St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

This article deals with the changes in the structure of the order of matins that are refl ected in the fi rst printed Slavonic edition of Irmologion published in Moscow in 1657 during the emendation of liturgical books and the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon. The author of the article compares the structure of matins in Irmologion of 1657 and in pre-reform books of the earlier print and reveals the following changes: the omission of the Blameless when Polyeleos is sung at the Sunday vigil; changes in the structure of Polyeleos and the omission of the Magnifi cation; changes in the structure of hymnography following Psalm 50 during the preparatory Sundays before the Great Lent; changes in the structure of biblical odes; the omission of the canon of the Octoechos during weekday services of the Lent; changes in the order of performing catabasiae. For each of these changes, the author of the article attempts to identify possible sources, which is done by means of comparison with pre-reform books printed in Kiev and Lvov and Greek liturgical books printed in Venice. In most cases the author demonstrates that the source were Venetian printed editions of Typicon and Irmologion. The author concludes that as a result of the Nikonian reforms of the 17th century, not only the order of the divine liturgy, but also the order of matins in Moscow was made to conform to contemporary Greek practice, as recorded in the Venetian printed liturgical books.

Byzantine rite, matins, morning worship, Typicon, Typikon, Irmologion, Eirmologion, Blameless, Polyeleos, Magnifi cation, Select Psalms, Canon, Irmos, Eirmos, catabasia, katavasia, It is Truly Meet, liturgical reform, emendation of church books, proof book, Evfi my of Chudovo, Patriarch Nikon

1. Andreev A. A., “O nekotorykh izmeneniiakh v chinoposledovanii utreni: po materialam Irmologiia 1657 g”, in: Materialy IX mezhdunarodnoi studencheskoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii, St. Petersburg, 2017, 7—15.
2. Arranz M., Le typicon du Monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine: Codex Messinensis Gr 115, Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1969.
3. Dmitrievskii A. A., A. G. Kravetskii, ed., Ispravlenie knig pri Patriarkhe Nikone i posleduiushchikh patriarkhakh, Moscow, 2004.
4. Frøyshov S., “Erlangen University Library A2, A.D. 1025: A Study of the Oldest Dated Greek Horologion”, in: B. Groen et. al., eds., Rites and Rituals of the Christian East, Leuven, 2014, 201—254.
5. Frøyshov S., “Byzantine Rite”, in: The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology, Canterbury Press, 2013.
6. Kanter A. A., “Prorocheskie Pesni v Ierusalimskom ustave donikonovskoi redaktsii”, in: Mir staroobriadchestva: Zhivye traditsii: rezul’taty i perspektivy kompleksnykh issledovanii, Vyp. 4. Moscow, 1998, 435–441.
7. Krylov G., Knizhnaia sprava XVII veka: bogosluzhebnye Minei, Moscow, 2009.
8. Krylov G., Knizhnaia sprava Tipikona v XVII veke, available at: URL: http://www. bogoslov.ru/text/592807.html (10.01.2018).
9. Mateos J., “Quelques problèmes de l’orthros byzantin”, in: Proche Orient Chrétien, 11, 1961, 17—35.
10. Meyendorff P., Russia, Ritual, and Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991.
11. Pentkovsky A. M., Tipikon patriarkha Aleksiia Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi, Moscow, 2001.
12. Sazonova N. I., Ispravlenie bogosluzhebnykh knig pri patriarkhe Nikone (1654–1666 gg.): Trebnik i Chasoslov: Sbornik dokumentov, Tomsk, 2007.
13. Schneider H., “Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum”, in: Biblica, 30 (1), 1949, 28—65.
14. Schneider H., “Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel”, in: Biblica, 30 (3), 1949, 433—452.
15. Sliva Ye. E., “Chasoslovy studiiskoi traditsii v slavianskikh spiskakh XIII–XV vv.”, in: Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 51, 1999, 91—106.
16. Taft R. F., “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite”, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1988, 179—194.
17. Uspenskii N. D., “Kolliziia dvukh bogoslovii v ispravlenii russkikh bogosluzhebnykh knig v XVII veke”, in: Bogoslovskie trudy, 13, 1975, 148—171.

