from the eastern side: it wasn't customary to go to Europe, it was indecent to talk about it since it has stepped back from God.
    Only when everything settled down and the Greeks signed the Florentine union in XV century Pope turned his look far to the East - where the sun rises. As though he remembered that "the light begins in the East". The papacy conceived a new ideological intervention having called it "The Third Rome".
    The conception of the "third Rome" is rather simple - to create an affiliate of the Roman Empire in the Eastern Europe. In the Florentine union Byzantine recognized itself as a subordinate of the Pope having become "the second Rome" for the Central Europe. They needed the third one in order to have power over the lands up to Ural and further to the east. And the main object was to destroy the sworn enemy of Pope - Desht-I-Kipchak - with its hated Tengirchilik.
    Pope's analysts were looking towards Poland, Lithuania and Russia. Who was going to win? Those countries, from their point of view, were suitable for the prepared role.
    In Russia the idea of the "third Rome" was for the first time declared by the Pskov monk Philophei in the beginning of XVI century. And it became the political theory of Moscow Russia. With that they connected a conviction that Russia is the most blameless and pious kingdom in the whole world…
    The Greeks, having taken the role of producers for the further tragedy guarded the "third Rome " as well as they could; they felt that Moscow was ready to get a new role at any cost. But according to the scenario it had to "surpass everyone in piety". Thus they began to borrow the pages of the Turkic history and put them to the Russian one.
    Falsification, evident deceit can be clearly read in the history of the church split of the year 1666. That is the top of all lies skillfully ignored by the Russian historians.   

    At that time, in the end of 1666 the ringing of bells changed in Moscow all of a sudden. "They ring for a church singing as if the fire is set on", - people used to say. Why was the ringing changed?
    On the 1st of December the Church Council approved two important events: firstly, the split of the former eparchy, secondly, appearance of the Christian Church - Russian Orthodox one which was called Greek-Russian Church at that time. Those were outstanding events!
    But not much has been written about those events in Russian historiography; the split is the insignificant matter. Neither of known works contains information about the reasons of the "split" and what has split. Authors lead the matter to the church reform of the patriarchy Nikon, to the ceremony missing the most important - changing of the ideology of the Church and division of society according to belief.
    And that is not a church split - that is the stage of the Roman politics directed to strengthening of its domination in the east of Europe… That was Renaissance, after all!
    Formerly the Pope conquered nations and countries with the assistance of the Turkic monks and Turkic knights having united them in VI century into spiritual knightly Orders (Orders, indeed! In Turkic "order" means "given from above" or "from khan's abode".). In the east of Europe he used the Greeks and the Russians. His policy was different here while the enemy was the same - spiritual culture of the Great Steppe, its last fading hearth.
    It seems nothing unusual has been written about the split in the Russian literature: an ordinary reform, they corrected the mistakes in the texts and began to put fingers together otherwise while praying. What else can be discussed here?.. But was that the main thing - with how many fingers, two or three, should the Christians cross themselves? Certainly not ( No doubt, the ceremonial part of the service in the Middle Ages was of extremely high importance, sometimes it was even of critical importance. But we are not interested in the external part of religion here. ).

