To the one who has managed to completely crush the forces of black and yellow fascism, thanks to the blessing of the venerable lamas, the Three Jewels, the Bhagavans, the sugatas, the truly liberated Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the three times and ten directions, to the essence of the supreme good body, mind and virtuous actions, to the leader who has come for the benefit of the living beings of the six species who are [our] mothers before the great teacher Stalin, we bow down in obeisance, freed from the sorrowful suffering of mental obscuration and enjoying being in the human body, which is the highest stage [on the path to Enlightenment]!

From the address of Pandito Hambo Lama Lubsan-Nima Darmain to Buddhists in connection with the opening of the Ivolginsky datsan. 1946 [TSVRK SB RAS, M III-2242, f. 1 r].

The fragment given as an epigraph is part of a document that appeared in a historical period beyond the scope of this article. However, its tone and categories differ little from earlier works addressed to the Russian emperors. The obvious contradiction between the historical role of J. V. Stalin in the fate of Buddhism in Russia, the only world denomination whose institutions, by his will, ceased to exist in the country for several years, and the enthusiastic pathos in which his name is clothed in this fragment, leads us to one important observation. An analysis of Buddhist sources clearly shows that since the beginning of the history of Buddhist contacts with the Russian government, the empire and the emperor have always been described by Buddhist historiographers in the same flattering terms, regardless of all the restrictions, discrimination, and even repressions carried out by this government in relation to Buddhist institutions. What is the reason for this seemingly unprincipled position of subordination and loyalty? Is it part of an overall strategy? In this article, we will attempt to understand the conceptualization of religious identity, which is manifested in the narrative discourse of the Buryat Buddhists themselves, their worldview, in which the non-confessional empire was assigned an important role.

Keywords: Buryat Buddhists, Russian Empire and Buddhism, Trans-Baikal Buryats

IMPERIAL VIEW

Before proceeding to the main task, we must take an excursion into the history of the integration of Buddhism into the fabric of the Russian Empire and the evolution of the latter's policy towards the former.

page 49
Buddhists entered the orbit of imperial interests as early as the beginning of the 17th century, when Russia met Buddhist lamas representing the interests of Mongol princes and khans during negotiations and exchange of embassies with the Mongolian Altyn Khans. Later, in the 18th century, in the course of interaction with the Kalmyk Khanate, Russia itself used the authority of Kalmyk Buddhist preachers to defend the interests of the empire.1 In its relations with the Kalmyks and Buryats, Russia did not dare to go to a confrontation with Buddhist priests, guided by purely rational arguments. So, as one of the most important conditions for taking the shert oath of the Trans-Baikal Buryats in 1689, there was an agreement on the following:: "Their people, as well as their Taishas and Zaisangs themselves, are not ordered to be baptized or forced into the Orthodox Christian faith" [Podgorbunsky, 2007, p. 167].

As in the case of other border peoples, the degree of tolerance of the imperial authorities to the religious otherness of the Buryats was determined by the security considerations of the distant borders, which were dangerously close to the Qing Empire, which officially patronized Buddhism. The expediency of the policy of tolerance was also determined by the desire to establish a stable income of furs from the yasach population. In the future, even when the latter consideration ceased to be relevant, political stability in the region continued to be an important component in the religious policy of the empire in Buddhist Transbaikalia.

Even during the reigns of Peter the Great, Anna Ioannovna, and Elizabeth Petrovna, which were marred by the repressive policy of the Russian authorities against non-Orthodox faiths, during which even such a developed and large denomination as Islam, which had a powerful political patron in the person of the Ottoman Sultan, suffered the heaviest losses in the entire history of being part of the Russian Empire, Buddhists continued to enjoy the relative freedom of religious life. Moreover, in the run-up to the massive attack on Tatar and Bashkir mosques, and several years before the campaign to forcibly baptize "idolaters" began, the activities of Buddhist clergy among the Trans-Baikal Buryats were sanctioned by the highest manifesto of Elizabeth Petrovna. Although historians do not know the location of the original or copy of this document, it was its publication that became the starting point for the official recognition of Buddhism in Russia.

However, is it worth speaking on this basis about the liberal policy of the authorities towards their Buddhist subjects from the very beginning of the history of their relations? Of course, against the backdrop of hundreds of destroyed mosques and ruined pagan shrines, Elizabeth's manifesto seems to be the height of imperial favor, but one should also take into account the fact that along with the formal recognition of the existence of a Buddhist religion on its territory, the empire imposed rather strict restrictions on all spheres of religious life of the Buddhist clergy. In addition to the ban on communication with Mongol and Tibetan co-religionists, which was laid down in the Instructions to the Border Guards of 1727, a limited staff of 150 Buddhist clergy was established 14 years later, and capital punishment was imposed for unauthorized communication with foreign Buddhist institutions.

The initiators of the recognition of Buddhism on the territory of the empire and at the same time the authors of the first restrictive measures against it were natives of Peter's nest - diplomats Savva Vladislavich Raguzinsky and Lorenz Lang, who in 1741 already held the position of Irkutsk Vice-governor. Both of these statesmen were members of the Russian embassies to the Qing Empire at various times and were apparently well acquainted with the role of Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhists in the Qing Empire.

1 A. A. Kurapov's work "Buddhism and Power in the Kalmyk Khanate of the XVII-XVIII centuries" Elista, 2007 is devoted to this issue.

page 50
Beijing Imperial Court. Both of them were aware of the danger of open reprisals against Buddhists, and both understood the potential of this religion's influence on the minds of believers. The policy they independently proposed was to carefully prevent the spread of Buddhism beyond the area in which it had already established itself at the time of the establishment of borders in Transbaikalia.

The Catherine era is marked by a change in the vector of imperial religious policy from suspicious distrust to interested dialogue. In her quest to turn Russia into an enlightened power, Catherine II assigned a special role in stabilizing the empire to religions and abandoned the violent methods of conversion used by monarchs before her: "Persecution irritates human minds, and allowing people to believe according to their own law softens even the most cruel hearts" (Klyuchevsky, 2004, p.616).

