The Reception of the Yijing in the Context of Russian Orthodox Theology: A Dialectical Reconstruction of Alienation and Agreement

Abstract

The Book of Changes (Yijing), as a foundational classic of Chinese thought, has been received within the framework of Russian Orthodox theology through a distinctive process of dialectical reconstruction, characterized by both alienation and agreement. This study examines how Russian scholars have translated and interpreted the Yijing, seeking to integrate its impersonal cosmological philosophy into a religious system centered on a personal God. It argues that the religious and philosophical orientations of Russian Yijing studies operate in a dialectical mode: on the one hand, translators employ strategies of alienation to recast the Yijing’s impersonal cosmology as moral or phenomenological notions; on the other hand, through strategies of agreement, they embed its core concepts within the Orthodox theological context, thereby endowing them with renewed universality and practical relevance. By combining textual analysis with philosophical interpretation, the research reveals how the Yijing has been reshaped in Russian cultural and religious contexts. It demonstrates that the transmission of non-Western classics in specific religious environments is not a one-way cultural export, but a dialogical process with local traditions that generates new intellectual forms, thereby offering a valuable case study for cross-cultural religious dialog.

1. Introduction

The Book of Changes (Yijing), as one of the most important classics of ancient China, has attracted attention in Europe since the seventeenth century as a key object for comparative studies in philosophy, religion, and culture (Lee 2020, p. 73). Its distinctive system of hexagrams and lines, centered on the concept of Dao 道, offers Western scholars opportunities for cross-cultural understanding and philosophical reflection. Russia, as a country blending eastern and Western cultural features, exhibits a unique philosophical and religious approach to the study of the Yijing. With its deep-rooted Orthodox theological tradition and the mystical currents represented by the Sophia doctrine during the Silver Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia provides a distinctive cultural context for the reception of the Yijing. Unlike other Western countries, which often focus on psychological or rationalist interpretations (Ma 2005; Heyong et al. 2006; Lai 2022), Russian scholars demonstrate a complex tendency to preserve the philosophical core of the Yijing while adapting it to a religious-theological framework. This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the philosophical orientation of Russian Yijing studies and to explore how the text acquires renewed cultural vitality in the context of Russian Orthodox theology through a dialectical process of alienation and agreement.

The Western reception of Yijing began in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The Figurists, represented by French Jesuits, were inspired by the idea of prisca theologia, or ancient theology, believing that Christian truths had pervaded human civilization since antiquity and that Chinese culture, including the Yijing, bore traces of divine revelation. Scholars such as Blanc, Fu Shengze, and Guo Zhongchuan sought, through linguistic, philosophical, and religious comparison, to demonstrate deep connections between Chinese civilization and the biblical tradition, even identifying Fuxi as a descendant of Noah and the eight trigrams as symbols of divine revelation (H. Wang 2015, p. 38). By the late nineteenth century, scholars like John Tze-pang Lai and McClatchie approached the Yijing from a cross-cultural comparative perspective, attempting either to interpret it within a Christian theological framework or to trace its origins to Babylonian civilization. McClatchie particularly emphasized the striking similarities among different mythological systems, providing an important model for mythologized readings of the Yijing within a Christian context. This historical trajectory shows that early Western studies regarded the Yijing both as a pagan legacy and as a source of universal revelation (Ng 2021, p. 3). However, while Western intellectual traditions tend to separate divination from philosophy, in China these domains are almost indistinguishable (Shchutskii 1979, pp. xxii–xxiii). This distinction meant that the Yijing’s reception in the West often involved philosophical or theological reconstruction. Russian studies of the Yijing further integrated it into the unique context of Orthodox theology and the mystical currents of the Silver Age. Since the late twentieth century, under the renewed interest in Sinology, Russian scholars have engaged with the Yijing through translation and research, embedding its philosophical significance into the Russian cultural sphere and combining it with Orthodox theology and the Sophia doctrine, thus forming a distinctive mode of interpretation (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993; Yakovlev 1998; Vinogrodskii 1999; Eremeev 2005; Luk’yanov 2018).

This study aims to analyze the overall religious and philosophical orientation of Yijing studies and to explore how this orientation, within the context of Russian Orthodox theology, facilitates the alienation and agreement of the Yijing through translation and scholarly interpretation. The religious and philosophical tendencies in Russian Yijing research are key to understanding how the text is reconstructed in the Russian context. These tendencies operate dialectically: on the one hand, through strategies of alienation, concepts in the Yijing that directly conflict with Orthodox doctrine are isolated and transformed; on the other hand, through strategies of agreement, they resonate deeply with indigenous Russian religious and philosophical thought. To this end, the study employs a combination of textual analysis and philosophical interpretation, focusing on Russian translations and scholarly research on the Yijing to examine concept selection, transformation, and intellectual reconstruction. The study’s academic significance lies in its systematic investigation of the reception of the Yijing within Russian Orthodox theological contexts. It not only provides a new case for cross-cultural religious dialog and comparative theology, revealing the complex reconstruction of non-Western classics in specific religious settings, but also deepens understanding of the Yijing’s multifaceted meanings and demonstrates how it acquires new philosophical and religious significance across cultural contexts. Finally, by analyzing the dialectical process of alienation and agreement, this study offers an insightful framework for broader cross-cultural research.

