What Happened In The 1975-2000 Cycle?

“For her [i.e. H. P. Blavatsky] to write definitely that another messenger would appear in the last quarter of the twentieth century was insurance against faithful Theosophists being deceived as to the occult status of any who might pose as “new revealers” before the cycle for further inquiry and deeper learning had arrived.”
(“The Centenary Cycle,” “Theosophy” Magazine, April 1942)

~ * ~

As it is often mentioned by Theosophists that there is a special cyclic period in the closing twenty-five years of every century in which the Masters of Wisdom are permitted to give out further teachings to the world, in order to further help the spiritual evolution and advancement of humanity, and that the work of H. P. Blavatsky, beginning with the founding of the Theosophical Society in exactly 1875, was a prime example of this, it is also not unreasonably sometimes asked what happened in 1975-2000 that corresponds to this.

If HPB was the main Messenger, Agent, and public Representative, of the Masters and Their Brotherhood in 1875, who was the Messenger in 1975 and where can we find his or her teachings?

The confident expectation for 1975 is found stated and referred to numerous times throughout the Theosophical literature studied and published by the United Lodge of Theosophists, from HPB’s and her colleague William Q. Judge’s own words on the subject, to those of Robert Crosbie (the founder of the ULT) and B. P. Wadia, and in numerous of the unsigned articles that appeared over decades in ULT magazines such as “Theosophy” and “The Theosophical Movement.” Anyone who remains a part of ULT meetings and activities for long enough invariably comes across such statements and passages and then the question is very understandably asked: “What happened in 1975?”

Usually the answer offered by their fellow students and associates is either “We don’t know,” or “The Masters probably decided not to go ahead with the 1975-2000 effort after all,” the reason given for this being that the majority of Theosophists worldwide, especially those in the various Theosophical Society organisations, had for many decades before 1975 ignored and rejected the teachings, the writings, and the esoteric doctrine of HPB and her Adept-Teachers and replaced it with various other versions of “Theosophy” and hence how could the Masters give out further teachings when what They had already painstakingly given was so seriously neglected and largely unknown and why would They even bother with such an impossible endeavour?


The apparent and widely believed absence of a clear 1975 “Messenger” within the modern Theosophical Movement then leads some people to speculate and hypothesise that the 1975-2000 Messenger may have worked outside the folds of the Theosophical groups and that he or she perhaps saw fit to give out teachings and ideas very different and largely unrelated to those presented by HPB. Some have suggested that various different New Age teachers may have been the “Messenger” or even that the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism were the Messenger and Message of the 1975-2000 cycle.

The latter idea might at first glance sound possibly plausible, seeing that HPB’s Adept Teachers had close links with Tibet and described Themselves as Buddhists, but when one actually researches in depth both what Theosophy has to say about Tibetan Buddhism and what is taught and practised in Tibetan Buddhism itself, such a speculation swiftly becomes untenable. This is not to deny that the present Dalai Lama has done some great work in the world and been, on the whole, a very positive influence for spirituality and progress, both before, during, and since the 1975-2000 period, but let us be aware of this statement made by HPB in 1887:

“The field of exoteric and official Buddhism of the Churches of both North and South, those of Tibet and Ceylon, is covered once more with parasitic weeds.”

How the Buddhism of Tibet could somehow suddenly cease to be “covered with parasitic weeds” (a strong expression but one that HPB saw to be accurate and justified) in less than 90 years is not explained by those who advance the theory of Tibetan Buddhism being the Masters’ Message for the 1975 cycle. Those “parasitic weeds” no doubt refer largely to the sexual tantra (the worst form of black magic, according to HPB and the Masters) and all the abuse surrounding it, which is embedded throughout the whole of Tibetan Buddhism, the Gelugpa sect included. Even some of the Dalai Lama’s popular books have not been immune from directly and unmistakably endorsing sexual tantric practices. But this present article isn’t about that subject; those who wish to know more can read Gelugpas, Tantra, and Theosophy: Resolving a Complex Puzzle and will find there evidence and documentation for the things we have just said.

For those in the ULT who don’t feel they have any answer to the question “What happened in 1975? Who was the new Messenger?” the numerous statements on the subject in Theosophical literature may seem a little embarrassing and a cause of awkward feelings. So much promise and definiteness and hope from the likes of HPB, WQJ, Crosbie, and Wadia, and then, when the appointed time came – nothing, nothing at all! Such, at least, is the viewpoint of the majority of experienced associates and workers. By “nothing at all,” we are here referring specifically to the arrival on the scene of a new Direct Agent and Representative from the Mahatmas, though even without this most ULT Lodges experienced increased attendance and interest, sometimes dramatically so, during this period.


But first, let’s look at H. P. Blavatsky’s statement from the final chapter of her book “The Key to Theosophy,” as this will shed some light on the general subject and is the main source of our awareness of such a centennial cycle:

“But I must tell you that during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made by those “Masters,” of whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality – or call it mysticism if you prefer – has taken place. Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed historical records extend. . . . If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition of men’s minds and hearts will have been improved and purified by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said, their prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible literature ready to men’s hands, the next impulse will find a numerous and united body of people ready to welcome the new torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is given, could accomplish. . . . Consider all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred years – tell me, I say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what it is now!” (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 306-307)

Here HPB makes very clear that the mission of the 1975-2000 Messenger, “the new torch-bearer of Truth,” would be to specifically follow on from her mission, to specifically add to and expand the teachings she had already given from the archaic Esoteric Wisdom, and to specifically work in and through the existing Theosophical Movement. This fact is often lost sight of in some people’s speculations and hypotheses.

The same point is present in various things said by William Q. Judge, her co-founder of the Society, and who stated, as well as implied, that the new Messenger would be HPB returned, albeit of course under some other guise, name, and persona:

“H. P. Blavatsky has clearly pointed out in the Key, in her conclusion, that the plan is to keep the T.S. alive as an active, free, unsectarian body during all the time of waiting for the next great messenger, who will be herself beyond question. Thereby will be furnished the well-made tool with which to work again in grander scale, and without the fearful opposition she had without and within when she began this time.” (WQJ, “The Closing Cycle”)

“She [i.e. HPB] concludes [“The Key to Theosophy”] by stating that the present T. S. is one of those attempts to help the world, and the duty of every member is made plain that they should preserve this body with its literature and original plans so as to hand it on to our successors who shall have it ready at the last quarter of the next century for the messenger of the Masters who will then, as now, reappear. Failure or success in this duty presents no obscure outcome. If we succeed, then in the twentieth century that messenger will find the materials in books, in thought and in popular terms, to permit him or her to carry forward the great work to another stage without the fierce opposition and the tremendous obstacles which have frowned upon us during the last fifteen years just closed. If we fail, then the messenger will waste again many precious years in repreparing the ground, and ours will be the responsibility.” (WQJ, “Theosophical Study and Work”)

“Her method was . . . to found a Society whose efforts – however small itself might be – would inject into the thought of the day the ideas, the doctrines, the nomenclature of the Wisdom Religion, so that when the next century shall have seen its 75th year the new messenger coming again into the world would find the Society still at work, the ideas sown broadcast, the nomenclature ready to give expression and body to the immutable truth, and thus to make easy the task which for her since 1875 was so difficult and so encompassed with obstacles in the very paucity of the language, – obstacles harder than all else to work against.” (WQJ, “HPB  A Lion-Hearted Colleague Passes”)

We also find HPB saying: “In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya; and that, like the once-mysterious sources of the Nile, the source of all religions and philosophies now known to the world has been for many ages forgotten and lost to men, but is at last found.” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, Introductory, p. xxxviii)

In her article “The Cycle Moveth” we read: “The messengers sent out periodically in the last quarter of every century westward – ever since the mysteries which alone had the key to the secrets of nature had been crushed out of existence in Europe by heathen and Christian conquerors – had appeared that time [i.e. in the closing quarter of the 18th century] in vain. St. Germain and Cagliostro are credited with real phenomenal powers only in fashionable novels, to remain inscribed in encyclopedias . . . as merely clever charlatans. The only man whose powers and knowledge could have been easily tested by exact science, thus forming a firm link between physics and metaphysics – Friedrich Anton Mesmer – had been hooted from the scientific arena by the greatest “scholar-ignoramuses” in things spiritual, of Europe.”

This has reference to what is said in HPB’s entry for “Mesmer” on p. 213-214 of “The Theosophical Glossary”: “Mesmer . . . was an initiated member of the Brotherhoods of the Fratres Lucis and of Lukshoor (or Luxor), or the Egyptian Branch of the latter. It was the Council of “Luxor” which selected him – according to the orders of the “Great Brotherhood” – to act in the XVIIIth century as their usual pioneer, sent in the last quarter of every century to enlighten a small portion of the Western nations in occult lore. It was St. Germain who supervised the development of events in this case; and later Cagliostro was commissioned to help, but having made a series of mistakes, more or less fatal, he was recalled.”

