Theosophy and science

The traditional science for modern Theosophy, which Hammer considered as an example of an esoteric tradition, "is called to play two diametrically opposite roles." On the one hand, Theosophy has always expressed its clearly negative attitude towards it. On the other hand, in the process of constructing the occult doctrine, it gave certain fragments of scientific discourse the status of "supervaluable elements." In this case, science was used not as an object of criticism, but as "the basis of legitimacy and the supplier of doctrinal elements." Thus, according to Hammer, the main goal was achieved - the doctrine became scientifically ( English scientistic ) ^{[4] [5] [K 2]} .

Theosophical society proclaimed its third main task “the study of the unknown laws of nature and the hidden abilities of man” ^[8] . So, it set itself one of its goals to investigate phenomena, the existence of which is “very controversial” in itself, that is, the very premises of Theosophy have become “fertile soil for the search for scientifically formulated formulations." Science and ambivalence towards science were already apparent in the first theosophical publications. This can be seen in Blavatsky’s early articles, and in Isis Unmasked , the book that became the first “full-blown attempt” to create a Theosophical Doctrine, where she stated that Theosophy is not contrary to science, but, in reality, is a “higher science”, compared with what is usually understood by this term ^[9] :

“The manifestation of magical power is a manifestation of natural forces , but higher relative to the ordinary processes of nature. A miracle is not violence against the laws of nature. Only ignoramuses can think in this way. Magic is a science, a deep knowledge of the occult forces of nature and the laws governing the invisible and visible world ... Strong mesmerizers who have deep knowledge of their science, such as Baron Dupotte , Regazzoni, Pietro d'Amicis from Bologna are magicians, for they became adepts dedicated to the great secret of Mother Nature. "

- E. Blavatsky ^{[K 3]}

Blavatsky's ambivalent attitude towards science remained unchanged throughout her theosophical career. It “appeared” also in the letters of the Mahatmas and later continued in the Secret Doctrine ^{[K 4]} . In one of the letters, the terms and theories of traditional science are characterized as “misleading”, “shaky”, “indefinite” and “incomplete” ^{[K 5]} . It is this last word that is the most important, that is, "science is half-truth." The Theosophical Doctrine “not so much denies” the truth of science, “how much it condemns” its inability to explain the essence of spiritual processes, which are “supposedly” real causes of physical and chemical phenomena ^[14] . According to Hammer, The Secret Doctrine is completely imbued with the "rhetoric of Scientism." Although the basic cosmological concept in this work ultimately stems from the “ancient wisdom” conveyed by Blavatsky as she claimed to be “her Masters,” many details of this “declassified” cosmology are accompanied by references to archaeological discoveries, modern biological theories such as Haeckel's evolutionism, etc. She believed that the positioning of Theosophy in relation to science is of great importance, and the third parts of both the 1st and 2nd volumes of her book have the general title “Comparing Science and Secret Doctrine” . These two sections are devoted both to the refutation of orthodox science, and to the search for support for occult teachings in it ^[14] . Blavatsky repeatedly returned to the assertion that the modern physical sciences point to the same reality as the esoteric doctrines:

“If something similar to progress exists on earth, then the day should come when science will be forced, unwittingly , to abandon such monstrous ideas as physical, self-governing laws invented by it — devoid of soul and Spirit — and turn to occult teachings. She already turned to them: for this it is enough to look at the cover pages of the published works and the corrected reprints of the Scientific Catechism. ”

- E. Blavatsky ^{[K 6]}

Blavatsky as a whole did not reject science, suggesting the possibility of a "reconciliation" of science and Theosophy ^{[K 7]} . She believed that they had important common foundations, and that the weaknesses of traditional science were only its temporary flaws. The main point of contact, uniting science and "occultism" against a common adversary, a dogmatic religion, was the rejection of the recognition of "absolutely unknowable, transcendental causes." Theosophical cosmos appears and disappears in an endless sequence of cycles of evolution and involution. This is a pantheistic position, since a “transcendent God” is not required to begin this process. Blavatsky wrote:

“A representative of science can quite rightly ask the question:“ What is this force that controls each atom? ” <...> Theists will answer this question in one word: “God,” but they will not prompt any philosophical solution to this question. Occultism answers this question based on its own pantheistic positions. ”