2. Differences Between the Yijing and the Religious Conceptions of Russian Orthodoxy

2.1. Central Tenets of Orthodox Theology

“The doctrine of the Trinity is the primary doctrine of the Christian faith”, regarded as a fundamental truth concerning the mystery of God’s being (Giles 2012, p. 12). This doctrine affirms that the Father, the Son (Logos), and the Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases, while sharing one ousia and divine attributes, constituting the one true God (Van Leeuwen 2022, p. 2). Although the term Trinity does not appear in the New Testament, its conceptual underpinnings are deeply embedded in biblical revelation. For example, Matthew 28:19, which commands believers to “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, is considered powerful evidence for three persons sharing the single name of God, as name is in the singular. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where the Father’s voice spoke from heaven and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, also presents a miraculous manifestation of the three persons simultaneously.

Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky articulated the position of the monarchy of the Father, positing the Father as the sole source of the Godhead. Building on this, John Meyendorff, in his analysis of the roots of the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, pointed out that treating the Son as a source of the Holy Spirit’s procession would obscure the clarity of personal distinctions and order. Consequently, Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes the eternal, internal order and perichoresis of the Trinity, which signifies the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the three persons within the one divine essence (Lossky [1957] 1991; Meyendorff 2024). This mystery is not only the cornerstone of revealed theology but also provides the ontological premise for understanding the relationship between God and humanity: the possibility of a human relationship with God is founded entirely upon God’s sovereign self-revelation and personal grace.

The theological vision of Eastern Orthodoxy unfolds from the immanent truth of the Trinity to the economy (oikonomia) of salvation history, at the heart of which lies the doctrine of the Incarnation. The Son, as the Logos, took on human flesh in history, becoming fully God and fully man, thereby achieving in his own person (hypostasis) the union of the divine and the human. This mystery transcends human reason, overturning the state of separation between God and humanity and thus making salvation possible. The two natures of Christ, divine and human, are regarded as the medium and bridge of the divine-human relationship: His divinity unites Him with the transcendent God, while His humanity embraces fallen mankind, thereby enabling human beings to be restored to union with God in Christ. Orthodox soteriology is concerned not merely with the forgiveness of sins but has as its ultimate goal deification (theosis). This signifies that while humans cannot become God in His essence, they can, through divine grace, participate in God’s “uncreated energies” and share in the divine life. In this, Eastern Orthodoxy places a special emphasis on the essence–energies distinction: God’s essence is unknowable and unparticipable, whereas His energies permeate creation and allow for a real participation in the divine. This doctrine safeguards the absolute distinction between the Creator and the creature, while simultaneously guaranteeing the real possibility of humanity’s union with God (Bondareva 2011, p. 17).

Therefore, the theological system of Eastern Orthodoxy begins with the immanent mystery of the Trinity as its logical starting point, proceeds through the historical event of the incarnation as its central link, and aims for deification as the goal of salvation. This creates a theological framework that integrates cosmology, ontology, and spiritual practice. The Trinity reveals the interpersonal communion of the divine persons, the Incarnation establishes the bridge between the divine and the human, and theosis points to the ultimate transformation of humanity. This coherent logic of faith not only establishes the distinctiveness of Orthodox theology but also provides a solid religious background for a cross-cultural comparison with the philosophy of the Yijing, particularly its concepts of the heaven-human relationship and its triadic cosmology.

2.2. The Cosmic Dao in the Philosophy of the Yijing

As a foundational text of ancient Chinese thought, the Yijing establishes its philosophical system upon the observation and deduction of the generation and transformation of all things in the cosmos, rather than on faith in a deity. The Yizhuan (Commentaries on the Changes) states unequivocally at the outset: “One yin and one yang is what is called the Dao”. This reveals that the fundamental principle of the universe lies in the dialectical unity of yin and yang and their unremitting, dynamic balance. In this context, the Dao is neither a personal God nor the manifestation of an external will; rather, it is the generative principle and ultimate order immanent within heaven, earth, and all things—the intrinsic law of the vital, self-generating movement of the cosmos (G. Li 2023, p. 3). This Dao is characterized by its impersonality and self-manifesting nature. Its essential features are “Weibiansuoshi” 唯变所适 and “Rixin” 日新, reflecting the internal logic of ceaseless transformation and cyclical recurrence in the universe. The evolutionary model where “the taiji generates the liangyi (two polarities), liangyi generates sixiang (four phases), and sixiang bears bagua (eight trigrams)”, symbolizes a generative sequence from unity to multiplicity and from simplicity to complexity. This model constitutes the holistic and generative framework fundamental to Chinese thought.

