Talk:The Secret Doctrine

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 . This is a bogus claim not supported by any scholars, it was originally taken from Theosophy Wiki . 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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

Upon further insight, the similarity: both Einstein and HPB were adepts of cosmotheism.

The difference: Einstein was a materialist, HPB was a Spiritualist. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

"Albert Einstein [...] also read Blavatsky and attended lectures by Rudolf Steiner."

What part of this is "critical reception"? How is it relevant that someone said that someone else read it when we do not know whether the second someone liked it and why?

The only point of adding this sentence to the article I can think of is to bolster the book's reputation among simpletons, because they mistakenly view Einstein as an authority on all sorts of things and him reading a book makes the book shine for them no matter what he thought about it, but that is not a goal of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Einstein was a curious person. That's the only point I made with that quote. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Except "curious people read it. Here is one example". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then it may be removed. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

"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)

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)

@Temporary account: you are violating the website policy WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Mühlematter and Zander page 11 is an error. The book at Google Books is unpaginated, so page 11 is most probably an error. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Continued blanking of descriptive summary

@ Temporary account who continues to blank large sections of content: You are misinterpreting the policy on primary sources. Wikipedia:PSTSAs Wikipedia:These are not original research describes: "A book, short story, film, or other work of fiction is a primary source for any article or topic regarding that work. Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading/watching the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliant upon the primary source. This would include direct quotes or non-interpretative summaries, publication dates, and any other pertinent information that can be observed from the work."

The content you are blanking is extensively cited to the relevant primary source, in fact most of it is direct block quotes and introductions/transitions between said quotes. DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Restored last stable version as edited by Tgeorgescu at 00:27, 29 December 2025, warned both users on their talk pages. Any further edit warring will be reported. Note: I always warn everyone involved in the edit war; this does not imply that you did anything wrong, but does give you fair warning not to revert again.--Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Guy Macon, I first reverted the temp account's mass blanking because I found it in Recent Changes and concluded it was vandalism, considering they mass removed descriptive content citing the primary source with the strange justification that it was original research. Personally, I find theosophy's brand of fringe nonsense entertaining, and I think the summaries here are very relevant to the average reader of this article. It also helps clarify why this stuff is pseudoscientific/fringe.

As is, your recent revert keeps the earlier blanking done here and undid my fixing of the citations.

Also, I see you now posted a warning for edit warring on my talk page: as far as I'm concerned, this appears to be vandalism per Wikipedia:NOBLANK so I don't believe that's warranted. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking into the blanking now, will restore a different version if my restore removed something that it should not have. Do not revert again, even if you think you are right. Let the other editors working on this page do any needed reverting. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Just reiterating that, per Wikipedia:NOBLANK this is pretty straightforwardly vandalism - the idea that using a primary source to describe said primary source is WP:OR is obviously frivolous - so I don't believe concern about edit warring is warranted here. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks legit. Restored page as edited by Tgeorgescu at 01:43, 22 December 2025. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A word about the vandalism exception to WP:EW as in relates to this edit:

The vandalism exception to EW is for edits that any editor would instantly recognize as vandalism. This was not such an edit and most definitely was not "pretty straightforwardly vandalism." The vandalism exception should be very narrowly applied. The mere fact of putting "Completely primary. We need secondary sources to notice to establish that this is notable and due" in the edit summary was enough to make it ineligible for the vandalism exception to WP:EW. Instead, you should have treated it as an edit that you think is unjustified, and reverted as described in WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD.

User:DiodotusNicator, the content you are inserting or restoring is not acceptable. Much of it interprets the source, and how close that interpretation is can be discussed, but if it needs to be discussed it's probably not close enough. Plus, I see a paragraph starting "Some have emphasized passages and footnotes...", clearly in Wikipedia's voice, but vague and unclear--and it's kind of inscrutable. Finally, the last paragraph points out a contradiction (signaled by "yet"), and such pointing out is editorial commentary (or OR). Never mind that the second quote is a fragment without punctuation, and I don't see any contradiction. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

So, the only thing I inserted was some fixed citations, otherwise I was just restoring blanked sections which had been present since seemingly 2017, with much of the content on the racial theories being present for >2 decades. That's not to say its age warrants its inclusion, I fully agree on the last paragraph, and that "Some have emphasized" sentence, but the overwhelming majority of the content here is either well-cited paraphrasing, or direct quotation from the text, so I don't think mass blanking both sections is justifiable. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain further on "Completely primary. We need secondary sources to notice to establish that this is notable and due" as a non-frivolous explanation, because I'm genuinely confused - why would we need secondary sources to establish that descriptive content of a primary source is notable/due in an article about said primary source? DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Point taken on the vandalism exception, though. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Two separate issues. The first issue is whether it was the sort of vandalism that gives you permission to violate WP:3RR. It isn't. The explanation in the edit summary -- bogus or legitimate -- is enough to disqualify you from invoking the exception. The second issue is whether the part that was removed and restored should be removed, edited, or left as is. I have carefully avoided expressing any opinion on that issue. It need to be discussed among those who have been editing this page, and I see that that discussion has started. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)