This paper restores the historical context of Milindapañha . The text is unique, because it is one of the very few documents of Ancient India, in which one of the authors is considered a Greek ( yavana ) as a participant in the dialog. To reconstruct the context of the book, the basic archeological data about the Indo-Greek Kingdom, including epigraphics, are summed up, as well as there are analyzed some references to the kingdom given in the Mahāvaṃsa , the earliest chronicle of Sri Lanka. These mentions in the Mahāvaṃsa are matched with the numismatics of Ceylon. From this analysis it is concluded that the document of Milindapañha was most likely created in Gāndhārī in the interval from the beginning of the 1st century B.C. to the end of the 1st century A.D., i.e. during the period of the domination of the syncretic culture of the North of India, combining Buddhism with certain elements of Hellenism. The treatise of Milindapañha was then preserved in Sri Lanka's tradition by continuing good political contacts with the Roman Empire after 400 A.D., that is, after the collapse of the Kushan and the Western Kshatrapas, the last dynasties that had previously preserved elements of Hellenism in the Indian subcontinent. The philosophical meaning of the treatise is then considered and it is concluded that in the text we can find direct references to the proto-Nyāya with the requirement to verify premises by examples. But the logical teaching of Milindapañha is far more archaic than the teaching of Nyāyasūtra , because only two sources ( pramāṇa ) of true knowledge are implicitly used: paccakkha (“obvious”) and anumāna (“inference”), and instead of the two verification methods called udāhārana and upamā , only one verification method called opamma is offered.

The subject of the paper is the moral aspect of interpretations of dejectedness (daurmanasya) and insanity (cittavikṣepa-unmāda) in the treatises Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya by Vasubandhu (4-5th centuries) and Sphuṭārtha-abhidharmakośa-vyākhyā by Yaśomitra (8th century). Buddhist interpretation of these phenomena is based on the canonical postulate that only corporeal suffering is a karmic retribution (vipāka-phala). Dejectedness is treated by Buddhist exegetics as a peculiar trait of imagination (kalpanā) manifesting in the moment of mental construction of evil projective situations. Dejectedness can be good (kuśala) and evil (akuśala) dependent on personal moral position. Good dejectedness is repentance (kaukṛtya) for an undone good deed or sin done. Opposite to it is evil dejectedness. Insanity is treated as destruction of predicative (abhinirūpana) and mnestic (anusmaraṇa) functions of consciousness. This mental suffering is determined by karma in cases when attempts to destroy other’s consciousness had place in the past. Karmic retribution in these cases is corporeal suffering, or disbalance of gross elements, and insanity is the consequence of this disbalance.

Public interest in the legacy of Russian religious philosophy, and above all in the legacy of V. S. Solovyov, reached its peak at the turn of the 1990s, after which it declined. As indirect evidence of this, we can note the remaining unrealized idea of installing a monument to the philosopher, slowing down the pace of work on the release of a complete collection of his works, and reducing the number of works dedicated to him. The year of the centenary since the death of Solovyov (2000) was symptomatic, when the authoritative representatives of the Russian philosophical community, S.S. Khoruzhiy and P.P. Gaidenko made an ambiguous assessment of Solovyov's ideological heritage and its significance for the subsequent development of Russian socio-philosophical and religious-theological thought. In the article the statement that the genealogy of the critical interpretation of Solovyov's legacy goes back to the works of the philosopher and theologian G.V. Florovsky is substantiated. Florovsky influence in Russian studies, as well as in post-Soviet Russia in general is difficult to overestimate. In this regard, the author draws attention to the ideological evolution of Florovsky, which gives the key to his interpretation of Solovyov's philosophy. The analysis showed that Florovsky's critical reinterpretation of Solovyov's legacy had both a theoretical, theological, and doctrinal character, and was caused by certain socio-psychological factors related to the generational conflict between representatives and heirs of the Russian religious and philosophical Renaissance of the early XX century. It is demonstrated that the reception of Solovyov by Florovsky was very significant, influential and archetypal for Russian religious and philosophical thought, both in Russia and abroad.

The article’s intention is to construct a possible minimal response to violence, that is, to describe what would be justified (necessary or legitimate) “ противонасилие ” (counter-violence). This argument is built on reviving several important philosophical texts in Russian of the first half of the twentieth century as well as on going beyond that historical moment. Starting with the reconstruction of Tolstoy’s criticism of any use of violence, it is then shown that, paradoxically, resistance to Tolstoy’s or ‘pseudo’-Tolstoy’s teachings ends up incorporating Tolstoy’s thematization of counter-violence into various theories, which sought to legitimate the use of force. In particular, Tolstoy’s discovery of a force, which, on the one hand, is not grounded in violence and, on the other hand, which is capable of countering violence, becomes fundamental in reasoning about the just use of force. The connection is made between Tolstoy and Petar II Petrović Njegoš, who also thematizes the use of force in Christian perspective. In his view, justice, “blessed by the Creator’s hand,” has the capacity to protect from violent force. Any living thing defends itself from what endangers it by means Creator bestowed it with. Living force and protective use of force are conceptually linked in Njegoš’s reasoning. Thus, only protective force can defeat aggressive force. This is shown to be Njegoš’s contribution to the Orthodox Christian discourse on violence. If a force can be counter-violent, the next step in our argument would be to search for a protocol that should have universal validity, that is, it has to be valid for all conflicting sides, The protocol of counter-violence requires that, firstly, it is a response to violence; secondly, it interrupts violence and forestalls any possible future violence (it is the ‘last’ violence); thirdly, it is subject to verification, it addresses those who are a priori against any response to violence (which usually refers to various forms of “Tolstoyism”). Finally, it is shown that state power does not create law, but it is being right that makes law or gives life to social order, and thereby can authorize the use of force. This is the innovation in the histories of justification of force, absent in the West. Aggressive violence can necessarily be opposed only in the way that implies the possibility of constituting law and order.

The article discusses the process of switching temporal regimes in Soviet culture at the turn of the 1920s - and during the 1930s on the material of architecture. The concepts of time in constructivism and neoclassicism are compared since the struggle between them determined the main vectors of artistic development in the reconstruction period. The author analyzes the discourse of the official position in relation to the main trends in the development of architecture in the context of the periodization of socialist construction and elicits the reasons for supporting the reference to the classical heritage. The change of political agenda (the transition from dismantling the old order and the rectification of the consequences of the collapse of the social fabric as a way to build a new social order) set new requirements for architecture as the most important way of social representation. The new society - socialism - was interpreted in constructivism, which was the leading direction of 1920s architecture, in the modus of the future. In the neoclassicism of the 1930s, socialism was placed in the modus of the present. Constructivism was aimed at the pragmatics of restoring social fabric and solving current problems (mass housing, a new social infrastructure), as well as at constructing a future society and human. At the end of the first five-year plan, the authorities set other goals for culture in general and architecture in particular: the representation of achievements and the expression of the greatness of socialist construction. Neoclassicism was called upon to perpetuate the present state of affairs in the modus of real perfection and superiority of Soviet socialism over any other formats of social life. Between the time of creation (constructivism) and the time of completion (neoclassicism), there is formed a gap that must be hidden. As a way of hiding the temporal gap were chosen classical principles of form-making and examples of the Renaissance and Russian classicism, that were designed to convincingly demonstrate, on the one hand, the possibility of accelerating and compressing time, the swiftness of achieving the ideal, and on the other hand, tp depreciate innovations, make the idea of the movement of time into the future unnecessary. The theory of the leading neoclassicist I. Zholtovsky is discussed as an alternative to the utopian interpretation of time in constructivism, as materializing the mythological time, in which the source and end of creation are given simultaneously in the modus of eternity.

The article is dedicated to considering ethnic tourism in its importance to comprehend modern cultures that are Others to the traveler's experience. In this regard, ethnic tourism is presented from the Other's cognition, i.e., the way of life of a nation, its religious and ethnic values and traditions, historical past and legends, and geographical specificity of residence. Thus, the meaning of ethnic tourism is related to the human desire to discover other cultural and social spaces. Simultaneously, the article shows how another culture's perception affects the awareness of a tourist's identity. The author notes that ethnic tourism aims at fixing the distinctive features and specifics of people's life. Therefore, this type of tourism is most conducive to forming images and perceptions of ethnic and cultural diversity. The author substantiates the role of ethnic tourism to establish a dialogue of cultures in the modern world. Distinctive features of globalization, particularly travelers' continuous mobility, the conversation of ethnic groups, and the value-based mutual enrichment of peoples, have been deduced. Some theoretical approaches of Russian philosophers to the study of ethnic tourism are defined. The researcher emphasizes the idea of a correlation between ethnic cultures and religions. In this regard, early Christianity's theological ideas are conditioned in terms of their impact on the subsequent formation of pilgrimages and the modern religious tourism organization. The contemporary unity of ethnic culture and religiosity is vividly manifested in the uniqueness of the Old Believers' tradition of the Kerzhak resettlers living in the Altai Mountains. The article concludes that ethnicity should be acknowledged in any tourism organization, especially religious and pilgrimage types.