Unlike Western theology, which emphasizes the ontological separation between the creator and the created, the Yizhuan endows Tian 天 with a dual meaning. First, it refers to Tian as the natural order, encompassing the cosmos and its universal laws. Second, t designates Tian as the source of moral value, from which principles of human morality are derived. As stated in the Xicizhuan I: “That which is above forms is called Dao 道, that which is below forms is called Qi 器” (Chen and Zhao 2005, p. 643). The Dao is manifested through the concrete forms of all things, creating a philosophical structure wherein the Dao and Qi interpenetrate each other. This perspective dissolves the dualistic opposition between the metaphysical and the physical, transcendence and immanence. The Dao is simultaneously the formless origin and the perceptible, real order that permeates nature, society, and the human mind.

The cosmos is viewed as a vitalistic whole animated by the flowing transformation of Qi and the interaction of yin and yang. Human beings are not external observers of this world but active participants in its order. Through symbolic-numerological deduction and ethical self-cultivation, individuals can “emulate heaven and earth”, internalizing the way of tian as a norm for self-cultivation and thereby achieving a harmonious unity with the cosmic order. This conceptual framework endows the Yijing with both religious and rational characteristics: it is concerned with ultimate meaning, yet it does not appeal to revealed faith, relying instead on empirical observation, divination through trigrams and hexagrams, and philosophical speculation.

This concept of an impersonal cosmic Dao determines the relational paradigm between humanity and the Dao in the philosophy of the Yijing. Unlike the Eastern Orthodox Logos, which is personal (hypostatic) and actively enters history through the incarnation to establish a redemptive relationship, the Dao in the Yijing possesses no personal will. Consequently, humans cannot establish a direct, intimate relationship with it through emotion or faith. The Dao is akin to the laws of nature’s operation, its authority lies in its spontaneity, and one can only achieve harmony with it through conformity and practice. Dedao 得道 (attaining the Dao) does not signify the reception of divine grace or favor, but rather the profound alignment of one’s actions with the cosmic order. This relationship underscores the integration of cosmology and ethics: Tiandao 天道 (way of heaven) is not only the law governing the natural world but also the foundation of normative values. Morality and the cosmic order are mutually isomorphic, and human well-being and destiny depend on whether one adheres to the intrinsic logic of the universe (Li and Ma 2016, p. 27).

Within this philosophical system, the Sancaizhidao 三才之道 (Dao of the three powers) holds a pivotal significance. As Chen (2015) points out, the Yijing posits that “Heaven 天, Earth 地, and Humanity 人 are called the three powers”, which together constitute the complete structure of the cosmos. The concept of the “unity of Heaven and Humanity” does not refer to the elevation of human nature to divinity. Rather, it signifies the integration of the Dao of Humanity with the Dao of Heaven through self-cultivation and moral practice, thereby reaching the state of merging one’s virtue with that of Heaven and Earth. The Yijing emphasizes that “the Way established for humanity is called benevolence and righteousness”, positioning the human being as the pivot of the cosmic order, whose subjectivity is manifested through moral cultivation. Consequently, individuals can gain insight into the essence of the cosmic order from within their own minds and hearts, becoming active participants who assist in the transforming and nourishing processes of Heaven and Earth.

In summary, the cosmological philosophy of the Yijing, with the Dao as its core category, reveals the intrinsic logic of cosmic generation and transformation. It establishes a holistic worldview characterized by the interpenetration of the metaphysical and the physical, and the isomorphism of the cosmos and ethics. In contrast to Eastern Orthodox theology, which emphasizes revelation, a personal God, and a path of salvation, the philosophy of the Yijing underscores a self-manifesting order and the active participation of humanity, thereby forming a system that integrates rational deduction with moral practice. This divergence not only reflects a fundamental schism between Chinese and Western religious philosophies concerning the concept of the sacred but also provides a solid intellectual foundation for a comparative study of the Dao and the Logos.

2.3. A Multi-Dimensional Comparison of the Dao in the Yijing and the Logos in Eastern Orthodoxy

In the context of cross-cultural philosophical dialog, a comparison between the religious worldview embodied in the Yijing and that of Eastern Orthodoxy holds profound intellectual grounding and contemporary significance. Eastern Orthodox theology is centered on the one true God, emphasizing the Triune God as the Creator and ultimate destiny of all things. The relationship between God and humanity is defined as that of a father and child, where human beings acquire dignity and the immortality of the soul by virtue of being created by God (Kraynak 2008). Within this theological framework, the cosmic order is a manifestation of divine will, and religious practice, through sacraments and prayer, provides the path toward union with God. In contrast, the traditional Chinese religious philosophy conveyed by the Yijing is founded on the principle of the unity of Heaven and humanity, viewing humanity, nature, and the cosmos as an internally coherent, reciprocally resonant, and co-generating whole. Its concept of the Dao emphasizes the universe’s self-generating and self-transforming nature, driven by the harmony of yin and yang (C. Li 2014, p. 6).

The structure of the Yijing also presents a formal dialog with the tradition of Orthodox theology. Its two primary sections (the upper and lower classics) and the later-formed Shiyi 十翼 (Ten Wings) show an analogy to the old and new testaments of the Bible in terms of canonical periodization and interpretive systems. Furthermore, the Bagua 八卦 and the Taiji 太极 diagram embody a symbolic meaning of universal order, which has a cross-cultural resonance with the symbolic expressions of the one true God in Orthodox theology (Yu 1989, pp. 162–65). Therefore, a comparative study of the religious philosophies of the Yijing and Eastern Orthodoxy is not a strained analogy but is built upon deep correspondences in their respective interpretations of the divine-human and Heaven-human relationships, as well as their ontological and methodological frameworks.

