I understand that here we are entering the space of the most intense philosophical discussions about what "reality" is, how "external reality" and "internal reality" relate to each other. Of course, "science" is a socially conditioned (and thus limited) institution, of course the "reality" that science investigates is the reality that has been modeled with the help of the thoughts and knowledge transmitted to us by the social group to which we belong.

But if Theosophy claims to be called a science, then it must accept the rules of the "game" that are accepted in science. If Theosophy wants to be called "culture," it must understand that the space of intracultural communication is a space generated by a certain set of conventionalisms. The alternative to this is autism, complete isolation from one's inner experience without any hope of communicating it and transmitting it to people. Or "LSD culture": a whimsical collage, a ligature of words that do not pretend to be perceived by anyone else according to the laws of classical logic.

But Roerich does not just communicate the structure of his inner reality in his own language. They insist that their personal inner reality is universally significant. They insist that the voices they hear and the visions they contemplate carry the truth necessary for all mankind.

This is the uniqueness of Roerichism. For the first time, perhaps, a certain group of people tried not only to build their personal lives on the basis of the experience gained in the "altered state of consciousness", but also presented it as the highest point in the development of science, culture and religion of mankind, and also offered this very experience as the basis for state and social construction (see below about the Roerichs' attempts to get in touch with contemporary state leaders).

Such a high self-assessment of one's own "spiritual experience" stemmed from the content of this experience. The Roerichs embarked on the path of "bowlessness" and rejected both scientific and Orthodox-ascetic discernment and distrust, because they took seriously the call "Call from the abyss of matter the bright messengers"! (Community, 145). Called, they come. Especially to those who cannot and do not want to protect themselves from their visits, who live without any consideration of church experience (remember: "I have always kept quite far from the Church and its representatives"263).

And although sometimes even Helena Roerich admits the existence of spiritual dangers ("When will people understand what terrible forces surround us!") 264, but on the whole her Theosophy offers no criteria for checking the quality of the "revelations" of the CCCC.

As Fr. Sergius Bulgakov quite rightly remarks about Theosophy, "there is no criticism here and every conjecture is taken as a direct revelation of the spiritual worlds."

It is worth noting here (since Ableev speaks of "orthodox religion") that in the Orthodox tradition it is recommended to be distrustful of the "unusual": "Beloved! believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1). Speaking of the very first sin on Earth, St. Theophan the Recluse sees the guilt of the forefathers precisely in excessive credulity: "The work of eating may not be great, but it is bad that they believe without knowing whom." This same sin of credulity led to the very sad adventures of Goethe's Faust. The troubles of Faust (and those people with whom he met) became inevitable when he was satisfied with Mephistopheles' evasive answer ("What is your name?" - "A petty question!"). Archim. Sophronius (Sakharov), who underwent monastic temptation on Mount Athos under St. Sophronius (Sakharov). Silouan, who later founded an Orthodox monastery in England, gives the following advice: "When the state of affairs is unclear to the confessor, he has at his disposal a 'psychological device': to suggest that the confessor be distrustful of all kinds of special phenomena. If the vision was truly from God, then humility will prevail in the soul of the confessor and he will calmly accept the advice to be sober. Otherwise, there may be a negative reaction and a desire to prove that the vision could not be otherwise than from God."267

As for the "miracle" – mentioned by Ableev as a criterion of religious faith – the Roerichs also recognize the existence of such events in the world that the human mind is unable to explain. In general, if we accept Ableev's definition of a miracle, then any influence directed from top to bottom will be a miracle. When the higher influences the lower, from the point of view of the lower, this influence is "supernatural, uncausal, and incomprehensible." Thus incomprehensible to the finger is the movement of a hand set in motion by a man's thought. So incomprehensible and wonderful for a stone is the movement into which it is introduced by the throw of a human hand. Does Ableev recognize the hierarchy of the levels of being? Yes. Does he recognize the transparency of all interactions in this hierarchy, based on our human perspective? Unlikely. The higher can act on top of the laws prescribed for the lower. Which, of course, will be a miracle for the latter. Moreover, everything that is generated by freedom seems to be a "miracle" for a world entirely subordinated to "natural" necessity. And here there will indeed be a border between the world of Christianity and the world of karmic occultism. The Christian confesses the freedom of man and the freedom of God.

And the Roerichs' view fully recognizes miracles – "If one miracle has taken place, then the second one is possible. There will be miracles – all is well."268 "Urusvati has heard of a miracle, and it is a miracle that will be useful."269

"The presence of rites, rituals and cult" in Roerichism we will see later.

And according to the criterion of "the presence of the Holy Scriptures and subsequent dogmas, which are regarded as the absolute and immutable truth in the last instance", Roerichism is quite suitable for Ableigh's definition of religion, because it assumes a clear hierarchy of texts: there are basic texts to which an appeal is possible (Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine and the Roerichs' Cosmic Dictations). These texts themselves are perceived as unconditionally true, and discrepancies with them are regarded as a sign of the incorrectness of the text being checked against them.

In addition, there are a considerable number of unwritten religions that do not have "Holy Scriptures". For example, the Greco-Roman religion. Thus, Ableev's definition from the point of view of religious studies is too narrow, and his conclusion about the absence of the features of religion in Roerichism proposed by him is too hasty.

And here is the definition of religion by another Roerich, the head of the Moscow Roerich Center "Belovodye" S. Klyuchnikov: "My task was to expound the eschatological ideas of various religions, Russian spiritual culture and the Living Ethics. At the same time, I have always believed that the main feature that distinguishes religion from non-religion is a well-developed cult and belief in the Higher Principle, but not at all a well-developed teaching about the end of the world - eschatology.