Andreev Aleksandr

The principal direction in the development of the Orthodox ecclesiology in the 20th century was, justifi ably, the so-called “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, where the principal role in the structural organisation of the church is assigned to the Eucharistic community headed by a bishop. Valuable contributions to the formation of this theory were made by Russian theologians living abroad. The widely disseminated ideas of émigré theologians and their successors have to a certain extent overshadowed other models of the church which were developed during the fi rst half of the 20th century by Russian New Martyrs. In exile and in jail, far away from churches, often concealing themselves from people and living amidst distrust and suspicion, many laypeople and clerics found themselves in a situation where no regular participation in one common Eucharistic gathering was possible and where there was often no communication with the bishop. It is evident that their ecclesiastical life could hardly be described in terms of the classical model of the Eucharistic ecclesiology, which implies that the community lives in normal conditions. Therefore expressing their experience of ecclesiastical communion, Russian New Martyrs made attempts at formulating alternative approaches applicable to the situation of persecution and internal instability within the church. An approach of this kind can be found in bishop Damascene Tsedrik’s works (martyred in 1937). St. Damascene’s view is rather similar to a pastoral model of the church where the church is conceived as a mystical union of believers formed through the “spiritual and grace-fi lled linkages between the shepherds and their fl ock”. The bishop hereby is presented as the archpastor, who guides rather than merely administrates spiritual life of believers. Within this approach, the “mass of believers” is considered to be the living body of the church, which in its wholeness is capable of reproducing the selfconscience of the church. This paper presents little-known theological insights of the Russian New Martyr.

Damascene Tsedrik, right opposition in the Russian church, ecclesiology of New Martyrs, pastoral model of the church, spiritual linkages, ecclesiastical hierarchy, episcopal ministry, mass of believers, self-conscience of the church, spiritual sense, ecclesiastical authority

1. Gubonin M. E., ed., Akty Svjatejshego Tihona, Patriarha Moskovskogo i vseja Rossii, pozdnejshie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshej cerkovnoj vlasti, 1917–1943, Moscow, 1994.
2. Berdjaev N. A., Filosofija neravenstva, Moscow, 2012.
3. Zhuravskij A. V., ed., Vo imja pravdy i dostoinstva Cerkvi: Zhizneopisanie i trudy svjashhennomuchenika Kirilla Kazanskogo v kontekste istoricheskih sobytij i cerkovnyh razdelenij XX v., Moscow, 2004.
4. Damaskin (Orlovskij ), ierom., Zhitie svjashhennomuchenika Faddeja, arhiepiskopa Tverskogo, Tver’, 1997.
5. Kosik O. V., Istinnyj voin Hristov: Kniga o svjashhennomuchenike episkope Damaskine (Cedrike), Moscow, 2009.
6. Lopushanskaja E., Episkopy-ispovedniki, San Francisko, 1971.
7. Mazyrin A., Vysshie ierarhi o preemstve vlasti v Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi v 1920-h — 1930-h godah, Moscow, 2006.
8. Mazyrin A., “Vopros o prizvanii sluzhitelej Cerkvi v jepohu gonenij : dva vzgljada sovremennikov”, in: Vestnik PSTGU II: Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2011, 43, 70–82.
9. Mazyrin A., “K voprosu o bogoslovii novomuchenikov”, in: Cerkov’. Bogoslovie. Istorija: Materialy IV Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno- bogoslovskoj konferencii (Ekaterinburg, 5–6 fevralja 2016 g.), Ekaterinburg, 2016, 81–91.
10. Njeterkott F., Filosofskaja vstrecha: Bergson v Rossii (1907–1917), Moscow, 2008.
11. Ozerskaja M. V., “Iosifljane i posledovateli mitropolita Kirilla (Smirnova) o sobornosti v cerkovnom upravlenii i probleme evharisticheskogo edinstva Russkoj cerkvi”, in: Svet Hristov prosveshhaet vseh: Al’manah Svjato-Filaretovskogo pravoslavno-hristianskogo institute, 2016, 19, 103-120.
12. Mechev S., Tajny bogosluzhenija: duhovnye besedy, pis’ma iz ssylki, Moscow, 2001.
13. Shkarovskij M. V., “Iosifl janskoe dvizhenie Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, osobennosti polozhenija sredi drugih cerkovnyh techenij”, in: Ezhegodnaja bogoslovskaja konferencija Pravoslavnogo Svjato-Tiho novskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, 2011, 1, 307–315.
14. Shkarovskij M. V., Iosifljanstvo: techenie v Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, St. Petersbourg, 1999.