We find some other references on these matters in the writings of Robert Crosbie, the pupil of WQJ and HPB who in 1909 founded the United Lodge of Theosophists, and B. P. Wadia, the prominent Indian Theosophist who in 1922 shocked the Theosophical world by leaving, in a very public way, “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” to join the ULT:

“There is no question anywhere as to who brought the message of Theosophy to the Western World, nor is there any reason to believe that the Messenger, H. P. Blavatsky, failed to deliver all that was to be given out until the year 1975 – the time stated by her for the advent of the next Messenger.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 413)

“The scattered soldiers had banded together, had actually erected a fortress, had unfurled the true Theosophical flag, and were sending forth the old familiar message. . . . The small band of students who have gathered round the old flag and who have erected their Home of Service are known as the United Lodge of Theosophists, . . . With these friends I will render such service as I am capable of to the Cause of Theosophy, by adopting the only true method of earnestly studying and honestly proclaiming the Message of the Great Ones given in the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century. The assimilation and promulgation of this message is the task of our humanity which will take us to the promised year – 1975. . . . those who teach the Theosophy that H.P.B. taught, are her true successors; those who serve Theosophy in the light of those Teachings are the true Servants of the Servants of Humanity.” (B. P. Wadia, “To all Fellow Theosophists and Members of the Theosophical Society,” his statement in pamphlet form explaining his reasons for leaving “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” and joining the United Lodge of Theosophists)

This is all quite clear and in light of all that was said in the above quotes regarding the closing quarter of the 20th century – irrespective of the fact that a naturally occurring “upheaval of spirituality” always occurs anyway at the close of a century, with or without direct Theosophical input – any search for the 1975 Messenger would in theory be confined to the modern Theosophical Movement.


Some people say that the fact of there being, from early as four years after HPB’s death, multiple Theosophical organisations rather than one united centralised organisation could be one of the reasons why apparently no new Messenger appeared on the scene at the end of the twentieth century. Some Theosophists, such as F. Pierce Spinks, used this as a reason to urge all the other Theosophical groups to disband and reunite themselves with “The Theosophical Society – Adyar,” seeing as it was the Society originally founded. Yet such ideas are foreign to the ideology and principles of HPB herself, who wrote:

“It is pure nonsense to say that “H.P.B. . . . is loyal to the Theosophical Society and to Adyar” (?). H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy alone can bind the whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood. . . . The degree of her sympathies with the “Theosophical Society and Adyar” depends upon the degree of the loyalty of that Society to the CAUSE. Let it break away from the original lines and show disloyalty in its policy to the CAUSE and the original programme of the Society, and H.P.B. calling the T.S. disloyal, will shake it off like dust from her feet.” (Supplement to “The Theosophist,” July 1889)

Still, the existence of several different Theosophical organisations does raise the valid question among Theosophists of which of these the 1975 Messenger would choose to work through. All of them, some, or only one? As we have mentioned, the ULT’s firm and unwavering faithfulness to what HPB and the Mahatmas had variously called “the original lines,” “the original programme,” “the original impulse,” “the original system,” and “the original teachings,” along with the ULT having and fostering great respect and appreciation for the occult nature and status of the real inner “HPB” and “WQJ” as Initiates, Adepts, Nirmanakayas, members of the Masters’ Fraternity, naturally led many associates to expect the new Messenger to appear in and work through the vehicle of the ULT.


We must touch briefly upon the subject of Tsong-Kha-Pa, who lived from 1357 to 1419 in Tibet. HPB tells us (see her article “Reincarnations in Tibet”) that he was in a certain sense a reincarnation of Gautama Buddha, who had “left the regions of the ‘Western Paradise’ [Note: This is sometimes a code word for Shambhala.] to incarnate Himself in Tsong-Kha-pa, in consequence of the great degradation into which His [i.e. Buddha’s] secret doctrines had fallen” in Tibetan Buddhism. Tsong-Kha-Pa carried out a major reform of Tibetan Buddhism, on both its outward, exoteric side, and its inner, esoteric side. As part of this, he established in 1409 the Gelugpa (literally “The Virtuous Ones” or “Models of Virtue”) branch or sect or school of Tibetan Buddhism, recognisable outwardly by their use of yellow hats and headgear in contrast with the red of the older sects, and also became “the founder of the Secret School near Shigatse, attached to the private retreat of the Panchen Lama. It is with Him that began the regular system of Lamaic incarnations of Buddhas.” Since shortly after the time of Tsong-Kha-Pa, the Panchen Lamas and Dalai Lamas have always been the leading public figureheads of the Gelugpas.

Part of Tsong-Kha-Pa’s secret, esoteric work was described by HPB in words which were not published until after she had passed away, although they do appear in an abbreviated form in her article “Tibetan Teachings”:

“Among the commandments of Tsong-Kha-pa there is one that enjoins the Rahats (Arhats) to make an attempt to enlighten the world, including the “white barbarians,” every century, at a certain specified period of the cycle.”

This has always been understood to mean that it was Tsong-Kha-Pa who instituted this centennial cycle, this end-of-century effort that we have been talking about.

In the magazines “The Theosophical Movement” and “The Aryan Path” [Note: “Aryan” was there used in its original and literal meaning of “noble” and not in any connection with racist ideologies.] edited by B. P. Wadia of the United Lodge of Theosophists in India, it was occasionally very briefly stated and indicated that Tsong-Kha-Pa’s plan was a “Seven Century Plan.” Terms such as “the Seven Century Plan,” “the Seven Impulsions,” and “the Seventh Impulsion” (referring to the 1975 Cycle) appeared.

The most striking example was an article published by Wadia in “The Theosophical Movement” which is known to have been written by Raghavan Iyer, even though Iyer was then only 15. This article, titled “Obscured Adepts” (taking its name from a phrase used by William Judge in his article “Cycles”) said, amongst other things:

“The time was ripe to provide for and to sustain the great influx into the West of that Light of Spiritual Knowledge to be sent out as part of the long-prepared Seven-Century Plan of Tsong-Kha-Pa and his body of Co-Workers.”

“Our period too is more weighty with possibilities than even the two preceding centuries. For the Seventh Impulsion of the Seven-Century Plan is not far away, and every line of action grows more tense. The intellectual and spiritual vibration is higher, and will be higher still. . . . The alignment of Theosophists, as of all men, is in the making.”

That article was published in the 17th November 1945 issue of “The Theosophical Movement” magazine, a significant issue, as it marked exactly 70 years since the founding by HPB, WQJ, Col. Olcott, and others, of the Theosophical Society on 17th November 1875, 17th November also being considered an esoterically auspicious date due to a remark made about it in “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 2, p. 179.

If it may seem surprising that a 15 year old would write that, it should be known that due to Iyer’s intellectual advancement he had finished school and become a university student, working on a bachelor’s degree in economics, at the age of 14.

What would happen after those seven centuries or “seven impulsions” is not clear (HPB once wrote, “Occultism must win the day, before the present era reaches “Shani’s (Saturn’s) triple septenary” of the Western Cycle in Europe, in other words – before the end of the twenty-first century “A.D.”) but it is indicated that Tsong-Kha-Pa had a specific series of seven of them in mind when making his solemn and sacred commandment to the Arhats or Adepts.

It has been thought by some that as Tsong-Kha-Pa was only 18 in 1375 and did not establish the Gelugpas until 1409, his centennial decree must have been made after 1375, which would therefore make the 1875-1900 the fifth of those efforts, the 1975-2000 cycle the sixth, and the seventh not being due until 2075-2100. But as we have seen, if there are people who can happily and successfully start a major university degree at age 14, it is not at all unthinkable that a Tsong-Kha-Pa could have set the centennial efforts in motion when still himself physically a youth.

It is of particular interest that Wadia published that 1945 article without any comments or annotations accompanying it. It was not the custom in that magazine for the editor to publish corrections on any of the articles; the articles published were those which Wadia deemed accurate and reliable. And still more compelling is that he published an article titled “Tsong-Kha-Pa and The West” by a lady named Katherine Merrill in the March 1945 issue of the magazine “The Aryan Path” (a Theosophically based journal which focused predominantly on sociocultural issues, literature, history, and the arts) in which she wrote:

This is the seventh century for such an effort. . . . When the time actually came for the Seer [i.e. Tsong-Kha-Pa] to direct his great Movement, his call to Adepts throughout the world may have been the preliminary synthesis of his effort. This was the first of the seven centenary Impulsions.”

In “The Aryan Path,” Wadia was in the habit of appending comments to articles by the wide range of contributors and pointing out things that were not in agreement with the true Theosophical perspective. But he did not do so with Merrill’s article, making it two articles published by him from two different writers both asserting that 1975-2000 would be the seventh century of such efforts and that there would be a total of seven.

It is safe to say that Wadia approved of those points, which raises the question of whether perhaps he was the one who originated the point about the Seven Century Plan and that Iyer, Merrill, and possibly others, first heard that from him. In the March 1949 “Theosophical Movement” Wadia published an article titled “Seven Centuries Culminating” (notice the meaning of the expression) which included the remark: “The fact of this great almost secret Movement started nearly seven centuries ago by Tsong-Kha-Pa and his body of Adepts may be recognized by thoughtful men.”