Being deeply influenced by the ideology of German cameralism, the empress was guided primarily by rational motives, adhering to the belief that any phenomenon that somehow contributes to the stability and income of the state is worthy of state support, and if religion meets these requirements, then its practice should be allowed. The era of Catherine II clearly reflected another characteristic aspiration of the Russian authorities - to reorganize the various religions of the empire into an orderly structure modeled on the Orthodox Patriarchy.2 As historians have repeatedly noted," in a polity where even the dominant religion has been subordinated to secular authorities since Peter the Great, any denomination without a hierarchical organization was unthinkable " (Crews, 2006, p. 50). During the work of the Joint Commission convened on the initiative of Empress Catherine, the religious representative of Buryat Buddhists Damba-Darzha Zayagiin was twice granted an audience with Catherine II and achieved the highest recognition for himself and his descendants of the dominant position in the nascent Buddhist organization and the title of Pandito Hambo Lama. In this case, the policy of the authorities coincided with the desire of the Buddhists themselves, who also sought to form the framework of their organizational structure and needed the support of the authorities. The empire's efforts to centralize Buddhist parishes are quite understandable: the imperial center set out to organize all members of the religious community under a single and controlled authority. In the future, the authorities always guarded the exclusive position of the Pandito Hambo Lama, which is confirmed by the highest rescript.

At the same time, another characteristic of the Russian authorities was the cultivation of differences in the management of followers of similar faiths. Thus, while promoting the centralization of Volga Muslims in the Ufa Spiritual Administration, the regime deliberately refrained from including the Muslims of Crimea, the North Caucasus, and Turkestan in its jurisdiction. In the case of Buddhists, this principle was reflected in the fact that while Kalmyk religious life was controlled mainly by the Ministry of State Property, the Buddhists of Eastern Siberia were under the supervision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was probably intended to prevent the organizational consolidation of Russian Buddhists even within the imperial government bodies. Attempts by Buryat and Kalmyk Buddhists themselves to present a united front on issues that were relevant to them at the beginning of the 20th century were invariably met with resistance from the authorities.3
Whatever the specifics of Buddhist governance, an important shift that occurred during the reign of Catherine II in Russia's religious policy was the CCA.-

2 This is exactly how the provincial authorities formulated their religious policy in relation to Buddhism (see: [Decree from the Irkutsk Provincial Government..., 1926]).

3 This refers to the activity of the Buryat religious figure Agvan Dorzhiev in the territory of the Astrakhan province among the Kalmyks, which began in 1898 (see: [Buddhists in the Russian Empire..., 2004, p. 23]).

page 51
a well-known desire to rely on religion in the management of subjects, in promoting the initiatives of the center on the outskirts, in instilling loyalty to the empire and protecting its interests abroad. Thus, Ekaterina hoped that promoting the institutionalization of Islam among Kazakhs would help spread agriculture and settlement, trade and handicraft among them4. It is interesting that the intensification of construction of stationary monasteries by Buryat Buddhists coincides with the introduction of a new religious policy of Catherine II, which could also be aimed at imposing settlement and agriculture on the Buryats. In the future, the authorities repeatedly turned to the Buddhist high priests for services in raising funds for the construction of schools, to help the army at the front, to fight epidemics, and invariably met with active support from the Lama.

However, both in Catherine's time and for a long time afterward, Buddhism was known as a superstition, in relation to which the term idolatry was freely used, which was officially abolished only in 1903. Nevertheless, despite the lack of familiarity with the doctrinal provisions of Buddhism and the authorities, both scientists and even missionaries recognized the presence of a certain moral and ethical component in it.5 This was enough for Catherine II's policy towards Islam to be mechanically transferred to the Buddhists. The authorities considered it profitable to form a church or force its formation, so that they could then carry out their own policies through it or influence the way of life and management of nomadic Buryats. But at the same time, this was probably not enough to entrust Buddhist clergy with the functions delegated by the authorities to Christian and Muslim clergy, such as metric registration or family dispute resolution.6
The 19th century, especially the era of Nicholas I, is characterized by a shift away from Catherine's rational liberalism towards an orderly attack on religious freedoms of minorities. As R. notes: In his analysis of the peculiarities of the coronation celebrations of the Russian emperors of the XIX century, in the eyes of the Russian elite of the Nikolaev period, "tolerant attitude to someone else's way of life and faith and pride in the diversity of possessions represented a temporary, initial state in the universal process of spreading enlightenment" [Wortman, 2004, p.413]. The "Lamai superstition," in particular, was now considered an unmistakable evil, but an evil that the State had to reckon with. To reckon with evil, however, did not mean to put up with it. Despite the fact that two expeditions to Transbaikalia, burdened with the task of investigating the degree of influence of the Buddhist clergy among the Buryats, led by Schilling von Canstadt and Levashev in 1826 and 1851-1852, respectively, came to the conclusion that strict restrictions on Buddhist institutions were unjustified and even dangerous, the legislation on the Lamai clergy of Eastern Siberia of 1853 it put the Buddhist ranks in this part of the empire "in the position of almost prisoners" [Buddhists in the Russian Empire..., 2004, p. 18]. Thus, Buddhist clergy were denied the right of free movement outside the boundaries of the outlined parishes, and even the departure of Pandito Hambo lamas had to be approved-

4 M. M. Speransky is credited with the words that confirm the fact that even after Catherine II, state officials counted on the influence of Lamaism in promoting agriculture and settlement among the Buryats: "Inspire the lamas that their essential duty is to encourage agriculture and that by this alone they can earn the favors shown to them" [Historical data..., 1872, p. 272].

5 Thus, P. S. Pallas wrote about the Khori-Buryats:"...the greater half of them are true pagans, and are subject to their shamans; but the Lamai teachers, with considerable effort to convert some of them to their superstition, coupled with some moral teaching, have already succeeded so much that they have established among them their own spiritual Gedzil with twenty-six simple lamas, and the most prominent of them are Saisans, like Taisha himself, for several years. they adhere to this law" [Pallas, 1773-1778, p. 241].