- E. Blavatsky ^{[K 8]}

Theosophists criticized 19th-century science, "showing it unable to adequately explain" the phenomena of nature. They evaluated the "occultly substantiated" hypotheses as more accurate than those presented by science ^[20] . Blavatsky determined her position regarding science from the very beginning of her theosophical career. For example, the Mahatma Letters contain, according to Hammer, “rather unsystematic” accusations of modern science and fragments of an occult doctrine supposedly “far superior” to contemporary scientific ideas. The essence of Blavatsky’s later argumentation is “anticipated” in the next passage from letter No. 11: “Modern science is our best ally. But, as a rule, this same science is used as a club to break our heads with it ” ^{[K 9]} . Blavatsky constantly condemned traditional science as “limited, materialistic and biased” and blamed famous thinkers and scientists for this ^{[K 10]} . Bacon was the first among the “culprits” because of the materialism of his method, the general tone of his writings, and, more specifically, because of a “misunderstanding of spiritual evolution." Newton ’s materialistic “mistake” was allegedly that in his law of gravity was the primary force, and not the “influence of spiritual causes”. In addition, she repeated the “baseless”, according to Hammer, allegations that Newton came to his ideas after reading Boehme ^{[K 11] [K 12]} . According to her, the adherents of mechanistic science were “living corpses,” she wrote that “they have no spiritual vision, because the spirit has left them.” She called their hypotheses “ sophisms inspired by cold reason”, which will be thrown out by future generations “to the dump of myths that have not justified themselves” ^{[K 13]} . Alcott , in turn, wrote that theosophists must “break through the walls” of skeptical and authoritarian Western science ^{[K 14] [K 15] [K 16]} .

Some scholars, in Blavatsky’s view, were more prone to the “spiritual,” and she selectively approved them. The positive side of Descartes’s work was allegedly his belief in the "power of magnetism" and alchemy , despite the fact that he "worshiped matter." Kepler delighted her with his method, combining scientific and esoteric thoughts ^{[K 17]} . She also cited some passages from Newton's most speculative works, where he supports the “inspired approach” to gravity. Thus, according to Blavatsky, these “greatest scientists rediscovered” the esoteric knowledge already possessed by Western occultists, including Paracelsus , Kabbalists and alchemists ^{[K 18] [K 19]} .

Blavatsky wrote in The Secret Doctrine that occultism does not conflict with the so-called exact science, "if the conclusions of the latter are based on an indisputable fact." When his opponents try to “consider the issues of the formation of the cosmos ... in isolation from the sphere of the spirit, attributing everything to the action of blind matter, only then the occultists declare their right to challenge and question their theories” ^{[K 20]} . She stated that science is limited to the study of one aspect of human life that pertains to the realm of material nature. There are other aspects of this life - metaphysical , supersensible, for the knowledge of which science has no tools. Science applies its methods to the study of vitality, which are expressed in a phenomenal, or sensory, area. Consequently, she sees nothing but the residual effects of such forces. “This is just a shadow of reality,” Blavatsky wrote. Thus, science deals only with the appearances and hints of life, and that’s all it can do until the postulates of occultism are recognized. Science is tied to a plan of effects, while occultism has a plan of causes. Science studies the expressions of life, while esotericism sees life directly. So that a scientist can learn the elements of real causality, he will have to develop in himself such abilities that today almost all Europeans and Americans are “absolutely” absent. There is no other way “to gather enough facts to substantiate our conclusions” ^{[K 21]} .

Modern Theosophy, “adapting new scientific ideas,” wrote Professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clark , “proposed the concept of the spiritual evolution of mankind passing through countless worlds and eras” ^[42] . According to Professor Donald Lopez , the theosophical system of spiritual evolution was more “deeper and more advanced” than that proposed by Darwin . Theosophists accepted his theory of evolution , rejecting the assertion that life arose from matter and not from spirit ^{[43] [K 22]} . According to Blavatsky, between the purely physical development of man and the evolution of his spiritual nature "lies a gulf through which it is not easy to step over a person who is completely master of his mental abilities. Physical evolution in the view of modern science may be the subject of open polemic; spiritual and moral development, placed in the same category, is an insane reflection of crude materialism ” ^{[K 23]} . Darwin evolution and materialistic science suggest that the development of matter in organic form leads to the appearance of the psyche and thinking as products of two elements: matter and energy. Occultism claims that such a process can only lead to the creation of physical forms. Instead of considering intelligence and consciousness as the properties of developed organisms, Theosophy speaks of “spiritual evolution” as a concomitant biological evolution and associated with it. Evolution in its “higher aspect” cannot be explained if we reduce its factors to blind material forces arising under the influence of “mechanical influences” of the environment ^{[50] [K 24]} .

