Religious Policy in Late Imperial Russia: State and Orthodox Church in the Buryat Spiritual Space
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2020 13(7): 1056-1064 DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0625 УДК 294.321+261.8 Religious Policy in Late Imperial Russia: State and Orthodox Church in the Buryat Spiritual Space Darima D. Amogolonova* Institute for Mongolian Buddhist and Tibetan Studies SB RAS Ulan-Ude, Russian Federation Received 17.06.2019, received in revised form 04.06.2020, accepted 04.07.2020 Abstract. The paper analyses the situation that took the most expressed forms since the late 19th century and reflected strengthening criticism from the Orthodox Church against both the Buddhist clergy and the Russian state. The contradictions between the state and the Orthodox policies were caused by differences in principles, since when giving Buddhism some legitimacy the government was guided by the interests of Russia in the east of the Empire, while the Orthodox Church saw its task in suppressing the influence of the Buddhist clergy through the soonest religious and ideological homogenisation of Buryats with the ethnic Russian population. Keywords: Buddhism, Orthodoxy, Buryats, Russian Empire, Christianisation, Russification, identity. The research was carried out within the state assignment ‘Comprehensive study on the religious, philosophical, historical, cultural, and sociopolitical aspects of Buddhism in the traditional and modern contexts of Russia, Central Asian and East Asian countries’, State Registration No. АААА-А17-117021310263-7. Research area: history, culturology. Citation: Amogolonova, D.D. (2020). Religious policy in late imperial Russia: state and Orthodox Church in the Buryat spiritual space. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 13(7), 1056-1064. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0625. © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-1176-4095 – 1056 – Darima D. Amogolonova. Religious Policy in Late Imperial Russia: State and Orthodox Church in the Buryat… Introduction ‘Within the state, one dominant Orthodox Buddhist studies in the context of social Church has the right to persuade followers of and political developments in the Russian other Christian confessions and other believers Empire prove that the relationship between to accept its teachings about faith. ... The spiri- Buddhists and the Russian state has always tual and secular persons of other Christian con- remained complicated due to the desire of the fessions and non-Christians are strictly obliged authorities to keep Buddhists, and especially to leave alone the conviction of those who do their clergy, under constant control (Gerasimo- not belong to their religion. Otherwise, they va, 1957; Tsyrempilov, 2013, 2014; Amogolon- are subjected to penalties defined in Criminal ova, 2015, 2017; Sanzheeva, 2015). Laws’ (Svod Zakonov, 1857: 5). Although the This paper focuses on the analysis of a same law stated that ‘In the Russian state, the separate aspect of the issue of the existence of freedom of faith is granted not only to Chris- Buddhism in the Orthodox state with a special tians of foreign confessions, but also to Jews, accent on the policy of the Orthodox clergy Muslims and heathens’ (ibid.), nevertheless re- aimed both at fighting the non-Orthodox re- ligious policy aimed in the long run at the cul- ligion and at changing the state’s attitude to- tural russification of non-Russian subjects at wards Buddhists through tougher repressions that moment meant strict control over non-Or- and rejection of compromises. It is noteworthy thodox subjects and their clergymen. Despite that the current head of the Orthodox Church this clearly articulated principle, the Orthodox in Buryatia Metropolitan Savvaty, contradict- Church headed by The Most Holy Governing ing historical data states that ‘the Russian Or- Synod, one of the supreme state bodies in Rus- thodox Church and the Buddhist traditional sia, was of opinion that the state did not restrict Sangha have always coexisted peacefully (em- Buddhists sufficiently, and local officials even phasis added – D.A.). We have never competed contributed to the growth of Buddhist influ- and never had contradictions. There has been ence among Buryats. a certain neutrality” (Tsyrenov, 2017: 3). In re- ality, it was the state policy towards Buddhism Methods and materials that underwent significant changes throughout The relationship between state and reli- imperial history including the search for com- gion in Russia, as well as interaction between promises. And the Orthodox Church focused religious communities, should be considered in on baptising as many Buryats as possible and, a multidisciplinary and multidimensional key. accordingly, on limiting the influence of the