6 Such functions, which in Russia were considered the legitimate sphere of the church, were not typical of Buddhist religious specialists in the history of Buddhism. Nevertheless, Astrakhan Kalmyk Buddhists were entrusted with judicial review of marriage cases, but at the beginning of the XX century Astrakhan Buddhists asked to be relieved of this burden (see: [Buddhists in the Russian Empire..., 2004, p. 29]).

page 52
get in touch with the provincial authorities. The number of monks was strictly limited, and the construction of new religious buildings to replace those that had fallen into disrepair was carried out only with the personal certificate of the governor and with the permission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Religious schools in Buddhist monasteries were effectively outlawed. In 1888, in order to prevent the religious preaching of Buddhists in the Irkutsk province, the two datsans there were removed from the jurisdiction of the Pandito Hambo Lamas. Around the same time, a rule was introduced that all Buddhist religious literature published in monasteries or received from abroad should be censored. Since 1867, on the recommendation of the Orthodox missionaries in Siberia, the authorities have begun a policy of promoting baptized Buryats to administrative positions in the Buryat self-government bodies, which led to serious conflicts within the Khorinsky Steppe Duma.7 In the 70s of the XIX century, during the reign of Governor-General Sinelnikov, the provincial authorities attempted to demolish the places of worship of Buryat Buddhists, and the authorities forced both baptized Buryats and responsible officials of steppe dumas to perform this task [TSVRK, M I, 31. Qori-yin arban nigen ečige-yin uγ ijaγur-un tuγuji, f. 28v-33r].

During periods when the Irkutsk diocese, the Irkutsk governor-General, and the metropolitan departments managed to find mutual understanding on the expansion of Orthodoxy, Buryat Buddhists began to feel the yoke of state ideology to a special extent, which was not experienced by Kalmyk Buddhists.8 Thus, thanks to his personal connections with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev and his creation as Governor-General A.D. Goremykin, Archbishop Veniamin was able to launch a new energetic campaign for the baptism of Buryats in 1885. The German researcher D. Schorkowits claims that this campaign achieved its greatest success during the periods of visiting Siberia, first by Emperor Alexander II (1873), and then by Tsarevich Nicholas (1891) [Schorkowits, 2001, p. 212].

Still, even the most energetic advocates of an offensive policy against Buddhism in the empire had a serious counterbalance. As in the case of Islam, to which the empire applied two multi-vector policies aimed at instilling order among the Muslim population within the country and raising the prestige of the Russian government in the eyes of the Muslims of the neighboring empire, Buddhists also stood at the center of the competition of various political doctrines and departments. In proportion to the increase in Russia's participation in the big game for influence in Asia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ' resistance to the initiatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Irkutsk Diocese also increased. So, largely thanks to the position of the Foreign Ministry, the Buddhists managed to break the militant opposition of Orthodox conservatives and Black Hundreds and build the first Buddhist temple in Europe "in the heart of the Orthodox capital". For a successful policy in Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet, Russia needed a reputation for defending the Buddhist Dharma. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Ministry of Internal Affairs often did not show interest in the particularly aggressive plans of the Irkutsk episcopate, fearing a deterioration of the situation in the border areas where Buddhists live.

Such a complicated system, in which the Buddhist Church existed in the Russian Empire, was fraught with both dangers and advantages for it. Very much

7 The most high-profile conflict was between the Buddhist clergy and the Chief Taisha of the Khorinsky Steppe Duma, a baptized Buryat Nikolai Dymbilov, who spoke out for reducing the number of full-time lamas [TSVRK, M I, 2. Qori kiged ayy-yin mongyul buriyad-nar-bar angqan yambar siltayan-iyar kerkijü boluysan ba yambar yajar-nud-iyar nituyčaju sinuyysan bolun yaγu-bar ajilan kigsen kiged ali üy-e-de burqan sigemüni-yin šasin-tai bolju dačang dugan ügdürlejü šasin-i delgeregsen erte urida-yin bayidal-nud ba yabudal učir-nud tuqai teüke domuy-i bičigsen qarnud obuy-un uridayin γuluba budajab buda-yin-bar bolai, f. 12v-13r].

8 According to D. Shorkovits, Kalmyk Buddhists who were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of State Property were more protected from the policy of the Russian Orthodox Church due to its greater dependence on this ministry [Schorkowits, 2001, p. 216].

page 53
It also depended on the personal relations of Buddhist hierarchs with provincial and metropolitan officials, academic circles, and many issues were resolved through departmental contradictions, lobbying, and bribes. This situation persisted until 1903, when, under public pressure, Nicholas II adopted the Manifesto on Religious Tolerance of February 26, 1903, and then the Decree on the principles of Religious Tolerance of April 17, 1905, in which the state declared its readiness to review the Provisions of 1853. By 1917, even in the Ministry of Internal Affairs itself, some considered the latter "not distinguished by the uniformity and consistency of the foundations on which it was built" and proposed to develop a new charter "on the basis of the national and religious freedom proclaimed in Russia" [Buddhists in the Russian Empire..., 2004, p. 35]. Another important shift in the empire's relations with Buddhist subjects was the official authorities ' refusal to use the term "idolaters" in relation to the latter. Liberal legal acts gave baptized Buryats the right to freely choose their religion, which caused their mass conversion from Orthodoxy to Buddhism. The long-term efforts of the conservative circles of the empire to Christianize the Buryats were nullified.

These major changes in the religious policy of the empire caused a brief flourishing of Buddhism in Russia, which, however, was soon interrupted, and the Buddhist institutions of the second third of the twentieth century were almost completely destroyed by the Bolsheviks who came to power.