    So what has "split" after all? The word "split" stipulates the presence of the whole which was divided into parts due to circumstances.
    Tengirchilik taught humility to the fate and silent passion bearing in the name of perception of the divine truth… In Russia that observe of the religious medal was carefully polished. Varangian rulers emphasized that since it led the nation to humility and passivity. Having accepted the Turkic belief in the end of X century Varangains enlisted the world with the Turki. And, no doubt, that was their political wisdom. They weren't interested in the divine truth the same as the Greeks. It is not casual that Boris and Gleb were the first ones sainted in Russia - the whole holiness of their deed was that they let themselves to be killed with humility. Humility - the most important postulate of Tengirchilik - was carried to the point of absurdity in Russia at one stroke.
    However, here the most pious thoughts have been always getting on with the materialistic behavior. In XI - XII centuries in the churches of Kiev Russia political melodies started to sound - that was happening for the first time there… In the depths of Tengirchilik brotherhood discord was arising due to the Russians.
    Remaining a western country in its roots, the Varangian Russia accepted an alien eastern spiritual culture. In the "steppe" church which was called "Scythian" at the Ephesian Council II (449) East and West were kind of brought together. They failed to compromise; their split was a matter of time.
    The most eastern - both in geographical and spiritual sense - eparchy, Scythia, was isolated at that time. They didn't forget the Jews guarded by it. They remembered the past magnificence of Attila. The Romans and the Greeks couldn't forget a great deal of things… Only Caucasian Churches which remained faithful to God together with the Kipchaks, were keeping in touch with the Turki. And that was called the Eastern Church in former times.
    To tell the Truth, the Caucasus was under the Roman pressure; they tried to incline its pastors to belief in Christ. It Armenia that effort was partly successful; the community of the Christian Catholics appeared there in 1198, then it escaped and settled in Venice in 1717… There couldn't be a "small" split in big Russia. There was another scope - the Europeans had to industriously prepare a split during a long time.
    And they did it not missing any trifles…
    Tengirchilik followers were notable for their freedom -they didn't have an administration like papacy. The most important questions were settled "in a round" according to the eastern tradition - they held Councils which were convened as was needed. The Turki didn't administrate their spiritual life, they had another custom. And that was their defect - hoping for God they blundered. The Turkic allergy kind of forgot that Europe was alien for them having its own rules!
    Another weakness of Tengirchilik was the fact that, as against the western Church, where the divine service was performed in Latin, it used local languages. Desire to make a service comprehensible turned out to be a disaster - it was a mess which led to dissociation and split the flock into national regions and states. In other words, the spiritual institution of the Great Steppe was destroyed; it wasn't united and monolithic any more… And that was also considered in Vatican. Pope's secret service was acting excellently.
    Having faced the European culture Tengirchilik suffered great losses due to lack of organization first of all. In Europe Roman rules and laws were really established.
    The West didn't accept the freedom of mind of the Great Steppe; it didn't bear it in its clergy. Their views towards culture and values it revealed at the Nicene Council of the year 325 and than at the Council of Chalcedon of 451. The Church was recognized as an organization above all!
    The Greeks guessed that the Turki wouldn't take the part of the head of the Christian Church; Byzantine emperor Constantine headed it. And not the Turki to whom Constantine paid the levy! In Rome the Christian Church was also headed by the emperor until IX century. But that has never happened in Desht-I-Kipchak! The Turkic khans didn't even think about the power over the Church which was understood as power over God. The khans simply weren't allowed to take part in discussion of the church issues. Secular and spiritual were leading independent lives in the Great Steppe.
    At first it was the same in Russia. The first one who felt tight under the roof of the Church was the prince Andrew Bogolyubskiy (1111 - 1174); he was the only one in the whole "steppe" eparchy who didn't see the force of the religious spirit but saw the force of its power instead. (Here they are, the Varangians! Here it is, the West!) Since that moment the desire to override the Church or at least its part didn't leave the Russian prince the same as it hasn't left the Greek emperor Constantine some time ago. And later - the Pope Gregory the Great.
    But neither by the building of a rich church in Vladimir, nor even by the theft of a precious Kiev relic - the icon of the Blessed virgin - for him he proved anything… It was evident he lacked the Roman patience and the Greek craftiness. He was too straightforward (due to the Kipchak blood of his mother).
    And although the prince ordered to paint himself with a nimbus over his head he didn't become more saint. He was prohibited to meddle with the church affairs. The conflict between the Church and temporal power in Russia matured by XII century having been formed in its depths. It was inevitable: two psychologies, two world outlooks - the Eastern and the Western ones - faced each other… Not going into details let us just mention that prince Andrew paid with his impudence, God punished him - "he wanted to be an autocrat" - were the words of his contemporaries who violently murdered him at night of June 30th, 1174.
    God also saved the Tengirchilik belief during the Mongol government in Desht-I-Kipchak which was called the Golden Horde. To tell the truth, the Mongolians didn't intend to put anything under their control - Tengirchilik was close to them. Baty-khan, having come to power, wished to be christened, his son Sartakh was a clergyman - he rose to the rank of a deacon. The Mongols weren't liberal in everything, they delivered the Russian clergy from the payment of levy and guarded the churches and monasteries against the Russian princes who used to slip their hands in the church's pockets like in their own ones.
    The Golden Age of Orthodoxy coincided with the Mongolian dominion in Russia. Mongolian Code of Laws gave protection to Moscow and delivered it from levy in exchange for a promise to pray for the khan and his family… Monasteries gained a great deal of advantages due to the Mongolian mercy.
    In XIV century the Russians built the monasteries in the number equal to how many of them were built during the previous four centuries after they have rejected paganism. By the year 1550 there were more than two hundred of monasteries in Russia. Unfortunately, Russian historiography doesn't emphasize that fact insisting on the sufferings of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Mongolians. At that they wittingly forget to add that the Russian Church didn't exist at that time; it was formed only by 1589, more than a hundred years after the so-called Mongol-Tatar yoke.