Dao and Logos represent two core categories in the Chinese and Western religious-philosophical traditions, respectively. They serve as the foundation of their cosmologies and function as crucial concepts for interpreting the meaning of the world and human existence within their respective intellectual systems. From a philosophical standpoint, the Dao in the Yijing emphasizes the spontaneity and holism of cosmic generation and transformation, functioning as a principle of order that is both prior to and immanent within all things (Oppy and Trakakis 2017, p. 6). The statement in the Yizhuan “that which is above forms is called Dao, that which is below forms is called Qi” indicates that the Dao is both the ultimate origin of the universe and the very law and logic governing the operation of things. In comparison, the Logos in Christian theology possesses a revelatory nature. It originates from the classic statement in the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The concept gradually synthesized the rationalist context of Greek philosophy with biblical theology to become the medium of God’s self-revelation and creation of the world (Johnson 2002, p. 98). The Logos is not merely a symbol of divine reason and order; it also assumes a personal nature and a redemptive function within the Christological doctrine of the Incarnation.

From an ontological dimension, the Dao is a self-generating and self-transforming natural law that does not rely on an external will. The Logos, in contrast, is rooted in the transcendence of God, representing a rational order that flows from the divine to the world; the existence and operation of the universe are ultimately dependent upon God’s will. In the construction of a worldview, the Dao points to a decentralized, internally balanced conception of order that emphasizes the harmonious co-existence of humanity and nature. The Logos, however, underscores the ontological separation between the Creator and the created, reflecting a logic of transcendence and dependence in the divine-human relationship (Xin and Hao 2025; Barnard 1970).

From a methodological and practical dimension, the mode of thinking associated with the Dao is dialectical and holistic, emphasizing balance within change and the wisdom of acting in accordance with the timeliness of the moment. This thought is embodied in the symbolic-numerological system of the Yijing’s hexagrams and line statements, which constitutes a method of interpreting the cosmos through analogy, observation of phenomena, and deduction (Song 2012, p. 21). The Logos, on the other hand, carries the tradition of ancient Greek logic and reason, regarded in Christian theology as the rational foundation of universal truth (N. Wang 1996, p. 122). Eastern Orthodox theology further incorporates a mystical dimension, making the Logos not only a symbol of rational truth but also a channel through which believers may perceive God in sacramental experience.

Therefore, the comparison between Dao and Logos reveals fundamental differences between Chinese and Western religious philosophies in their cosmology, ontology, and epistemology, while also highlighting a certain complementarity in their religious worldviews. The Dao emphasizes a natural, immanent, and self-consistent cosmic order, whereas the Logos underscores a revealed, transcendent, and personalized truth. This multi-dimensional comparison provides a conceptual bridge for the interpretation of the Yijing in a cross-cultural context. It allows the Yijing, when situated within the theological milieu of Russian Orthodoxy, to manifest a sense of alienation while also potentially seeking agreement within the tension between rationalism and mysticism.

3. Alienation and Agreement in Russian Yijing Studies

3.1. Alienation and Agreement in Conceptual Ontology

In the traditional commentarial history of the Yijing, Wang Bi represents a pivotal turn toward philosophical interpretation. He developed a purely philosophical and speculative Daoist hermeneutic, abstracting the Yijing from its divinatory practices to foreground the core concept of the Dao, which he elevated to a unified, fundamental, and universal logical concept (Petrov 1936, pp. 89–90). Influenced by Wang Bi’s thought, Russian scholars similarly detached the Yijing from its mantic origins and followed a rationalist path. Through their translation of specific lines—such as the second line of the Qian 乾 hexagram, “Jianlongzaitian, lijiandaren” (见龙在田，利见大人), and the third line of the Song 讼 hexagram, “Shijiude, zhenli, zhongji. Huocongwangshi, zhongji” (食旧德，贞厉，终吉。或从王事，无成)—they reconstructed its cosmology, revealing both alienation and agreement in its conceptual ontology.

Specifically, the second line of Qian depicts a model where the individual, by conforming to the Tiandao, aligns their virtue with the cosmic mandate and consequently receives benefits. This resonates strongly with the concept of divine grace or revelation in Eastern Orthodox theology. Conversely, the third line of Song reveals the inevitable failure resulting from a violation of the laws of the heavenly way. In this context, Wucheng无成 (achieving nothing) is the natural feedback of the cosmic order, which provides an interpretive basis for its alienation into the judgment and legalistic constraints of a personalized deity.

