Who sent Madame Blavatsky?

(polemics with Xeniy Myalo and other Roerichs)

Roerich

PREFACE

1. MASONS AND SHAMBHALA, OR CAN MAHATMAS LIE?

2. HOW BLAVATSKY FORBADE PRAYER

3. A MILITANT ATHEIST NAMED BUDDHA

4. ROERICH AND THE SYMBOL OF FAITH

5. NICHOLAS ROERICH AND ST. JOHN OF KRONSTADT

6. MISSIONARY WORK AMONG THE DEAD

7. POLITICAL GOSSIP AS A MEANS OF ESCAPING REALITY

8. IS ROERICHISM A RELIGION?

9. THEOSOPHICAL ELEPHANT IN THE HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS SHOP

10. ABOUT SATANISM

11. IS THERE ANYTHING GOOD IN THE WEST?

12. HOW THE MISSION GOES OUT

13. WHO SENT BLAVATSKY?

14. COSMIC ESOTERICS

15. GNOSTICS, THEOSOPHISTS, CHRISTIANS

a) GNOSTICS AND ANTIQUITY

b) GNOSTICS AND CHRISTIANITY

c) GNOSTICS AND THEOSOPHY

d) GNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY VERSUS PANTHEISM AND THEOSOPHY

16. ARGUING ABOUT TASTES.

17. NUMBERS ARE BORING, BUT FALSE

18. THE ROERICHS, MYALO AND CHURCHLINESS

DATING OFFER

CAN WRITERS READ?

ANTHROPOSOPHICAL DEFENSE OF BUDDHISM

ROERICHOSLAVIE

(about the book by Ksenia Myalo "The Star of the Magi or Christ in the Himalayas". 2nd edition. Moscow, 1999)

PREFACE

In 1994, the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church warned that the followers of Roerich's teaching[1] had placed themselves outside of Orthodoxy. Of course, a storm of indignation arose in "society": "Intolerance!", "Fanaticism!", "Middle Ages!". The most sensitive noses even smelled the "fires of the Inquisition".

In 1997, my two-volume work "Satanism for the Intelligentsia. On the Roerichs and Orthodoxy". It explained on a thousand pages the incompatibility of Christianity with theosophy and Buddhism.

Almost two years of silence followed. Roerich's periodicals snapped at my book from time to time, but did not enter into a serious discussion. During this time, I had many reasons to be disappointed in the level of honesty and education of my Roerich opponents.

Finally, the Roerich publishing house "Belovodye" published a book by Ksenia Myalo "The Star of the Magi or Christ in the Himalayas". The main feature of this book is that it tries to argue with me not from a theosophical position, but from... Orthodox. The author insists on his churchliness. The publishers emphasize that her voice sounds "from within Orthodoxy."

Well, the event is quite predictable for the post-post-post-post-modernist 90s of the twentieth century.

A lot of people think that Orthodoxy is just a beautiful word, behind which there is an empty space that they can force with their furniture according to their own plan. Lighting a candle in an Orthodox church is considered a sufficient reason to then call any of your political, philosophical, religious positions "Orthodox".