EMPIRE THROUGH THE EYES OF BUDDHISTS

In the scientific literature, there is an opinion that Buddhism 9 within itself "has never been recognized as a single symbolic space" (Aghajanyan, 2005, p. 149), following the example of the concepts of the Christian world or Dar-al-Islam. This very fair statement should, however, be accompanied by a caveat that each of the local traditions of Buddhism cultivated ideas about the geography of the spread of Buddhist teachings and the perception of these territories as a kind of pax Buddhica. Thus, in the Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhist historiography, there is a well-established idea of " tamed lands "(Tib. 'dul zhing; Mong. nomuqadqaydaysan orun), i.e. spaces and peoples inhabiting them who have accepted the dharma with the full range of ethical norms and religious ideas. Discussing the role of Buddhism in changing the identification practices of the Mongol tribes integrated into the Qing Empire, I. Elverskog writes: "In the sources of the Qing period, the history of Buddhism and its relation to the Mongols are placed in the world historical continuum, which, in turn, finds its culmination in the community of Mongols, perceived only as part of the Qing Buddhist Empire" [Elverskog, 2006, p. 11]. As in the case of other world religions, "Buddhist globalism" to some extent contributed to the emergence and expansion of empires, creating a favorable environment for the further expansion of preaching.

The concept of the Buddhist world naturally assumed the existence of non-Buddhist lands, for which in Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhist historiography the terms "marginal lands" (Tib. mtha' 'khob; Mong. kijaar yajar-tu ulus), "twilight lands" (Tib. mtha' 'khob mun pa'i yul; mong. qarangqui kijayar-tu orun), and in relation to the people who inhabit them - "those who adhere to the wrong views-

9 It has been repeatedly noted in the modern scientific literature that when speaking about Buddhism, it is problematic to define the specific meaning of this word, to clearly outline the circle of characteristics that unites various religious traditions into a certain conceptual whole, which are usually called its regional forms. Probably one of the basic characteristics of this kind (and also not absolutely universal) is the historiographical tradition of these very regional forms, which traces each individual tradition back to Shakyamuni Buddha.

page 54
dov" (Tib. log pa'i lta ba can; Mong. buruyu üjelten), "those who hold views on the permanence of being" (Tib. rtag 'dzin pa; Mong. möngke busu üjel tebčigčid).

The civilizational mission of Buddhism, therefore, is to convey the true teachings and correct ideas about existence and salvation to the deluded, the ungodly, and the ignorant. In the Buryat historical chronicles, this idea is particularly vividly confirmed. Buryat chroniclers speak in an extremely negative spirit about their pre-Buddhist past: "In the past, the Buryats worshipped worldly demons called Ongons. They made bloody sacrifices to them, taking the lives of horses and sheep "[Library of Tibetan works...]10. "Morals were distinguished by cruelty and rudeness, the life span was long, and the body was large, people treated each other as they pleased, with great disregard" [TSVRK, M I, 31. Qori-yin arban nigen ečige-yin uy ijayur-un tuyuji, f. 78].

The tendency of people to violence is noted, militancy and the dictate of the law of force are condemned: "Uniting clan with clan, family with family, they forcibly took cattle and property from weak neighbors. As much as possible, they tried to have bows, arrows, quivers, carapaces, helmets, and so on, and prepared combat detachments and weapons. They carried weapons with them and committed robberies and murders among themselves "[ibid.].

According to the Buryat chroniclers, the merit of Buddhist teaching lies in the formation of clear ethical ideas and moral guidelines. Emphasis is placed on the ignorance of the Buryats in their pre-Buddhist past of the clear differences between what should be done and what should not be done. In addition, special importance is attached to the number of monastics, the main sign of the rootedness of Buddhism: "In the future, the religion of the Buddha spread more and more. Lamas and Khuvaraks became more numerous, and great Buddhist treatises were translated into Mongolian. Getting acquainted with them, people began to gradually understand the difference between virtues and sins" [ibid.].

At the same time, Buddhism, as is well known, never assumed any detailed regulation of the life of lay people, focusing entirely on observing the rules of monastic life. As the Russian Buddhologist A. S. Aghajanyan points out, when discussing the secular ethics of Buddhism, "the extreme regulation of the monastery community and cult has always been in sharp contrast to the looseness and softness of the rules of worldly arrangement" (Aghajanyan, 2005, p.151). This is the peculiarity of this religion, which is the complete opposite of Islam or Judaism. The ethical program of Buddhism, based on philosophical propositions about karmic retribution and the impermanence of the phenomena of being, provides, according to the Buddhists themselves, the moral recovery of people. Law-abiding is considered, if not exclusive, then at least a characteristic feature of Buddhists, the result of believers ' assimilation of the ideas of universal karmic cause-and-effect interdependence. "...It is obvious that among the foreigners there are many criminals who violate state laws, are in prison and sent to settlements. Among us, Buryats, there are very few prisoners in prisons and exiles. The absence of such people [among Buryats] and, as a result, a small number of criminals is obvious. What is [among us] very few licentious people who harm themselves and others are solely the result of the precepts of parents and elders about the need to refrain from evil and do good, sanctified by the precious religion bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and the tradition of following these precepts."..If you are diligent in listening to these teachings, in communicating them to young hearts and in following them, then in this life there will be no room for evil, no shameful name will be found, but the euphonious name of a calm and honest people will sound all over the world, and it will confirm you.-

10 Byang phyogs bstan pa'i gsal byed rje btsun dam pa paNDi ta dza ya mkhan po bstan pa dar rgyas dpal bzang po'i rtogs brjod mdor bsdus dad pa'i nyin byed 'dren pa'i skya rengs gsal ba zhes bya ba bzhugs so, f. 121 (63r).

page 55
There is a high foundation of faith in high saints, and even in the future, favorable births filled with happiness and bliss will certainly be found " [TSVRK, M I, 46. Mongyul-buryad qamiyy-a-acha tasuraju yambar orun-a ali cayy-tu ken qayan-tai sayyuysan terigün-I tobči quriyaysan teüke bičig orusiba, p. 5r].