It would later (in the 1970s and 1980s) be stated by Raghavan Iyer (who by that time was based in Santa Barbara, California, having established the ULT Lodge there with his wife Nandini) that the Seven Century Plan was timed by Tsong-Kha-Pa to end at the year 2000 so as to have “prepare[d] the world through mental and spiritual revitalization to be ready to participate in the formation of the distant sixth subrace” and also so as to have provided the necessary impulse and foundation for the New Age of Aquarius which would have dawned by then but still be in its infancy. He would also state that those Seven Impulsions correspond to the seven human principles, the seven components of the human constitution, this apparently also being part of what Tsong-Kha-Pa had in mind when initiating these end-of-century efforts. In this respect, it may be of interest to note how William Judge described the Theosophical effort of the 1875 cycle – i.e. the Sixth Impulsion, as it was called by ULT associates even prior to Iyer – as having the purpose of producing “a change in the Manas and Buddhi of the Race,” i.e. the fifth and sixth principles of the individual and collective human constitution. (“Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 72) Incidentally, Wadia’s article “Esoteric and Exoteric” (published in the book “Living The Life”) states that the 1975 Messenger will not “continue” HPB’s work but will “complete” it, or at least render it as complete as it can be for quite some time to come. This again appears to give credence to the principle of the Seven Century Plan.

It is worth clarifying that there is nothing in the writings of HPB, WQJ, or Robert Crosbie, which states or suggests that the centennial cycles were a Seven Century Plan and also nothing that specifically identifies the 1875 effort as the sixth or the (then) future 1975 effort as the significant seventh. But equally there is nothing in their writings which rules out the possibility of these things being so. It ultimately hinges to a large extent on B. P. Wadia. Most of those who have been involved with the United Lodge of Theosophists for a while are aware that this prominent Indian Theosophist B. P. Wadia (1881-1958) was not just an ordinary student of Theosophy. To dwell on his life and work would be out of place in this article but those interested are invited to read The Occult Life of B. P. Wadia. There we see it is strongly indicated from multiple and sometimes entirely unrelated sources that he was an approved and direct chela (disciple) of the Theosophical Mahatmas and in close and frequent communication with them. He never made any such claims for himself but so much evidence points powerfully in that direction.

As for the specific phrase “seventh impulsion” this was used as far back as May 1937 in an issue of “Theosophy” magazine, published by the Parent Lodge of the ULT in Los Angeles, California, USA. The article (“The Centenary Cycle”) says: “Applying this mathematical and numerical order of procession and precession to the Theosophical Movement of our times, the present Movement is asserted to have begun, in the East and in the West, in the fourteenth century. . . . Again, the assertion is made that each century since the fourteenth a renewal impulse has been imparted – in the West. . . . The nineteenth century furnished the sixth impulsion, the mission of H. P. Blavatsky . . . What will the seventh be like when it begins in 1975?”


We cannot move on from B. P. Wadia until we see some extremely interesting and important things he wrote to numerous ULT associates in the 1950s regarding the coming 1975-2000 cycle and Messenger. If Wadia was indeed what many of us believe him to be, then the fact that as late as the 1950s he was talking of the coming Messenger as a definite thing that would definitely be happening and for which ULT associates needed to be wisely prepared is particularly intriguing. So, unless he was just speaking hypothetically and from his own imagination and ideas of what would happen – which is, of course, a possibility and therefore should not be entirely ruled out – Wadia seemingly knew that there would be a Messenger, he knew that the Messenger would be working in the ULT, and he knew something of what the Messenger’s work would be like. Whether he knew who that Messenger would be is not made clear.

In one of the “Extracts from Unpublished Letters” series, republished as recently as July 2020 in “The Theosophical Movement” with the heading “FUTURE OF THE MOVEMENT,” we find B. P. Wadia telling associates:

The next Messenger will provide, first of all, a problem in VivekaVairagya [i.e discernment/discrimination and dispassion/detachment] for every survivor of stout heart and good standing. There may be claimants—“Lo here!” and “Lo there!” The recognition will demand heart sight. The next ten years will reveal the condition of the world; there are auspicious omens and also bad signs. It seems to me that the best way for us is to go on, primarily and also all the time, with the living of the Inner Life. A pure heart, an open mind, a studious brain, gather the magnetism of Wisdom which means Discernment. If we study carefully our own heart, as Light on the Path directs, and observe the moving life all around us, we shall pierce Maya’s veil in every direction and see the truth of things and beings, events in our own or in the collective life.”

“What H.P.B. herself has said in the concluding pages of the The Key to Theosophy gives hints and pointers as well as definite instructions. The very ardency of faith of so many of our students may narrow their vision. “Where, oh! where is the Messenger?” some will cry.”

The next Messengerwho is to determine and by what measuring stick? If one does not prepare oneself from now on to feel the truth of ideas, which then are bound to be extensions of known present day truths, one will be nowhere. Moral principles of Truth, Charity, Justice, etc., will be reiterated in a new set of words, idioms and allegories; there will be a deeper core to them which will be missed by all those who have not purified themselves by the practice of Divine Virtues now. H.P.B. gave the truth about 1975 as a proclamation so that individuals might prepare themselves by working on and within themselves. In that very process they are preparing the mind of the race. Compared with that inner preparation, our platform and periodicals are but outer expressions – or ought to be.” [bold and underlining added for emphasis]

Elsewhere in “Extracts from Unpublished Letters” he touches again on the same subject of recognition of the 1975 Teacher:

“You cannot know the status and dignity of a teacher even on the physical plane save and except by the test of knowledge. How will a student of physics or mathematics know a true physicist or mathematician save and except by testing the knowledge that these teachers impart in their own subjects as against our own knowledge? So, through our own spiritual insight alone we are able to see the profundity of the spiritual nature of a real teacher. Apply this to no less a person than H.P.B. How can we know that H.P.B. was a real teacher? If we go by all that her colleagues as well as those who lived with her and worked with her say, we would very much bring her down, not only to the ordinary human level but perhaps to an extraordinary human level where she becomes a mixture of falsehood and truth, of fiction and genuine philosophy, etc. We have to proceed on the basis of the spiritual rulefrom the teaching to the teacher.”

So we see that Wadia knew that the 1975 Messenger was not likely to be easily accepted as such by even very earnest, devoted, and serious ULT associates. “The very ardency of faith of so many of our students may narrow their vision.” This is similar to a point sometimes made by the Masters and HPB that it is possible to sin through an excess of devotion and not always through a lack of it. The writer of this article was not around in 1975 and so cannot judge but nonetheless recognises how easy it would be for a ULT associate to form a fixed mental idea of what a new Messenger would be like: what he or she would do, say, their attitudes and approach to the broader Theosophical Movement and – most likely – many associates would form the idea that even the new Messenger would abide strictly by accepted principles of ULT work such as always practising the standard ULT idea of impersonality, anonymity, not drawing attention to oneself, and perhaps never even revealing or even intimating that they are the Messenger for the new cycle. It is also possible, due to our entirely justified and right love and reverence for HPB, WQJ, and Crosbie, to assume that a new Messenger working within the ULT would talk like them, write like them, use predominantly their words, and be almost exactly like them in every respect.

But it only takes a moment’s thought and an open mind to realise how wrong and misguided this is. How likely, reasonable, or plausible is it really to assume that the new Messenger would be exactly, or at least almost exactly, like we personally would expect them to be and want them to be?

We would certainly be justified in expecting a genuine Messenger not to distort or contradict what we know to be the Masters’ Teachings but we would also need to be prepared to read or hear new teachings, additional teachings and knowledge, which may at first sound completely unfamiliar. We would also need to be prepared for, and accept, that a new Messenger would at some point almost definitely need to reveal themselves as such or at the very least strongly insinuate it (just as the 1875 Messenger HPB did and William Judge in various ways also) despite the fact that to ears trained in good ULT principles this would at first sound like claim-making and pretension.

As Wadia wrote, “The recognition will demand heart sight,” the Messenger will pose in themselves a problem only solvable by discernment, dispassion, and detachment, and the true test of a true teacher must be their teachings, not their personality and not what people say or claim about them, whether negative or positive.


When the auspicious and long awaited date of 17th November 1975 rolled around, there were three different monthly ULT magazines in publication: “Theosophy,” published by the ULT’s Parent Lodge in Los Angeles, California, USA, “The Theosophical Movement,” published by the Mumbai ULT in India, and “Hermes,” published by the Santa Barbara ULT in California, USA. Each responded differently to “the 1975 subject” in their November 1975 issues and from these we can get a taste or feel of what type of views, hopes, and attitudes, were prevalent across the worldwide ULT at that time.

“Theosophy” published an article titled “Cycles of Awakening.” This focused primarily on the differences between the world of the late 19th century and the world of the late 20th century and pointed out how some Theosophical principles and ideas had gained a greater degree of prevalence and influence during the intervening 100 or so years and how the time was now ripe to “make possible a more comprehensible initial synthesis of science with occultism.” The article made two references, with quotations, to HPB’s statements about a new Messenger from the Masters being expected in the closing 25 years of the 20th century, but it did not comment or elaborate on these quotes, other than to point out their relevance to the year 1975.

