“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?

COULD THE 1975 MESSENGER HAVE WORKED OUTSIDE OF THEOSOPHY?

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 endorsing sexual tantric practices. But this present article isn’t about that subject; those who wish to know more can read The Dalai Lama, Theosophy & The Gelugpa Tradition.

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.

BLAVATSKY & JUDGE ON “THE NEXT GREAT MESSENGER,” “THE NEW TORCH-BEARER OF TRUTH”

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.

WOULD THE LACK OF THEOSOPHICAL UNITY BE AN OBSTACLE?

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.

TSONG-KHA-PA & THE ORIGINS OF THE “END OF CENTURY” EFFORT

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?”

B. P. WADIA’S ADVICE ON RECOGNISING THE 1975 MESSENGER

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 Viveka–Vairagya [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 Messenger – who 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 rule – from 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.

HOW THREE DIFFERENT ULT MAGAZINES RESPONDED TO NOVEMBER 1975

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? 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’ Brotherhood, 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?

THE SEVENTH IMPULSION: 1963-2000?

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. More specifically, he repeatedly implied – albeit always in the third person and without any direct written claim – that he was the Avatar of the Aquarian Age, or we could say the Avatar for 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, “From the highest standpoint, once the keynote of a cycle is struck, once its foundations are correctly laid, the entire work of that cycle is finished. 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 at large – i.e. the vast majority – 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.

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 those who think that such words would never be uttered by a genuine Avatar or great Teacher are seemingly forgetting that all throughout the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna speaks of himself and his divine nature and identity in a myriad of ways – and always in the first person – which, if anyone were to do so today, virtually every ULT associate would consider “a sure sign of being fake.” Similarly, Buddha referred to himself very frequently indeed as “The Awakened One,” “The Enlightened One,” etc., which is something ULT associates also look askance upon if it happens today. Thus, from a mundane perspective, Krishna and Buddha can be considered vastly more “self-promoting” than Raghavan Iyer, whose statements in this regard were always rather fleeting and cautiously worded in the third person. It goes without saying that the vast majority of people who speak of themselves in this way are not what they indicate themselves to be; we are merely pointing out that such wording and such language in itself cannot legitimately be viewed as disqualifying anyone from being what they imply.

One might wonder what could be significant about the year 1968, beyond it being 7 years prior to 1975. Some light may be shed on this by a handwritten letter from Raghavan Iyer dated May 28, 1989, and which the writer of this present article has seen, handled, and has direct access to in London, England. In the letter, Iyer refers to the well known account of H. P. Blavatsky having met her Guru, the Master or Mahatma M. in his physical body near the Serpentine lake in Hyde Park, London, in 1851. He then very strongly insinuates, albeit without directly spelling it out, that he (Raghavan Iyer) also met the Master M. in Hyde Park, in 1951, 100 years after HPB’s meeting. In the same paragraph he also refers to some of HPB’s stones (possibly from one of her rings, which were understood to have been occultly charged or talismanic) having been given to him around that time (whether by the Master or someone else, he does not say) and as having been “re-set in the serpent-ring” in his possession. These details are not mentioned or hinted at by him anywhere in his public writings. How does this relate to 1968? HPB wrote of passing through “seven and ten years” (or 17 years total) of “probation” (i.e. testing, trials, instruction, Karmic precipitation, and more) after her 1851 encounter with the Master. That would have gone up to the year 1868. So perhaps there is similar significance in Iyer’s case of a period of 17 years between 1951 and 1968? Ultimately, no-one can really say. But it does seem odd that so many have preferred to automatically attribute everything of this nature to nothing more than fantasy and delusion on his part, rather than be willing or open-minded enough to even consider that maybe, just maybe, there may be at least some genuineness to it.

RAGHAVAN IYER AND THE AVATAR QUESTION

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 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, i.e. he nowhere says anything to the effect of “What I am about to tell you is a newly revealed teaching.” 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, although some view his Avatar teaching as not in harmony with those given at the end of the 19th century.

As said in another article:

“Aside from mentions of the Seven Century Plan and the Seventh Impulsion (both of which we mentioned B. P. Wadia gave assent to), that which most clearly and unmistakably stands out as new in Raghavan Iyer’s writings is predominantly the information regarding the Aquarian Age, the New Age of Aquarius, not only its start date (19th June 1902, according to Iyer) but also various details, descriptions, and preparatory guidance about it (and which is almost entirely unmentioned and unprovided in the rest of our Theosophical literature) – for a condensed version of this, alongside HPB’s statements on the subject, please see our article Theosophy On The New Age of Aquarius – plus there is some emphasis on the phrase and significance of “Brahma Vach” (a Sanskrit term occasionally used by HPB and which can be translated as “Divine Word,” “Divine Sound,” “Divine Logoic Speech”) and the name, work, and significance of Hermes and what is signified esoterically by that mystical name, as well as a lot of attention given to the concepts of “noetic” and “psychic” as distinguished from and relating to one another. HPB’s article “Psychic and Noetic Action” he considered one of her most important for the present era. He also popularised ten significant statements from HPB’s “Gems from The East” as the “Aquarian Axioms.”