According to Blavatsky, “scientific” evolutionism reflects only that part of evolution that takes place in our current physical world. Darwinism does not take into account what happens before and after that. According to her, Darwin “begins its evolution of species from the lowest point and traces it up. His only mistake is that he is using his system from the wrong end. ” Having passed through the period of necessary separation, the spirit returns to itself, enriched during its journey. Therefore, biological evolution is not an “accidental” event that could “occur” due to some kind of “rare” combination of chemicals and then continued, driven by the need for survival and suitable mutations . According to Blavatsky, “it’s not at all that the spirit abides in matter, but on the contrary, matter temporarily clings to the spirit” ^{[K 25] [K 26]} . Thus, the spirit (or consciousness) is the primary, and matter is the temporary means used in its "work". According to Theosophy, evolution is the main phenomenon of the Universe, which does not coincide with the materialistic vision, which, according to Blavatsky, is “a disgusting continuous procession of sparks of cosmic matter, created by no one , floating out of nowhere and rushing to nowhere ” ^{[K 27]} . She proposed a Kabbalistic pattern of evolution: “A stone becomes a plant; plant to animals; animal - by man; man with the spirit; and spirit by God. " In this scheme, “each species advancing in physical evolution only provides more opportunities for the mind directing it to act in an improved nervous system” ^{[K 28]} .

According to Alcott, theosophy “reveals to those who study it that evolution is a real fact, but it has never been so partial and incomplete as Darwin's theory presents it” ^{[K 29]} . Professor Taymneywrote that the process of biological evolution on the physical plane has been “studied in sufficient detail” by science. However, biology studies only external forms, the structure of which is determined by the physical atoms and molecules, as well as by the physical and chemical forces acting between them. Science does not know that the main goal of the evolution of forms is to obtain more effective means for the development of the mind and the “unfolding” of consciousness. This ignorance is quite natural, because orthodox scholars refuse to consider everything that is “invisible” and cannot be investigated by purely physical means. Occultism, however, allows one to obtain “missing knowledge” and makes the concept of the evolution of forms not only more complete, but also “explains the reason for the whole process”, without which it seems completely meaningless ^[59] .

In 1888, the president of the Theosophical Society, Henry Alcott, met in Oxford with Max Muller , "the father of European religious studies, " as Lopez called him ^[60] . Alcott later wrote in his diary that Professor Müller, in conversation with him, praised the work of the Theosophists in translating and reprinting the holy books of the East. “But with regard to our other activities,” Olcott wrote, “related to the study of ancient notions of the existence of siddhas ^[61] and siddhis in man ^{[62] [63]} , he was absolutely skeptical.” According to Müller, neither in the Vedas nor in the Upanishads is there any esoteric subtext announced by the Theosophists, and they only sacrifice their reputation, “indulging the Indians in such stupidity.” In response to Olcott’s attempt to substantiate his point of view with reference to Gupta-Vidyu ^{[K 30]} and Patanjali, the professor suggested changing the subject. Alcott well remembered not only this conversation, but also two marble statuettes of a meditating Buddha , placed on the floor, to the right and left of the fireplace. He noted this fact in a diary in parentheses: “Let the Buddhists take note of this” ^{[K 31]} .

Professor Lopez wrote that it was a “significant” meeting, because both the Buddhist Olcott and the Buddhist Mueller, although both were directly related to Buddhism, nevertheless "occupied different positions and lived in different worlds." The world of Olcott, an American emigrant, a convinced Theosophist who never “formally studied the classical languages ​​of Buddhism”, but knew well both the “Buddhist world” and many “authoritative monks” ^{[K 32]} , faced the world of Mueller, a German emigrant, an outstanding Sanskritologist who read the original Buddhist texts in Sanskrit and fell , but “failed to recognize” their innermost meaning and “never traveled” outside of Europe. Alcott had to meet Buddhist superstition in Asia, which is why he entered into disputes with some of the leading monks of Sri Lanka. But he deeply honored Buddhist customs. After his travels in Sri Lanka and other Asian countries, he knew that it was absolutely “unacceptable and insulting” for Buddhists to place something “related to the Dharma ” on the floor [and even on the chair]. Moreover, none of the Buddhists “would ever place a Buddha statue on the floor” ^{[67] [K 33]} .