“The Theosophical Movement,” meanwhile, gave a strong impression that its writers, or at least its editor, had already decided as early as November 1975 that there would not be a new Messenger from the Masters and that to look for or expect one would be foolish or misguided. To us this seems rather presumptuous and also peculiarly ignores B. P. Wadia’s statements on the subject (quoted by us in the preceding section) which the magazine had published in the 1960s, following Wadia’s death in 1958. Wadia, as we saw, made confident and definite statements about the 1975 Messenger and offered guidance as to how to prepare oneself to recognise him or her. The magazine’s November 1975 article “Thoughts on The New Cycle” began, however, with the dismissive remark, “Now that it is 1975, some students of Theosophy seem to be expecting signs and portents!” They went on to say, “Some of us are asking: 1975 is here! Where are the Masters? Where is H.P.B.? Where is W.Q.J.?” To even ask such questions, remarked the writer, is “impatience and short-sightedness!” Such an attitude seems rather odd but it was accompanied by some undeniably valid and important points relating to the matter, such as “Shouldn’t we be saying, “What can I give to 1975?” rather than be expecting to get something from the new cycle?” One of the points made by Wadia in his letter, which we saw earlier, was: “The next Messenger will provide, first of all, a problem in Viveka-Vairagya for every survivor of stout heart and good standing. There may be claimants—“Lo here!” and “Lo there!” The recognition will demand heart sight. The next ten years will reveal the condition of the world; there are auspicious omens and also bad signs. It seems to me that the best way for us is to go on, primarily and also all the time, with the living of the Inner Life.” What may he have meant by those last two sentences, which we have here put in bold? Did it mean that the outcome of “the next ten years” (which would go up to sometime in the 1960s) would be a determining factor in whether the new Messenger would indeed arrive on the scene? Whatever may be the case, the editors of “The Theosophical Movement” magazine in 1975 seemed confident that there would not be a new Messenger and apparently endeavoured to dissuade its readers from expecting one.

In striking contrast to both these magazines, and especially the latter, “Hermes” magazine published in Santa Barbara had an article titled “The Seventh Impulsion: 1963-2000.” This article was written by Raghavan Iyer, the magazine’s editor, and reads as follows, after identifying the forms taken and major persons involved with the 1375, 1475, 1575, 1675, 1775, and 1875 cycles:

“As the sun simultaneously passed across the Galactic Equator and the sacred asterism Punarvarsu, the Aquarian Age began its turn as the solar month in the Great Year. Astraea, the goddess of justice, descends toward the Pit, and Aldebaran, “the eye of the Bull,” surveys earth from Meru. Into this complex, chaotic and crucial period the Seventh Impulsion is sent. When speaking of this age H. P. Blavatsky warned that psychologists would have their work cut out for them, many accounts will be settled between the races and that the twentieth century would be the last of its name. The forms and traditions, the beliefs and languages which inspired Piscean man over two millennia ago are dead and decaying. Those who cling to form rather than looking to the Spiritual Sun find themselves torn asunder by the collapse of familiar patterns. Riddled with self-doubt and insecurity, not sufficiently resolute in vision to see the soft golden hues of spiritual light among the flashing beams of maya, many are easy prey for doomsayers, negators and cynics, and crisis becomes a mode of living. Robert Crosbie founded the United Lodge of Theosophists in 1909 to continue the Work and preserve the foundations of the coming cycle, and B. P. Wadia carried the light of U.L.T. around the world.

“Into this contrasting scene of daring and despair the Magus-Teacher of the Seventh Impulsion descends. The Guru alone determines when, where and how he will represent himself, the levels of language he will use, the modes of teaching he will adopt, and the speed and obviousness with which he will spell out the nature of the culminating Impulsion. His work involves the sutratmic synthesis of the Seven Century Plan. His duty is to nothing less than the whole of humanity, and as the Voice of Vajradhara, the Diamond Soul, every word he speaks will be a full account of himself. His teaching will be pure theosophia and his expression of it will be as fresh and vivifying as are those of every Guru when first delivered.

“The Seven Century Plan is intimately connected with the 2500-year cycle of the Buddha, and the 5000-year cycle with which Krishna inaugurated Kali Yuga. . . .The synthesis of the “royal art” and the science of living, of unconditional love and unerring compassion, sets the archetype for the Aquarian Man: one whose head can feel and whose heart is intelligent, “like twins upon a line” while the star which is his goal burns overhead. The New Teacher will lay down the invisible lines which are the parameters of human development for the next 2000 years.

“We have the privilege of being among those who enter a New Cycle under the Seven Century Plan, bringing together East and West so fully that the distinction will fade into history. The golden impulse initiated by Krishna, Buddha and Shankara in the East, and by Pythagoras, Plato and Christ in the West, will be carried forth into the civilization of the future. Those who strive to make theosophy by any name a living power in their lives, one-pointed in consciousness, calm and deliberate in action, may have the sacred privilege of recognizing and serving the Magus-Teacher of the Seventh Impulsion. Those who prepare themselves in the secret sanctuary of their hearts by letting go of all conditions and renouncing all wish for personal gain, may have the thrice-great privilege of working with the Guru for the regeneration of humanity.

“Retrospective insight into the 1875 Cycle and intuitive readiness for 1975 are indissolubly wedded, with no danger of divorce in a marriage by mutual assent. The Wheel of the Good Law moves swiftly on, and those who are willing to drive out the worthless husks of feverish speculation, psychic excitement and unholy curiosity must seek the golden grain of self-validating truth in the mathematically precise marking of “the celestial dial” on the Solar Clock. 14 x 7 years and 7 months after the birth of “H.P.B.,” as well as 3 x 9 years and 9 months after the Aquarian Age commenced, when the disc of the Sun crossed the galactic equator and entered the constellation of Punarvarsu (Pollux), an event took place on earth, under the aegis of the asterism Punarvarsu, containing the key to the 1975 Cycle. This says everything and nothing, in the time-honoured code language of the Wise Men of the East.”

This exuberant and optimistic message stopped short of identifying exactly who was “the Magus-Teacher of the Seventh Impulsion” being spoken of but many ULT associates, especially those connected with the Santa Barbara Lodge, knew that Raghavan Iyer was referring to himself. This “event [which] took place on earth . . . containing the key to the 1975 Cycle” can also be worked out by those knowing Iyer’s date of birth (10th March 1930) to be, in fact, his birth. From his perspective, he perhaps deliberately made it into something of a riddle so as (a) to not directly and overtly reveal the fact (in his mind) of his occult significance to those not so inclined, (b) to spell it out directly only to those serious and interested enough in the centennial effort to make the necessary effort in trying to work it out.

There is no record, at least not that we know of, of Raghavan Iyer ever having directly, overtly, and specifically stated “I am the new Messenger for the 1975-2000 cycle.” But he did strongly indicate and insinuate it frequently and it’s known that there was absolutely no doubt in his mind that this is what he was. He believed it sincerely and unflinchingly. It will be remembered that we quoted earlier from his November 1945 “Theosophical Movement” magazine article, written when he was only 15 years of age, in which he spoke of Tsong-Kha-Pa’s “Seven Century Plan” and the coming “Seventh Impulsion” and concluded, “the Seventh Impulsion of the Seven-Century Plan is not far away, and every line of action grows more tense. The intellectual and spiritual vibration is higher, and will be higher still. . . . The alignment of Theosophists, as of all men, is in the making.” Indeed, from a very young age, Iyer showed an intense attraction to the esoteric side of the Theosophical Movement, including a preoccupation with this subject of the centennial cycles. While his November 1975 “Hermes” article must have sounded like a grandiose pretension or delusion to those who did not view or accept Iyer as the new Messenger from the Masters, to those who did, it sounds humble, respectful, and worded as carefully as possible whilst saying what Iyer believed had to be enunciated.

Many Theosophists of today, including many ULT associates, do not know of Raghavan Iyer’s Theosophical background. He had become actively and seriously involved with Theosophy and the United Lodge of Theosophists from the age of 10, as a result of meeting B. P. Wadia at the ULT Lodge in Mumbai (at that time, Bombay) in India. From a young age, he worked closely with Wadia, and would later repeatedly describe him as his “spiritual teacher” and “mentor.” Despite some privately circulated claims made by a now deceased American Theosophist, who was also with Wadia in India for some of that time, that Wadia eventually became angered by Iyer and “sent him away,” having no more to do with him, there is evidence to the contrary, Iyer (who did indeed relocate to the USA, after also having involvement with the London ULT in England whilst studying and then teaching at Oxford University) continuing to receive regular letters from Wadia up until the latter’s death in 1958, these being friendly letters written in the tone of a guru to a trusted disciple and at times accurately informing Iyer of various major world events that were due to happen. Some of Iyer’s supporters have posed the rhetorical question, which sounds quite reasonable, of who would have been better suited in the ULT of the 1940s and 1950s than Wadia to both recognise and help guide and prepare the new Messenger for their future role and task?


It may be noticed that Iyer’s November 1975 article was not titled “The Seventh Impulsion: 1975-2000” but “The Seventh Impulsion: 1963-2000.” Why 1963?

Iyer provided hints about this in several of his later articles but to cut a long story short, it relates to his conviction and repeated strong insinuations that he was not only the 1975-2000 Messenger of the Masters but also an AVATAR, which is something quite different and far higher. And not only an Avatar, but, he repeatedly implied – albeit always in the third person and without any direct written claim – that he was the Avatar . . . the Avatar of the Aquarian Age. This is also why his article said, “The New Teacher will lay down the invisible lines which are the parameters of human development for the next 2000 years.”

Each zodiacal or astrological age lasts approximately 2,160 years. According to Iyer in numerous of his articles, the New Age of Aquarius properly dawned on 19th June 1902. In her article “The Esoteric Character of The Gospels,” HPB discloses (albeit partly through a calculation that one has to mathematically work out) that the Aquarian Age would begin in “about” 1900. It therefore extremely closely coincides with, and for over 2,000 years runs parallel and merges into, the new second sub-cycle of the Kali Yuga, its initial 5,000 year cycle ending, according to HPB and WQJ between 17th November 1897 and 18th February 1898. 18th February was the date taken in 1909 by Robert Crosbie for the official founding of the United Lodge of Theosophists. Iyer writes that the ULT was therefore established a significant 7 years after the Aquarian Age began. Neither HPB nor WQJ give a precise starting date for the Aquarian astrological cycle but Iyer does. Where he got it from is unknown. Perhaps it too was shared with him by B. P. Wadia? Interestingly, Iyer’s date of death was 20th June 1995, one day after the supposed anniversary of the Aquarian Age and one day before the summer solstice, i.e. between the two.