    Byzantium was skillfully inciting Moscow for breakup with the Steppe. Having signed the Florentine union in 1439, the Greeks turned into a secret weapon of Rome.
    These were the Greek rulers who began to "correct" the Russian spiritual life and also politics after that. They strengthened the opinion as though Russia has accepted a cross not from the Steppe but from Byzantine. They weren't embarrassed by the fact the christening of Russia wasn't fixed in the history of the Greek Church! For the Greeks it was important to tie the young and inexperienced state with the church bonds; to win it over due to ideology. And, unfortunately, they succeeded in it.
    Graecophilism started since 1393 when the Greek patriarchy wrote a letter to Moscow to prince Wasil in which he said "there are rumors" that there is the Church in Russia but without a tsar: "It is unacceptable for the Christians to have a Church and not to have a tsar. Tsardom and Church are closely connected and it is impossible to separate them".
    The West began to play up to the Moscow rulers, flatter them being willing to see an ally against the Turki in them. That letter gave rise to a big political game. They began to convince Moscow of its magnificence and special role.
    … As a metter of fact, the spiritual institution of the Great Steppe was recognized by the Christians as far back as V century (Ephesian Council II, the year 449), it had several centers (Astrakhan, Bryansk, Kazan, Kiev, Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan-Murom, Eletsk, Saraysk, Tambov and others) after the lapse of some time; patriarchy's residence was located in the Great Steppe. Albanian (purely Christian) Church at the Caucasus existed independently; it was established in 304 and existed until 1836.
    There was no Church in Russia - the Greeks were cunning here. Hence their "there are rumors" that there is a Church although they knew there wasn't any. Only by 1448 Moscow obtained the right for the metropolis (Metropolitans were the bishops of the towns, their power often covered the communities of the bordering region. Metropolis is the part of the eparchy (church-administrative region).). Jonah was its first bishop; Russian antocephaly (church independence) started from him. But under the supervision of the Turkic clergy.
    Prayers were read in the Turkic language in Moscow and in Russia. All the divine services were performed in it. Only its metropolis allowed Moscow to chose the language of the divine service. That was the tradition of the Steppe (ancient Orthodox) Church (According to the steppe customs other rules were established in the Russian Church. For example, a khan, with whom a member of higher orders of clergy lived (the head of the Church) was called a tsar in the Steppe from olden times. A tsar had power over the chagans, he was the supreme ruler of Desht-I-Kipchak. But only for the time while the head of the Church lived with him blessing him for this or that deed. And the Kipchaks contradict to the supreme power - their vow didn't allow disobedience. "Where there is a tsar a Horde is near", - they said in the Steppe.).
    In XVI century, having learnt many things about the culture of the Great Steppe, the Greeks suggested the way for the Russian princes to capture the Church. With its help and with help of the tsar's scepter great power can be got, they convinced. And they were absolutely right… But how could one capture the spiritual power?
    They needed to start a war against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates and, having weakened the eparchy, to move the patriarchy to Moscow. In that case Moscow prince would have become the ruler of Desht-I-Kipchak and the tsar of the whole Russia…
    When the military troubles were "settled down", Kazan and Astrakhan fell. And in 1589 (under the prince Fyodor) they established an eparchy in Moscow. Thus, at bottom of fact, Moscow was becoming the capital of the empire and the spiritual center of the Turkic lands!.. Tsar's authorities inspired, turn the heads and it was important to strengthen the success. Thus started what was called "interlunation" by the historians .It happened because of the Russians themselves who have given rise to grand political changes and regrouping of power in the society. Those were very anxious times.
    Boris Godunov, the native of the Steppe, who excellently knew the Turkic traditions, having got rid of Fyodor, called himself "the Russian tsar" having shown the qualities of an active politician. He turned to the Greek pastors and trusted them for "generous alms" (as it is written in the document) to execute not quite legal transaction. Four Greek patriarchies, not even having read the papers (they didn't have time to translate them) put their signatures on the Russian original. They recognized the fifth person - he Moscow patriarchy - as equal to them. And that was all! Nothing else was needed. The Russian Church was established, it entered the international scene and legally obtained the rights equal to those of the Turki.
    Turning during that memorable year 1589 to the Russian tsar, Constantinopolitan patriarchy Jeremiah uttered the words which really impressed the tsar. V.O. Klyuchevskiy reproduced them as follows: "Old Rome has fallen due to heresy; the second Rome - Constantinople - is owned by the Hagarian grandsons; and the third Rome - the Russian kingdom - has surpassed everyone in piety".
    These were really cautious words: they've become the part of the Roman policy.
    After that sacramental words if the Greek patriarchy certain facts of further Russian history become clear - the Greek determines the course of certain events. For example, who would knock together the armies in the Russian - Turkish wars. Why Russian cannon-fodder would be that cheap at the European military markets… A great deal of things in the history of XVI - XVIII and following centuries (the period of Romanovs government) is represented in other shades as compared with Europocentric literature: it becomes evident that Russian tsars lived according to the Greek standards!
    Russia believed in its role of Byzantium's successor and the ruler of the Orthodox world.

    However, similar ambitions were peculiar for it before, when the Greeks, through the marriage of Sophia Paleologus (niece of the latest emperor) with the Moscow prince Ivan III, entered the Kremlin and strengthened themselves there having proclaimed Russia Byzantium's successor and having begun to stir the Russian up against the Turki - against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates.
    Open despotism promptly turned into the policy of Moscow. Which, of course, gave rise to protest of the local clergy, which was shown in the collision of the metropolitan Philip and Ivan the Terrible. The metropolitan couldn't see the meaningless annihilation of the nation. And he demanded "from the prince to stop oprichnina". For aggressive policy was led under cover of oprichnina and the power of Ivan the Terrible was strengthening! Everything was mixed up in a political sense - due to the Greeks.
    Earlier, before their meddling, ethnic unity even wasn't in question in Russia. There were no national problems. It is enough to turn to the family trees of the Russian nobility to make sure that over a half of the nobles are the natives of the Steppe and not the Slavs or the Russians. Ivan the Terrible wanted to equalize the country by oprichnina. And oprichnina was just exhausting Russia and not curing it.
    However, the tsar ignored the metropolitan's demand to stop oprichnina. And Malyuta Skuratov put an end to it - he choked Philip.
    Thus the Moscow prince subdued the Church by force and assigned the title of a "tsar" to himself! He succeeded in it in part: they were afraid of him but they didn't listen to him.
    Having called himself a tsar, Ivan IV immersed into an illusion of spiritual freedom. He generously awarded the priests and the monasteries which supported him in his struggle against the choked metropolitan. But the impostor has forgotten that he is also mortal and God would make answer for innocent blood. As a matter of fact, the Varangian dynasty of Ryurikoviches in Moscow came to an end very soon… "One cannon deceive God", - common people used to say and cross themselves with relief.