Ermilov Pavel, priest

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article is written in 2018 within the framework of the project "Models of the Church in Russian theology of the twentieth century" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation

The experience of beauty is an important part of the Holy Tradition of the Eastern Church. From the very beginning of the Christian thought, Beauty appears as a notion and a value. However, among Holy Fathers’ texts there is none specifi cally devoted to this topic. Alongside this, in modern history there arose a new trend in secular thought which came to be termed aesthetics, which in a sense usurped Beauty as its own category. Only in the 20th century, aesthetics discarded Beauty, and it has taken several generations of religious thinkers to look at Beauty disregarding aesthetics, i.e. as at a specifi cally theological problem. This article gives an overview of this process and discusses the theological aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Theology of Beauty of Pavel Evdokimov and David Bentley Hart. It provides a comparative analysis of approaches of these authors to the study of the problem of Beauty and analyses reasons for the emergence of the new trend in theological thought.

beauty, the beautiful, problem of beauty, secular aesthetics, theological aesthetics, Theology of Beauty, metaphysics, personalism, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Pavel Evdokimov, David Bentley Hart

1. Balthasar H. U., von., Herrlichkeit. Eine theologische Ästhetik, Einsiedeln, 1988, 1; 1989, 3/2, 1; 2009, 3/1, 1.
2. Balthasar H. U., von., Presence and Thought. Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa, San Francisco, 1995.
3. Bender M., The Dawn of the Invisible: The Reception of the Platonic Doctrine on Beauty in the Christian Middle Ages: Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, Münster, 2010
4. Bulgakov S. N., Pervoobraziobraz: Sochinenija v 2 T, Moscow, 1999.
5. Bychkov O. V.,“O perspektivah novejshih nauchnyh issledovanij v jestetike”, in: Jestetika: Vchera. Segodnja.Vsegda, 4, 2010, 127–149.
6. Bychkov O. V., Fodor J., eds., Theological Aesthetics after von Balthasar, Hampshire; Burlington, 2008.
7. Bychkov V. V., “Problemyi “bolevyetochki”s ovremennojjestetiki”, in: Jestetika: Vchera. Segodnja.Vsegda, 1, 2005, 3–37.
8. Bychkov V. V., AESTHETICA PATRUM. Jestetika Otcov Cerkvi. I. Apologety. Blazhennyj Avgustin, Moscow, 1995.
9. Bychkov V. V., Jestetika, Moscow, 2012.
10. Evdokimov P., Iskusstvo ikony: Bogoslovie krasoty, Klin, 2007.
11. Evdokimov P., L’art de l’icône: Théologie de la beauté, Paris, 1972.
12. Florenskij P. A., Stolp i utverzhdenieistiny: Opyt pravoslavnoj teodicei, Moscow, 2003.
13. Gartman N., Jestetika, Kiev, 2004.
14. Gulyga A. V., Principy jestetiki, Moscow, 1987.
15. Hart D. B., Krasota beskonechnogo: Jestetika hristianskoj istiny, Moscow, 2010.
16. Hart D. B., The Beauty of the Infi nite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, Grand Rapids (MI), 2003.
17. Kasatkina T. A., ““Mir spasetkrasota…”, in: URL: http://www.blagovest-info.ru/index.php?id=39388 &s=24&ss=2 (11.05.2017).
