BLAVATSKIAN DOCTRINE VERSUS SCIENCE
The Theosophical Statement on Impotence of Science
In her article ''Occult or Exact Science?'' Helena Blavatsky outlines typical Theosophical views on science. (Blavatsky 1956)[1] A religious studies scholar Arnold Kalnitsky wrote that at the beginning of this article, she distinguishes ''modern science'' from ''esoteric science,'' and argues that the methodology of the latter is preferable because it ultimately has a more practical, solid basis. In Blavatsky's opinion:
Every new discovery made by modern science vindicates the truths of the archaic philosophy. The true occultist is acquainted with no single problem that esoteric science is unable to solve, if approached in the right direction. (Blavatsky 1956, p. 55; Kalnitsky 2003, p. 155)
Thus, Blavatsky considers modern science to be a form of the ''archaic philosophy'', which, as a synthesized worldview, includes the ''esoteric science.'' According to her, this is the position of the ''true occultist,'' who can solve any problem by the proper use of esoteric methodology. (Kalnitsky 2003, p. 155) A religious studies scholar Alvin Kuhn wrote that Blavatsky declared that occultism had no quarrel with so-called exact science ''where the conclusions of the latter are grounded on a substratum of unassailable fact.'' (Kuhn 1992, p. 258) A religious studies scholar Vladimir Trefilov stated: ''Without denying the positive role of science, the Theosophical theorists emphasize its limitations. The main difference between the Theosophical science and the usual modern science is seen in the fact that the latter has to do only with scraps of a whole - with physical phenomena of this and other worlds, with that that can be performed through the physical brain of man and his feeling.'' (Трефилов 1994, p. 234)
Blavatsky criticizes the perspective of modern science, by disagreeing with the idea that the manipulation of matter presents a real scientific challenge. She asserts that replacing the word ''matter'' with the term ''spirit'' would result in a greater goal.[2] She tries to show that knowledge of mere matter is not enough to provide the answers sought by science, because such knowledge does not adequately explain even the simplest phenomena of nature. Blavatsky notes that spiritualistic phenomena, with which she claims her audience would be well familiar, show the need for revising the prevailing scientific consensus. She argues that there is another form of ''proof'' of the existence of extrasensory abilities, citing the example of the use of narcotics, which allegedly had facilitated the demonstration of such abilities. (Kalnitsky 2003, p. 156)[3] She writes:
No doubt the powers of human fancy are great; no doubt delusion and hallucination may be generated for a shorter or a longer period in the healthiest human brain either naturally or artificially. But natural phenomena that are not included in that ''abnormal'' class do exist; and they have at last taken forcible possession even of scientific minds. (Blavatsky 1956, p. 59; Kalnitsky 2003, p. 156)
Recognizing the potential errors inherent in relying upon imagination, and the unreliability of ''delusion and hallucination,'' Blavatsky is still trying to gain the ''stamp of legitimation'' from reputable scientific judgement that could confirm that supersensory abilities ''do exist.''[4] It was a constant aim of Theosophy, though implicit, and it was accompanied always by a distrust to the scientific approach. On the one hand, Blavatsky gives occasion for a reconciliation with the scientists, on the other - continues to denounce them.[5] Following her words demonstrate a desire to show that the scientific evidence of the extrasensory perception is quite possible. (Kalnitsky 2003, pp. 156-157)
The phenomena of hypnotism, of thought-transference, of sense-provoking, merging as they do into one another and manifesting their occult existence in our phenomenal world, succeeded finally in arresting the attention of some eminent scientists. (Blavatsky 1956, p. 59; Kalnitsky 2003, p. 157)[6]
Blavatsky demonstrates a dualistic approach in her interpretation of these phenomena, distinguishing between ''their occult existence'' and their manifestation ''in our phenomenal world.'' Apparently, this means that there is noumenal ''sphere of reality,'' which is the basis of the phenomenal world. Furthermore, the assertion that ''some eminent scientists'' had shown interest in various forms of ESP, obviously, indicates that most scientists are not interested in it, and that widely recognizing of their paranormal nature did not happen. In particular, she criticizes the findings of the doctor Charcot and some other scientists in France, England, Russia, Germany, and Italy, who ''have been investigating, experimenting and theorising for over fifteen years.'' (Kalnitsky 2003, p. 157)[7]
The sole explanation given to the public, to those who thirst to become acquainted with the real, the intimate nature of the phenomena, with their productive cause and genesis - is that the sensitives who manifest them are all hysterical! They are psychopates, and neurosists - we are told - no other cause underlying the endless variety of manifestations than that of a purely physiological character. (Blavatsky 1956, p. 59; Kalnitsky 2003, p. 157)
Limitation of the Scientific Method
The scientists, who are trying to explore the controversial paranormal phenomena, find themselves in a situation of utter helplessness, but it is not their fault. They simply do not have an appropriate set of conceptual ''tools'' for the right approach to these phenomena. Without an elementary familiarization with occult principles and the adoption, at least as a working hypothesis, the notion of the subtle worlds of nature, the science is not able to reveal the true depth and scope of the universal laws that underlie all cosmic processes. The orthodox scientists-materialists are constrained by the limitations of their sciences, and so they need a new orientation based on the attraction of occult knowledge. However, in Blavatsky's opinion, even admitting the legitimacy of the occult hypothesis, they will not be able to bring their research to the end. (Kalnitsky 2003, pp. 158-159)