    Tengirchilik remained standing again, it restrained itself as though during a fight still remaining common for the Slavic Russian and the Turkic Steppe.

    Physical strength is not good help in spiritual disputes in Russia - the Greeks quickly understood that. They've become alert due to the fact that in Moscow John Neronov began to gather the adherents of the peace achievement of independence by the Russian Church. But the unity of the Russian clergy wasn't planned by the Greeks; they counted on other things.
    Only Alexei Mikhaylovich, the Moscow tsar, was aware of the plans of his idols. To perform everything without blood and choking.
    Just having become the Russian tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich declared himself the worshipper of Ivan the Terrible and wasn't up to repeat his mistakes. He asked God for forgiveness for the abuse of monarchy on the grave of the killed metropolitan Philip. And having prayed for forgiveness of the sins, he started to act.
    He turned Moscow into the center of "Moscovites" - bureaucracy was established everywhere. A great deal of "departments" appeared those days. Dozens of them. Only one thing was missing - the Church Department… And the tsar decided to create the Christian Church to rule over it by example of the Byzantine emperors.
    Opponents of the belief in Heavenly God accustomed Moscow to Christianity from afar. They made the boyar Morozov the tutor of tsarevitch Alexei; Morozov hated Russia and the Steppe and recognized only the West. How did they manage to do it?! In any case, that wasn't accidentally.
    In a word, the pupil surpassed his tutor; tsar sought a council from him until his death… So let us think: was the anxious time really anxious? Was it by accident that after the series of failures with False-Demetriuses (foreign tsars) Mikhail Romanov took the Russian throne in 1613? How did he do that? Why was the former family Turkic until the middle of XIV century - Kobyl (dandy, fop) at first, then - Koshkins and at the close of XVI century - Zakharyin-Yuryevs, Zakharyin-Koshkins? And how did Romanov name appear?
    It is known that the father of the first Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty, patriarchy Philaret (Fyodor Zakharyiev-Yuryev) was close to the Greek patriarchy… And that reveals certain things. Appearance of Romanov name in particular. In Latin that word means "Roman", considering the former events the change of "Koshkin" name into "Romanov" gets an evident political implication which couldn't be neglected in Rome.
    The Europeans have become regular visitors at Moscow in the time of Romanovs, they used to go there as if it was their home. Alexei Mikhailovich himself, especially after his visit to Poland, was regarded almost as a Catholic. He even changed his clothes for the western ones and demanded on other grandees to do the same.
    European spirit was indomitably penetrating the pores of the Kremlin! Into every chink. Doors and windows were wide open there. The Greeks behaved as the masters: they taught and gave advises not in a whisper but at the top of their voices… Pope's messengers visited there like the inspectors.

    Of course, nobody would never determine in detail how it was happening. But the fact remains that Russia started to turn away from the past, in other words, it started to turn away from itself accepting a new way of life advantageous for the West. (That was the reason of split, in our opinion.) But in order to get what they wanted they needed a Church Council where Tengirchilik could be officially rejected and Russia could become a Christian country by example of the western ones.
    That Council took place in 1654; the split commenced at that time. And in 1666 they approved of what has already happened drawing a line under the decisions of the Council of 1654.
    They invited the Greek patriarchies - Paisius Alexandrian and Makar Antikhian - to run the new Council. They invited them knowing that both of them were dethroned due to their sympathy to Rome. But nevertheless they were invited. And they came. Two secret Jesuits, two evident swindlers decided the fate Tengirchilik be the silent benediction of the Kremlin. By the will of the Council and with its hands they split Russia and the Steppe - the last bulwark of belief in Heavenly God - that's what split at that time!.. Ii seems the star above Rome was shining really bright those days.
    Tsar Alexei substituted the free Church by the Church Order and his son Peter I even withdrew the word "church" form everyday life having changed it with another official title - Orthodox Confession Department. Tsar Alexei regarded Nikon as a voevode for his Church Order; Nikon was the Moscow patriarchy since 1652 and showed himself as a self-willed person dreaming of power.
    Spiritual ideals were alien and incomprehensible for ignorant Nikon. He cared for power and nothing else. Just having taken the patriarchy's pulpit, he started to change everything according to the Greek rules destroying everything relating to the Turki. He introduced the Greek clothes in the Russian Church and Greek food in the patriarchy's cookery… Everything was taken fro the aliens.
    And the Greeks, looking back at Rome, prudently led their policy: after the loss of Byzantine in 1453 they regarded Russia as an ally against the Turki. They were doing a great deal of things during a long period of time in order to win the inexperienced Russians over. One could be envious of their diligence. In 1650, for example, in the monastery on Athos they publicly burnt ancient church books written in Turkic language. An entire library! Thus they wished the new books for Russia.
    A little bit earlier the Greeks invented another "news" for the Russian history. It turns out, the famous Monomach's hat, the symbol of Russian autocracy, was made… in Byzantium. That was supposed to be a present of the emperor Constantine to the Kiev prince Vladimir. An unscrupulous lie, but it has also become the page of the Russian history proving the traditional character of the relationship between Russian and Byzantium.
    The Greeks were disgracefully cunning in small and bi items proving the political theory of the "third Rome".
    The split in relation between the Steppe and Russia was industriously performed by them during a long period of time; neither Russian tsar nor Nikon were aware of all the secret peculiarities thereof. The patriarchy was ordered to correct the church books, to introduce new ranks and ceremonies. In other words, to create a new Church. The Christian one! And Nikon gave orders since he was sure he was reforming the old Tengirchilik Church!
    One would think, free Russian led a free policy… But no, as a matter of fact there was no freedom - they followed the instructions left by Rome. One of them was as follows:
    "… d) the tsar should carefully speak about the union so that the matter doesn't start form him but let the Russians themselves be the first to suggest several insignificant changes of the subjects of their belief, which requires some reforms and thus make the way to the union;
    e) to issue a law so that the Russian Church is in accordance with the rules of the Greek Councils and to order the execution of the laws to reliable people being the adherents of the union: disputes will arise, the tsar will know about them, convene a Council and after that there will be an opportunity to proceed to the union;
    f) to hint at the privileges to the black clergy, at the awards to the white clergy, at freedom for people and at the slavery of the Greeks to everyone".
    Approval of the union itself, i.e. official recognition of the Roman power over Russia didn't happen. However, the ceremony of approval would have been a useless farce. As a matter of fact the union was accepted by Moscow: Pope's instruction relating to the reform of the Russian Church was followed! Russia became a Christian country. And for that time they needed nothing else.