18. Konacheva S. A., “Sovpadenie krasoty I beskonechnosti kak osnovanie hristianskoj ontologii”, in: Ezhegodnik po fenomenologicheskoj filosofii, Moscow, 2015, 4, 73–86.
19. Kroche B., Jestetika kak nauka o vyrazhenii I kak obshhaja lingvistika. Teorija, Moscow, 1920.
20. Losev A. F., Istorija antichnoj jestetiki. Aristotel’ I pozdnjaja klassika, Har’kov, Moscow, 2000.
21. Losev A. F., Istorija antichnoj estetiki. Itogi tysjacheletnego razvitija, Moscow, 2000.
22. Losev A. F., Jestetika Vozrozhdenija, Moscow, 1978.
23. Losev A. F., Shestakov V. P., Istorija jesteticheskih kategorij , Moscow, 1964.
24. Novikova E.,“«Mir spaset krasota» F. M. Dostoevskogo I russkaja religioznaja filosofija konca XIX — pervoj treti XX v.”, in: Kasatkina T. A., ed., Dostoevskij i XX vek, Moscow, 2007, 1, 97–124.
25. Oakes E. T., Moss D., eds.,The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Cambridge, 2004.
26. Oakes E. T., Pattern of Redemption. The Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, New York, London, 2005.
27. Riches J., ed., The Analogy of Beauty. The Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edinburg, 1986.
28. Sammon B. Th., God Who Is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite, Eugene (Oregone), 2013.
29. Solov’ev V. S., Sochinenija: V 2 t., Moscow, 1988.
30. Tatarkevich V., Istorija shesti ponjatij , Moscow, 2002.
31. Viladesau R., Theological Aesthetics: God in Imagination, Beauty and Art, Oxford, 1999.

Ovcharenko Artem, диакон

I extend my gratitude to my adviser P. Mikhaylov for professional helping and moral support.

The initial lines of The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (Rus. Столп и утверждение Истины) in the renowned defi nition of “living religious experience as the only legitimate means of comprehending the dogma” prescribe that philosophical refl ection and theological speculation should always proceed following living life. The latter is considered in the person-oriented aspect as a spiritual autobiography that includes prerefl exive experience from childhood. Later, this experience comes to be refl ected in the scientifi c, personal and religious experience of adult life and becomes an organic element of creative works of Florensky, including the concept of двоемирие (literally “coexistence of two worlds”) as the basis of reality. The invisible centre of this system is the sacrament, and the visible layers of worship and symbols that exist in the everyday world point at it. Symbol is a reality of specifi c type; it carries the energy (ºνέργεια) of the sacrament. Epistemology of Florensky’s religious experience is focused on tradition and dates back to the Corpus Areopagiticum and Bonaventure, and rather represents a Mystagogue under a scientistic cover. It is a specifi c mystical heuristic, symbolic spiritual ascent to the Truth, where the symbols pointing at it, including “man Paul”, are not self-suffi cient and become unnecessary once the aim has been achieved. In this sense, it is very important that religious experience that possesses “life” as its essence should become the basis for religiosity of the new type, which for the time being is conceived only as a project.

