What Happened In The 1975-2000 Cycle?

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 fact that such a question even has to be asked immediately indicates that there is apparently nothing that happened in the Theosophical Movement at the end of the twentieth century that is in any way comparable to HPB and her work, for otherwise all would know and be aware of it.

This then leads some people to speculate and hypothesise that the 1975-2000 “Messenger” may have worked outside the folds of the modern Theosophical Movement 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 entirely untenable.

“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,” wrote HPB in 1887. How the Buddhism of Tibet could somehow suddenly cease to be “covered with parasitic weeds” in less than 90 years is not explained by those who advance this theory. 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 horrendous abuse surrounding it, which is embedded throughout the whole of Tibetan Buddhism, the Gelugpa sect and the Dalai Lama’s teachings included. It is, however, not the place of this present article to go into that subject; those who wish to know more can read Gelugpas, Tantra, and Theosophy: Resolving a Complex Puzzle.

Let us look at HPB’s statement from the final chapter of her book “The Key to Theosophy,” as this will shed some light on the situation 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 also stated with certain knowledge 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 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 shocked the Theosophical world by leaving, in a very public way, “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” to join the aforementioned 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)

“H. P. B. and Judge . . . Theirs was the first effort to spread Theosophy; much has been done since in this respect, and by many students. But its application has not been as general as might have been. The reactions from the spread of Theosophy and of its mis- and non-application by students will be taken care of when They come again.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 397)

“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, in 1922)

This is all quite clear and in light of all this – 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.

In “The Key to Theosophy” passage, we saw HPB emphasising the necessity of the Theosophical Society surviving and living true to its mission and to its original impulses throughout the intervening years up until 1975. The big question is “Did this happen?” and the very easy and undeniable answer is “No, not at all.”

Prominent figures such as Annie Besant, C. W. Leadbeater, A. P. Sinnett, and even Col. Olcott himself, were responsible for diverting the Society’s focus and aims in a huge way and also responsible for influencing Theosophists away from HPB’s work, teachings, and writings, by repeatedly depreciating, criticising, insulting, and spreading lies and misinformation about her, and – in Leadbeater and Besant’s case – causing her books to go out of print and be very hard to obtain and promoting their own very different version of “Theosophy” in its place.

For more details about these issues, please see The Theosophical Movement after H. P. Blavatsky, Col. Olcott’s Disoyalty to H. P. Blavatsky, The Theosophical Society is Disloyal to Theosophy, Original Theosophy and Later Versions, The Case against C. W. Leadbeater, The Final Mahatma Letter, and From Theosophical Society to Bizarre Quasi-Catholic Anti-Blavatsky Cult?

The great emphasis placed by HPB and her Teachers on the necessity of Theosophists staying faithful and true – if the Movement was to succeed and go forward as intended – to what They variously called the original lines, the original programme, the original impulse, the original system, and the original teachings, can be seen in the compilation of quotes in our article titled Why Stick To The Original? That article and The Closing Cycle similarly show how students of Theosophy, if only they had been aware of and taken seriously the words of HPB, WQJ, and the Mahatmas, would never have entertained for one minute the idea that those Mahatmas were now purportedly giving out new teachings in the first half of the twentieth century, whether through Leadbeater, Besant, Alice Bailey, the Roerichs’ Agni Yoga, G. de Purucker, or any other claimant . . . all of which teachings, incidentally, seriously contradict those of HPB in a wide array of different ways.

Fortunately for the world, there is much more to the modern Theosophical Movement than just the original Theosophical Society, now called “The Theosophical Society – Adyar.” There is also “The Theosophical Society – Pasadena,” “The Theosophical Society – Point Loma,” and the United Lodge of Theosophists. These three independent international associations are all descended from the first split that occurred in the Movement, when in 1895 William Judge and his many pro-HPB supporters separated themselves from Col. Olcott and Annie Besant’s Adyar Society and became a new, autonomous, international organisation. This was done as a last resort due to the constant persecution and attacks on WQJ by those others, which at the root of it were really attacks on the good name, work, and legacy, of HPB, as history shows.