    Conflict between the Eastern and the Western ideologies arose not by accident. Tengirchilik was bringing a person up making him ready for a feat, for an action; in other words a person was ready for development. Its philosophy of the reincarnation of the soul accepted by the Buddhists has never deprived man of hope. Even after death, having been purified on hell or in heaven and judged by the Most High, man is born again - Tengirchilik clergy taught. Man is given a chance to correct his former sins - that's the wisdom of Tengri's teaching about the eternity of the soul.
    The great Tengri teaches that each man creates heaven or hell for him with his own hands. Everything depends only upon him and his behavior… That's why all the Turki appreciated actions and deeds of man above all.
    Christianity, having made the law of Tengirchilik simpler, calls man to save his soul, i.e. it calls him to inactivity. The less you do the less you sin. The future is determined as eternal heaven or hell. And that's all! To call, to wait, to have fear, to love the nearest, to save yourself, to humble, not to grumble, to turn another cheek, to suffer, to see pleasure in pains and poverty… and so on and so forth… These were supposed to be Christ's testaments. So that the people peacefully wait for the end of their days… and loved absolutely everyone. Even the scoundrels in the Greek sandals and Roman togas who were put into luxury and lechery.
    What else could be invented to conquer the nations?!
    Is there a better ideology for an empty head of a slave?.. In fact, the Greeks and the Romans gained revenge for Attila, for their former shame having turned the great riders into a miserable race of slaves which doesn't look into the Eternal Blue Sky.

    The Greeks forced to change the divine pantheon in Russian at the Moscow Council of 1666. The main figure in the new Church was not God but Christ. The West insisted on his supremacy.
    Inexperienced Russia fondly but violently understood that major ideological doctrine - everything was about how to write "Joshua" or "Jesus". The Russians didn't see the difference between "God" and "not a God" but they felt it since they had two beliefs: they believed in Heavenly God but remained adherent to the ancient Slavonic beliefs - "beliefs of their fathers". They haven't been forgotten until now. The Russian Orthodox Church still recognizes some pagan cults (Shrovetide and others).
    And at the Council of 1666 nobody understood that another ideology was hidden behind Christ.
    Rome proved that its arguments were weightier. By that time Moscow has also recognized them! It didn't call the Pope the Lord of the World as etiquette requires… However, it seems that trifle was forgiven.
    The main thing was the Theological Board instead of the free theological institute… Here they are - "a few unimportant subjects of the belief", as it is written in the Pope's instruction. But, again according to the instruction, the patriarchy Nikon paid attention to them but not the tsar himself!.. All secrets were being revealed even in detail. Pope's instructions did their best.

    Six major innovations were written into the former law in Russia. Of course six doesn't equal sixty as it was with the Catholics. But in spiritual life one word is enough to destroy everything.
    Six innovations! And what innovations… Crossing with two fingers was replaced by that with three. Why? Two fingers is the sign of Tengirchilik ( The Greek patriarchy Makar told Nikon that everyone who crosses himself with two fingers imitates the heretics (i.e. the Turki) and should be cursed.).
    It was also prohibited to write "Joshua"; it was ordered to write and pronounce "Jesus" - in the European manner. With no explanations!
    It is set in the old books: during the christening, wedding ceremony and consecration of the church to lead the procession clockwise. Nikon ordered to do it in the opposite direction… The trifles? Certainly not. In 1479 during the consecration of Dormitory Church the Greek metropolitan Gerontious began to walk not as Tengirchilik followers - clockwise - but in the opposite direction when the great prince Ivan III stopped him saying that it would lead to God's anger. However, in 1666 Moscow, having forgotten about inevitable God's anger, led the Russian Church against God's will.
    Ideology of the belief was changing on account of that trifles in Russia, it was becoming pro-tsarist and westernized! Moscow that was dreaming about the laurels of the leader of the Orthodox world obtained freedom of action.
    It wasn't by accident that Nikon founded New Jerusalem Monastery and the town New Jerusalem in 1656! In his opinion it was the future capital of the Christian world… Thus the new history began in Russia; it was connected, according to Klyuchevskiy, with "colonization of other lands and nations".