Alcott nevertheless inquired about the origin of these figurines and asked about their location. Muller replied that Buddha statues standing on the floor near his fireplace were taken out of the “Great Temple of the Rangoon ” (presumably Shwedagon ) ^{[K 34]} . The professor was so imbued with the "British empire", as Lopez noted, that he was not at all embarrassed to use the trophies captured in the Buddhist temple. Muller answered even more interestingly to the question why he put the Buddha statues on the floor: "Because the Greeks had the hearth the most sacred place." According to Lopez, "the answer does not sound very sincere, but its meaning is very important." For Müller, the Buddha image captured in Asia and exported to England ceased to be Asian, and therefore its owner was allegedly not obliged to follow Asian customs. For him, Buddha became part of European culture, “like a Greek god,” which means that he should be honored according to the customs of Western civilization ^[68] .

Five years after meeting with Alcott, Professor Muller published an article on Esoteric Buddhism, in which he again, but in a different form, tried to prove that there is no esotericism in Buddhism and never has been. The professor directed all his indignation against Blavatsky, believing that Buddhist esotericism was exclusively her invention. “I love Buddha and admire Buddhist morality,” Muller wrote. That is why, he explains, “it is impossible to remain silent, seeing how his noble image is used by religious charlatans who turned Buddhism into esoteric nonsense” ^{[K 35] [K 36]} . Theosophists often disagreed with European Oriental scholars and ridiculed their limitations. In a letter to Sinnett in 1882, the Mahatma Kut Humi suggested: “Since these Oriental gentlemen believe that they have benefited the world with their so-called translations and commentaries on our holy books, let the Theosophists demonstrate the great ignorance of these“ world “ pandits by providing the public with the correct doctrines and explanations of what they see as absurd fantastic theories ” ^{[K 37]} .

Сиддхи, или необычные психические способности специальным образом тренированного человека, не являются для индийцев чем-то особенным. Профессор Радхакришнан заметил, что в индийской психологии «такие психические состояния, как телепатия или ясновидение , не считаются ни анормальными, ни сверхъестественными» ^[74] . Блаватская писала, что считать магию обманом — значит, оскорблять человечество: «Поверить, что в течение многих тысяч лет одна половина человечества занималась тем, что обманывала другую половину, — равносильно утверждению, что человеческая раса состоит только из мошенников и неизлечимых идиотов» ^{[K 38]} . Однако, по мнению теософских Учителей , ещё совсем «недавние преследования» за предполагаемое колдовство , магию, за медиумизм убедительно показывают, что «единственное спасение» подлинных оккультистов заключается в скептицизме общества — причисление к «шарлатанам и фокусникам» надёжно их защищает ^[77] . По утверждению академика Александрова , «паранормальных» явлений не существует: «Не существует телепатии (передачи и чтения мыслей), не существует ясновидения, невозможна левитация , не существует „ биолокации “ (она же лозоходство), не существует явлений „ полтергейста “, не существует психокинеза » ^{[78] [K 39] [K 40]} .

Через несколько лет после смерти Блаватской к руководству Теософским Обществом пришло второе поколение его членов. Как писал Хаммер, в этот период «фокус теософского сциентизма» переместился с теории эволюции на другие области науки ^[1] . Чарлз Ледбитер , неофициально ставший «главным идеологом» Общества, занялся вместе с Анни Безант изучением функционирования человеческого разума. Оно сопровождается, как утверждали теософы, «передачей во внешний мир мыслеформ», которые можно наблюдать, используя методы ясновидения ^[82] . В 1901 году Безант и Ледбитер издали книгу под названием « Мыслеформы: данные ясновидческого исследования », содержащую множество цветных иллюстраций форм, «создаваемых», по мнению её авторов, мыслями, переживаниями, эмоциями людей, а также музыкой. Исследователи утверждали, что основным источником «мыслеформ» является аура человека — внешняя часть облакоподобной материи его « тонких тел », которые взаимно проникают одно в другое, выходя за границы физического тела. ^{[83] [84] [K 41] [K 42]}

