Occult or Exact Science

Impotence of science

According to Kalnitsky, in the XIX century in the West, it was generally recognized three areas of knowledge: science, religion and philosophy. Despite their differences, it was supposed that they are the most reliable and respected sources of knowledge that can provide a fundamental understanding of reality. Blavatsky believed that, although all these categories have both the exoteric and the esoteric side, the dominant ideology of Western society was completely exoteric, while the esoteric orientation, in her opinion, was more than reasonable, and therefore deserving of public approval.

At the beginning of her article, Blavatsky states the distinction between "modern science" and "esoteric science", arguing that the methodology of the latter is preferred because it is based on a more common and solid basis.

"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."

Thus, Blavatsky considers modern science as a special case, or a variant of the "archaic philosophy", which, as a synthesizing worldview, includes the "esoteric science." This is the position of the "true occultist," who is sure that he can to solve any problems in the proper use of esoteric methodology.

Blavatsky criticizes perspectives of modern science, not agreeing with the statement that the power over matter is a real scientific challenge. She assumes that the replacement of the word "matter" on the term "spirit" would be here more appropriate. Then she wants to show that knowledge only of matter is not enough for the purposes of true science, because it does not allow adequately explain even the simplest phenomena of nature. Blavatsky notes that the well-known to audience the spiritualistic phenomena show the need to revise the stereotypical assessments. She argues that there is another form of "proof" of the existence of extrasensory abilities, citing the examples where an use of narcotics allegedly allowed to demonstrate such abilities. 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."

Recognizing the potential errors inherent with the imagination, and the unreliability of "delusion and hallucination," Blavatsky is still trying to gain the "stamp of legitimation" from a reputable scientific sources that can confirm that supersensory abilities "do exist." 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. Following her words demonstrate a desire to show that the scientific evidence of the extrasensory perception is quite possible:

"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 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."

"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."

Scientific method's limitation

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, according to Blavatsky, even admitting the legitimacy of the occult hypothesis, they will not be able to bring their research to the end.

"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."

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.

"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 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. 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, according to Blavatsky, a necessary condition of objectivity is the impartiality and a change of the opinions.

Considering the methodology of science, Blavatsky understood that the inductive reasoning, based on data supplied by the physical senses, can not adequately provide a reliable way to study the abnormal phenomena.

"Science—I mean Western Science—has to proceed on strictly defined lines. She glories in her powers of observation, induction, analysis and inference. Whenever a phenomenon of an abnormal nature comes before her for investigation, she has to sift it to its very bottom, or let it go. And this she has to do, and she cannot, as we have shown, proceed on any other than the inductive methods based entirely on the evidence of physical senses."

Recognizing the scientific method of research and the difficulties of its application to the abnormal phenomena, Blavatsky notes that in some cases, scientists, being not able to explain the phenomena, which are beyond their knowledge, searched a contact with the police. She writes that, for example, in Loudun, Morzine, Salem, and other locations in situations "arising from inadequate understanding of psychic phenomena", have intervened an organs of local police. And yet, she says, only in a few cases an objective investigation was carried out. More often the eyewitness accounts are not taken into account, recognize only an arguments of critics, because it is believed that they protect the established scientific principles.

Versus ethical materialism

The fruits of materialistic scientific worldview, reaching the sphere of practical interests of the people, shape their ethics. Blavatsky sees a direct logical connection between a faith in the soulless mechanistic universe and by the fact that is for her as a purely egoistic attitude to life.

"The theoretical materialistic science recognizes nought but substance. Substance is its deity, its only God." We are told that practical materialism, on the other hand, concerns itself with nothing that does not lead directly or indirectly to personal benefit. "Gold is its idol," justly observes Professor Butleroff (a spiritualist, yet one who could never accept even the elementary truths of occultism, for he "cannot understand them"). – "A lump of matter," he adds, "the beloved substance of the theoretical materialists, is transformed into a lump of mud in the unclean hands of ethical materialism. And if the former gives but little importance to inner (psychic) states that are not perfectly demonstrated by their exterior states, the latter disregards entirely the inner states of life... The spiritual aspect of life has no meaning for practical materialism, everything being summed up for it in the external. The adoration of this external finds its principal and basic justification in the dogma of materialism, which has legalized it."

Blavatsky clearly expresses her utter contempt for the values of "practical materialists." She accuses the ideological foundations of theoretical materialism and its an ignoring of the spiritual dimension of reality. This aversion to the complete unspirituality of the materialism reflects her "implicit gnostic ethical stance." A materialistic-physical and selfish interests are not compatible with the idealised world of the spirit and the transcendental purpose of mystical enlightenment. The practical materialists, even professing adherence to a moral code, do not cease to be by ethical materialists. According to Kalnitsky, "Blavatsky's radical gnostic dualism is allowing no room for compromise or alternative options." Thus, she considers the esoteric vision of reality the only viable alternative.

The science was seen in the West as the dominant category of knowledge and for the theosophists it was not so an enemy, as a potential ally. However, the stereotypes of the materialistic thinking were one of the main obstacles to the esoteric representation of reality. Thus, at every opportunity Blavatsky tries to dispel what was for the theosophy, as she considered, alien and wrong. It is meant to challenge to many of the basic principles that supported the materialistic basis of science. However, a neutral and objective approach of the science to the analysis of the facts seemed, for the theosophists, trustworthy. Blavatsky's striving to apply this approach to the consideration of the paranormal and mystical phenomena pursued a goal: to achieve the legitimacy and public acceptance of the theosophy.

A skeptical position, which was taken by Blavatsky in respect of the materialistic science, was motivated by her outrage over the ignore by the scientists the spiritual dimension of reality. On the other hand, the assertion that spiritual truths can be proven from a scientific point of view, was a constant theme of Blavatsky's claims. The efforts of the theosophists were focused on the legitimation of all forms of extrasensory and mystical experience.

Criticism

In her article Blavatsky tries to protect "pseudoscientific" concept of the extrasensory perception. Solovyov wrote that Blavatskyan theosophy based only "on the assumption that there is some kind of secret wisdom", and described it as a doctrine not only "anti-religious" and "antiphilosophic", but also "anti-scientific".

In 1912 The Catholic Encyclopedia has described Blavatskyan theosophy's attitude to the science as follows:

"Modern theosophy claims to be a definite science. Its teachings are the product of thought, and its source is consciousness, not any Divine revelation. <...> Judging it as presented by its own exponents, it appears to be a strange mixture of mysticism, charlatanism, and thaumaturgic pretension combined with an eager effort to express its teaching in words which reflect the atmosphere of Christian ethics and modern scientific truths."

Publications

Translations