In Iyer’s article “Spiritual Progenitors” we read, “In the present cycle, the Avataric impulse given between 1963 and 1968 contained in itself the entire modulus of the Work. What is done in this highest sense ever recurs, summoning the hierarchies in a specific manner for untold millennia to come. The impregnable foundations for the civilization of the future were laid around the climacteric of this century through Akashic magic.” The article “Between Heaven and Earth” states, “Already, since 1963, many souls have taken birth in diverse cultures who have a recognition of the need to restore the ethical foundation of human society. This transcends the claims of all cultures to pre-eminence. Such souls will increase in number until a time comes when there will be so many for whom this is so natural that any encouragement given them will help the regeneration of the human race.” In “The Healing of Souls” he refers to “the spiritual upheavals that were initiated in 1963” and adds “on behalf of the Aquarian dawn of the global civilization of the future, it was essential since 1963 to encourage rebels and victims alike to come out of the old and decaying order.” And in an article titled “Waiting for 1975,” which also appeared in that November 1975 issue of “Hermes,” he remarked “If ‘1975’ does not match our expectations, fermented in passive waiting, let us not suppose that the 1975 cycle does not exist in precisely the manner and mode intimated by the Teachers of the last century, and has not been silently gestated since 1968 and long before.” 1968 is of course a significant 7 years before 1975. Iyer never elaborated – or at least not in print – on the significance or events of the 1963-1968 period but the implication is that it related to something far larger and much further reaching than the ULT or the modern Theosophical Movement. In “Hermes,” he once said that “In the present cycle, . . . the Avatar works mainly with magicians in different parts of the world.” “Most of the Avatar’s work is indeed invisible and hidden,” he wrote in “Myth and Redemption.” We can only conclude that he considered the occult events of 1963-1968 too sacred to try to describe beyond that mere handful of very brief and fleeting intimations.

The Seventh Impulsion was therefore also seen and described by him as “The Avataric descent of the Seventh Impulsion.”

It is understandable why this – and the noble prospect of aiding an Avatar in their work in the world – would be appealing and indeed it was to many. The Santa Barbara ULT became for some time the largest and most active of all ULT Lodges and until a few decades ago not only Santa Barbara but almost every ULT Lodge around the world had at least a few Iyer supporters among its associates.

However, the United Lodge of Theosophists as a whole did not support Raghavan Iyer and did not view or accept him as the 1975 Teacher or Messenger from the Masters, least of all as an Avatar or the Avatar.

One of the main objections that Theosophical students have is that it seems suspect to them that either a Messenger or an Avatar would repeatedly refer to themselves as such, to the extent of even speaking of what they have done on other realms through “Akashic magic.” This just comes across as a way to draw followers to oneself, many will say; HPB and WQJ did not act like that and did not need to and nor should any genuine representative from the Masters’ Brotherhood, let alone an Avatar! Iyer’s supporters will respond that the devotion and work of earnest HPB and WQJ students had earned the right to have such sacred matters cautiously disclosed or at least mentioned to them by the end of the 20th century but that most sadly responded with ingratitude and automatic dismissal. Ultimately each person should make up their own mind and should not be judged for their conclusion, especially since conclusions can change.

But one very important factor in all this is that “The Secret Doctrine” explicitly teaches there would be no new Avatar until the end of the Kali Yuga and Sixth Root Race, and that is many thousands of years from now, potentially even hundreds of thousands. So let’s explore this now in more detail.


It should be understood that the type of tone and content that characterised “The Seventh Impulsion” article are not typical of the majority of Iyer’s writings. It is also interesting to note that with one exception he never really taught anything that contradicts or disagrees with the Theosophical teachings as given by HPB and WQJ, and he also did not actually give out directly any overt or unmistakable “new” teachings or doctrines. The emphasis there is on “overt or unmistakable.” There are indeed a number of “new” teachings to be found in his writings but they are not very numerous or major and and attention is not drawn to them. They indeed appear to be simply “extensions of known present day truths” (i.e. the truths of HPB’s and WQJ’s teachings already known to Theosophists), to use B. P. Wadia’s words when speaking about the coming 1975 Messenger and, as said, they do not stand out in contrast to what we call the original Theosophical teachings, with one exception, and that exception is his Avatar teaching.

As far as we can see, virtually everything Iyer says on the subject of Avatars is correct from the Theosophical perspective and even sheds some light on it. But he is surprisingly silent on the points made in these two HPB quotes, which he never once refers to or mentions:

“It is not in the Kali yug, our present terrifically materialistic age of Darkness, the “Black Age,” that a new Saviour of Humanity can ever appear.” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 470)

Kali-yuga – the black and evil age . . . during which the world expiates the sins of the three preceding yugas and to whose help no Avatara will come before its close – will last 432,000 years.” (“Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 92)

Those who wish to explore the Theosophical teachings about avatars can do so by reading The Doctrine of Avatars & The Mystery of The Buddha. In that article we said, in light of the above statements from HPB, that “One should not imagine that a new Avatar may now be on the way or may take up incarnation on this Earth in the near future. Theosophy specifically denies it.”

One could argue that HPB does however speak of some high Tibetan Lamas as being, in their continually recurring incarnations, Avatars of certain Dhyani Buddhas. HPB’s two quotes above show that a world Avatar, for the whole of humanity, is what cannot appear until the far distant end of the Kali Yuga. The Tibetan Avatars have a much more limited intended audience and sphere of influence, as “The Great Master’s Letter” (the Letter from the Maha Chohan) indicates. Could Iyer therefore have been an Avatar of that type? That is what some of Iyer’s present day supporters have suggested. But that is not what Iyer himself thought or taught.

His term is always “The Avatar.” The “divine descent of the Verbum” or Logos was how he referred to his incarnation, also saying that “Within the invisible form of the Avatar there resides a galaxy of Mahatmas. Seated in ceaseless meditation and constant adoration within the matrix of the body of the Logos, they constitute the constellations, indeed the entire universe of enlightenment.” (“Deliverance from Bondage” article) In the article “The Scope of Self-Consciousness” is a statement that the Avatar is “far superior to the Mahatma.” That statement says other things, however, and in its own context it is not incorrect in regard to the nature and work of an Avatar. The issue many would have, however, is that the insinuation in the sentence is “Raghavan Iyer is far superior to the Mahatma”! This is clearly something quite different from insinuating or claiming that one is the 1975 Messenger; this is numerous echelons higher in terms of how one is portraying oneself to the world. But Iyer supporters could quite correctly argue that according to Theosophy the incarnated personality involved in an Avataric manifestation is not the Avatar itself and that therefore to say his words about “The Avatar” are the same as “I, Raghavan Iyer, am an Avatar” is a gross oversimplification, materialisation, and misinterpretation lacking the sense of sacredness that the subject demands.

Throughout his article “The Rebirth of Humanity,” however, he lets his readers (and originally, his listeners, his audience at the Santa Barbara ULT) know that this is the Avataric embodiment of Krishna – and therefore also refers to himself, always in the third person, as “The Divine Cowherd” – and of Shiva and of the Maha-Guru or Great Sacrifice, the Initiator of all Initiates. He declares that “At this critical point in cosmic evolution, . . . it is only He who was present at the beginning and who will prevail at the end who can redeem humanity. . . . Already, even those who can see but dimly can discern the grim fate that awaits those minute minorities which perversely block the way to the welfare of the vast majority of mankind.”

He also referred to himself on several occasions as the Purna Avatar, this being a term in Hinduism that literally means “The Full Avatar” or “The Complete Avatar,” “the full or complete avataric incarnation of the Divine.” For Hindus it is usually a synonym for Krishna and indeed many of his supporters considered him to be Krishna in the flesh. Perhaps his article which is the most genuinely disappointing to read is the one titled “Kalki Maitreya.” In that, he seeds the mind of his audience with the notion that he is the long awaited Buddha Maitreya (see Maitreya in The Light of Real Theosophy) and the Kalki Avatar. “The Purna Avatar is fully incarnated on earth as the decisive determinant of the destinies of all monads, in the context of all karmic sum-totals displayed on the cosmic computer of mahat, and yet he stands apart from all manifestation, with a mere amsha or fragment of his divine splendour ensouling the fullest possible embodiment in the materials of contemporary humanity. As Kalki, he is the manvantaric harbinger of the Day of Reckoning for each and all; as Maitreya, he is linked with Hermes-Mercury as the Avatar of unconditional love and universal mercy.” HPB’s and the Masters’ repeated assertions that such a Coming will only take place at the conclusion of the entire Kali Yuga and the end of the still very far off Sixth Root Race are conveniently unquoted and unmentioned. Instead, Iyer goes as far as quoting from such questionable sources as the Agni Yoga literature of the Roerichs and something by an anonymous and unknown French tarot writer to lend supposed credence to the idea of him being Maitreya.

