Translated material
"Breaking through the wall of prejudice..."
The famous Russian orientalist Yuri Roerich [1] in 1923 wrote in his programmatic article “The Rise of Orientalism”: “Until quite recently, Orientalism was a closed area in which in-depth scientific research was carried out, but the treasures of which were inaccessible to the rest of the world and hidden behind a dense veil of times. However, the hour has struck, and it fell to this science, which was engaged in recreating the past, to show people new ways to facilitate mutual understanding between the two great centers of world civilization. <…> The difference between East and West lies, of course, not in the difference of races, but rather in different approaches to things, which have developed on the basis of both dissimilar living conditions and a variety of prejudices. seems impossible to break through this wall of prejudices and established ideas, but if you try to do this, it is no more difficult than sticking to old beliefs . At first glance, it
Today, when talk about the gap between the West and the East, mainly Muslim, is again becoming fashionable among politicians, the thoughts of Yuri Roerich seem highly relevant. Orientalist scholars can undoubtedly make a significant contribution to overcoming the emerging confrontation. In any case, the widespread publication of materials from the Congress of Orientalists, held last summer in Moscow, would certainly contribute to the elimination of many “prejudices.”
The International Congress of Asian and North African Studies (ICANAS-37) was held from August 16 to 21, 2004 under the chairmanship of the famous Indologist, director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Rostislav Rybakov. About 1,600 scientists from all over the world took part in the congress - primarily Russia and the CIS countries, as well as India, China, Japan, Iran, Turkey, Arab countries, Western Europe and the USA.
“A new stage in Orientalism is a universal synthesis that, meeting the requirements of modern science, would reflect the historical development of the countries of the East as a whole,” dreamed Yuri Roerich. - A multi-colored string of peoples would unfold before our eyes; one after another, those nations would follow in it, which only yesterday lived only in the memory of their great past” [3] . The Moscow forum clearly showed that such a synthesis is really taking place and the contribution of Eastern scientists themselves to the development of Oriental studies is becoming increasingly noticeable. Oriental studies, which originated in Western countries, are becoming universal.
The congress program was extremely diverse. Within its framework there were sections of history, philosophy, religion, literature, languages and economics of the peoples of the East. Along with the traditional sections of Islamic studies, Buddhist studies, history and culture of the Ottoman Empire, India, China, and Japan, there were sections devoted to new directions in Oriental studies: political science, demography, gender studies, and the use of information technology in Oriental studies.
Some scientists question the usefulness of such broad forums and believe that it is more useful to hold seminars on specific problems or specialized conferences. It seems, however, that such a combination of numerous symposia in various branches of science gives a great cumulative effect. In the course of broad scientific discussions, some common approaches are identified, ideas about general trends and prospects in the development of science are formed, at the same time, young scientists get the opportunity to listen to leading scientists from different countries (master classes for young scientists were specially organized within the framework of the Moscow Congress). When holding such large-scale international conferences, organizers rarely manage to avoid some confusion in the program and a mixture of styles. The Congress of Orientalists in Moscow was no exception in this sense, but these shortcomings were compensated for by the fruitfulness of informal, scientific communication.
Of course, within the framework of a journal publication it is impossible to give any complete overview of the reports made at the congress. We have chosen a different path and decide to offer our readers two reports that most characteristically reflect the leading trend towards Roerich synthesis.
Moscow scientist R. G. Landa, having traced the historical interaction of the Christian and Islamic worlds in the Mediterranean in a long historical perspective, comes to the conclusion that the history of the Mediterranean provides “very convincing evidence of the possibility of overcoming the seemingly impenetrable barriers between races, religions and spiritual worlds,” in particularly between Islam and Christianity [4] .
The report of the Japanese researcher Shin Nomoto is devoted to the analysis of Ismaili Christology. Ismailism is one of the most prominent branches of Shiite Islam. This is a teaching within the framework of which many approaches of traditional Islam were significantly reformed and which, because of this, can be somewhat likened to Christian Protestantism. In the twentieth century, Ismailism learned a lot from the West and largely Westernized its education system, but at the same time it still relies on the positive experience of its classics. Modern Ismailis are characterized by tolerance and a benevolent acceptance of pluralism of opinions.
Based on a study of the work of the medieval thinker Abu Hatim al-Razi, whose writings are one of the most important doctrinal sources of Ismailism, the Japanese researcher shows how different the views of Muslim thinkers on key theological issues can be and what significance the image of Jesus Christ and the circumstances of his crucifixion had for the formation eschatological ideas about the Day of Judgment.
[1] Yuri Nikolaevich Roerich (1902–1960), son of Nicholas Roerich, participant in expeditions in India, Mongolia, China and Tibet, a major Tibetologist, in the last years of his life he worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow.
[2] Cited by: Roerich Yu. Tibet and Central Asia (article, lecture, translation). Samara: Agni, 1999. C. 13–14.
[3] Ibid. P. 18.
[4] International Congress of Orientalists: Theses. Moscow, 2004. T. 3. P. 860.