Blavatsky wrote in The Secret Doctrine that occultism does not combat with conventional science, when ''the conclusions of the latter are grounded on a substratum of unassailable fact.'' But when its opponents try ''to wrench the formation of Kosmos… from Spirit, and attribute all to blind matter, that the Occultists claim the right to dispute and call in question their theories.'' She stated that ''science is limited'' to researching one aspect of human life that relates to the sphere of material nature. ''There are other aspects'' of this life – metaphysical, supersensory, for the knowledge of which science has no tools. Science devotes its strength to the study of vital forces, which are expressed in a phenomenal or sensual area. Consequently, it sees nothing but the residual effects of such forces. ''These are but the shadow of reality,'' Blavatsky claimed. Thus, science deals ''only with appearances'' and hints of life, and that is all that it is capable of until the postulates of the occult are recognized. Science is tied to ''the plane of effects,'' but occultism is take to ''the plane of causes.'' Science ''studies the expression of life,'' esotericism sees life itself. So that the scientist can learn ''the elements of real causality,'' he will have to develop in himself such abilities which today almost all Europeans and Americans absolutely lack. There is no other way to get enough facts to substantiate his conclusions. (Blavatsky 1888a, pp. 477-478; Kuhn 1992, p. 258)
The Theosophical Evolutionism
Modern Theosophy, as professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke stated, ''adapting contemporary scientific ideas,'' raised the concept of ''spiritual evolution through countless worlds and eras.'' (Goodrick-Clarke 2008, p. 211) According to professor Donald Lopez, the occult ''system of spiritual evolution'' was more profound and advanced than that proposed by Charles Darwin. The Theosophists accepted his theory but rejected the assertion that life originated from matter, and not from spirit. (Lopez 2009, p. 11)[8] In Blavatsky's opinion, between the spiritual evolution of man and his physical development ''there is an abyss which will not be easily crossed by any man in the full possession of his intellectual faculties.'' Physical development, ''as modern Science teaches it, is a subject for open controversy; spiritual and moral development on the same lines is the insane dream of a crass materialism.'' (Blavatsky 1888b, p. 650; Kuhn 1992, p. 255) Darwinian theory and the materialistic science suggest that the development of matter in an organic form leads to the emergence of the psyche and intelligence as the products of two elements: matter and energy. Occultism claims that such a process can lead to the creation of physical forms only. Instead of considering intellect and consciousness as properties of evolved organisms, Theosophy speaks of a ''spiritual evolution'' as a concomitant biological one and associated with it. ''Evolution in its higher aspect'' can't be explained if its factors are reduced to blind material forces arising under the impact of the ''mechanical influences of environment.'' (Kuhn 1992, pp. 253, 254)[9]
According to Blavatsky, the ''scientific'' theory of evolution reflects only that part of it that takes place in our present physical world. Darwinism does not take into account what happens before and after. In her opinion, Darwin ''begins his evolution of species at the lowest point and traces upward. His only mistake may be that he applies his system at the wrong end.'' After passing through the period of necessary separation, the spirit returns to itself enriched during its journey. Consequently, the biological evolution is not a ''random'' event that could ''occur'' due to some ''rare'' combination of chemical matters and then continued driven by the need for survival and suitable mutations. Blavatsky claimed that ''not spirit is in matter, but on the contrary, matter clings temporarily to spirit.'' (Blavatsky 1877, pp. 428, 429; Lachman 2012, p. 171)[10] Thus, the spirit (or consciousness) is primary, and matter is a temporary means used in its ''work.'' According to Theosophy, evolution is the basic phenomenon of the Universe that does not coincide with the materialistic vision, which, in Blavatsky's opinion, is ''a hideous, ceaseless procession of sparks of cosmic matter created by no one… floating onward from nowhence… and it rushes nowhither.'' (Blavatsky 1877, p. xviii; Lachman 2012, p. 171) She proposed the kabalistic scheme of evolution: ''A stone becomes a plant; a plant a beast; a beast a man; a man a spirit; and the spirit a god.'' In this scheme: ''Each perfected species in the physical evolution only affords more scope to the directing intelligence to act within the improved nervous system.'' (Blavatsky 1877, pp. 301, 425; Lachman 2012, p. 171)
Olcott claimed, ''Theosophy shows the student that evolution is a fact, but that it has not been partial and incomplete as Darwin's theory makes it.'' (Olcott 1885, p. 250; Дружинин 2012, p. 79) Professor Taimni wrote that, it is not known to science that the main goal ''of the evolution of forms'' is to obtain more effective means for the development of the mind and ''unfolding consciousness.'' This barbarism is quite standard because the ordinary scientists decline to view everything that is ''invisible'' and can't be investigated ''by purely physical means.'' Occultism allows one to obtain the ''missing knowledge'' and makes the concept of the evolution of forms not only more complete, but also explains the cause of the entire process, without which it seems completely meaningless. (Taimni 1969, p. 384)
Orientalists and Theosophists
In 1888, the president of the Theosophical Society Henry Olcott met in Oxford with Max Muller (1823-1900), ''the father of the 'Science of religion','' as Lopez called his. (Lopez 2009, pp. 154, 158) Olcott wrote later in his diary that professor Muller, in a conversation with him, highly appreciated the work of Theosophists in translating and re-publishing the sacred books of the East. ''But as for our more cherished activities,'' Olcott wrote, ''the discovery and spread of ancient views on the existence of Siddhas (Eliade 1958, p. 303) and of the siddhis in man, (Radhakrishnan 1948b, pp. 366-367; Трефилов, 2005, p. 379) he was utterly incredulous.'' In Muller's opinion, nor in the Vedas, nor in the Upanishads there are any esoteric overtones announced by the Theosophists, and they only sacrifice their reputation, pandering ''to the superstitious belief of the Hindus in such follies.'' In response to Olcott's attempt to argue his point of view by references to the Gupta-Vidya[11] and Yoga Sutras of Patanjali the professor said, ''We had better change the subject.'' The president has remembered well not only this conversation, but also ''two marble statuettes of the Buddha sitting in meditation, placed to the right and left of the fireplace.'' He noted this fact, having written in his diary in brackets: ''Buddhists take notice.'' (Olcott 1910, p. 61; Lopez 2009, p. 157)
Professor Lopez claimed that this was a significant meeting, because both, Buddhist Olcott, and the Buddhist studies scholar Muller, although both were directly related to Buddhism, nevertheless took different positions and lived in different worlds. The world of Olcott, an American emigre and convinced Theosophist ''no formal training in the classical languages of Buddhism'', but who was knowing well both the Buddhist world, and many reputable monks, collided with the world of Muller, a German emigre and outstanding sanskritologist, who was reading ''Buddhist manuscripts in the original Sanskrit and Pali,'' and however failed to recognize theirs esoteric meaning and ''never traveled beyond Europe.'' In Asia, Olcott faced with Buddhist superstition, which is why he argued with some of the leading monks of Sri Lanka. But he deeply revered the Buddhist mores. After his travels through the countries of Asia, he knew that for Buddhists it was absolutely unacceptable and offensive to place anything connected with dharma on the floor or even on a chair. Moreover, he knew that Buddhists ''would never place a statue of the Buddha on the floor.'' (Lopez 2009, p. 158)[12]
8
In 1963, a British chemist Lester Smith (1904-1992) said: ''There is a tendency to believe that the whole secret of life is wrapped up in this genetic code, so that when it has been completely unravelled it will be possible to create life… We should proclaim firmly that the biochemists are not studying Life itself, but its mechanisms, the almost unbelievably intricate and delicate tools it uses for its purposes.'' (Smith 1963, p. 18) A Russian academician Erik Galimov stated that Darwinism proved unproductive ''in reference to the problem of the origin of life.'' (Галимов 2001, p. 212) Lydia Fesenkova noted that, from the positions of the natural sciences, Darwinism now looks like a ''hypothesis that greatly simplifies the real state of things,'' so its conclusions find ''constantly-increasing objections.'' (Фесенкова 2007, p. 128)
9
According to Indian philosophy, there are ''other worlds than that which our senses reveal to us, other senses than those which we share with the lower animals, other forces than those of material nature.'' (Radhakrishnan 1948b, p. 373)
10
Senkevich wrote that, according to Darwin, the three main factors: variability, heredity, and natural selection were responsible for evolution; thus, ''the pragmatic West'' with its mundane approach to life simply lacked ''common sense, to gain faith in the evolution of soul or consciousness.'' (Сенкевич 2012, p. 435)
11
Gupta-vidya (Sanskrit).
12
''As a representation of an exalted being, the image of the Buddha must also be exalted.'' (Lopez 2009, p. 159)