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.

However, the "Higher Principle" is also in the "Living Ethics" (for who dictated its volumes?). Frazer said that "religion behind the visible veil of nature presupposes the action of conscious or personal forces standing above man." Is there such an assumption in Theosophy and Agni Yoga? Eat...

Will the Roerichs say that they do not "believe" but "know"? But I will say again that the awareness of one's religiosity in the modality of "faith" is not a general religious phenomenon, but inherent only in the Abrahamic religions. In addition, people of fideistic traditions also appeal to experience and rationality, and therefore do not consider their faith to be completely blind ("I know in whom I believe" - 2 Tim. 1:12).

Рериховские утверждения о “планетарных логосах”, “парафохате”, а уж тем более о “непроявленном Абсолюте” тоже являются предметом веры, а отнюдь не знания или доказательства. Не через доказательства входит человек в мир Агни Йоги, а через обучение правилам оккультного языка. Один оккультный термин объясняется через другой; один оккультный текст подтверждается ссылкой на другой оккультный же авторитет. Вера в “Иерархию” есть условие вхождения в рериховский мир. Так что с помощью критерия “веры в Высшее начало” рериховцам не удастся отгородить себя от мира религий.

Культ же совсем не обязательно должен быть “хорошо разработанным”; культ может совершаться просто как посвящение своего сердца Владыке. Такое поклонение, такой культ считается нормативным, высшим в христианстве. Такой же идеал и такую же практику предлагает “Живая Этика” (к сожалению, как мы увидим позднее, это поклонение теософия адресует иному “владыке” - отнюдь не евангельскому Христу).

У протестантов явно нет столь разработанного культа, как у православных или у католиков, но это никак не значит, что пятидесятничество или баптизм - не религия...

Хотя, впрочем, сами-то они порой не прочь – как и рериховцы – выдать себя за людей безрелигиозных. Вот, например, баптист Виктор Гамм уверяет, что «логически слово «религия» происходит от латинского религио, что означает «связать». Таким образом, религия есть нечто, связывающее человека… Человек закабаляет себя всевозможными путами, в том числе и религией. Он становится рабом буквы, страха, обряда, одежды, мнений и догм. Исходя из этого определения религии, можно смело сказать, что христианство не есть религия, вопреки всем утверждениям религиоведов. Учение Христа не связывает людей, а, напротив, освобождает»272. Ну, что, согласятся ли и рериховцы считать, что баптизм – это не религиозное, а чисто культурное движение?

Не только баптисты, но и апостолы Христа не составляли подробных инструкций о совершении богослужения - но это не значит, что их деятельность не была религиозной. Православные монахи-пустынники молились в чрезвычайно простой обстановке и по принципу “келья устава не знает”. Означает ли это, что жизнь пустынников была исключительно культурно-философской, а религиозная жизнь Византии теплилась только в пышных столичных соборах?