    Nobody was embarrassed by the fact that the new "Moscow" Church was of no sense as a bearer of morals of society since it was said: "If the pastor isn't free the flock isn't free either". And pastor was the first one who wasn't free. Moscow "confessor", as any voevode, was appointed and dismissed by tsar's whims.
    And what is more, the Russian clergymen denounced the secrets of confessions to the authorities. They were deprived of their dignities if they didn't - they were simply kicked out.
    Of course, the pious Russian nation, having been brought up with the Kipchak traditions, would have never accepted the western innovations proclaimed by the patriarchy Nikon if he didn't have the tsar's bludgeon in his hands… That force defeated Russia.

    The Theological Board was acting in Moscow: the officials of Patriarchy's and Diocesan Departments (those bureaus were created!) were rewriting and correcting ancient divine books and introducing the new ceremonies into the liturgy. "Correction of divine in itself couldn't defile those books, - wrote the famous theologian, professor N.D. Uspenskiy, if the printed editions were suitable… but that high quality was absent in aforementioned western editions". And all the alterations were taken from the Greek books printed in the Latin printing-houses in Venice!
    The Greek Arsenius administered correction of the books; he used to change Orthodoxy for Catholicism and vice verse and was judged for swindle. That "convict", the "sly Greek" (as it is written in literature about him) established the school where he taught the youth Greek and Latin and rules of life by tsar Alexei's order.
    The Turki used to rewrite divine books by hand in old times. But how? With monks' pains. Their skill was deemed to be sacred. Any slip in a book was regarded almost as a sin. According to the experts, ancient books contain less mistakes as compared with the modern printing ones. What correction were in question at the Moscow Councils of 1654 and 1666?
    Having access to the monastery's library, B. Kutuzov, the historian and theologian, compared old and new texts. The results were surprising: the "old" ones are more accurate and deeper. And there are fewer mistakes in them. One cannot object to astonishing results of B. Kutuzov - they are concrete. That work is very well-founded. Apart form it works by other theologians are also known; for example - by the professor N.D. Uspenskiy.
    The "new" books seemed to work for a split. That is evidenced by numerous examples. For example, it was written in the old text: "We pray to You, God, and let the evil spirit leave the one crossing himself; and in the new one: "… let it leave the crossing one, we pray to you, the evil spirit". People were terrified having read that: "We don't want to pray to the evil spirit".
    What is it - a mistake, a provocation? Or an open humiliation of the Russians? No, all those things had another explanation - "reformers" didn't know the language in which they were correcting the texts! They came from abroad and didn't understand the Russian texts in which the Turkic words and phrases were mixed with the Russian ones. That was the specific character of the Church Slavonic language!
    Thus an everlasting mess in Russian spiritual life started with ignorance of the Russian culture and neglect of its Turkic roots.

    The first martyrs for the true belief in Russia were the priests Jon Neronov, Loggin, Daniel, Habakkum and the bishop Paul Kolomenskiy who mentioned during a conversation with almighty Nikon that "they didn't accept the new belief". Beating was Nikon's reply. An exile and tortures followed and, having heard the last "no" the latter-day Moscow Christians burnt the great martyrs in 1682.
    The Russian Church was under full control of the Greeks by that time; the power was given to I. and S. Likhud brothers, the pupils of the Jesuit colleges of Venice and Padova. They were performing "Nikon's" reform in Russia… In other words, they finally established the Greek-Russian Church! Thus was called the organization known as the Russian Orthodox Church today.
    In 1687 one of the brothers headed the Theological Hellene - Greek Academy - the center of training of the staff for the state's and the Church's needs (today that is Moscow Theological Academy in Trinity-Sergiev Laura). Brothers also created a network of Hellene - Greek schools having begun with Epiphany Monastery and Monastery of the Savior… The western world outlook was implied even at secular schools.
    God-loving Russia was irrepressibly changing turning into Christian Russia.

    In order to make the pious Russian nation accept the new belief and new books, in order to give power to Christian rulers, the Council of 1666 decided: "To execute the opponents of the Church's decisions violently: to imprison them, to exile, to beat them with beef sinews, cut their noses and ears off, cut their tongues and hands".
    The ones who have declared themselves the sages were acting in madness.
    "The third Rome", "pious Christian kingdom" was preparing a base for itself. Before the splitting Council - in 1664 - the tsar started to act toughly. Military expeditions of the prince Ivan Prozorovskiy and the colonel Alexander Lopukhine showed their valor in full. They annihilated the chapels, churches, monasteries together with their inhabitants.

    But the stubborn nation didn't accept the new "Jesuit" belief; it opposed to the utmost. So annihilation of the old clergy commenced. They killed just for putting two fingers together and looking into Heaven during a prayer! Or for mentioning of Heavenly God… Russia was getting mad to pleasure Europe.
    Alterations affected everything - they used to rewrite liturgical music which marked the grandeur of the liturgy itself for the Turki. They were doing it in Italian manner, of course. But even being distorted it makes a strong impression, especially at Eastertide showing the heavenly magnificence which it contained and was deprived of.
    They also repainted the Turkic icons. They rejected the old elegant school in icon-painting which Andrei Rublev followed and stuck to the new "Moscow" school - with puffed up Greek faces.
    They even put the formulations against which were all the Russian clergymen into the Rules of the Greek Russian Christian Church. This only fact witnesses about much things that were happening in Russia at that time.
    The theory of the "third Rome" has fallen - having created the Christian Church, the Greeks made Russia not the keeper of the traditions but the destroyer thereof: "The harbinger of the further reign of the Holy Spirit on the Earth simply turned into one of the monarchies - a common state but with new imperial pretensions".
    Thus the historians write about those events.