First, from an ontological perspective, the Long 龙 (dragon) in the second line of the Qian hexagram symbolizes the latent pure Yangqi 阳气 which moves from latency to manifestation, embodying a creative force. The Daren 大人 symbolizes a sage whose virtue is perfected and who is in union with the Dao. The Russian translation, “The appearing dragon is on the field [Poyavivshiysya drakon nakhoditsya na pole]”, emphasizes appearance and location, simplifying the dragon from a symbol of the masculine, generative power of the cosmos into a mere phenomenological state in time and space (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 228). A more significant alienation occurs in the association of the Daren with “the perfecting of one’s immortal nature [sovershenstvovanie svoei bessmertnoi prirody]”, which injects the Eastern Orthodox concept of the immortal soul. Through the interpretive lenses of conscience and faith, the Daren is thus alienated into a moral exemplar whose virtue is contingent upon the divine will of God (Vinogrodskii 1999, p. 31). Similarly, the phrase “Shijiude” (食旧德) in the Song hexagram originally refers to an individual’s generative moral practice of maintaining inner order through accumulated virtuous cultivation. However, Russian translations such as “Feed on what was acquired in the old days [Kormis’ ot obretennogo vstar’]”, which emphasizes static dependency, or “To taste from the old Potential-De [Vkushat’ ot staroy Potentsii-DE]”, alienate this concept into an external object to be passively consumed (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 228). This resonates with the Eastern Orthodox tradition’s emphasis on the human will’s dependence on divine grace. This form of alienation weakens the ontological immanence of De 德 as a spontaneous cosmic order and instead heightens a sense of moral crisis and the religious atmosphere of Zhenli 贞厉 (danger in perseverance).

At the level of agreement in conceptual ontology, these line statements can nevertheless be restored to a generative logic of the interaction between the individual and the cosmic order. Although Russian scholars of “Jianlongzaitian, lijiandaren” use expressions like “favorable [blagopriyatno]” or “beneficial [polezno]”, which may seem utilitarian, the Li 利 (benefit) here in fact points to the intrinsic value of conforming to the Dao, rather than to external gain. The Daren is not merely a personified moral teacher but the very medium that connects the Tian 田 (field, an image of a nurturing ground) and the Long. This reflects a generative cycle from latency to manifestation, from individual cultivation to the cosmic order. This interpretation transcends the linguistic alienation, resonating with the ontological, cyclical logic that Tianxingjian 天行健 (Heaven’s movement is ever vigorous). Similarly, the phrase Zhongji 终吉 (ultimate good fortune) in the third line of the Song hexagram emphasizes that adhering to principles and moral self-discipline can lead to a final, harmonious outcome. The statement “Huocongwangshi, wucheng” 或从王事, 无成 highlights the need for the individual to relinquish personal ambition and submit to a higher order. This resonates strongly with the spiritual concepts of humility and submission to the divine will in Eastern Orthodoxy (Chirkov and Knorre 2015, p. 31). Translations such as “Perhaps follow the king in his affairs, but without doing it <for yourself> [Pozhaluy, sleduy za tsarem v delakh. Bez togo, chtoby sovershat’ <eto radi sebya>]” underscore the value of modesty and self-effacement (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 228). Other versions, like “Should one not enter the service of the Wang? There will be no success [Ne poyti li na sluzhbu k vanu? Ne budet uspekha]” and “If you have to serve the king, do not be willful [Yesli pridetsya posluzhit’ tsaryu, to ne samovol’nochay]”, also emphasize service to the collective order over individual success (Yakovlev 1998; Eremeev 2005).

3.2. Alienation and Agreement in the Dimensions of the Heaven-Humanity and God-Humanity Relationships

In a cross-cultural context, the concept of Tian or Heaven possess a high degree of complexity and polysemy. In ancient Turkic culture, what the Chinese call the Way (Dao, 道) was understood as path, destiny, and salvation, while in Mesopotamia, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam regarded heaven as the supreme dwelling or the higher power. This concept, in the Hebrew context of the Bible, is directly equated with God (Vinogrodskii 2024, p. 7). By contrast, the Tian of the Yijing is a synthesis of cosmic order, moral norms, and the way of life. When translating and interpreting the Yijing, Russian scholars situated concepts such as Youming 有命 (possessing a mandate/fate) and Tianyou 天佑 (the blessing/protection of heaven) within the framework of divine will from their Eastern Orthodox context, thereby infusing the will of a personalized deity into the translation. On the other hand, by employing theological terms like blessing and grace, they established a resonance between the Yijing’s worldview of cosmic order and the religious ethics and soteriological concepts of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The term Youming appears in the Yijing in both Shi 师 and Pi 否 hexagrams, its context in both instances strongly points to a political, anthropocentric interpretation. For example, the top sixth line of the Shi hexagram states: “Dajunyouming, kaiguochengjia, xiaorenwuyong” (大君有命，开国承家，小人勿用), which clearly assigns the subject of Ming 命 to the Dajun 大君 (ruler). Similarly, the fourth ninth line of Pi hexagram, “Youmingwujiu, choulizhi” (有命无咎，畴离祉), is interpreted by the Song Neo-Confucian scholar Cheng Yi 程頤 as follows: “Jujinjunzhiwei…Jiechuyujunming” (居近君之位…皆出于君命), emphasizing that this is a command originating from the ruler (Cheng 2011, p. 72).