Florensky, religious experience, childhood, mystic, magism, symbol, sacrament, centre and periphery, epistemology, mystagogue

1. Khagemeister M., «Novoe Srednevekov’e» Pavla Florenskogo, Natal’ia Bonetskaia, per., in: Zvezda, 11, 2006.
2. “Filosofstvovat’ v religii”. Materialy konferentsii, posviashchennoi stoletiiu vykhoda knigi «Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny o. Pavla Florenskogo, Moscow, 2017.
3. Reznichenko A. I,. “Florenskii i Khaidegger ob λήθεία: zabvenie i/ili sokrytost’?”, in: Vestnik RGGU, Seriia “Filosofiia. Sotsiologiia. Iskusstvovedenie”, 1 (7), 2017, 47–62.
4. Florenskii P. A., “Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny’, in: Sochineniia, 1 (I), Moscow, 1990.
5. Florenskii Pavel, sviashch., Detiam moim, Moscow, 1992.
6. Florenskii P. A., “Imeslavie kak fi losofskaia predposylka”, in: Sochineniia, 2, Moscow, 1990, 281–338.
7. Florenskii P. A., “Magichnost’ slova”, in: Sochineniia, 2, Moscow, 1990, 252–280.
8. Khoruzhii S. S., “Obretenie konkretnosti”, in: Florenskii P. A., Sochineniia, 2, Moscow, 1990, 3–33.

Vaganova Natalia

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article is written in 2018 within the framework of the project "Russian religious thought in the second half of XIX — beginning of XX centuries: the problem of German influence in the crisis of spiritual culture" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation.

This paper gives an outline of relational sociology, which understands and explains society and human existence as “relationally constituted”, i.e. as constituted by social relations. Modern and postmodern sociological mainstreams see relations as an emanation of the individual, whereas in reality individual’s identity depends on relations. The fallacy of individualism is due to the fact that current social theories avoid addressing what the author calls “the enigma of the relationship”, i.e. an order of reality able to unite the diff erent ones while preserving, and even promoting, their differences. This new approach understands relations as a sui generis reality that cannot be reduced to the terms of the relations, their qualities and properties, because the relation is “emergent”. Thus, it overcomes the fallacies of subjectivism and objectivism in understanding the nature of social reality and can make visible the enigma of its relational constitution. This approach stems from a new social (relational) ontology, according to which substance and relation are co-principles of being. Such an ontology, in turn, needs to refer to a specifi c “theological matrix”, since every society depends on a kind of “symbolic code” that determines the uniqueness of its structures and sociocultural dynamics. Symbolic codes always have religious origins where “religion” broadly means the ultimate latent values of society. Within the framework of Western thinking, three symbolic codes or theological matrices can be observed, depending on how the diff erence between the Self and the Other is interpreted, namely dialectical, binary and relational. Within the dialectical symbolic code, the distinction between the Self and the Other is understood as a point of constant confl ict, discussion and negotiation: the theory of J. Habermas serves as a good example of this code. The binary matrix, presented by N. Luhmann, understands the diff erence between the Self and the Other as an insurmountable separation. Within the relational code, this difference (indeed any difference) is considered to be a social relation, i.e. a true interchange between the terms generating “emergent” eff ect. The relational matrix goes back to Christianity and its theological Trinitarian matrix.

social relation, relational sociology, realist social ontology, the Self and the Other, difference, theological matrix, Trinity, post-modern society