    Tsar Alexei was industriously and purposefully "cutting the window to Europe". In the course of those years Islam became especially popular among the Russian Turki. Defeated but not crushed, they didn't wish to betray Tengri-Khan. They didn't want to recognize Christ who, in their opinion, was carrying Russian arms.
    Knowing that Allah and Tengri were the names of Heavenly God more and more Kipchaks (to spite the "Greek" Moscow) started to learn other ceremonies of worship of Heavenly God in XVII century. And today the Moslem Kipchaks are the only ones who address Allah with the names Tengri or Khodai. That is absolutely right. Thus the ancestors used to pray before Common Era when there was no Christianity or Islam but was invincible Alla, the Most High Tengri-Khan.
    So they turned to him (The subject of Islam is very important for the Turkic culture. We are not to discuss it in this book. Another big book is necessary which the author is about to write. The work it has already begun.). In ancient times the word "Alla" meant "giving and taking away" for the Turki. For that reason people turned their palms to Heaven saying: "Alla". That expression remained with the Chuvashes, Buryats and Khakases (not being Muslins): it goes from "al" (hand). And doesn't the famous Arabian "In the name of Allah, kind and merciful" come from here?
    These are the words of a Tengirchilik follower! In the Arab translation they are the continuation of the famous ancient Turkic phrase "Alla - giving and taking away". Its latest and final pronunciation. Why not?
    Islam was propagated by the Turki, leading Islamite scientists were also basically from their circles… The idea of Islam - the pure belief! - could be born only with the people knowing the image of Heavenly God and having seen the outrage upon Him. In the culture of pagan Arabs, as well as the Greeks and Romans, there was no such an image. Only the Turki, having worshipped Tengri from of old, seeing the outrage upon belief performed by the Greeks, found a new way to the Most High - through Islam (Egypt and the Arabian East were the most predisposed to deviation from the Greek Christianity. Disappointment in belief in Christ of the Arabs started in V century (since the Council of Chalcedon of 451). At that time the Greeks, being afraid of strengthening of the positions of Egypt in the Mediterranean region, skillfully defiled the Alexandrian (Egyptian) Church and its hierarchs. At that Council it became clear that Europe has been creating a new power institution under cover of religion. And nothing else! Byzantium was trying to subdue the former colonies of the eastern regions of the Roman Empire by fair means or foul, but Egypt didn't want another subjection. And, knowing the morals of the Greeks, it took the same course - created and propagated the new religion - but a pure one! - Islam, with assistance of the Tengirchilik Kipchaks in VII century. The former numerous Alexandrian flock accepted it. Belief only in Tengri (Alla) who was called "Allah" in the Arabian manner, united the East before the increasing aggression of the West. It should be mentioned in this connection that early Islam (its canon) is considerably different from modern. It isn't unlikely that it was close to Tengirchilik in form and in spirit.).
    "Gracious" means "regarding with favor", or "giving" in other words. "Merciful" means "ready to help", i.e. "taking the worries and troubles away". That sense is contained in the short Turkic phrase "Alla" which was heard in Altai mountains two and a half thousand years ago for the first time.
    Hence is another known expression "God's hand".
    The Kipchaks of the Russian Empire, those who accepted Islam, saved themselves as the nation of Desht-I-Kipchak. And those who believed the "Greek" cross "disappeared" - they became the Russians. They were christened by force in XVIII - XIX centuries, they were given Russian names and registered as Russians. There are millions of them.
    They are not the steppe inhabitants but the Slavs now. The Great Steppe has been forgotten, its traditions are not clear. Ryazan, Penza, Simbirsk, Saratov, Samara, Don, Tula, Kursk, Belgorod, Tambov, Caucasian, Siberian and other yesterday's Kipchaks live with another history now. Having neither roots nor ancestors.
    The memory about the Greek terror against Desht-I-Kipchak remains in churches reconstructed into mosques by the Turki. There are Tengirchilik signs on the ancient walls and a six-pointed star was added - the symbol pointing to the change of belief.
    To please the Greeks Russia even changed the form of an under cross. They were equilateral earlier… What does that mean? An unexpected conclusion: it turns out not all the Russian Old Believers are the "keepers of the true belief", as they call themselves. They have a Greek cross! They accepted it and remained safe during the tsar's persecutions. An eight-pointed cross… And that says everything.
    Formerly neither the Russians nor the Turki called themselves the Christians; it was in another way: "Do you believe in God?" If you do, you are with us. Thus there was no international strife in Russia. "God help us!", - the ancestors used to rush to attack. They lived "for God's sake"… They believed in God and worshipped an equilateral cross.   

    After the Council of 1666 Russia has been mutilating its spiritual culture for almost 250 years, it has been wiping it out from the nation. But even being violently wounded, belief in God didn't die: people practiced a religion secretly, they left for the forests, moors and Siberia, they suffered cold and hunger but they gave the image of heavenly God to their children… Although much has been forgotten in the course of centuries.

