THEOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
Scientism of Theosophy
For the modern Theosophy, which professor Olav Hammer considered as a standard of the esoteric tradition, conventional science is called upon 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 building the occult doctrine, it gave to certain fragments of scientific discourse the status of valued elements. In this case, science was not used as an object of criticism, but as ''a basis of legitimacy and source of doctrinal elements.'' Thus, in Hammer's opinion, the main goal was achieved: the doctrine acquired a ''scientistic'' appearance. (Hammer 2003, pp. 203-204; Asprem 2013, p. 408)[1]
The Theosophical Society proclaimed its third main task, ''To investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.'' (Kuhn 1992, p. 113; Hammer 2003, p. 218) Thus, it set itself one of its goals to investigate phenomena whose existence itself is highly controversial, that is, the very premises of Theosophy have become ''fertile ground'' for the search for ''scientistic formulations.'' Scientism and the ambivalence relation to science were already evident in the first Theosophical publications. It can be seen in both Blavatsky's early articles, and in Isis Unveiled, the book that became the ''first full-scale attempt'' to create the Theosophical doctrine, where she stated that Theosophy does not contradict science, but is, in fact, a ''higher form of science,'' in comparison with what is usually understood by this term. (Hammer 2003, p. 219)
The exercise of magical power is the exercise of natural powers, but superior to the ordinary functions of Nature. A miracle is not a violation of the laws of Nature, except for ignorant people. Magic is but a science, a profound knowledge of the Occult forces in Nature, and of the laws governing the visible or the invisible world… A powerful mesmerizer, profoundly learned in his science, such as Baron du Potet, Regazzoni, Pietro d'Amicis of Bologna, are magicians, for they have become the adepts, the initiated ones, into the great mystery of our Mother Nature. (Blavatsky 1966, p. 137; Hammer 2003, p. 220)
A dual relation of Blavatsky to science remained unchanged, in Hammer's opinion, throughout her Theosophical career. It was manifested also in The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett and later continued in The Secret Doctrine.[2] In one of the letters, terms and theories of the conventional science are characterized with words such as ''misleading'', ''vacillating'', ''uncertain'', and ''incomplete.'' (Barker 1924, p. 62; Hammer 2003, p. 220) It is this last word that is most important, that is ''science is a half-truth.'' The Theosophical doctrine ''not so much'' denies the truth of science, how much condemns its inability to explain an essence of the spiritual processes that ''are supposedly the real causes'' of the physical and chemical phenomena. (Hammer 2003, p. 221) According to Hammer, The Secret Doctrine is completely ''imbued with the rhetoric of scientism.'' Although the ''basic cosmological'' concept in this work ultimately derives ''from ancient wisdom'' that was recieved by Blavatsky, as she claimed, from her ''Masters,'' many of the details of this ''declassified'' cosmology are accompanied by references to archaeological discoveries, modern biological theories such as evolutionary theory of Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), 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 common heading ''Science and the Secret Doctrine Contrasted.'' These sections are devoted both to the refutation of the conventional science, and to the search in it the support of occult teachings. (Hammer 2003, p. 221) Blavatsky repeatedly returned to the assertion that modern physical sciences point to the same reality as the esoteric doctrines:
If there is anything on earth like progress, Science will some day have to give up, nolens volens, such monstrous ideas as her physical, self-guiding laws – void of soul and Spirit, – and then turn to the occult teachings. It has done so already, however altered are the title-page and revised editions of the Scientific Catechism. (Blavatsky 1888a, pp. 506-507; Hammer 2003, p. 262)
Generally, Blavatsky did not reject science, suggesting the possibility of ''reconciliation'' of science and Theosophy.[3] She believed that they have ''important common grounds,'' and that the ''weaknesses'' of the traditional science are only its ''temporary shortcomings.'' The main point of contact, which unites science and ''occultism'' against the common enemy, a dogmatic religion, was the refusal to recognize ''unknowable, absolutely transcendent causes.'' Theosophical cosmos appears and disappears in an infinite sequence of ''cycles of evolution and involution.'' This is pantheistic position, because the beginning of this process does not require ''transcendent God.'' (Hammer 2003, p. 265) Blavatsky wrote:
Well may a man of science ask himself, ''What power is it that directs each atom?'' <…> Theists would solve the question by answering ''God''; and would solve nothing philosophically. Occultism answers on its own pantheistic grounds. (Blavatsky 1888a, p. 549; Hammer 2003, p. 265)
The Theosophical Criticism
Criticizing the science of the 19th century, the Theosophists claimed on the ''futility'' its attempts to adequately explain ''the greatest enigmas'' of Universe. They evaluated the ''occult based'' hypotheses as more accurate than those presented by science. (Kalnitsky 2003, p. 312) Blavatsky defined her position regarding science ''from the beginning of her Theosophical career.'' Thus, The Mahatma Letters contain, in Hammer's opinion, the ''rather unsystematic'' accusations the modern science and the fragments of the occult doctrine, supposedly ''far superior'' the scientific ideas of the day. The essence of Blavatsky's ''later argument'' is anticipated in the next passage from Letter No. 11: ''Modern science is our best ally. Yet it is generally that same science which is made the enemy to break our heads with.'' (Barker 1924, p. 63; Hammer 2003, p. 261; Asprem 2013, p. 405) She condemned constantly the traditional science as ''limited, materialistic and prejudiced'' and blamed in this the famous thinkers and scholars.[4] Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was the first among the culprits ''due to the materialism of his method, 'the general tenor' of his writing and, more specifically, his misunderstanding of spiritual evolution.'' Materialist ''error'' of Isaac Newton (1643-1727) allegedly consisted in the fact that in his law of gravitation the primary was the power, not the influence of the ''spiritual causes.'' In addition, she repeated the ''baseless,'' according to Hammer, assertion that Newton came to his ideas after reading Jakob Boehme (1575-1624). (Blavatsky 1888a, pp. 481, 490; Hammer 2003, p. 267)[5] According to Blavatsky, the mechanistic science's adepts of her time were the ''animate corpses.'' She wrote that ''they have no spiritual sight because their spirits have left them.'' She named their hypotheses ''the sophisms suggested by cold reason'' which future generations would banish to the ''limbo of exploded myths.'' (Blavatsky 1877, pp. 306, 318, 621; Tyson 2006, p. 388) Also the Theosophist Henry Olcott (1832-1907) wrote that the Theosophists must break ''the walls of incredulous and despotic Western science.'' (Olcott 2011, p. 100; Tyson 2006, p. 387)[6]
Some scientists, according to Blavatsky, were more prone to spiritual, and she ''selectively approved'' them. ''The positive side of Descartes' work'' was supposedly his faith in the ''magnetic doctrine'' and alchemy, although he was a ''worshipper of matter.'' She was admired by method of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), ''combining scientific and esoteric thought.'' (Blavatsky 1877, pp. 206, 207; Hammer 2003, p. 267) She gave also some excerpts from Newton's most ''speculative'' works, where he supports a ''spiritualized'' approach to gravity. Thus, according to her words, these ''greatest scientists'' rediscovered the esoteric knowledge already available to ''Western occultists including Paracelsus… kabbalists and alchemists.'' (Blavatsky 1888a, p. 490; Hammer 2003, p. 267)[7]
1
''Modern Esotericism show itself usually in a scientistic wear… It appeals to science, proclaiming the principle of the unity of science, religion, and philosophy.'' (Фесенкова 2003, pp. 84-85)
2
Hammer, apparently, considered Blavatsky the author, including the letters of the mahatmas. However, according to Charles Leadbeater, the letters were not written or dictated directly by the mahatmas, as the Theosophists supposed, ''but were the work of pupils carrying out general directions given to them by the Masters.'' (Tillett 1986, p. 807)
3
Nikolai Berdyaev wrote: ''Contemporary popular theosophy is very deferential towards science… From the natural sciences it borrows a naive realism.'' (Berdyaev 2018)
4
Alexander Senkevich wrote that in the 19th century, an idea of the omnipotence of science became the main one, and ''men believed in steam's force more than in virtue of preaching.'' (Сенкевич 2012, p. 157)
5
In the third chapter of
6
Vladimir Trefilov wrote: ''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 the 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) Adhering to a line of the initial Theosophical criticism, Edi Bilimoria suggested to those modern scientists who claim that they investigate and unravel ''the 'mind of God' would do better to probe into their own minds to discover the arrogance and philosophic naivete of such 'investigations'.'' (Bilimoria 1997, p. 159)
7
Bilimoria classified Newton as ''a greatest mystic and Occultist'' of England. (Bilimoria 1997, p. 150)