1. Borch C. Niklas Luhmann. N. Y., 2011.
2. Donati P. Teoria relazionale della società. Milano, 1991.
3. Donati P. Relational sociology: a new paradigm for the social sciences. L., 2012.
4. Donati P. La famiglia: il genoma che fa vivere la società. Soveria Mannelli, 2013.
5. Donati P. La Familia como raíz de la sociedad. Madrid, 2013.
6. Donati P. Sociologia della relazione. Bologna, 2013.
7. Donati P. Morphogenic Society and the Structure of Social Relations // Late modernity: trajectories towards morphogenic society Social morphogenesis. N. Y., 2014. P. 143–172.
8. Fadelle J. Le prix à payer. P., 2010.
9. Fitzi G. A «Transnormative» View of Society Building: Simmel’s Sociological Epistemology and Philosophical Anthropology of Complex Societies // Theory, Culture & Society. 2012. Vol. 29. № 7–8. P. 177–196.
10. Guardini R. Der Gegensatz: Versuche zu einer Philosophie des Lebendig-Konkreten. Mainz, 1998.
11. Hall J. A Framework to Measure the Progress of Societies. 2010 / available at: URL: http://staging.ilo.org/public/libdoc/igo/2010/462669.pdf (29.11.2017).
12. Luhmann N. Sistemi sociali: fondamenti di una teoria generale. Bologna, 1990.
13. Luhmann N. Social systems. Stanford, 1995.
14. Lyotard J.-F. Le diff érend. P., 1983.
15. Maspero G. Uno perché Trino: breve introduzione al trattato su Dio. Siena, 2011.
16. Maspero G. Essere e relazione: l’ontologia trinitaria di Gregorio di Nissa. R., 2013.
17. Nietzsche F. et al. Aphorisms on love and hate. L., 2015.
18. Parsons T. Christianity and Modern Industrial Society // Sociological Theory and Modern Society. N. Y., 1967. P. 385–421.
19. Parsons T., Fox R., Lidz V. The «Gift of Life» and Its Reciprocation // Social Research. 1972. Vol. № 3. P. 367–415.
20. Ricoeur P. Soi-même comme un autre. P., 1990.
21. Rossi G. et al. The social generative action of the third sector: comparing international experiences. Milano, 2008.
22. Sachs J. The age of sustainable development. N. Y., 2015.
23. Simmel G. Philosophie des Geldes. Leipzig, 1907.
24. Splett J. Die Trinitätslehre G. W. F. Hegels. Freiburg, 1965.
25. Splett J. La dottrina della trinità in Hegel. Brescia, 1993.
26. Stiglitz J. E., Sen A., Fitoussi J .P. Report by the Commission on the Measuring of Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009, available at: URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission+report (29.11.2017).
27. Teubner G. Self-subversive Justice: Contingency or Transcendence Formula of Law? // Modern Law Review. 2009. Vol. 72. № 1. P. 1–23.
28. Lessico della sociologia relazionale. Bologna, 2016.

Donati Pierpaolo

This brief outline deals with the history of development of psychology of religion in the USSR. The author concentrates on the analysis of the historical, social, ideological context, i. e. the analysis of those particular circumstances of the early 1960s when Russian thinkers in the domain of the Humanities turned to the subject of psychology of religion. Particular emphasis is given to the importance of the so-called Khrushchev’s thaw in the formation and development of this research area. The key metaphor of the study is seeing the psychology of religion as an opening in the austere ice of Soviet dictatorship. The author gives a description of the main trends and topics that were raised in discussions on psychology of religion in the 1960–1970s. Ideological interpretation of the position and role of psychology of religion in Soviet science draws on studies by D. Ugrinovich, one of the most infl uential authors of the period in question. The paper suggests that the change of the ideological background in the early 1970s naturally effected the refusal of most of the authors to carry out research in this area and their “switch” to problems of sociology of religion.

History of religious study, Khrushev's thaw, psyhology of religion, USSR, Ugrinovich, Popova