However, the broad polysemy of the Ming itself in Chinese philosophy, signifying both a concrete “command” and an abstract “destiny” or “mandate of Heaven” (Tianming 天命), provides the necessary interpretive space for cross-cultural translation. Russian scholars, in their translations, precisely exploited this ambiguity. Despite knowing that such a translation might not fully align with the original meaning, they still intentionally performed this semantic transformation to serve the needs of their own philosophical and religious context. For instance, Vinogrodskii in his annotation on Youming translated it as “presence of destiny [nalichie sud’by]”, and then supplements this by adding: “It can also be translated as ‘possession of the ruler’s decree [Nalichie ukaza provitelia]’” (Vinogrodskii 1999, p. 98).

Despite their explicit awareness of the “ruler’s command” (Junming, 君命) interpretation, Russian scholars predominantly avoided this immediate political connotation within the textual context, emphasizing instead the abstract philosophical dimension of Ming. This is because the abstract concept of “endowment” or “givenness” provided a crucial philosophical entry point that was far more compatible with their theocentric worldview than the concept of the ruler’s command (Zhu 2019, p. 30). Russian scholars translated and alienated it into the concept of divine will within the framework of Orthodox theology—a concept that cannot be easily mapped onto the purely political, human-centric ruler’s command. This maneuver thereby established a semantic correspondence between the Yijing and the Orthodox theological category of divine judgment. In contrast, the phrase “Zitianyouzhi” (自天佑之) in the top line of the Dayou 大有 hexagram focuses on a spontaneous assistance and support that arises naturally from the harmony between a person’s virtuous conduct and the cosmic laws. This represents a relationship of active agreement, where an individual, by synchronizing their own actions with the way of heaven, naturally attains good fortune.

From the perspective of alienation, the reshaping of Youming in the Pi hexagram and Zitianyouzhi in the Dayou hexagram—as a naturally arising assistance due to the harmony of virtue with the Heavenly Way—are reshaped into the Eastern Orthodox concepts of divine will and judgment. This transformation is rooted in the Orthodox theological understanding of the relationship between God and Humanity: God is viewed as the sole Creator and Lord of history, whose divine will is the ultimate order permeating the cosmos and human life, while judgment serves as the moral evaluation and eschatological verdict on humanity’s submission or resistance to that will. In the fourth line of the Pi hexagram, the Russian translation “There will be a command from above—there will be no blame [Budet velenie svyshe—khuly ne budet]” alienates the original expression Youming. The key phrase “a command from above [velenie svyshe]”, effectively transforms Youming into Tianming, equating it with the divine will of God. In this context, resistance to this will leads to spiritual condemnation or “balme [khuly]” (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 254). Yakovlev’s translation, “Perseverance is dangerous [Postoyanstvo opasno]”, reinforces this theological reading: stubborn self-will signifies a refusal to submit to god’s will, thereby leading to a crisis of the soul and estrangement from god.

In stark contrast to this is the phrase Zitianyouzhi in the top line of the Dayou hexagram, which originally signifies an impersonal and naturalistic heaven-humanity relationship. The Tianyou is a natural consequence of a state of harmony between morality and the cosmos, not an intentionally bestowed reward. However, Russian scholars have widely adopted phrases such as “From heaven, a blessing [Ot neba blagoslovenie]” (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 254), “From heaven’s goodwill [S Nebes blagovoleniye]” (Vinogrodskii 1999, p. 107), or “From heaven, a blessing upon this [Ot neba blagoslovenie etomu]” (Luk’yanov 2018, p. 100). Through core Eastern Orthodox vocabulary like “blessing [blagoslovenie]” and “goodwill [blagovoleniye]”, they personify the impersonal heaven into a grace-bestowing god. This translational strategy not only reflects the characteristics of a theology of grace—wherein god’s favor originates from divine will rather than human utilitarian claims (Wawrykow 1996)—but also integrates the moral order of Chinese philosophy into an Eastern Orthodox soteriological framework. Some translators achieve this alienation through even stronger personification, using phrases like “Help from heaven [Ot Neba pomoshch’]” or “Heaven itself helps this [Samo Nebo pomogayet etomu]”. By using “help [pomoshch]” and the emphatic adverb “itself [samo]”, they explicitly ascribe active agency and personality to heaven, making it congruent with the image of god the father in Eastern Orthodoxy (Yakovlev 1998; Eremeev 2005).

