10.25136/1339-3057.2019.1.28385 SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2019 - 1 The main trends in the renewal movement of Russian Buddhism in early 20th century. / Основные направления в обновленческом движении российского буддизма в начале XX в. Нестеркин Сергей Петрович доктор философских наук ведущий научный сотрудник, Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение науки Институт монголоведения, буддологии и тибетологии Сибирского отделения Российской академии наук (ИМБТ СО РАН) 670047, Россия, Республика Бурятия, г. Улан-Удэ, ул. Сахьяновой, 6 [email protected] Статья из рубрики "History" Аннотация. Объектом исследования является обновленческое движение в российском буддизме. В начале XX в. некоторой частью буддийской общины был начат процесс пересмотра организационных форм ее существования, ревизии ее теоретического и практического багажа. Основное внимание в работе уделяется определению базовых принципов основных направлений этого движения, изучению их целей и задач и выявлению отличий в их подходах к реформированию буддийской церкви в контексте происходящих изменений в социально-политических условиях России начала 20 века. В результате анализа документов и архивных материалов автором исследованы доктринальные и идеологические основания движений и их организационные формы. В исследовании установлено, что в имело место два существенно различных движения, которые ставили перед собой во многом разные задачи и применяли для их решения принципиально разные подходы. С одной стороны, деятельность бурятских просветителей Б. Барадина, Ц.Ж амсарано и др., и таких представителей духовенства, как А. Доржиев, Ч. Иролтуев, Ганжурова–Гэген была призванна выработать идеологическую основу для сохранения национальной идентичности буддийских народов России в условиях идеологической и политической экспансии. С другой стороны, Л.С. Цыденов и его последователи ставили себе существенно иную задачу: реформировать буддизм таким образом, чтобы он мог развиваться в новой для себя социо–культурной среде, в западной культуре России. Задачей здесь было не столько сохранение национальной идентичности, сколько развитие буддийской традиции в новом культурном пространстве, что косвенным образом решало и первую задачу. Ключевые слова: российский буддизм, обновленчество, необуддизм, тантра, сангха, тибетский буддизм, бурятский буддизм, Дандарон, Цыденов, Доржиев DOI: 10.25136/1339-3057.2019.1.28385 Дата направления в редакцию: 16 10.25136/1339-3057.2019.1.28385 SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2019 - 1 10-12-2018 Дата рецензирования: 14-12-2018 Статья подготовлена в рамках государственного задания (проект XI I .191.1.3. Комплексное исследование религиозно-философских, историко-культурных, социально-политических аспектов буддизма в традиционных и современных контекстах России и стран Центральной и Восточной Азии, номер госрегистрации № АААА-А17- 117021310263-7) At the turn of the century in Russian Buddhism, a process began that is often called in Russian studies the “renewal” movement. A few reformers of Buddhism often named in this movement includes Agvan Dorzhiev, Choinzon Iroltuev, Tsyben Zhamsarano, Bazar Baradin, Mikhail Bogdanov, Bato-Dalai Ochirov and others, as well as Lubsan-Sandan Tsydenov, Agvan-Salnam Badmaev, B.D. Dandaron and their supporters. Their activities are often considered as integral parts of a single process of the transformation of Buddhism into a new form, “Neobuddism”. But in our view, we are dealing with two essentially different processes, with movements that set different goals for themselves and used fundamentally different approaches to address these goals. On the one hand, the activities of Buryat educators and, to a large extent, members of the clergy such as A. Dorzhiev, Ch. Iroltuev, Ganzhurva-Gegen, were part of the renewal of Buddhism that took place at the time in many countries to which it spread; and are a response to the ideological and political expansion of colonizing countries, designed to develop the ideological basis for the preservation of national identity of the colonized peoples [1, p. 26-27]. On the other hand, L.S. Tsydenov and his followers set a goal for themselves: to reform Buddhism in such a way that it could develop within this new socio-cultural environment, in the Western culture of Russia. The objective here was not so much the preservation of national identity as the preservation of the Buddhist tradition in a new cultural space, which in fact indirectly addresses the issue of national identity. The emergence of the reform movement is at the time of Tsarist government reforms in Transbaikalia. It came in response to the Russian expansion and to the policy of the Tsarist government of forced assimilation and Christianization of the Buryat people [2, p. 211-231]. Renewalists sought to preserve their ethnic groups from assimilation, while leaving at the same time the opportunity for the Buryat people to join the Russian, “European” culture, based on the national religion of Buddhism. [ нат львовна]...... The renewal process, as it was understood by the first of these groups, can be divided into two components: the administrative and philosophical/doctrinal. The first involves a change in the administrative structure of the church; the means of election of administrative positions in Buddhist monasteries – Hambo Lama, abbots of monasteries, treasurers, etc.; principles of distributing the monastery’s income; the rules of determining the church budget; restrictions on personal expenses of lamas for their living expenses; a change in the mechanisms of financial controls; and the definition of new principles of the relationship between lamas and parishioners. Philosophical/doctrinal renewal had the goal of reforming doctrine and religious practice in accordance with the principles of a certain “original”, 17 10.25136/1339-3057.2019.1.28385 SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2019 - 1 “early” Buddhism as they were presented to representatives of the movement. This “early” Buddhism appeared to them as a philosophical and ethical teaching, the following of which does not involve carrying out certain types of rituals [3]. One of the reasons for the revision of the existing foundations of monastery life is a critical assessment of the actual status of the monastic discipline within the sangha and the systematic violation of scholars and lamas of inter-monastery charters. Opponents of the Renewalists as represented by L. Tsydenov and his followers largely agreed with this criticism. L. Tsydenov, for example, going into seclusion away from Kudunsky datsan, said of the prevailing style of monastery life; “The monastery is samsara.” [4, p. 264] The issue of limiting personal property of the lamas to the Vinaya laws appeared in almost all renewal congresses; however the basis of the proposed reform was a change to the principles of the formation of Sangha leadership. Administrative reform had several stages. A start was made at the Second Buryat Congress. The next stage of the administrative reform attempts of the Buddhist Church on the basis of renewal beginning that began after the establishment of Soviet power. The agenda of the Council went from questions about the organization of the lamas’ way of life according to the rules of Vinaya to the reorganization of the spiritual administration, the improvement of Tibetan medicine, the study of European science by the lamas, the nationalization of preaching and teaching the Buddhist religion, changes in the rules of initiation into scholars, and to abolishing the cult of reincarnated beings and diviners [5]. The tendency to limit self-governance of the spiritual community by the laity, which took place in a legislative project of 1917 as well as a new project in 1922 became further developed. As a religious organization – a subject that the new legislation was directed at – the Sangha (spiritual community) was not involved, but rather the “parish community.” The concept was borrowed from the Eastern Orthodox Christian custom. The composition of the community were laymen and the priesthood that spiritually supported them; that is, the vast majority in the parish community were laymen, under the control of which (by virtue of their equal representation of clergy at a general meeting of the parish) was the whole inner life of the Sangha. The Hambo Lama and abbots, under the new legislation, were deprived even of those regulatory powers that the law in 1917 gave them, by which the Hambo Lama, as the head of a Church, had the right to issue decrees on the rules of the internal life of the clergy and the structure of the monasteries themselves, and the legalization of these orders did not require the approval of a collegial council [6]. The new legislation enabled any layman not only to require a report on the activities of the clergy, raise the question of convening a special meeting and the re-election of the Board, but also to be elected to monastery Council as a full member. In fact, the Buddhist clergy was put in a position where its activity was not regulated by the provisions of the canonical monastic rule (Vinaya), and / or regulations of Mahayana and Tantra (for those who have taken the appropriate vows), but by the decisions of “activists” from the laity, who under the proposed legislation could easily get a majority in the parish council. This not only solved the important problem for the new government of control over the clergy, but also greatly weakened the influence