On p. 197-198 of his otherwise excellent and beautifully inspiring compilation of mystical readings titled “The Jewel in The Lotus,” Iyer includes a seven versed stanza on Maitreya by Gyalwa Gendun Drub, the first Dalai Lama, which itself is certainly of legitimate interest, but it is accompanied by an entry titled “THE TOILERS OF MAITREYA,” attributed to Nicholas Roerich. This has been published in the books of both Nicholas and Helena Roerich and, in contradiction to “The Secret Doctrine,” it proclaims that “The Lord Himself hastens. And His Banner is already above the mountains,” the Lord being Maitreya. In “Kalki Maitreya,” Iyer stated that the “Toilers of Maitreya” passage came from “the esoteric teaching [Nicholas Roerich] received in trans-Himalayan monasteries concerning the work of Kalki Maitreya before the end of the twentieth century.” In actuality, as indicated when included in Helena Roerich’s books, it is part of a telepathic message allegedly transmitted to the Roerichs by an entity who they believed to be the Mahatma M., the Guru of H. P. Blavatsky. That their inspirer – who they openly said first made contact with them through spiritualistic-style seances and table rapping – was not the real Master Morya is shown in our article Theosophy and Agni Yoga. One is left wondering to what extent Raghavan Iyer gave credence to the Agni Yoga teachings and literature, especially since he uses the term “Agniyoga” several times throughout his article “Between Heaven and Earth.” As a Sanskrit term, however, there is of course nothing wrong with it, since it literally means “fire yoga” and is there defined by Iyer as “the sacred science of baptism through the fires of self-purgation.”

Some of Iyer’s most devoted present-day supporters point to a statement by Robert Crosbie on p. 152 of “The Friendly Philosopher” as a “support” for the notion that Iyer was “The Avatar.” There we read: “A Siddha-Purusha (perfect man) is like an archeologist who removes the dust and lays open an old well which has been covered up by ages of disuse. The Avatara, on the other hand, is like an engineer who sinks a new well in a place where there was no water before. Great Men give salvation to those only who have the waters of piety hidden in themselves, but the Avatara saves him too whose heart is devoid of love and dry as a desert.” But this is clearly just a general statement about avatars and it is only by an extremely long stretch of the imagination that one can imagine that this quote can be interpreted as saying “There will be an Avatar coming to the ULT or Theosophical Movement.” Besides which, those are not actually Crosbie’s words; he is paraphrasing very closely (almost close enough to be a direct quotation) from something by the 19th century Hindu saint Ramakrishna and which had been published in 1898 by Max Muller in “Ramakrishna: His Life and Sayings.”

Some might argue that as HPB’s teachings contain numerous aspects contrary to some of the teachings found in the works of her acknowledged centennial predecessors, such as Tsong-Kha-Pa and Mesmer, it is not exactly surprising that this might be true for Raghavan Iyer too and that as there is only one glaring contradiction in over 1000 pages of his writings it should not be treated as a major issue. But many would respond that as the subject of Avatars is itself of major importance and HPB’s statement made so clearly and categorically, the issue cannot be ignored or evaded. And let us also remember that the Mahatma K.H. and Mahatma M. certified on several occasions, independently of HPB, and both before and after her death, that They were the real authors of “The Secret Doctrine,” it being described by Them as a “triple production,” i.e. the work of three minds: K.H., M. and the one They called Their “Direct Agent,” HPB. (See Who Wrote “The Secret Doctrine”?) So as enticing as Iyer’s Avatar teaching undoubtedly may seem, there is just no way (those who have tried have so far not succeeded) of making it line up with the Masters’ and HPB’s statement: “It is not in the Kali yug, our present terrifically materialistic age of Darkness, the “Black Age,” that a new Saviour of Humanity can ever appear.” (“The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 470) It thus comes down to an important question of “Who should be considered more esoterically authoritative: H. P. Blavatsky or Raghavan Iyer?”

In concluding this point, we ought to emphasise that references to “The Avatar” appear in only around 10% of Iyer’s articles, rather than being a constant or even frequent thing, and that the careful third person wording used would not be likely in most cases to lead a reader who knows nothing of the background to conclude “He is the Avatar.” Some might end up wondering “Who is this Avatar he’s speaking of?” but most would not connect the dots.


Another thing which may lead the diligent student of HPB to question Iyer’s legitimacy as the 1975 Messenger (leaving the Avatar issue aside) is that he approved and published an article praising Padmasambhava for “Hermes” magazine. He himself did not write the article from scratch but it was part of a series he edited and approved, known as “Teachers of The Eternal Doctrine,” perhaps an attempt at an updated and expanded version of the “Great Theosophists” series that had appeared a few decades earlier in the Los Angeles ULT’s “Theosophy” magazine. Although the Padmasambhava article is nowadays attributed by name to the particular ULT associate in Santa Barbara who wrote it, this associate has clearly stated in print that “As each article was written, Professor Iyer would edit it, often extensively. . . . they benefitted immensely from the impress of his spiritual wisdom and discretion.” (Introduction to “Teachers of The Eternal Doctrine” by Elton A. Hall, published by Theosophy Trust)

Whilst it is true that HPB never even mentioned Padmasambhava – except once in “Isis Unveiled” (Vol. 1, p. 599) where she quotes Marco Polo referring to him as “a great master of enchantments” – she did many times mention what she called the Dugpas – “Dugpa” being a Tibetan term literally meaning “poison person” – and directly stated that the Dugpas or black magicians, the “Brothers of the Shadow” whose work is the opposite of that of the Brothers of Light or the Masters’ Brotherhood, include both the indigenous Bhon or Bon religion of Tibet and the Nyingmapa school or sect of Tibetan Buddhism, which is the oldest surviving form of Tibetan Buddhism and which happens to have been established by Padmasambhava.

Those who may wish to know more about Padmasambhava and why he and his work cannot be legitimately considered as being a part of the Masters’ work are invited to read Gelugpas, Tantra, and Theosophy: Resolving a Complex Puzzle. He is also mentioned in Theosophy and The Tibetan Book of the Dead. The unfortunate fact that the present Dalai Lama reveres and promotes Padmasambhava and encourages Gelugpas to pray to and invoke him (see the first article just linked to) does not change the fact that Padmasambhava was a tantric sorcerer of the worst description and who directly inculcated the very things that Tsong-Kha-Pa later sought to undo and eradicate from Tibetan Buddhism.

The fact that Iyer therefore apparently did not know enough about these matters – which any researcher can easily find out about in detail, Theosophist or not – to not perceive anything occultly wrong with the thoroughly positive and reverential “Padmasambhava” article in “Hermes” concluding with Yeshe Tsogyal’s (Padmasambhava’s most favoured sexual tantric consort’s) lines “Since the virtues of the guru are ineffable, May future beings revere the image of Padmasambhava,” casts something of a shadow of doubt upon his occult status and knowledge, especially in the minds of those devoted aspirants who have acquainted themselves with what the real Esoteric Buddhism actually is.

Yet this should not lead one to assume that Iyer himself thus promoted or practised in any way the sexual tantra (the worst form of black magic, according to HPB and the Masters) that so characterises Padmasambhava and the Nyingmapas. Instead, in his article “Spiritual Progenitors” he comments very wisely, “Contemporary fascination with Tantra is merely a way of fighting celibacy. Those caught up in it will not develop the Third Eye; they will instead be incinerated, for there is no fooling around in the realm of spiritual fire.”

It is quite possible that Iyer and his co-workers’ positivity towards Padmasambhava and also various other Nyingmapa and Kagyupa Tibetan Buddhist figures of old was due to the influence of the Dalai Lama. Iyer and the Dalai Lama were friends for over 30 years and now Iyer’s son Pico Iyer, who is a very well known and popular travel writer, novelist, and public speaker, enjoys a friendship with the Dalai Lama and has interviewed him on several occasions (some are on YouTube) and written books about him and his work. Although the Dalai Lama is the leading public figurehead for the Gelugpa sect or school or order, founded by Tsong-Kha-Pa, there have been developments such as the following, quoting from our article Gelugpas, Tantra & Theosophy: Resolving a Complex Puzzle:

“The Dalai Lama, as well as having become initiated into the Dzogchen tantric system of Nyingmapa and becoming a “Dzogchen Master” (as did his predecessor), now works closely alongside the heads of the Nyingmapa sect and frequently speaks in praise of Padmasambhava, encouraging all Tibetan Buddhists, including Gelugpas – who traditionally study and follow only Tsong Kha-pa’s system – to incorporate Padmasambhava’s teachings into their spiritual practice.

“In April 2017 he performed a public “empowerment” for those who had come to see him, saying that “the empowerment and practice focuses on invoking Guru Padmasambhava who has a special commitment of care for the Tibetan people” and drew attention to an invocation he had written to Padmasambhava in 1980: “In particular, when King Trisong Detsen and his son, the prince, urged you to care for the land of Tibet with your compassion, you gave them your word, your unfailing pledge, that you would always work for our benefit, and so now we call upon you: care for us in your compassion.” It was reported on the Dalai Lama’s website that “His Holiness recommended that the audience recite the Seven Line Prayer to Guru Rinpoche [i.e. Padmasambhava] and the Vajra Guru mantra while he conducted his preparations for the empowerment.”