From the perspective of agreement, these translations integrate individual actions into the system of an Eastern Orthodox ethics of grace by emphasizing conformity to Youming and Tianyou. This ethics of grace, as understood in Orthodoxy, posits that humans cannot achieve self-salvation through moral acts alone but require submission to the divine will and the reception of the grace of the Holy Spirit for redemption; moral practice is thus seen as the manifestation of grace in the soul (McCann 2016). Consequently, in the fourth line of the Pi hexagram, a translation like “The presence of fate. The absence of troubles in adhering to those like oneself—a blessing [Nalichiye sud’by. Otsutstviye nepriyatnostey v primykanii k podobnym sebe—blagoslovenie]” transforms the connection between submission and morality into an Orthodox ethics of communion through the terms “adherence [primykanie]” and “blessing [blagoslovenie]”, highlighting the communal grace that results from submitting to the divine will (Vinogrodskii 1999, p. 97). Similarly, “The voice of fate, there will be no trouble, and well-being will descend upon the like-minded [Sud’by glas, bedy ne budet, i na yedinomyshlennikov nispadyot blagopoluchiye]” interprets Youming as a divine calling. The compliant individual not only finds personal peace but also, through the communal nature of “well-being [blagopoluchiye]”, reflects the spirit of the Church as a community of salvation (Luk’yanov 2018, p. 92). The phrase “Jiwubuli” 吉无不利 (auspicious, nothing is unfavorable) from the Dayou hexagram is translated as “Happiness. Nothing unfavorable [Schast’ye. Nichego neblagopriyatnogo]” (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 254). “Happiness [Schast’ye]” reflects the goal of salvation of the soul in Orthodox theology, where redemption is not merely the forgiveness of sins but the soul’s return to god’s embrace and the realization of eternal communion with him (Murray 2015).

By situating Zitianyouzhi and Jiwubuli within the context of ecclesial soteriology, individual moral practice is endowed with a transcendent value, moving from an isolated self towards a harmonious resonance with the community, the cosmos, and god (Okoli 2024, pp. 43–44). Cross-cultural translation thus reveals a productive tension: through a deliberate theological reconstruction, it alienates the concept of the Youming in the Yijing, yet through a process of agreement, it reconciles the personalized divine will with a communal, grace-based moral practice. Ultimately, this process returns to the ontological, cyclical logic of the Yijing, demonstrating a creative unity in interpretation between different civilizations.

3.3. Alienation and Integration in the Methodological and Practical Dimensions

Russian scholarly interest in the Yijing stems more from its uniqueness as a system of cosmic wisdom that transcends the boundaries of time, space, and culture. As Maslennikov (2000) states, “The appeal of the Yijing is that it reflects not the creed of any particular religion or philosophical school, but the universally applicable laws that arise from nature. It is not tied to a national identity—it does not matter whether a person lived in China a thousand years ago or lives in Europe today; whether they are educated or not, or what religion they profess. The Yijing holds the same enlightening significance for all” (Maslennikov 2000, p. 10). This cross-cultural and trans-religious perspective leads Russian scholars, when translating the Yijing, to often focus on achieving a universalized expression at the methodological and practical levels.

In studies at this level, the translation of two specific lines—“Lüdaotantan, yourenzhenji” (履道坦坦，幽人贞吉) from the second line of the Lü 履 hexagram, and “Fameng, liyongxingren, yongshuozhigao” (发蒙，利用刑人，用说桎梏) from the first line of the Meng 蒙 hexagram—demonstrates the alienation and agreement in methodology and practice. The line from the Lü hexagram articulates an internal and gentle method of practice, the core of which lies in following a smooth and upright path to attain good fortune through inner cultivation and tranquility. In contrast, the line from the Meng hexagram proposes an external and forceful method of practice, namely, using Xingren 刑人 to enlighten the ignorant and break their bonds. The alienation of these two is manifested in the recasting of the Yijing’s impersonal methods of practice as Eastern Orthodox religious precepts. The agreement, however, is achieved by infusing them with the mysticism and sophiology of the Russian silver age, thereby reshaping their universal applicability.

In the process of alienation, the smooth practice of Lüdaotantan 履道坦坦 in the Lü hexagram and the enlightening education of Fameng 发蒙 in the Meng hexagram are stripped of their metaphysical connotations and transformed into moral norms. The phrase Lüdaotantan originally emphasizes achieving inner harmony by following a smooth and upright path through reclusion. However, in translations such as “Tread upon the path—evenly, evenly [Nastupay po puti—rovno, rovno]” or “Tread the smooth, smooth path. For the serene, perseverance is happiness [Stupay po rovnomu-rovnomu puti. Bezmyatezhnym postoyanstvo—schast’ye]”, the Dao is simplified into an Eastern Orthodox path of piety. It loses its holistic cosmology of yin-yang dynamics and is alienated into a form of external guidance (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993, p. 86; Luk’yanov 2018, p. 83).

Similarly, Fameng in the Meng hexagram originally guides awakening through Xingren and Yongshuozhigao 用说桎梏 (removing shackles). However, in translations like “Development of the underdeveloped [Razvitiye nedorazvitogo]” or “The application of punishments to people [Primeneniye kazney nad lyud’mi]”, Xingren is alienated into something akin to the Orthodox punishment of sin, drawing an analogy to theological practices such as confession, asceticism, and the purification of the soul (Shchutskii and Kobzev 1993; Low 1998). For instance, “It is useful to involve officials (in criminal matters) [Polezno privlekat’ chinovnikov (po ugolovnym delam)]” ossifies enlightenment into an administrative constraint, while “release the ignorant [Vypuskayut nesmyshlyonyishey]” suggests the risk of estrangement through mechanical execution. These alienations frame the dynamic practices of following the Dao and Fameng as static norms, leading to a dissociation of individual experience from the cosmic order (Yakovlev 1998, p. 233; Luk’yanov 2018, p. 60).