But some people say that this fact of 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 members of the Adyar Society have used this as a reason to urge all the other Theosophical groups to disband and reunite themselves with the Adyar Society, 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)

“Nor can I, if I would be true to my life-pledge and vows, now live at the [Adyar] Headquarters from which the Masters and Their spirit are virtually banished. . . . And as, unless They appear among the Council in propria persona (which They will certainly never do now), no advice of mine on occult lines seems likely to be accepted, as the fact of my relations with the Masters is doubted, even totally denied by some; and I myself having no right to the Headquarters, what reason is there, therefore, for me to live at Adyar? The fact is this: In my position, half-measures are worse than none. People have either to believe entirely in me, or to honestly disbelieve.” (“Why I Do Not Return to India” article)

Plus, even when HPB was still alive, in the closing years of her life, the Mahatma K.H. said regarding the Adyar Society, then presided over by Colonel Olcott:

“Olcott . . . wants to know why? Because the Society has liberated itself from our grasp and influence and we have let it go – we make no unwilling slaves. He says he has saved it? He saved its body, but he allowed through sheer fear, its soul to escape, and it is now a soulless corpse, a machine run so far well enough, but which will fall to pieces when he is gone. Out of the three objects the second alone is attended to, but it is no longer either a brotherhood, nor a body over the face of which broods the Spirit from beyond the Great Range. His kindness and love of peace are great and truly Gautamic in their spirit; but he has misapplied that kindness. . . . This is his (Olcott’s) sin. . . . In our sight there is no crime worse than ingratitude and injustice.”

One can therefore see how inappropriate it would be – and, on occult levels, how self-destructive – for the Theosophical groups that had separated themselves from the Adyar Society to reunite with it.

One might ask whether those damning words of the Master thus also applied to HPB’s work, seeing as at that time there was just one Theosophical Society. But the answer is that at that time she was based in London and her own Theosophical work in the UK and Europe was deliberately set up by her so as to be autonomous to the fullest extent possible and free from any possibility of influence and interference from Adyar, even though still connected to it nominally.

William Judge, like HPB, recognised that the real thing is not an external organisation but a Movement, something which pre-dates and ultimately transcends any Theosophical organisation. In his article “The Theosophical Movement,” written after the 1895 separation from the Adyar Society, he explains:

“The Movement is moral, ethical, spiritual, universal, invisible save in effect, and continuous. A Society formed for theosophical work is a visible organization, an effect, a machine for conserving energy and putting it to use; it is not nor can it be universal, nor is it continuous. . . . to worship an organization, even though it be the beloved theosophical one, is to fall down before Form, and to become the slave once more of that dogmatism which our portion of the Theosophical Movement, the T.S., was meant to overthrow. . . . H. P. Blavatsky herself declared that it were better to do away with the Society rather than to destroy Brotherhood, and that she herself declared the European part of it free and independent. . . . the real unity and prevalence, and the real internationalism, do not consist in having a single organization. They are found in the similarity of aim, of aspiration, of purpose, of teaching, of ethics. . . . We assert that any person who has been admitted to any Theosophical Society should be received everywhere among Theosophists, just as Masons are received among Masons. It is untheosophical to denounce the change made by the American Group; it is not Theosophy nor conducive to its spread to make legal claims to theosophical names, symbols and seals so as to prevent if possible others from using them. . . . Those who desire to keep up H.P.B.’s war against dogmatism will applaud and encourage the American movement because their liberated minds permit; but those who do not know true Theosophy, nor see the difference between forms and the soul of things, will continue to worship Form and to sacrifice Brotherhood to a shell.”

Still, the existence of several different Theosophical organisations does raise the valid question of which of these the 1975 Messenger would choose to work through. All of them, some, or only one? It is an incontrovertible fact that the ULT is the only one of the four which exists to preserve, present, and promote, solely the original, unaltered, teachings of Theosophy, exactly as recorded in the writings of HPB and WQJ, and free from any types of “new teachings.”

This, 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 ULT associates to expect the new Messenger to appear in and work through the vehicle of the ULT.