Unlike the Buddhists of the Qing Empire, which was formed through a political alliance with the Buddhist ideology and based on the idea of patronage of this religion, Buddhist preachers who penetrated the Trans-Baikal Territory found themselves in territories in which Buddhism was not yet sufficiently rooted, the population followed shamanistic cults, and the authorities who controlled these territories, it was a non-confessional one. If the problem of the confrontation of Buddhism with pre-Buddhist cults and ideas in Buryat traditional historiography is formulated quite clearly and unambiguously, then the question of Orthodoxy was usually ignored with correct silence. Christianity, which was perceived as a "sovereign cause", became a kind of taboo topic in all Buryat chronicles, but in descriptions of the spread of Buddhism in the empire, you can sometimes find similar passages: "... many metropolitan officials who professed a religion contrary to the Teachings of the Shakya King did not want to spread our faith "(ibid.: [Byang phyogs bstan pa'i gsal byed..., f. 113 (59r)].

The state religion of the empire, within the borders of which the Buryats found themselves, is perceived by them as contrary to the religion of the Buddha, and the highest authorities (the emperor is not mentioned in this connection, however) do not want its spread, or rather consolidation, in the already conquered territories.

The theory of the spread of religion in new spaces presupposed the use of a strategy denoted by the conceptual Buddhist term irāua (Tib. thabs mkhas; Mong. bilig-tü ary-a) - "skillful methods". The strategy assumed possession, along with religious knowledge and political theory. Thus, in the biography of the first Pandito Hambo Lama Zayagiin, a certain poetic message is quoted from one of the highest Buddhist hierarchs of Tibet, Panchen Lama Lobsan Yeshi, written by him in response to Zayagiin's questions about the method of spreading the dharma in the "outlying lands": "To promote respect on the part of the Russian Emperor and his ministers for the precious teachings of the Victorious one must be proficient in two traditions [religion and politics], in addition to knowing religion, one must also understand the laws of the country. In order to make the tsar and [his] ministers allies in spreading the Victorious One's Teachings, one should strive to do so, using many methods" [ibid., f. 118-119 (61v-62r)].

The preservation and promotion of the dharma, according to Buddhist elites, is possible only if the authorities create sufficient conditions for this. From the above fragment, we can see that measures to overcome the unfavorable situation begin with attempts to convert the emperor, as has happened more than once in the history of the expansion of Buddhism in Asia. So, in the history of the Qing Empire, it is customary to talk about how Buddhism was used by the Manchu emperors to legitimize their supreme position in the eyes of the Mongols and Tibetans, but equally fair, although not so often pronounced, is the statement about the successful use of imperial power by Buddhist elites for the expansion of Buddhism in Inner Asia. The attitude of converting the Russian emperor to Buddhism or declaring Buddhism the state religion of Russia, despite all its improbability, has always been present in the background in the history of relations between Buddhist hierarchs and Russian monarchs, and even manifested itself in the historiographical tradition: "When our ancestors from Khalkha Mongolia recognized the power of the Orthodox Russian White Hero Tsar and came under his protection, the tsar was glad and, recognizing our religion, approved it as the second religion of the state" [Rinchen, 1959, p. 127].

page 56
The reality, however, was somewhat different, and the real task of the Buddhist elites was to " make the king and his ministers allies." The personal audiences of Buddhist hierarchs with Russian emperors were particularly symbolic. For the first time, this happened in 1767, when Zayagiin, delegated by the Buryats as a deputy to participate in the Laid Commission, was twice awarded a meeting with Empress Catherine II. The great importance that Buryat historiographers attached to this event is illustrated by the fact that its description is available in most Buryat chronicles. At the same time, special emphasis is placed on the fact that Zayagiin had personal conversations with the empress about "the welfare of religion and subjects" [TSVRK, M I, 46. Byang phyogs bstan pa'i gsal byed..., f. 125 (65r)], that at her request he compiled a description of the places of his famous pilgrimage that in" gratitude for his zeal in spreading the faith " he was presented with a medal "made of all kinds of jewels" [ibid.].

Buddhists attached great importance to relations with the imperial court, as evidenced by the numerous references to royal favors that they were awarded, whether it was even formal permits for the construction of temples and monasteries or confirmation of the titles of Buddhist hierarchs. Historiographers invariably note that "the king himself confirms the appointment of the Bandido Hambo Lama", that "the great empress herself received a gracious permission to build a temple" [ibid.]. In the biography of Khambo Lama Dashi-Dorjo Itygilov, the words are attributed to Emperor Nicholas II:: "I treat the Buryats with special mercy" [TSVRK, M I, 279. Itegel-ün qambun namtar, f. 3r]. Outside observers also noted the desire of Buddhist propaganda to draw an associative link between their religion and the figure of the supreme ruler of the empire. So, in connection with the activity of a prominent Buddhist figure Agvan Dorzhiev, A. I. Termen wrote: "His constant stay in St. Petersburg and annual visits to the outskirts with the preaching of Buddhism, he gradually shifts the center of gravity of Buddhism to St. Petersburg, which in the eyes of the population gives Buddhism a new color, and rumors that "the tsar ordered Dorzhiev to build a magnificent datsan next to his palace", that "the tsar himself lives in the palace lamas", that "the tsar is very sympathetic to Lamaism and wants all Buryats to be Lamaites", persistently circulate among the people " [Termen, 2007, p. 133].

The spectacular use of the emperor's name was also noted by Orthodox missionaries, who even called on the authorities to cancel the rule on the highest approval of the submitted candidate for the position of Pandito Hambo Lama, putting words in the mouths of their rivals that "their faith was confirmed by the Sovereign Emperor" and that "the tsar orders them to be in his Buryat faith" 11. Eyewitnesses also testified That the order of Emperor Nicholas I that the Regulation on the Lamai Clergy of 1853 approved by him should not be included in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was interpreted by the lamas themselves as follows: "Being just, the emperor felt a certain severity of the Situation, imbued partly with a spirit of suspicion of Buddhism, and therefore reluctantly approved the Regulation and forbade making changes add it to the code of laws in the hope that it will be temporary" (Ptitsyn, 1892, pp. 174-175).