1. Bratus’ B. S., Voejkov V. L., Vorob’ev S. L., eds., Nachala hristianskoj psihologii. Uchebnoe posobie dlja vuzov, Moscow, 1995.
2. Burlacskij F., “Posle Stalina. Zametki o politicheskoj ottepeli”, in: Novyj mir, 1988, 10.
3. Huhn U., “Die Wiedergeburt der Ethnologie aus dem Geistdes Atheismus. Zur Erforschung des “zeitgenössischen Sektierertums” im Rahman von Chruscevs antireligiöser Kampagne”, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 64, 2016, 260–298.
4. Pihoja R., “Medlennotajushhij led (mart 1953 — konec 1957 g.)”, in: Mezhdunarodnyj istoricheskij zhurnal, 7, 2000.
5. Platonov K. K., “Psihologicheskie korni religii”, in: Voprosi nauchnogo ateisma, 11, 1971, 29–42.
6. Shahnovich M. I., “O “psiho-analiticheskom metode” izuchenij a pervobytnoj religii (Po povodu stat’I A. A. Popova)”, in: Sovetskaja etnografija, 5, 1958, 71–76.
7. Ugrinovich D. M., “Ateisticheskoe vospitanie i preodolenie religioznoj psihologii”, in: Voprosy filosofii, 1961, 4.
8. Ugrinovich D. M., Filosofskie problem kritiki religii, Moscow, 1965.
9. Ugrinovich D. M., “O predmete psihologii religii i ee meste v sisteme nauk”, in: Voprosi nauchnogo ateisma, 1971, 11, 9–28.
10. Ugrinovich D. M., Psihologija religii, Moscow, 1986.

Orel Elena

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article is written in 2018 within the framework of the project "Psychology of religion in Russia of the XIX — beginning of XXI centuries" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation.

One of the most important tasks of present-day religious studies is developing a united and detailed systematisation of new religious movements. With the aim of fi nding out what place the Transcendental Meditation movement could occupy in it, this article considers various characteristics of the theory, practice and social peculiarities of this movement, off ered by researchers of new religious movements and representatives of the organisation itself. This paper also reveals problems of typology, the main of which is that diff erent opinions about the relationship of ideas of Hinduism with the elements of modern science in the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are designated in scientifi c and educational literature by diff erent terms, which, moreover, are ambiguous. In the conclusion of the article, variants of the stratifi ed typology are off ered, revealing a complete picture of the origin and transformation of the theories and practices of the Transcendental Meditation movement. The fi rst variant is aimed at inclusion in the unifi ed classifi cation of religions, which is supposed to be extended according to the principle applied by other scientifi c systems that take into account several levels of generalisation. The second variant can be employed in cataloguing new religious movements.

Transcendental Meditation, TM movement, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, NRM classifi cation, Hinduism, Neo-Hinduism, neo-orientalism