As also said in that article, we have nothing against the Dalai Lama as a person and we are aware that his motives and reasons for certain things may well be good and sincere ones at heart and that the tremendous pressure of trying to hold together a nation-in-exile could potentially lead to the conclusion that religious compromise is a price worth paying for this. He has undoubtedly done a huge amount of good for a huge amount of people and generally seems quite likeable and good natured in character. But principles are principles and as students of Theosophy we presumably ought to be endeavouring to look at things from as close to the Masters’ perspective as we are currently able to attain from detailed and careful study of Their writings and teachings.

All students of HPB certainly appreciate the fact that the Dalai Lama wrote a foreword in 1989 for a special centenary edition of “The Voice of The Silence” (HPB’s translation from the publicly unknown Book of the Golden Precepts, a secret esoteric Buddhist treatise) which Raghavan Iyer prepared and published. The Dalai Lama’s words of praise about “The Voice of The Silence” complement the earlier words of a previous Panchen Lama who in the 1920s requested a republication of “The Voice of The Silence” and wrote a dedication to it, his secretary writing a foreword. These details indicate the long-denied legitimacy and authenticity of that book and are given in “The Voice of The Silence” – An Authentic Buddhist Text. By the way, not many people are aware that the Dalai Lama also wrote a foreword to the book “The Brotherhood of Religions” by Sophia Wadia (B. P. Wadia’s wife), as also did Mahatma Gandhi.

The original Theosophical literature shows us that the Panchen Lama is much more esoterically important and significant than the Dalai Lama (for all references, click here) but one would never get this impression from Iyer’s writings, which when referring to the Gelugpa Lamas focus almost exclusively on the Dalai Lama. Possibly his friendship with the Dalai Lama led to an obscuring of the important point made by T. Subba Row, a colleague of HPB in India and a known chela or disciple of the Mahatma M.: “The Himalayan Brotherhood has Buddha for its highest Chohan and Avalokitesvara for its patron. It wanted to have two men overshadowed by these two: in one they succeeded, because a portion of Buddha overshadows the Tashi-Lama [i.e. Panchen Lama]. The Dalai Lama is supposed to be overshadowed by Avalokitesvara, but really is not so.” In Iyer’s preface to the 1989 centenary edition of “The Voice of The Silence,” amidst much praise for the present Dalai Lama, who he implies therein is the Teacher of the Trans-Himalayan Mahatmas (!), he states that, “The Bodhisattvic Brotherhood behind the Book of the Golden Precepts traces back to Aryamaharatna Tsong-Kha-Pa (1357-1419).” This implies that the Book of The Golden Precepts is only several hundred years old and that the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood had no existence before Tsong-Kha-Pa, also just several centuries ago. This is clearly incorrect and is contrary to things that HPB both said and indicated (see The REAL Esoteric Buddhism) and, since it directly relates to the subject of the Masters and Their School or Lodge, it again calls into question the actual degree of Iyer’s occult status and occult knowledge.

The tremendous importance and relevance of the Panchen Lama in general, as also in relation to the centennial cycles, is highlighted in these words from HPB, first presented in her article “Tibetan Teachings”: “Among the commandments of Tsong-Kha-pa there is one that enjoins the Rahats (Arhats) to make an attempt to enlighten the world, including the “white barbarians,” every century, at a certain specified period of the cycle. Up to the present day none of these attempts has been very successful. Failure has followed failure. Have we to explain the fact by the light of a certain prophecy? It is said that up to the time when Panchen Rimpoche (the Great Jewel of Wisdom) condescends to be reborn in the land of the P’helings (Westerners), and appearing as the Spiritual Conqueror (Chom-den-da), destroys the errors and ignorance of the age, it will be of little use to try to uproot the misconceptions of P’heling-pa (Europe): her sons will listen to no one.” Since HPB’s time, it has become known that that “certain prophecy” relates to the Kalachakra teachings and Shambhala. Those who may wish to explore it a little further can do so via an article here.

Having said all this, it may well seem to some readers that the writer of this present article is “against” or “opposed to” Raghavan Iyer. In actual fact, this is not so. His manifold work for humanity, both within the Theosophical Movement and the world at large, was in almost every respect extremely good and extremely admirable. To use a phrase from his “Seventh Impulsion” article, he did truly bring and spread a “fresh and vivifying” Theosophical influence in many respects. Anyone who has made a thorough, impartial, and open-minded study of his writings will agree that he deepened the expression, broadened the scope, and more greatly universalised the “flavour” of Theosophy in a very 20th/21st century way which any ULT Lodge could admirably derive inspiration from. Emerson, Thoreau, Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, William Blake, “A.E.” (George William Russell), Kahlil Gibran, Shakespeare, Sufi poems, Sikh verses, Native American teachings, the Gnostic Gospels, Tibetan Buddhist texts including Tsong-Kha-Pa’s “Lam Rim Chen Mo” and Shantideva’s “The Way of The Bodhisattva,” the Yoga Vasishtha, Druidic invocations to the Sun . . . all these and much more receive at times prominent place in Iyer’s work and writings and are all shown to embody and be part and parcel of the THEOSOPHIA itself, the Universal Divine Wisdom, of which the specifically characteristic Theosophical teachings of HPB are the most important and most complete portion in modern times but nevertheless only a portion and not the whole, as she herself repeatedly stated. Such activities on his part helped to bring Theosophy more “up to date,” seeing as the majority of those just mentioned were unmentioned by HPB due to chronological factors, i.e. many were either not yet translated, discovered, known of, or born, during her era.

And while some would say that the articles in B. P. Wadia’s “Studies in The Secret Doctrine” are the best series of articles available to aid the study and appreciation of “The Secret Doctrine,” our personal view is that many of Iyer’s articles on themes and passages from “The Secret Doctrine” are an even higher level than Wadia’s and show a remarkably profound depth of understanding and insight rarely seen in any Theosophical writer since Wadia’s time. Iyer’s “Secret Doctrine” articles tend to be more complex than Wadia’s and will probably be hard to follow for readers who have not already studied and acquainted themselves to some extent with “The Secret Doctrine” itself and perhaps also with Wadia’s “Studies in The Secret Doctrine.” We do in fact quote from Iyer in a few articles on this website and his book “The Gupta Vidya” is on our recommended Books listing. Through individual research and investigation we have also found that many (we do not say all) of the accusations, criticisms, and information commonly provided about Iyer by many ULT associates who do not support him are in fact false, misleading, and sometimes entirely made up. This is surely not from the intention of deliberate misinformation but seemingly stems from the fact that many associates are content to confidently repeat something they heard from another associate who heard it from another associate who in turn heard it from someone else who never even knew or had any involvement with Iyer, etc.

As for whether he was the intended 1975 Messenger, there are numerous factors which suggest he may have been – including various things which space has not permitted us to even mention here – but there are also big questions, only some of which we have mentioned. To a casual observer, such questions may well appear so minimal as to not count or not really matter and might just look like nitpicking and criticising for the sake of it. But for those who genuinely value Truth above all things and who have learnt through bitter experience that real Truth and true Reality is very hard to find in the world of esotericism and that the student-aspirant has to be extremely discerning as to who to trust, the questions or concerns we have voiced here are relevant and justified. There is the view, shared by some experienced ULT associates, that Iyer probably was the intended Messenger but that something, somehow, at some quite early stage, “went wrong.” But even if that were so, it would not mean that his work or message as a whole would cease to be of importance, value, or benefit for students of Theosophy.

Some see this as fitting in with a statement by Robert Crosbie about the centennial cycles: “If we consider that the quality of the cycle varies in importance, and, consequently, in the degree of the being needed at any time, we find the conjunction of the cycles above spoken of [i.e. referring to the intersection of three great cycles in the 1875-1900 period, explained briefly later on in this article] points to a most important period, and consequently, to important “beings” – which may give us a clue to what the Messengers H. P. B. and W. Q. J. really were. Other periods of less importance bring incarnations of probationary chelas who are on their trial.” (“The Friendly Philosopher” p. 202) Although could the culmination of Tsong-Kha-Pa’s Seven Century Plan (if indeed it was) really be counted as one of those periods “of less importance [which brings] incarnations of probationary chelas who are on their trial” described in Crosbie’s statement?

Whatever the case may be, the present day supporters and devotees of Raghavan Iyer are few in number and form only a small minority within the United Lodge of Theosophists as a whole. This is why he is not even referred to in our explanatory article The United Lodge of Theosophists. An article written by ULT associates on the Universal Theosophy website about the history and development of the modern Theosophical Movement says this, however, in its paragraph about the ULT: “In addition to these divisions, Robert Crosbie (who belonged originally to the American society and later resided at Point Loma) branched out on his own to start the United Lodge of Theosophists (ULT) in 1909. This was centered in Los Angeles and later expanded worldwide, largely through the efforts of B. P. Wadia. Within the latter a significant internal division would also eventually arise, centered around the activities of R. N. Iyer. The ULT remains active today.” It is extremely rare nowadays for any of Iyer’s writings/teachings to be studied or promoted in any meetings conducted by any ULT Lodge, Santa Barbara included, although within the past year or so a new online ULT study group has started, consisting of students from a few different ULT Lodges, focused on the study and discussion of Iyer’s articles, albeit free from any references to Iyer having been the Messenger for the 1975 Cycle.

Incidentally, as far as we are aware, even Iyer’s most ardent supporters do not believe him to have been the reincarnation of HPB, despite William Judge’s statements that “the next great messenger . . . will be herself [i.e. HPB] beyond question.”