The essays of Orthodox missionaries are full of accusations against the Buddhist clergy that relate to the sphere of interpreting events "in their favor", as in the following fragment: "Even the visit of His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich lamas managed to interpret in their favor. The August Traveler honored the Onin shrine with a visit and accepted gifts from the local authorities. From this gracious attention to the Buryat society, we read in the report, " the lamas concluded that the Grand Duke, through acceptance from the La,-

11 Veniamin, Archbishop of Irkutsk and Nerchinsk. Lama idolatrous superstition in Eastern Siberia (cited in Ermakova, 1998, p. 76).

page 57
Maitov did not approve of their faith, and His Highness's stay in the datsan with his head uncovered was explained by reverence for their temple "(Katkov, 1897, p. 490).

An undoubted part of this process was the introduction of the figure of the Russian monarch into the sphere of sacred Buddhist symbols, endowing him with the attributes of a dharmic ruler in the Indo-Buddhist cultural paradigm. In hymns and hymns addressed to the monarch, he is often referred to by the traditional Indo-Buddhist epithets of chakravartin, dharmaraja, the incarnation of Indra and Vishnu, and is credited with the functions of a defender and propagator of Buddhist teachings: "May the health of the great monarch, the lord of men, be strengthened, spreading the doctrine of the Victorious One by the power of truth; may the good law of the ancient monarchs spread like a new moon, and all living beings enjoy its perfect splendor!" [TSVRK, M III, 923, f. 2v].

The apotheosis of this process of sublimation of the Russian emperor in the Buddhist tradition was the alleged announcement of Empress Catherine II in 1767 as the incarnation of Bodhisattva Tara in her white hypostasis. This event is not confirmed either in the Buryat chronicle tradition or in works on the history of Buddhism, but it is reflected in the song folklore of the Buryats (Tulokhonov, 1973, p. 100). In Buddhist sacred geography, various parts of pax Buddhica are under the patronage of the highest Mahayana Bodhisattvas, and therefore the curtsey of Buryat Buddhists in the direction of Catherine the Great (if it really is a historically reliable event) can be considered both as an attempt to introduce Russia to the "commonwealth" of Buddhist countries, and as a desire to bring the figure of the emperor closer to their religion.

All this undoubtedly reflects the attempts of representatives of the Buddhist sangha, in the words of V. V. Trepavlov, "to integrate the system of new power into the usual system of ideas about supreme government and statehood" [Trepavlov, 2007, p. 199]. But from the point of view of Buddhist historiographers, these ideas, representations and propaganda were part of the irshua, or method of spreading the dharma, using the power structure to promote the interests of the dharma, as required by the civilizational mission of Buddhism.

The concept of empire was particularly important for Buddhist preachers who came to Russia from the Qing State, which based its expansion strategy on patronizing the Buddhist dharma in the Tibetan-Mongolian Gelug tradition. After all, it is largely to the alliance of the Manchus with the Buddhists that the Qing Empire owes its rapid ascent and expansion far beyond the borders of the Han Celestial Empire. For Buddhism, which for a long time existed on the modest resources of the clan-clan structure of Tibet and Mongolia, the Manchu empire created opportunities for expansion and invested in the development of the monastic system.

The Russian Empire, like the Qing Empire, was certainly a field of opportunity for the Buddhist Sangha. The Lamas needed the empire, just as the empire needed them, as shown above. Since the first attempts to build stable religious institutions, Buddhists have shown a keen interest in sanctioning these institutions by the Empire, not only at the regional level, but also in the person of the supreme authority. Thus, when the first stationary monastery was established, the Buryat-Mongolian Tsongol tribes applied to the Chikoy Administration of the Selenga Voivodeship for official permission to build the first stationary temple. However, this agency advised the applicants to address their request for the highest confirmation, which was done. Despite the fact that the construction of the temple, however, was completed before the arrival of official permits, it is significant that the Buddhists themselves took the initiative in an issue related to the jurisdiction of the state. At the same time, Buddhists attached great importance to the fact that the construction of the first monastery was authorized by the supreme imperial authority. Such permits were of great symbolic value to Buddhists.

page 58
meaning: "From the capital of Russia - the city of Moscow, from the Kremlin itself, from the Grand Empress came a written response with permission. You came out to receive this truly golden letter and thus received permission from the queen herself... " 12.

At the first stage, the need for sanctions from the empire was dictated by inter-clan competition for control of these institutions. By the middle of the 18th century, two competing centers of institutionalization of Buddhism and two individuals claiming a monopoly in matters of Sangha administration, initiation of neophytes and official relations with the authorities had actually emerged in the Southern Transbaikalia. Both centers regarded imperial power at various levels as the ultimate arbiter of their differences. The Empire served as a regulator, mediator, and last resort in disputes and conflicts that were inevitable for emerging institutions. Participation in the work of the Established commission, personal audiences with Catherine II and the document signed by her recognizing the title of Pandito Hambo Lama put the final end to the confrontation between Damba-Darja Zayagiin and Zhimba Akhaldain, who tried to challenge the supremacy of this title. But after the death of Zayagiin in 1777, the dispute flared up again, now about the succession to the title of Pandito Hambo Lama, whose supremacy was no longer questioned. The dispute lasted almost two decades, and both sides appealed to both the provincial chancellery and the provincial administration for its resolution. The latter acted as an arbitrator in resolving this issue, finally securing the right to rule the Buddhists for the descendants of Zhimba Akhaldain. The Tsongol Datsan generally recognized the finality of this decision, if not the justice, and confirmed the fact that the imperial power institutions recognized the right of last resort in resolving such conflicts.