Параллельно с « психофизиологическими » изысканиями теософы занимались оккультной химией, основанной на «значительно модифицированной» атомной теории. Ледбитер начал «оккультное исследование» химических элементов ещё в 1895 году, и вскоре к нему присоединилась Безант. Они утверждали, что, используя ясновидение, могут описать внутриатомную структуру любого элемента. Атомы, по их словам, содержат в себе определённое количество «более мелких» частиц. Эти и другие результаты они опубликовали в 1908 году в книге « Оккультная химия: наблюдение химических элементов при помощи ясновидения ». Хаммер предположил, что, хотя Ледбитер был «главным исследователем», его интерес к этой работе был связан, вероятно, с увлечением Безант химией. ^{[1] [84] [87]}

В 1923 году астроном и теософ Дж. Сатклифф опубликовал книгу «Исследования по оккультной химии и физике», представляющую собой «критический анализ» теории относительности . Автор преследовал цель: уравнять значение «западной» и «восточной» науки, описав их как две дополняющие друг друга «школы». В этой публикации теория относительности рассматривается как наивысшее достижение западной науки, тогда как результаты теософского «исследования» атомов и эфирных структур, известного как оккультная химия, представлены в качестве достижения «восточной» школы ^{[K 43]} . Стремясь показать, что итоги оккультных исследований можно сопоставить с теорией относительности, Сатклифф предлагает «совершенно новую теорию гравитации», основанную на физике эфира . Из его рассуждений видно, что он основательно изучил теософскую литературу, одновременно имея подготовку по физике конца 19-го и начала 20-го в.в. Сатклифф пытается интерпретировать теорию Эйнштейна в «традиции британского антирелятивизма», свободно оперируя понятием эфира ^{[K 44]} . Концепция Сатклиффа основана на «сжатии и расширении» сопутствующего эфира физических тел, таким образом, по его утверждению, «гравитация представляет собой один из эффектов расширяющейся сферы эфира, а электрические явления есть функция его сжимающейся сферы» ^{[K 45]} .

Профессор Таймни писал, что теория относительности, по-видимому, дала «новое направление нашей цивилизации» и создала проблемы, которые «являются вызовом» для нашего нынешнего мировоззрения и способов мышления. В «научных кругах» считается, если для доказательства чего-либо используется математика, то вопрос «решён окончательно», и это можно больше не обсуждать. Однако большинство таких выводов не всегда основано на проверенных предположениях, а это не исключает возможность ошибки в «окончательном результате». Часто не принимается во внимание тот факт, что математический вывод может быть правильным, если учтены «все факторы» по данному вопросу, а если этого нет, то результат может быть неправильным или же только частично правильным. Это следует иметь в виду при рассмотрении природы пространства и времени, а также метода Эйнштейна, использованного при решении данной проблемы. Он основывал свою теорию «только на фактах физического мира», а если есть другие, более тонкие миры ^{[92] [93] [K 46]} , кроме физического, — а они, в соответствии с оккультизмом, существуют — то она не имеет никакой ценности в отношении этих миров. Поскольку теория основана только на таких фактах, она может быть верной, в лучшем случае, лишь «для чисто физических явлений». Трудно представить, что она может раскрыть природу пространства и времени «в целом», потому что оценивается «человеческим разумом», функционирующим в границах «физического мозга». Сам факт, что понятие пространственно-временного континуума , данное в ней, слишком сложно для человеческого ума, указывает на её ограничения. Фактически, её автор пытался интерпретировать «изъяны теней некоторых реалий, отбрасываемых на экран в теневом спектакле Сознания». ^[94]

Таймни писал, что тот, кто «тщательно» изучал природу пространства и времени, мог убедиться в том, что ум человека также является очень важным фактором в этой проблеме, поэтому, для понимания пространства и времени, необходимо учитывать и этот фактор. А поскольку ум человека — это не только то, что проявляется через его физический мозг, но он имеет «много степеней утончённости и способов выражения», вся природа человека действительно вовлечена в проблему пространства и времени. И поэтому только тот, кто «нырнул в своё сознание и разгадал его наиболее глубокие тайны, достигнув источника, из которого пространство и время происходят» ^{[K 47]} , действительно способен сказать, какова истинная природа этих основных реалий Вселенной. «Кто наиболее правильно выразит, — писал Таймни, — своё мнение о природе апельсина: тот, кто просто поцарапал его кожуру, или тот, кто очистил апельсин и съел его?» ^{[96] [K 48] [K 49]}

По мнению исследователей эзотеризма Эмили Селлон и Рене Вебер, Блаватская, «предвосхищая» выводы теории относительности, теории поля и квантовой механики , предложила новую модель Вселенной, в которой «шарообразные» атомы и «пушпульные» силы уступили место пространству, времени, движению и энергии, составляющим современную картину мироздания ^[99] . Она утверждала, что «на учении об иллюзорной природе материи и бесконечной делимости атома как раз и зиждется вся наука оккультизма» ^{[K 50]} . В 1930 году известный физик Джеймс Джинс высказал предположение:

«Тенденция современной физики заключается в том, чтобы объяснить всю материальную Вселенную волнами и ничем иным кроме волн. Эти волны бывают двух видов: упакованные, которые мы называем веществом, и неупакованные, которые мы называем излучением или светом. Если происходит аннигиляция вещества, то процесс заключается в том, чтобы распаковать энергию волны, которая заблокирована, и позволить ей свободно путешествовать по пространству». ^{[102] [K 51]}

Во второй половине книги Джинса «Таинственная Вселенная» физика и космология уступают место спиритуализму и мистицизму:

«Вселенная начинает казаться великой мыслью, а не великолепной машиной, потому что разум не является случайностью в царстве материи. Мы начинаем подозревать, что нам следует называть его создателем и правителем этого царства». ^{[105] [K 52] [K 53]}

According to the religious scholar and philosopher Vladimir Trefilov , modern Theosophists were among the first to attempt to create a “new paradigm of thinking by synthesizing scientific and extra-scientific knowledge” ^[34] . As Professor Evgeny Torchinov , a Buddhist and Buddhist scholar, wrote, a discussion “between physicists, philosophers, religious scholars and psychologists” is quite possible in order to find ways to solve the “problem of changing the general scientific paradigm , the problem of isomorphism of consciousness and the physical world, and even the ontology of consciousness in general” ^{[K 54]} , if you move away from hanging labels like: "this is mysticism" [or "this is pseudoscience"] ^[110] . Professor Stanislav Grof , a psychologist, accused Western science of elevating matter to the position of “the main principle in the Universe,” as a result of which life, consciousness and mind began to be regarded as its “random by-products”. The dominance in Western science of the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm has become one of the reasons for the "emergence and development of the planetary crisis" ^[111] .

According to the doctor of philosophical sciences Julia Shabanova , the “post-materialist” scientific paradigm and “ideological ideology” ^[112] should become the “conceptual basis” of the future civilization. Sergey Kurdyumov , Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, and Elena Knyazeva , Doctor of Philosophy, in the book "Laws of Evolution and Self-Organization of Complex Systems" suggested that the basis of the new scientific paradigm would be the "paradigm of self-organization and non-linearity", which took from the West the "positive aspects of the tradition of analysis ”, And from the East - the ideas of integrity , cyclicality and a single law for the world and man ^[113] :

“Eastern ideas about universal connectedness, the unity of everything in the world and the cyclical flow of Nothingness and Being (unmanifest and manifested) ^{[K 55]} can resonate with synergetic models ... It can be assumed that there is a kind of prasreda on which all other observables grew and learning environments. Then all the media that we deal with in life and in scientific experiment appear as some fluctuations (perturbations), the manifestations (modifications) of this single substrate we see are prasreds. ”

- Elena Knyazeva , Sergey Kurdyumov ^[114]

According to religion historian Egil Asprém, one of the most important characters in the Theosophical discourse on science over the past decade and a half was the Indian scientist and engineer Edie Bilimoria . In his main work “The Mirages of Western Science Dissipated by Occult Science”, the division of science into “Western” and “Occult”, which had already taken place at the time of the founding of the Theosophical Society, was confirmed, and the discussion of modern physics and cosmology was conceptually updated. Reproducing the famous "Theosophical rhetoric", Bilimoria proposes to move towards reconciliation and reunification of the "wise old mother" - occult science with its "prodigal daughter" - Western science ^{[K 56] [K 57]} :

"Occult science not only does not seek to discredit Western science, but wishes to advance it to a higher position, using examples from Western science itself and demonstrating that it is deeply rooted in the substrate of occult science and philosophy."

- Edie Bilimoria ^{[K 58]}

Speaking about the antiquity of occult science, the Mahatma Kut Khumi wrote: “Our laws are as unchanging as the laws of Nature, and have been known to man for ages before the arrogant fighting cock - modern science - hatched from an egg” ^{[K 59]} . Thus, according to Bilimoria, the fact of the “ expansion of the Universe ” was well known to the occultists “even in antiquity,” only with more details in comparison with the concept of “modern cosmologists-materialists” ^[122] .

Religious thinker Vladimir Solovyov characterized theosophical doctrine as a doctrine not only “anti-religious” and “anti-philosophical,” but also “anti-scientific” ^[123] . According to the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev , modern Theosophy is not a synthesis of religion, philosophy and science, as its adherents say, but there is a mixture of them, “in which there is no real religion, no real philosophy, no real science” ^[124] .

The ambiguous attitude of Theosophy to science was especially sharply criticized by the ministers of the church ^{[K 60]} . Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev accused theosophists of violating the principles of scientific ethics when they do not react to the objections of opponents and do not bring “scientific arguments in support of their position”, putting themselves “beyond any criticism from the side of science”. In support of his words, Kuraev cited Blavatsky’s instruction about the need to combat the claim of any scholar “for the right to make judgments about ancient esotericism” if he is “neither a mystic nor a Kabbalist” ^{[K 61]} . Priest Dimitri Druzhinin, in connection with the Theosophists' particular attention to the theory of evolution, wrote that "Theosophy began to parasitize on the central tendencies of thought and science of its time." And again: “In the rough, cheeky style characteristic of Blavatsky, the criticism of Darwinism turned into personal insults against scientists” ^[127] . But compared to the Christian “understanding of the purpose of human life,” according to Druzhinin, “building theosophy is absurd nonsense” ^[128] .

No less severely criticized Blavatsky’s occult formulations describing anthropogenesis, Lidia Fesenkova , Ph.D., senior researcher at the IPh RAS : “From the point of view of science, such views are obvious profanity and have no right to exist in serious literature” ^[129] .

Doctor of Philosophy, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Styopin , answering a question about pseudoscience , noted: “The dominant value of scientific rationality begins to influence other areas of culture - and religion and myth are often modernized under this influence. On the border between them and science, para-scientific concepts arise that are trying to find a place in the field of science ” ^[130] .

• William Crookes (1832-1919) is an English chemist and physicist ^{[106] [131]} .
• Frederick Myers (1843-1901) - English philologist and philosopher ^[131] .
• George Mead (1863-1933) - English historian and religious scholar ^[132] .
• Lester Smith (1904-1992) is an English chemist ( FRS ) ^[44] .
• Alexander Wilder (1823-1908) - American religious scholar and philosopher ^{[133] [134]} .
• William James (1842-1910) is an American psychologist and philosopher ^[135] .
• Thomas Edison (1847-1931) - American engineer and inventor ^[136] .
• Robert Ellwood (born 1933) is an American historian of religion, a researcher of non-traditional religions ^[137] .
• Camille Flammarion (1842-1925) - French astronomer and writer ^[138] .
• Emil Marco (1878-1968) - French psychologist and philologist ^[139] .
• Charles Johnston (1867-1931) - Irish Sanskritologist and Orientalist ^[140] .
• Iqbal Taimni (1898-1978) - Indian chemist and philosopher ^{[141] [142] [K 62]} .
• Edie Bilimoria (born ...) is an Indian scientist and engineer ( FIMechE , CEng , EurIng ) ^{[141] [144] [K 63]} .
• Julia Shabanova (born ...) is a Ukrainian philosopher and teacher ^[112] .

Theosophical scientists awarded the Subba Row Medal : George Mead (1898), Emil Marco (1936), Iqbal Taimni (1975), Leicester Smith (1977) ^[145] .

• " Clairvoyance "
• " How Theosophy Came to Me "
• " Thoughtforms "
• “ Occult or exact science?” "
• Occult Chemistry
• " Philosophers and philosophers "
• Theosophy and Western Philosophy
• Theosophy and Politics