If we leave aside for the time being the view held by a few that Raghavan Iyer was the Messenger, there are three other views we have encountered from longtime and widely respected ULT associates:

* One is the view that HPB’s and WQJ’s numerous references to the 1975 Messenger never actually referred to a person but were referring to HPB’s and WQJ’s own vast body of teachings. In other words, that the “Message” of 1875-1900 was always the intended “Messenger” for 1975-2000. This associate based his idea partly on these words of Robert Crosbie from p. 151 of “The Friendly Philosopher”: “The foolish look for a “Man”; the wise look for a “Message.”” But while it is of course true that the focus should always be on the teachings rather than on any teacher, it is very plainly apparent that HPB and WQJ had an actual person in mind when making those numerous statements about “the new torchbearer of Truth.”

One point we have not mentioned so far is the “Great Seat of Learning” which WQJ stated would be established in the West either by, or during, the 1975-2000 cycle. It is briefly summarised in this line from the ULT children’s book “Because – For The Children Who Ask Why” (first published in 1916): “Do you realize, or have I ever spoken to you before, of the great University the Teachers of Theosophy have foretold for 1975? When Adepts will be there to teach and demonstrate the truths of Theosophy . . .” Naturally we would not conclude that WQJ made a mistake but are forced to accept that the Masters’ plans and intentions for the 1975 cycle must indeed, for various reasons of necessity, have changed in at least some respects since the end of the 19th century. Whether the two World Wars and their consequences would have contributed to that is a matter of conjecture.

* Another point of view is based on HPB’s words in the Introductory to “The Secret Doctrine”: “In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya; and that, like the once-mysterious sources of the Nile, the source of all religions and philosophies now known to the world has been for many ages forgotten and lost to men, but is at last found.” (Vol. 1, p. xxxviii) HPB says there that such a disciple in the 20th century (by which all students of the original Theosophical teachings understand the 1975-2000 cycle to be meant) “may be sent.” Not “absolutely, definitely will be sent.” Some experienced ULT associates believe that this is sound justification for the view that a disciple was not sent as a Messenger for the end of the 20th century and that it was always provisional and never as fixed or guaranteed as most Theosophists thought it was.

* A third view has been expressed by a widely appreciated and respected ULT associate based at the Parent Lodge in Los Angeles. Although not in any way a supporter of Raghavan Iyer, he nonetheless gives credence to the notion of Tsong-Kha-Pa having initiated only a Seven Century Plan and that its culminating impulsion or effort occurred in 1975-2000. Believing, as did Iyer, that each of the seven centennial impulses corresponded sequentially to the seven principles of collective humanity, this associate has presented the view that although there was no actual new Messenger on the scene during the 1975-2000 period – his view being that no Theosophists, the ULT included, had sufficiently assimilated and applied HPB’s teachings to an extent that would warrant the arrival of a new Messenger – that period nonetheless reflected and brought about a much greater presence and awareness of “the individual within the universal (represented by the Seventh Principle in the human constitution, Atman, the One Universal Self of All).” This may sound rather abstract but has been suggested to mean that any individual so inclined could represent the Masters’ Cause by expressing, spreading, or shedding light upon, the universal ideas and ideals that had been expressed through HPB’s and WQJ’s effort during the 1875-1900 period. This would even extend to things such as the availability and popularising of the internet, as a powerful and hitherto undreamed of tool for spreading knowledge and information, the teachings of Theosophy included, even though of course the internet can – and has – equally been used for bad and harmful purposes. To sum up, this view of “the individual in the universal” essentially holds that anyone so inclined became in a certain sense a “messenger” during the 1975 Cycle, sowing seeds for the benefit of the 21st century and beyond.

Ultimately, if one stops to think about it, barely anyone is in a position today to be able to provide a definite answer to the question of “What happened in the 1975-2000 cycle?”.

In the case of H. P. Blavatsky, we had repeated independent verification and accreditation of her occult role and status by the Masters or Mahatmas. During the 1975-2000 period, the Masters did not make Themselves known in the way They had a century earlier, nor were there any new Mahatma Letters or Mahatma visitations etc. being received by Theosophists or others such as in HPB’s time. This fact in itself does not mean anything, other than confirming the point made by Robert Crosbie about 1875-1900 being a very rare and extremely significant period from the esoteric cyclic perspective. But it does result in those who wish to answer these questions having to do their own research, thinking, and reflection about it.

With the exception of the Masters and Their advanced disciples, all anyone else can give on this subject is ultimately their opinion and their perspective. And while it is fine to have one, one Theosophist’s opinion and perspective should not count as “authority” or “fact” for another, regardless of how much one may respect and appreciate the one voicing their opinion. It is sometimes necessary to humbly say, “I just don’t know.”

We have presented the view twice now that the cycle of 1875-1900 was a far more esoterically significant one than that of 1975-2000. This is because, as described by Robert Crosbie based upon HPB’s writings, the conjunction or intersection of three great cycles occurred during that period, namely the centennial cycle of which we have been speaking, the dawning of the New Age of Aquarius, and the opening of the second cycle within the Kali Yuga. In the 1975-2000 period, only the centennial cycle was taking place (although the two others were still in their infancy, which called for insight and guidance) yet it did apparently have the very important significance of also being the seventh, the culmination, the synthetic climax, of Tsong-Kha-Pa’s Seven Century Plan.

Crosbie once remarked:

“The Message brought by H. P. Blavatsky is the most universal in its scope, the most nearly all-inclusive and profound in its presentation, of any of the great Messages that the history and traditions of the human race afford. Great Adepts have appeared from time to time, who have been hailed as Avatars by succeeding generations. Great Saviours have visited this and that people and granted them some portion of the Secret Doctrine, which in time degenerated into a religion and a worship. Where in recorded history or tradition known to the Western World has there been so vast a commitment of eternal truth as is embodied in Theosophy?

“What, then, must be the nature of that Being who in the mortal garment known as H. P. Blavatsky was able to bring within the range of human language and human perception so vast an importation from another world, of whose very existence we had lost all knowledge and all faith?

“Even as by study and application we are brought to the conclusion that in Theosophy is the greatest Message from the Masters that this race has ever received, even so are we forced to the unavoidable conclusion that in H. P. Blavatsky was Incarnated, to the extent that the highest available form produced by the Race could endure, “That Great INITIATE OF ALL Whose Single Will Keeps This Whole Movement in Being.” (From “Masters and Their Message” Part 2, “Theosophy” magazine, August 1914)

“The Secret Doctrine” in particular is a book that would take more than one lifetime, probably even more than two or three, to fully study, absorb, assimilate, and comprehend to the highest degree possible. The Master K.H. said it would be “a source of information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to come.” Similarly, “The Secret Doctrine” – the “triple production” of the Masters K.H. and M. with the one They called “Our Direct Agent” HPB – declares right at the start that “it will take centuries before much more is given” from the SECRET DOCTRINE itself. Centuries, plural, before much more at all is divulged. In light of this, it would be misguided to expect that there would be or could be a massive outpouring of new and previously unknown teachings in 1975-2000. And, to Raghavan Iyer’s credit, he did not claim to be giving a massive outpouring of new teachings but continually emphasised the enduring supreme importance of “The Secret Doctrine.”

The vast mass of teaching imparted by H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge does not have any expiration date stamped upon it and still has many rich depths not yet even explored or discovered. Only those who have never properly familiarised themselves with it, or have their own agenda to promote, would say that it is now “out of date” or has ceased to be relevant. Such writings now being 120+ years old amounts to nothing in the whole scheme of things, for who would dare to suggest that Krishna’s teachings in the Bhagavad Gita or the teachings of the Buddha – both thousands of years older than those of HPB and WQJ – are now out of date, irrelevant, or unimportant?

In light of these things, we can probably perceive how hard it would be for anyone to ever compare to HPB in the eyes of most serious students of Theosophy or to seem worthy of being viewed or described as her true “centennial successor.” HPB did her job so well and so powerfully that almost anyone else would seem to pale in comparison to her, no matter how good and legitimate they might be.

Hopefully anyone who has read Who are you, Madame Blavatsky? is awake to the fact that although H. P. Blavatsky died in 1891, her real, inner Being is of such an advanced nature that that Being can truly be described as an ever-living Nirmanakaya, i.e. a Bodhisattva, an Adept far higher than a “mere” chela. The same may also be recognised for William Q. Judge, or rather the inner “W.Q.J.” if one reads Who was William Quan Judge? and our other articles about him. Therefore, as Robert Crosbie realised and wrote, “It can be said that [they] never ceased working, and that work has gone on directly and indirectly. [They are] working for unity – what [they have] always worked for. [Their] aid will be given to every effort to spread Theosophy pure and simple, and to such individuals as could understand [them], and this in exact measure.” (“The Friendly Philosopher” p. 110)

Even if it is true that Tsong-Kha-Pa did only orchestrate a “Seven Century Plan” which has now ended, the remainder of this 21st century is nonetheless very important, for HPB plainly tells us and warns us, in her posthumously published “Preliminary Survey”: “Occultism must win the day, before the present era reaches “Shani’s (Saturn’s) triple septenary” of the Western Cycle in Europe, in other words – before the end of the twenty-first century “A.D.” Occultism – or the Esoteric Philosophy – can never “win the day” by itself. It requires you and me and anyone else who may see the need, to live and labour for the great Theosophical Cause.


~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~