    Peter I was especially violent, he started his reign from a campaign against the Cossacks in the Great Steppe where holy belief in Heavenly God strongly lived in purity those days. The idea of Azov campaigns has been nurtured with the Greeks and the Romans for a long time - that was the colonization of the Steppe and the final stroke against the belief in God.
    Under Peter the Caucasian Kipchaks - the bearers of the pure belief - were regarded as a drunken company, like runaway criminals - the Russian riffraff. Since that times people have been thinking that the Cossacks are the fugitives. Peter even chose a seal for the Cossack army to mock at them - a naked Cossack on an empty pipe - everything has been drunk away.
    And in good old days not a drunkard but a deer was the symbol of Don; a heavenly deer who appeared in Altai with the Kipchaks. They built route posts and stones for it of which modern Cossacks, it seems, have never heard. A deer is the most ancient symbol of belief in the Great Steppe.
    In order to suppress the Don liberty Peter sent prince Dolgorukiy. S.M. Solovyev, the famous Russian historian, wrote about those terrible events as follows: "On the 4th of November Dolgorukiy came here; the thieves came out to fight but they couldn't resist the tsar's army and turned back to their settlement; the winners entered there also, dislodged the Cossacks from the settlement and turned them out to Don slashing them with no mercy; 3000 people were killed, many drowned, some were shot while they were swimming and those who managed to reach the other bank froze… Reshetov settlement was set on fire, but that was the last fire. Don calmed down".
    "The thieves" were taught a good lesson - they started to call the Tengirchilik mutineers with that word. And there were other similar lessons which taught the Kipchaks nothing.
    That's them - the Kipchaks - the indefatigable and abrupt nation.
    Unfortunately, neither official authorities nor the official Russian Church were remorseful of the performed split. Only the holy fathers of the "Nomadic Council", the real Orthodox Church, decided in 1928: "Unjust oaths and curses on the ancient Orthodox ceremony and piety are invalid and detestable; the Great Moscow Council of 1666 - 1667 is not "Great" but Russian, predatory council. For those abusing the ancient ceremony and piety: anathema".   
    Much has been forgotten, indeed. But not everything.

    Main Sources

Akataev S.N. World Outlook Syncretism of the Kazakhs. Issues I-II. Alma-Ata., 1993-1994.
Banzarov D. The Black Belief or Shamanism with the Mongols… SPb., 1891.
Bedwell G. Church History. M., 1996.
Belikov D.N. Origin of Christianity with the Goths and Bishop Ulfila actions. Kazan., 1887.
[Buzand] History of Armenia by Favtos Buzand. Yerevan., 1953.
Velihanov C.C. Collected Works in 5 Volumes. Volume 1. Alma-Ata., 1961.
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian State. Vol. I-V. M., 1989 - 1996.
Carger M.I. Ancient Kiev. Vol.1-2. M.; L., 1958; 1961.
[Constantine Porfirorodniy] Proceedings of Byzantium Writers about Northern Black Sea Coast (first issue) // Proceedings of National Academy of Material Culture History. Issue 91. M.; L., 1934.
Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. M., 1993.
Pletneva S.A. The Polovtsians. M., 1990.
Radzivillovskaya Chronicle; Photomechanical Reproduction of Radzivillovskaya (Konigsberg) Chronicle. SPb., 1902.
Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X - XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15th, 1991). Part I - III, M., 1991.
Rybakov B.A. Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities of XII - XIII centuries, M., 1982.
Rybakov B.A. Handicraft of Ancient Russia. M., 1948.
Rybakov B.A. Russian Chronicles and the author of "The Lay of Igor's Warfare". M., 1972.
Rybakov B.A. Paganism of Ancient Russia. M., 1987.
Samashev Z.S. Rock Paintings of Upper Irtysh Banks. Alma-Ata, 1992.
[Simokkata] Feofilakt Simokkata. History. M., 1957.
Tacito Collected Works in Two Volumes. SPb., 1993.
Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works. M., 1980.
Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient Fates of Russian Nation. Pg., 1919.
Shakhmatov A.A. Essay of Modern Russian Literary Language. L., 1925.

	Adji Murad. Asia's Europa. Volume 1 (Europa, Turkic, the Great Steppe)   Author's Preface We are the Kipchaks! Altai Cradle The Great Nations Migration Our Spiritual Wealth European Kipchaks Part One “Moscow Stories” Saint Cyril and Methodius - Who Were They? “Mist” over the Baptism of Russia Rewriting History Kipchak Kiev Pictures on the Pages of the Chronicles Main Sources Part Two The World of the Wild Field Wild Field – The Great Steppe Main Sources Part Three Tengri-Khan and Christ, His Foster Son The Vanished Heritage Splits and Splitters Main Sources Part Four Desht-I-Kipchak – an Unknown Country? Main Sources Appendix Near St. George Spring “Gyurdzhi's Day” Different Georges The Voice of Forgotten Motherland The Mystery of the Cross “Iron Gates” Gregoris - George Diocletian Who Suffered Not Being Guilty Every Nation Has Its Own George Beginning of the Catastrophe The Great Enlightener of Armenia Contradictions Let the Christians Be the Christians again “Where Will this Lead? Where to Go?” Dzhalgan Settlement Spring of the Known Legend Notes and Comments to the Appendix Bibliography