Therefore, having conducted their experiments to a certain boundary, they would desist and declare their task accomplished. Then the phenomena might be passed on to transcendentalists and philosophers to speculate upon. (Blavatsky 1956, p. 71; Kalnitsky 2003, p. 159)
Turning to the consideration of conflicting opinions about the paranormal experience, Blavatsky says that the scientific recognition of the hypothesis about the nature of the psychic phenomena is not excluded, but it requires a discussion in relation to their underlying causes. She also claims that to defend the Theosophical position harder than spiritualistic, because the Theosophists categorically reject as a materialist theory so and a belief in spirits, presented in a traditional spiritualistic approach. Blavatsky classifies the spiritualists as the ''idealists'' and the scientists - as the ''materialists,'' who both fully convinced that modern science can, respectively, or to confirm, or to deny the authenticity of the kingdom of the spirits. But those who believe in the ability of a science to accept the occult presentation will be disappointed, because its modern methodology simply does not allow it. (Kalnitsky 2003, p. 160)
Science, unless remodelled entirely, can have no hand in occult teachings. Whenever investigated on the plan of the modern scientific methods, occult phenomena will prove ten times more difficult to explain than those of the spiritualists pure and simple. (Blavatsky 1956, p. 77; Kalnitsky 2003, p. 160)
Blavatsky believes that modern scientific methods need to be rethought and remodeled to make it possible to study phenomena that can not be adequately explained from the materialistic standpoint.[8] She expresses her disappointment with the existing state of affairs, doubting in achieving any progress. After ten years of a careful monitoring of the debate, she does not believe in the possibility of an objective and impartial investigation of the paranormal phenomena, not to mention the real revision of the well-established scientific views and the adoption of more adequate occult theory. The few scientists who could believe in the authenticity of such phenomena do not accept the hypothesis beyond the spiritualistic representations. Even in the midst of doubt of the truth of the materialist worldview, they are unable to move from spiritualism to the occult theory. In the study of unexplained side of the nature their respect for the traditional scientific orthodoxy always prevails over their personal views. Thus, in Blavatsky's opinion, a necessary condition of objectivity is the impartiality and a change of the opinions. (Kalnitsky 2003, pp. 160-161)
1
According to professor Goodrick-Clarke, Blavatsky's Masters Morya and Kuthumi, and she herself often focused on modern science; more precisely, to the theories of Darwin, Geikie, Dawkins, and Fiske. (Goodrick-Clarke 2008, p. 223) In L. Fesenkova's opinion, Darwinism has been used as a scientific basis for atheism, and representatives of the opposite opinion, maintaining the identity of the role of these concepts, called to struggle against materialism and Darwinism. (Фесенкова 2003, p. 13) Peter Washington wrote: ''Labelled Professor Fiske after a prominent Darwinian academic, Madame Blavatsky's baboon (a scarecrow in her New York apartment) signalled her own posture in this debate as an adamant anti-Darwinian.'' (Washington 1995, p. 45)
2
Stanislav Grof wrote that Western materialistic science leaves no room for any type of spirituality, and that spirituality is incompatible with this scientific worldview. Modern consciousness research shows that spirituality is a natural and primordial dimension of the human psyche and the world order. (Grof 1998, Ch. 1)
3
''The perfections (siddhis) are attained through birth, drugs (oadhi), spells (mantras), austerity (tapas), or concentration (samadhi).'' (Radhakrishnan 2008a, p. 339) According to Grof, objective laboratory testing showed that an increase in parapsychic abilities is not permanent and standard aspect of the action of LSD. However, the states, leading to a variety of paranormal phenomena, and characterized by an unusually high percentage of ESP, are part of many mental states, which may occur under the influence of this drug. (Grof 1996)
4
Charles Webster Leadbeater spoke in his memoirs about several occult phenomena, which were made by Blavatsky. (Tillett 1986, pp. 138, 142)
5
Professor Olav Hammer claimed that Blavatsky often demonstrate how it is possible to combine the negative attitude to science with a positive. (Hammer 2003, p. 221)
6
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan wrote that in Indian psychology ''the psychic experiences, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, were considered to be neither abnormal nor miraculous.'' (Radhakrishnan 2008, p. 28)
7
''The concept of the unconscious ESP experimentally confirmed by a series of experiments, in which the super-sensible signals accepted (i.e. recorded by physiological indicators of organism) by the person, who not even aware of it… Experiments for the detection of precognition are the best proof of the existence of ESP, since any leak of the sensory information from the object that does not yet exist, can not be.'' (Козлов; Майков 2007, Ch. 3/9)
8
Grof wrote that the relationship between mind and matter are fundamentally different from that belief system, which imposes by the materialistic science. (Grof 1998, Ch. 4)