A figure did appear, namely Raghavan Iyer (1930-1995), who as a young man in India worked with B. P. Wadia, and who in 1975 founded a ULT Lodge in Santa Barbara, California, USA, beginning in the same year the publication of the magazine “Hermes” which was some time later renamed “Vidya.” Much other publication work was spearheaded by Iyer and his wife Nandini to promulgate the Theosophical teachings and to examine contemporary issues and happenings in the light of those original teachings. Along with this and the work of the Santa Barbara Lodge, the charismatic and compelling Iyer was well respected and admired in many public and educational fields, so much so that upon his death leading newspapers published obituaries of him (albeit usually omitting reference to his specifically Theosophical work) such as this from the UK’s “Independent.”

Usually, none of the above would be taken to indicate that such a ULT associate was necessarily a direct representative of the Masters and in Iyer’s case he did not purport to be giving out a mass of further teachings. But the year in which he began that work, coupled with his own increasing insinuations about his occult importance and significance, led some to suspect that maybe he was the long awaited new Messenger.

Indeed, his lead article in “Hermes” in November 1975 – the exact centenary of the establishment of the modern Theosophical Movement in November 1875 – concludes with what at first appears almost a riddle:

“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.”

However this “event [which] took place on earth . . . containing the key to the 1975 Cycle” can easily be worked out by those knowing Iyer’s date of birth (10th March 1930) to be none other than the birth of Raghavan Iyer. As can be expected, someone who even right at the start of their work believes so strongly in their own occult self-importance as to directly indicate it in public print – something the ever self-deprecating HPB never did – is not likely to end up in a very good state. In that same article, titled “The Seventh Impulsion,” he wrote:

“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 New Teacher will lay down the invisible lines which are the parameters of human development for the next 2000 years. . . . 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.”

As time went on, it became unmistakably clear that Iyer believed himself to be that “Guru,” that “Magus-Teacher,” and was hailed even as “The Avatar” by some members of the Santa Barbara Lodge. Numerous people who were there at that time report how he eventually publicly declared himself to be the reincarnation of Krishna and began behaving in many disturbing and destructive ways. He also flouted the ULT policy of impersonality and in his ULT work drew constant attention to his own name and personality and achievements.

No doubt there are some who would prefer us not to have mentioned even the little that we have but it would seem evasive and historically dishonest to write such an article as this without making any reference to Raghavan Iyer. Much more could be said but we will refrain, for the sake of today’s Santa Barbara Lodge; suffice it to say that with him at the helm that Lodge grew quite dramatically from the late 1970s to the first half of the 1980s but that it all more or less collapsed in disarray. Nowadays the name of Raghavan Iyer is barely known of in the ULT at large and his most ardent followers are probably less than ten in number but are remarkably zealous in their devotion to him.

Although it seems very safe to say that he was not the 1975-2000 Messenger, the controversy and scandal that would go on to surround and eventually consume him should not stop us from appreciating his more positive qualities and the great amount of good and valuable work that he did. His and his followers’ claims of him being “The Messenger” were never accepted by the majority of ULT people; only by a comparatively small minority and primarily those many hundreds or thousands who visited the Santa Barbara ULT, although many of them later changed their minds about him. Yet he must have been at heart a special soul – may he now rest in peace.

Of course none of this provides an answer to the question we started with: who was the Messenger in 1975 and where can we find his or her teachings?

We venture to suggest that the real answer is that there was no new Messenger for the 1975-2000 cycle. The idea of such a thing being conditional rather than 100% definitely guaranteed is seen in this passage from the book “The Eternal Verities: For Old Souls in Young Bodies” which was written for the teaching of children at “Theosophy School” in ULT Lodges:

“Yes; in 1875 Madame Blavatsky began to teach Theosophy, just as we are learning it now. She left her body in 1891 and she said that in the last quarter of this, our twentieth century, another Messenger would come to carry the work still further on, if those living up to that time are faithful in learning the truths of Theosophy and in spreading it over the world.” (p. 239)

As we saw, William Judge, Robert Crosbie, and others believed that the Teacher who would be due to arrive on the scene in 1975 would be HPB returned. Under whatever name or identity, the “new” Teacher was due to expand and build upon the work begun and the mass of teachings already given out by HPB, Mr. Judge, and the Masters.