This example is an excellent illustration of the fact that when the empire itself has not yet developed a clear policy or technology for this policy in relation to its Buddhist subjects, the Buddhists themselves pushed it to fulfill the role of a regulator of relations within its organizational structure. This subordinate position in relation to State power was characteristic of Buddhism as a whole. For Buddhists, it is a normative position when the emperor (even if he is not a Buddhist) becomes "the highest source of religious authority (in addition to secular power functions)." "It seems fair to the highest representatives of the sangha when the 'spiritual institution' remains a passive object of royal regulation, " because for them this "is a visible confirmation (and in this sense an additional legitimation) of the ruler's involvement in the highest Buddhist values" [Aghajanyan, 2005, p.167].

From the above sources, we have already had a chance to learn how important it was for Buddhists to promote the interests of the dharma to "understand the laws of the country", how important it was for them to create an image of "a glorious people who do not go against the laws of the empire". In the eyes of Buddhists, this was seen as part of a strategy (upâya) to promote their religion and evidence of its beneficial influence. What, then, were the forms of protest against what they considered to be illegal measures taken by the Government with regard to religious freedom, which were not lacking? In normal practice, Buddhists relied on the authorities ' lack of interest in artificially inflaming tensions with the Buddhist population of the border areas. From the very beginning, there was a kind of tacit parity between provincial and regional authorities, on the one hand, and Buddhist officials, on the other, based on personal relations, corruption, and mutual obligations. Numerous eyewitness accounts

12 Rang cag mams la bka ' drin lhag par du che ba dza ya mkhan po rin po che bstan pa dar rgyas dpal bzang po'i gsol 'debs bsam pa lhun grub (see [Ochirov and Ochirova, 2000, p. 116]).

page 59
They confirm that in principle everyone was interested in the existing system of relations, not excluding a certain part of the Orthodox clergy. The following fragment most accurately describes the attitude of the Buddhist clergy to state orders: "If any order is made, even if it clearly violates the interests of Lamaism , no obvious opposition will ever be provided; but Lamaism will exert all its efforts to counteract this order by all measures that depend on it, until it eliminates it" (Termen, 2007, p. 4). 121].

However, when the local authorities launched an offensive against the religious freedoms of Buddhists, the latter took more vigorous measures to defend their positions, appealing to the supreme authority. So, in 1871, by order of the Irkutsk Governor-General N. P. Sinelnikov, a strict advocate of the law, local authorities were ordered to demolish all small prayer churches, boomkhans and obo erected without the approval of the authorities. The governor in this matter, apparently, was guided by Article 35 of the "Regulations on the Lamai clergy of 1853, which prescribed the demolition of "arbitrarily built datsans and all prayer buildings" (cit. by: [Ermakova, 1998, p. 57]). However, neither before nor after that in the history of the Russian Empire, harsh measures against the Buddhists of Eastern Siberia were carried out so consistently and did not have such a principled character. To fulfill this task, the authorities mobilized Orthodox missionaries, baptized Buryats. The Buddhists themselves and even the chief taisha and other officials of the Khorin Steppe Duma were forced to destroy their shrines. As a result, the order was carried out, but at a meeting of Buddhist believers of the Khorinsky Steppe Duma, it was decided to send one of the duma officials to file a complaint about the actions of the provincial authorities for the highest consideration. In the end, the petition was drowned in red tape, but in the future such measures were not taken by the authorities.

In the conditions of the Russian Empire, Buddhism occupied a peripheral position and could only count on the status of a state-tolerated denomination, and therefore, suffering systematic restrictions, Buddhists, in addition to official channels, were forced to use other ways to preserve and even spread their faith. Both the Kalmyks and Buryats actively used the contradictions inherent in the administration system of the huge empire to protect their religious interests. We have already mentioned the frequent discrepancy between the strategies of the Ministries of Internal and Foreign Affairs, provincial administrations, and the Orthodox Diocese. The personal relationships of Buddhist hierarchs with imperial officials at various levels were of great importance. Thus, Archbishop Veniamin, already mentioned, suspected the governors-General of Eastern Siberia, D. G. Anuchin and Baron F. K. Korf, of covertly aiding Lamaism on the grounds that these administrators were friendly liberals in their relations with the Pandito Hambo Lamas and turned a blind eye to many violations of the law on the part of Buddhists (see [Schorkowits, 2001, p. 213]). Official on special assignments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs V. For the same reason, Vashkevich suspected a number of governors-general of insufficient loyalty to Orthodoxy, linking this to their non-Russian origin [Ermakova, 1998, p. 37]. Orthodox officials were also suspected of patronizing Buddhism by officials who collected information about Lamaism on behalf of their departments, such as Levashev and Baron Schilling von Canstadt. Another high-ranking official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Esper Ukhtomsky, who was keenly interested in the Buddhist East, acted as a defender of the interests of Buddhists in Russia. Thanks to his influence at the court of Nicholas II, the Russian emperor visited the Atsagat Monastery on his way back from his famous trip. In addition, Ukhtomsky was the person who ensured the audience of Agvan Dorzhiev with Nicholas II, and also lobbied for the construction of a Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg. (A certain amount-

page 60
Representatives of academic circles - the famous Russian Orientalists F. I. Shcherbatskoy, B. Ya. Vladimirtsov, S. F. Oldenburg, who was a member of the Provisional Government in the period from February to October 1917-also provided patronage and even patronage to Russian Buddhists. They saw them as allies in defending and promoting the interests of their religion.

conclusion

R. Kruse, discussing the reasons for the creation of the Ufa Spiritual Administration of Muslims, among other things, noted: "In search of what was considered authoritative in Islam, the regime was forced to use Muslims themselves, involving them in the process of building Islamic institutions in order to gain state patronage and help instill discipline among Muslim subjects" [Crews, 2006, p. 11]. In dealing with the Buddhists, whose religion had been considered sufficiently organized and developed by the authorities since the time of Catherine the Great, the imperial officials were inclined to adopt a similar strategy, but this policy reached the southern Siberian outskirts of the empire much later than the moment when the Buddhists themselves imposed it on the authorities. Buddhist missionaries entered Transbaikalia with already formed ideas about the empire, the emperor and their role and status in relation to the Buddhist Sangha. The Qing standard of a deified monarch regulating various aspects of the community's life, which dominated their consciousness through a coherent hierarchical system of religious ranks, forced Buddhists to transfer their own categories of" civilized empire " to a completely different reality. Nevertheless, many expectations of Buddhists were understood and counter-stimulated by the Romanov Empire, in which, since the time of Peter I, even the dominant church has been subordinate to the state. The empire was seen by Buddhists as a space of opportunity and at the same time a hostile environment, in which existence was possible only if you obeyed the laws, no matter how strict they were. Law-abiding as part of their civilizational conquest is seen by Buddhists as the main advantage of subjects. But since the boundaries of laws were determined not so much by their content as by the interests of the bureaucracy, obedience to the laws was transformed into a kind of responsibility to obligations and respect for parity with local authorities.