Aernout J. Nieuwenhuis notes that for centu- Buddhist clergy. In this endeavor, the state, of ries religion has determined the position of the course, supported the Orthodoxy – the only state. From the juridical point of view, it was state religion, the dominant status of which was not about religion itself, but about religious confirmed even after the Highest Decree on institutions that endowed secular power with strengthening the principles of religious toler- necessary legitimacy. At the same time, a fairly ance (1905). The Code of Laws of the Russian strong state, acting as a defender of the faith, Empire published in 1906 read: ‘The primary sought to regulate the activities of the church and predominant faith in the Russian Empire and religious communities. This situation is the Christian Orthodox Catholic Faith’ (Ar- persists today, and the nationalisation of the ticle 62), ‘The Emperor, as a Christian Sover- church led to its, often complete, dependence eign, is the Supreme Defender and Guardian of on state power (Nieuwenhuis, 2012: 153–174). the dogmas of the predominant Faith and is the However, in imperial Russia, a certain conflict Keeper of the purity of the Faith and all good between the secular and religious authorities order within the Holy Church” (Article 64) existed, in particular, in relation to differenc- (Svod Zakonov, 1906: 5). According to these es in understanding Russia’s interests in the articles, which had invariably existed from the policy towards non-Orthodox communities. 18th century, the Orthodox Church had spe- Sociologist Joachim Wach proposed to consid- cial rights namely on proselytism (up to 1905): er religion from the standpoint of comparative – 1057 – Darima D. Amogolonova. Religious Policy in Late Imperial Russia: State and Orthodox Church in the Buryat… studies, phenomenology and psychology; for concerning the research topic written by Or- him, the most productive approach, along with thodox and Buddhist clergy. theoretical and practical ones, is based on the These materials fully reflect two trends institutional or social aspect. From the point in the religious policy of the Russian empire. of view of this old, but not outdated approach, On the one hand, the state and Orthodoxy interactions between religious institutions and were unanimous in their efforts to create the the state depend on religious values, which, in religious homogeneity of non-Russian subjects fact, form the institutions that expressed them with the Russian majority. However, on the (Wach, 1944). Continuing this thought, one other hand, the state and the Orthodox lead- can say that upholding religious ideology is a ership often came into serious contradictions way of preserving and strengthening the reli- concerning Buddhism, since in that period the gious institution and clergy. The ideas about suppression of this religion did not meet the in- full legitimacy of only one official religion and, terests of Russia in the east of the Empire and correspondingly, hostility to the state and its in the international arena. interests of all other religions create insoluble contradictions in a multicultural community: Results division into principal and minor religions in- Strengthened efforts of the Orthodox lead- evitably leads to the ideas about the best and ership on Christianisation of Buryats, both sha- worst religious communities or ethnocultural manists and Buddhists, and demands to restrict groups. In this respect, a special responsibility the activities of the Buddhist clergy even more falls on researchers. are apparently connected with Alexander II’s Among the theoretical principles, the prin- ascension to the throne in 1855. As he declared ciple of objectivity in Peter Berger’s wording the dominant role of Orthodoxy, the steps were deserves special mention: “Every inquiry into expected from him to tighten regulations con- religious matters that limits itself to the empir- cerning foreign religions. In particular, the Or- ically available must necessarily be based on a thodox authorities were much opposed to The ‘methodological atheism’” (Berger, 1969: 100). Regulations on the Lamaist Сlergy in Eastern Alongside with objectivity, this principle im- Siberia (1853) regarding them not limiting, but plies avoidance of valence in considering the rather increasing the influence of Buddhist la- relationship between religions and religious mas on Buryat Buddhists. communities, regardless of the religious pref- From a formal point of view, Buryats fol- erences of scholars. lowed the Regulations and were ready to com- Materials for research and arguments are promises on institutional issues. In this respect, archival documents of the Russian State His- there was a very indicative (and absurd from torical Archive (RGIA), St. Petersburg, which the modern point