1. Aleksandr (Mileant), “Semiglavyj drakon. Indijsko-okkul’tnye uchenij a v svete hristianstva”, in: Missionerskij listok, 1996, 69.
2. Bajerle P., Ajur-veda Maharishi. Propusk v bessmertie, Moscow, 1995.
3. Balagushkin E. G., Problemy morfologicheskogo analiza religij, Moscow, 2003.
4. Balagushkin E. G., Shohin V. K., “Religioznyj pljuralizm v sovremennoj Rossii: novye religioznye dvizhenij a na postsovetskom jetape”, in: Mir Rossii, 15.2, 2006, 62–78.
5. Balagushkin E. G., Netradicionnye religii v sovremennoj Rossii, Moscow, 1999.
6. Balagushkin E. G., Netradicionnye religii v sovremennoj Rossii: morfologicheskij analiz, Moscow, 2002.
7. Barker A., “Nauchnoe izuchenie religii? Vy, dolzhno byt’, shutite!”, in: Religiovedenie, 2003, 4, 93–113.
8. Barker A., Novye Religioznye Dvizhenija, St. Petersbourg, 1997.
9. Chernyshova Z. E., Novye Religioznye Dvizhenija (metodologicheskij podhod), Ekaterinburg, 2001.
10. Dvorkin A. L., Sektovedenie. Totalitarnye sekty. Opyt sistematicheskogo issledovanija, Nizhnij Novgorod, 2008.
11. Evdokimov A. Ju., Novye religioznye dvizhenij a. Uchebnoe posobie, Moscow, 2011.
12. Falikov B. Z., “Novyj vek: nazad v budushhee”, in: Kontinent, 1997, 4, 194–215.
13. Falikov B. Z., Neoinduizm i zapadnaja kul’tura, Moscow, 1994.
14. Frisk L., Nya religiösa rölerser I Sverige: Relation till samhälle världen, ansluttin och engagemang, Abo, 1993.
15. Greil A., Rudy D., “Is Alcoholics Anonymous a religious organization? Meditations on marginality”, in: Sociological Analysis, 1989, 50/1, 41–51.
16. Haak F. W., Gandow T., Transcendentale Meditation, Munich, 1992.
17. Jablokov I. N., ed., Istorija religij, Moscow, 2002.
18. Jablokov I. N., ed., Osnovy religiovedenija, Moscow, 1994.
19. Jezus Chrystus dawcą wody żywej — chrześcij ańska refl eksja na temat New Age, Kraków, 2003.
20. Kanterov I. Ja., “Novye religioznye dvizhenij a v SShA i Rossii: sravnitel’nyj analiz”, in Religiovedenie, 2001, 1, 143–157.
21. Kaz’mina O. E., Puchkov P. I., Religioznye organizacii sovremennogo mira, Moscow, 2010.
22. Knorre B., “Dvizhenie “Transcendental’naja meditacija” (TM)”, in: Burdo M., Filatov S. B., eds., Sovremennaja religioznaja zhizn’ Rossii. Opyt sistematicheskogo opisanija, Moscow, 2005, 3, 420–29.
23. Kolkunova K. A., “Teologicheskie korni koncepcij kvazireligij”, in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2012, 4 (42), 62–75.
24. Kon’ R. M., Vvedenie v sektovedenie, Nizhnij Novgorod, 2008.
25. Kulakov A. E., Religii mira, Moscow, 1998.
26. Kulikov I., Transcendental’naja meditacija. Novye religioznye organizacii Rossii destruktivnogo, okkul’tnogo i neojazycheskogo haraktera: Spravochnik, Moscow, 2000.
27. Maharishi Mahesh Jogi, Nauka Bytija i iskusstvo zhitija, Moscow, 2000.
28. Maharishi Mahesh Jogi, O Bhagavat-Gite, St. Petersbourg, 1996.
29. Makdaujell Dzh., Stjuart D., “Obmanshhiki”, Moscow, 1994.
30. Melton G., Encyclopedia of American religion, Detroit, 1989.
31. Mitrohin L. N., Religioznye kul’ty v SShA, Moscow, 1984.
32. Moskovskij cerkovnyj vestnik, 1992, 5.
33. Obozrenie nauchnyh issledovanij po Transcendental’noj meditacii i programme TM-Sidhi, Moscow, 1993.
34. Opredelenie Arhierejskogo Sobora Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi “O psevdohristianskih sektah, neojazychestve i okkul’tizme”, 1994, Dec.
35. Ozhiganova A. A., Filippov Ju. V., Novaja religioznost’ v sovremennoj Rossii: uchenija, formy i praktiki, Moscow, 2006.
36. Puchkov P. I., “K voprosu o klassifi kacii religij”, in: Jetnos i religija, Moscow, 1998.
37. Smith A. B., TM: an Aid to Christian Growth, Essex, 1983.
38. Tillih P., Izbrannoe. Teologij a kul’tury, Moscow, 1995.
39. Timoshhuk A. S., Vedijskaja kul’tura: sushhnost’ i metamorfozy, Vladimir, 2002.
40. Tkacheva A. A., “Novye religii” Vostoka, Moscow, 1991.
41. Transcendental’naja meditacija, Moscow, 1991. Trofimchuk N. A., Svishhev M. P., Jekspansija, Moscow, 2000.
42. Vedicheskaja astrologija, 2001, 1.
43. Wallis R., The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life, London, 1984.
44. Zhizn’ rastenij: V 6 t., Moscow, 1982, 6.

Tikhonova Victoria

Vorontsov Sergey

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Mikhaylov Petr

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Koltsov Alexander

Zabaev Ivan

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.