And why would the Great Brotherhood bother to organise and arrange this, seeing as They knew and could see perfectly well that by 1975 (and even by several decades before that) even the vast majority of so-called Theosophists were totally ignorant as to what Theosophy teaches and were utterly uninterested in HPB’s work and teachings and even disrespectful and contemptuous towards her? Before Annie Besant turned against HPB and the Cause of genuine Theosophy, she wrote that “The condition of success is perfect loyalty.” But nothing like “perfect loyalty” was maintained in the Theosophical Movement at large and thus the Masters cannot be blamed for deciding not to bother with the 1975-2000 effort. Today many people who call themselves Theosophists would not recognise real Theosophy even if it was staring them in the face and, worse than that, most do not want to. The Masters are Beings of Wisdom and never waste time, energy, or occult force.

In saying this, we do not at all mean to imply that the many good and elevating endeavours originating during that time in many spheres of life around the world – religious, spiritual, ethical, scientific, social, educational, etc. – were devoid of any inspiration or even guidance from the Masters. Our above comments are referring specifically to the question of a “Messenger/Teacher” of the kind described and illustrated by HPB.

But have we lost anything through such an effort apparently not being made in the closing twenty-five years of last century?

In the whole scheme of things, we have not, for the Theosophical teachings provided to us by HPB and WQJ did not have an expiration date of 1975 stamped on them. They have not ceased to be valid, relevant, worthwhile, or applicable, but on the contrary have many depths and contemporary practical applications still unexplored. “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.

It was this book that the Master K.H. said 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.

The cycle of 1875-1900 was a far more esoterically significant one than that of 1975-2000. This is because, as described in HPB’s writings, the conjunction or intersection of three great cycles occurred during that period, namely (1) the centennial cycle of which we have been speaking, (2) the close of the first 5,000 year cycle of the Kali Yuga, between 1897-1898, and beginning of the second sub-period of Kali Yuga, and (3) the closing of the Piscean Age and dawning of the New Age of Aquarius, the astrological age of approximately 2,155 years, beginning in or around 1900.

In Raghavan Iyer’s article “The Seventh Impulsion” he refers to HPB’s teaching that it was Tsong Kha-pa, Tibetan reincarnation of Gautama Buddha and founder of the Gelugpas, who instituted the decree for the Adepts to try to further enlighten the world, particularly the Western world, at the end of each century.

Tsong Kha-pa lived from 1357-1419 and Iyer presumed that the first of such end-of-century efforts must therefore have been 1375-1400, which would make that of 1975-2000 the seventh such centennial attempt and, as we know, seven is the key number esoterically. Yet in 1375 Tsong Kha-pa was still only 18 years of age and is known to have still been travelling around studying from many different sources; he did not establish the Gelugpas until 1409 and it would thus seem unlikely from a historical perspective that the first of those centennial efforts began in 1375 and more likely that his commandment was for them to begin from 1475. We notice that this latter view (1475) was shared by writers in the Los Angeles ULT’s “Theosophy” magazine.

If that is so, it means that the real “Seventh Impulsion” will be the 2075-2100 cycle, which is still to come.

It seems very likely that a significant public effort will be made by the Masters in the closing quarter of this 21st century, for HPB writes:

“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.”.”

And if it does not?

“But if not, then the storm will burst, and our boasted western civilization and enlightenment will sink in such a sea of horror that its parallel History has never yet recorded.” (HPB, “Our Cycle and The Next” article)

Few of us are likely to still be around in our present bodies by the year 2075 and those who are may not live so long as to see the dawn of 2100. But serious and devoted students of Theosophy work in the present for the future. Our work and example now has a direct bearing upon the younger and future generations, those who will be at the forefront of things by the time 2075 comes around. The grave seriousness of the matter cannot be too strongly stated. Only a few may perceive it but those few may take comfort in knowing that “The Master’s hand is over them.”

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~

“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?”

(Robert Crosbie, “Masters and Their Message” Part 2,
Theosophy Magazine, August 1914)