A subordinate position, however, did not mean that Buddhists accepted the position of their religion as a peripheral one. Buddhist Buryat historiography clearly shows a desire for expansion beyond the "zone of settlement"outlined by the state and the Orthodox Church to Buddhism. In particular, at the beginning of the XX century. This aspiration materialized in the establishment of a Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg, the first in Europe.

Self-preservation and a certain expansion of Buddhism in Russia in the minds of the Buddhists themselves were due to a special strategy, designated by the philosophical term irshua, an artful method. This method involved a constant search for" Dharma allies " both in the person of the supreme power and among regional officials, the use of interdepartmental contradictions and interests, and even a research search for scientists. In the event of a violation of the balance of interests and an attack by officials on the rights of religion, Buddhists did not hesitate to apply for protection to the supreme authority. If the persecution was initiated by the supreme authority, the Buddhists had only one way out - to go underground in anticipation of better times. And as soon as these times came, the Buddhists reloaded their weapons with "skillful methods".

page 61
The epigraph of Stalin's praise at the very beginning of the article, paradoxical as it is, seems quite logical in the context of the Buddhist strategy of preserving their religion in a non-confessional or secularized empire. In 1946, monastic Buddhism, after a decade of de facto destruction, began to rebuild its institutions again. After another six decades, it reached its relative heyday and prosperity. And although the new era presents him with new challenges, Irvine's "skillful strategy" is unchanged, ensuring his survival in the most unfavorable conditions.

list of literature

Aghajanyan A. S. Dharma and Empire. Osnovy i liminy sakralizatsii vlasti v buddiiskoi politicheskoi traditsii [Fundamentals and limits of sacralization of power in the Buddhist political tradition].
Buddhists in the Russian Empire in 1917 (legislation, descriptions) / Comp., preface. and comments by D. Yu. Arapov, E. V. Dordzhieva. Elista, 2004.

Ermakova T. V. The Buddhist world through the eyes of Russian researchers of the XIX-first third of the XX century. St. Petersburg, 1998.

Historical data on the activities of Count M. M. Speransky in Siberia from 1819 to 1822 / Collected by Vagin, T. I. St. Petersburg, 1872.

Katkov M. N. Collection of leading articles of the Moscow Vedomosti. St. Petersburg, 1897.

Klyuchevsky V. O. Russkaya istoriya [Russian History], Moscow, 2004.
Kurapov A. A. Buddhism and Power in the Kalmyk Khanate of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Elista, 2007.

Ochirov B.. Ochirova Ts.-Kh. Nekotorye materialy o zhizni i deyatel'nosti Damba-Darzha Zayaeva [Some materials about the life and activities of Damba-Darzha Zayaeva]. Issue 4. Ulan-Ude, 2000.

Pallas P. S. Travel to different provinces of the Russian state. St. Petersburg, 1773-1778.

Podgorbunsky I. Buryats. Historical essay / / Baikal. Literary, artistic, and socio-political journal. 2007. N 2 (March-April).

Vlad Ptitsyn. Buddhism in Transbaikalia. From personal observations of a tourist / / Vestnik Evropy. Journal of History, Politics, and Literature, vol. 153, St. Petersburg, 1892.

Termen, A. I., Among the Buryats of the Irkutsk Province and the Trans-Baikal Region, Baikal. Literary, artistic, and socio-political journal. 2007. No. 5 (September-October).

Trepavlov V. V. "The White Tsar". The image of the monarch and the idea of citizenship among the peoples of Russia in the XV-XVIII centuries. Moscow, 2007.

Tulokhonov M. I. Buryat historical songs. Ulan-Ude, 1973.

Decree from the Irkutsk provincial government to the manager of the Zaisansky position in the sub-city rode of December 7, 1807 N 29817 / / Collection of materials on the history of Buryatia of the XVIII and first half of the XIX century. Verkhneudinsk, 1926.

Wortman R. Symbols of Empire: exotic peoples in the coronation ceremony of Russian emperors / / New Imperial History of the Post-Soviet Space / Ed. and compiled by I. Gerasimov, S. Glebov, A. Kaplunovsky, M. Mogilner, A. Semenov. Kazan: Center for Research on Nationalism and Empire, 2004.

TSVRK SB RAI (Mongolian Foundation of the Center for Oriental Manuscripts and Woodcuts of the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhology and Tibetology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences).

Crews R.D. For Prophet and Tsar. Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia. Cambridge-Massachusetts-London: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Elverskog J. Our great Qing. The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2006.

Library of Tibetan works and archives (Dharamsala, India), N 17310.

Rinchen B. Four Mongolian historical records / Ed. and trans, by Dr. B. Rinchen // Mongol pitaka. Vol. 2 / Indo-Asian lietratures; Vol. 11 / Ed. by Prof. Dr. Raghu Vira. New Delhi, 1959.

Schorkowits D. The Orthodox Church, Lamaism, and Shamanism among the Buriats and Kalmyks, 1825 - 1925 // Of Religion and Empire. Missions, conversions, and tolerance in Tsarist Russia / Ed. by R.P. Geraci and M. Khodarkovsky. New York, 2001.

Permanent link to this publication: