Talk:The Secret Doctrine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Secret Doctrine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Science & education / Physical geography Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Albert Einstein bogus claim

An IP is repeatedly making the claim that Albert Einstein had a copy of The Secret Doctrine and it inspired the theory of relativity [1]. This is a bogus claim not supported by any scholars, it was originally taken from Theosophy Wiki [2]. The source is supposed to have been Einstein's niece but he is never confirmed to have had a niece. It is a bogus claim only found in Theosophical literature and does not belong on Wikipedia. We need reliable sources not hearsay. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not bogus. Is there a source that says he didn't have one? What source do you have claiming that it's made up? 132.205.229.216 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is upon he who posits something. Anyway, Einstein was a thorough materialistic rationalist, and had nothing but contempt for occultism. His "cosmic religion" consisted of materialistic rationalism.

Einstein's Weltanschauung was simply not compatible with the theosophical Weltanschauung. More like opposites.

"Physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, two of the main pioneers of quantum mechanics, were interested in Eastern mysticism, but are not known to have directly associated one with the other." From quantum mysticism.

Einstein was the adversary of quantum mysticism, his spirituality could not be conceived bereft of rationalistic philosophy (like that of Spinoza) and mainstream science.

So, if you think of Einstein, think of a hardcore Spinozist materialist, who only retained from mysticism disdain for authority and a sense of wonder which fitted perfectly within his materialist conception of life. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original source for the claim that Einstein had a copy of The Secret Doctrine was Sylvia Cranston's biography of Blavatsky. She wrote "According to his niece, Einstein always had a copy of it on his desk" (HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, p. 434). Sylvia Cranston was not a historian or scholar, she was a Theosophist and her biography of Blavatsky was far from neutral [3]. As tgeorgescu cites WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof is on the claimant. There are no scholarly references to back up Cranston's claim and no Einstein biographer has supported or verified such a claim. It is likely to be a hoax. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, Einstein retained something about the veil of Maya, but that was seen through his wholly materialistic lens. I think he got that from Schopenhauer. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the word "materialism", replace it with "scientific naturalism": Einstein was a hardcore scientific naturalist. The claim is thus WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"pseudoscientific" again

The use of the term "pseudoscientific" is sourced and has previously been discussed on the talk page at Talk:The_Secret_Doctrine/Archive_1#Criticisms. Meters (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, seen the recent revert, I have to chime in: the book is not condemned for making strictly metaphysical claims (such as their own brand of Platonic realism), but for making an awful lot of falsifiable claims. Such claims not only are pseudoscience now, but they also were pseudoscience at the moment the book got published. Scientists and scholars derided the book since it was published, and the take of mainstream scientists has not changed since then. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]