Ascetic ethics emphasizes the soul’s union with God through asceticism, contemplation, and self-restraint, while Sophiology posits that divine wisdom permeates the cosmos and human history, serving as the medium for the soul’s elevation (Deezia 2017; Solovyov 2009). Within this framework, agreement is achieved by integrating the practical methods of the Yijing with Eastern Orthodox ascetic ethics and Sophiology, thereby endowing them with a new cross-cultural vitality. The phrases Yourenzhenji 幽人贞吉 from the Lü hexagram are translated as “The path of conduct-behavior spreads out in the perseverance of the solitary person—happiness [Put’postupi-povedeniya stelitsya-stelitsya v vyderzhke uedinennogo cheloveka—schast’ye]”. This reinterprets the Youren 幽人 as a mystical guardian of the soul, resonating with the pursuit of Sophiological wisdom (Vinogrodskii 1999, p. 251). The Fameng from the Meng hexagram is rendered as “Developing the immature is useful; it is intended to punish people and intended to remove shackles [Razvitiye nezrelosti polezno. Prednaznacheno nakazaniye lyudey i prednaznacheno snimat’ okovy]”. Yongshuozhigao is reinterpreted as the liberation from the bonds of sin through confession and edification, which aligns with the Orthodox concept of spiritual liberation (Eremeev 2005). A further translation, “through withdrawal—regret [cherez ukhód—dosada]”, reveals how the alienated, mechanical execution of rules can, by being integrated into a mystical narrative of enlightenment, return to the original liberative intent of the Yijing (Vinogrodskii 1999, p. 57). The agreement in these two hexagrams, bridged by the reclusive perseverance of the Youren and the regulated liberation of Fameng, integrates individual practice into a cosmic whole. This harmonizes cultural differences and demonstrates the regenerative power of the Yijing in cross-cultural dialog.

4. Conclusions

As a classic of ancient Chinese philosophy, the reception of the Yijing’s cosmology, morality, and methodology within the context of Russian Orthodoxy reveals a complex dialectical process of alienation and agreement. By analyzing the translations and scholarly discourses of Russian scholars, this study demonstrates how their philosophical and religious orientations have reshaped the intellectual core of the Yijing within an Eastern Orthodox theological framework. Russian Yijing scholarship has not simply followed Western rationalist or psychological interpretive paths; rather, it has forged a unique cross-cultural hermeneutic through its dialog with Eastern Orthodoxy. This model employs a strategy of alienation to strip the Yijing of its impersonal Dao and the metaphysical connotations of yin-yang dynamics, which conflict with Orthodox doctrine. These elements are then transformed into moral norms, religious guidelines, or phenomenological descriptions to fit the Orthodox paradigms of a personal God and a soteriological ethics. Simultaneously, through a strategy of agreement, the core concepts of the Yijing are re-embedded into Russia’s native philosophical and religious traditions, achieving a dynamic unity that extends from individual cultivation to cosmic harmony.

In the Russian academic reception of the Yijing, alienation and agreement constitute the fundamental logic of its cross-cultural hermeneutic. Through a strategy of alienation, cosmological symbols represented by concepts such as Long 龙, Daren 大人, Tianyou 天佑, and Fameng 发蒙, and particularly the concept of Youming 有命 by intentionally stripping it of its political connotation of Junming 君命, are abstracted into moral categories, religious precepts, or expressions of divine will in order to fit within an Eastern Orthodox ethical and theological framework. Simultaneously, through a strategy of agreement, these same concepts are integrated into the intellectual currents of Orthodoxy, sophiology, and mysticism. This process transforms the original, impersonal worldview into a religious narrative imbued with personalization and the significance of spiritual elevation. Consequently, the core thought of the Yijing completes its reinterpretation in the Russian-language context, moving from a metaphysical holism to a system of religious philosophy. Across the three dimensions of conceptual ontology, the Heaven-humanity and God-humanity relationship, and practical methodology, it achieves a dynamic unity of the individual, society, and the cosmos. This demonstrates the universal applicability and regenerative power of the Yijing as a cross-cultural intellectual resource.

This study has systematically examined the reception mechanisms of the Yijing within the Russian Orthodox context, revealing how the dialectical interaction of alienation and agreement balances the tension between localization and original meaning. This process of reconstruction enriches the cross-cultural interpretive paths of the Yijing and provides a new case study for comparative religion and cross-cultural philosophy. The reception of the Yijing in Russia demonstrates that the transmission of non-Western canonical texts into a specific religious context is not a unilateral cultural export but rather a process that forms new intellectual configurations through deep dialog with local traditions. This dialog both deepens the understanding of the Yijing’s multiple layers of meaning and offers insights for the global dissemination and reconstruction of Chinese philosophy. Future research could further compare the Russian reception model of the Yijing with those of other cultural traditions, delving deeper into its mechanisms of reconstruction in a broader cross-cultural context. Such work would further illuminate the universality and diversity of the philosophy of the Yijing.