“Several other areas of emphasis or frequently repeated themes in his writings relate to (1) the importance of developing a permanent, unbroken continuity of consciousness and steps one can take in this life to begin to develop it, (2) the importance of correct, harmonious, and compassionate breathing; not just physical breathing but “mental breathing” and “spiritual breathing” too; this also relates to what he frequently called “mental posture,” (3) Buddhi Yoga, (4) the spiritual will, (5) the great sacredness and proper use of both speech and silence, and the relation these have to the Logos, (6) the necessity and importance of self-study, self-examination, and self-understanding, for purposes of self-mastery. None of these themes just listed are entirely “new” as such to Theosophists but the way they are spoken about and described often is. Some might at first imagine that the subject of mystical “breathing” has no link with the original Theosophical teachings but in fact “The Voice of The Silence” instructs: “Thou hast to live and breathe in all, as all that thou perceivest breathes in thee.””

Those who wish to explore the Theosophical teachings about avatars in some depth can do so by reading The Doctrine of Avatars & The Mystery of The Buddha.

As far as we can see, everything Iyer says on the subject of Avatars is correct from the original Theosophical perspective and even sheds some light on it. But he does not specifically address the points made in these two HPB quotes, which have caused doubt and raised questions for some:

“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)

But one should always check the context surrounding a statement. The context of these two quotes is that the event known as the Coming of the Kalki Avatar, the same as the Coming of the Buddha Maitreya, is being specifically referred to; that event is said by HPB to coincide with the final ending of the Kali Yuga, which cannot and will not end until its appointed time in the far distant future when that great Avatar essentially puts an end to it and frees humanity. For example, Vol. 1, p. 470, says: “He [i.e. Avalokiteshwara, the Logos] will appear as Maitreya Buddha, the last of the Avatars and Buddhas, in the seventh Race. This belief and expectation are universal throughout the East. Only 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.” She usually describes this as happening at the end of the Sixth Root Race and/or start of the Seventh, though one place vaguely hints at it possibly actually being in the seventh sub-race of our present Fifth Root Race.

So in light of the context just referred to, it may be hasty and rash to declare that those two HPB quotes equate to “No more avatars of any kind at all, until the end of Kali Yuga.” But equally, no-one can be blamed for reading them that way. Yet we know that HPB speaks sometimes of some high Tibetan Lamas as being, in their continually recurring incarnations, Avatars of certain Dhyani Buddhas. Actually, her teaching is that every Avatar is an Avatar (whether partial or complete) of the Logos itself and, more specifically, of one or another of the Seven Rays of the Logos, those Rays being synonymous with the Seven Dhyani Buddhas, so this shows that there is no prohibition or occult reason as to why there cannot be Avatars on the Earth during the present part of the Kali Yuga.

The “divine descent of the Verbum” or Logos was how Raghavan Iyer occasionally 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) Throughout his article “The Rebirth of Humanity,” he lets his readers (and originally, his listeners, his audience at the Santa Barbara ULT) know that the Avatar he is referring to, the Avatar he believed himself to be, is the Avataric embodiment of Krishna – and therefore also refers to himself in that article, 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. These names, as well as others, were not intended to suggest that he was the Avatar of multiple different great Beings; when referring to those names in this context, they were being used synonymously as names which really refer esoterically and on this Earth to the ONE Avatar, the ultimately Nameless One, the Great Sacrifice, the Maha-Guru spoken of in “The Secret Doctrine,” the Initiator, the Logos at Shambhala, of whom every Avatar who has appeared on the world scene has been a reflection, offshoot, and embodiment, in varying degrees and varying ways.

As we wrote elsewhere: “Never would he and never did he directly make statements such as “I am Krishna” or “I am Maitreya” or even “I am the Avatar” . . . it was always carefully worded and in the third person, leaving the listeners and readers to draw their own conclusions. The more neutral term “The Avatar” was the one he most preferred to use. Likewise, he recognised that this whole matter was much more complex and subtle than being a simple case of “Raghavan Iyer = Avatar” and therefore he never claimed identicality or sameness between either his personal self or individual self and the Maha-Guru/Great Sacrifice/Krishna/Maitreya, as that is not how the process of Avatarship or Avatarhood works, according to Theosophy; this is also demonstrated by the wording in his Acknowledgements at the start of “The Gupta Vidya.”

In those March 1995 “Acknowledgements” at the start of the book “The Gupta Vidya,” instead of implying identicality with the Great Sacrifice etc. or superiority to the Mahatmas (In “The Scope of Self-Consciousness” he had stated that the Avatar is “far superior to the Mahatma,” which, with regard to Theosophical metaphysics, is not actually incorrect but could understandably have concerned some who did not view him in this light) he writes, “This three-volume work on the Gupta Vidya is gratefully dedicated to The Venerable Lohan (“The Great Sacrifice”), The Maha Chohan (Arghyanath, the “Lord of Libations”), Agatsya Muni [Note: this is normally spelt Agastya] (“the Regent of Aryavarta”), Mahatma M. (Rishi Vishvamitra) and Mahatma K.H. (“Pitaguru”). They called it forth and for Them it was recorded.”

In light of what we mentioned a moment ago about HPB making it clear that the event known as the Coming of Maitreya and the Kalki Avatar (who are one and the same) cannot happen until the end of the Kali Yuga in the very far distant future, it is not surprising that many students of HPB’s teachings would find it questionable and/or implausible that Iyer indicated his incarnation to also be describable as the coming of Kalki-Maitreya. However, it is not as simple or straightforward a matter as him apparently contradicting HPB, for as we have explained elsewhere:

“In Raghavan Iyer’s article titled “Kalki Maitreya” he indicated that various of the different 20th century esoteric teachings and writings and movements which had promoted the idea and expectation of a coming of Maitreya the Kalki Avatar within that century were in fact not mistaken about that in essence after all, even if they may have been in various details, dates, and descriptions about it. The coming of the Kalki Avatar/Maitreya Buddha as described by H. P. Blavatsky is undoubtedly something different than this (albeit connected to it in some way) and is something still to come, whether it be at the end of the Fifth Root Race, end of the Sixth Root Race, or start of the Seventh Root Race. That great event – whether as the Coming of a Great Being or the mass incarnation of the Divine Wisdom into the whole of humanity collectively, or both – will be experienced and recognised by all, as a (or the) “Saviour of Humanity.” That cannot happen, says HPB, until the entire Kali Yuga draws to a close. In the meantime, wrote the Mahatma M. to A. P. Sinnett in 1882, “We have yet some Avatars left to us on earth.” And according to Iyer, all of these Avatars, along with all great spiritual reformers and Teachers, include “the Kalki function” as an important part of their work, for that function or characteristic or energy or force is the force of the “divine warrior,” aptly described by Krishna in his famous words in Chapter 4 of the Bhagavad Gita.” In that article he declared: “Kalki will come not once, but over and over again, each time the world passes through another catastrophic cycle of precipitous decline in righteousness and the earth groans with its insupportable burden of demonic cacophony and spiritual barrenness.” Krishna’s famous words in Chapter 4 of the Gita are “Whenever there is a decline of righteousness (dharma) . . . and an ascendance of amorality (adharma), then I manifest Myself. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, for the firm establishment of righteousness, I come to birth from age to age.” In “Kalki Maitreya,” Iyer pointed out the undeniable fact that the 20th century, with its two World Wars and many others, was “the most barbaric of centuries in recent recorded history.” One might ask – if that doesn’t warrant the coming of an Avatar as per Krishna’s words in the Gita, then what does?

Incidentally, Robert Crosbie – the founder of the United Lodge of Theosophists and staunchly committed to the original teachings – seemingly did not hold the view that no new Avatars whatsoever are possible until the end of the Kali Yuga many thousands of years in the future. He considered Krishna’s words in the Gita to accurately explain when and why an Avatar descends: ““I produce myself among creatures” has reference to voluntary and conscious incarnations of high spiritual beings – avatars, saviours of the people – including not only the incarnation itself but the influence of a spiritual kind that attends the being. What brings such? The Gita says that They come “whenever there is an insurrection of vice and injustice in the world.”” (“The Friendly Philosopher” p. 201) At another time, when asked about the “coming Avatar” who was then imminently expected by some Theosophists in “The Theosophical Society – Adyar,” Crosbie remarked, “He will come when we are ready, but the Masters have not given the cycle of His coming, for a very good reason.” (“Answers To Questions on The Ocean of Theosophy” p. 193)

However, it is never wise to form an opinion or conclusion about a spiritual Teacher from just what they say or indicate about themselves. To go “from the Teaching to the Teacher” is the right approach as often recommended in the United Lodge of Theosophists. Assess and evaluate any such Teacher by getting familiarised first and foremost with their teachings and their work and doing so with a genuinely open mind. Another article, linked to at the bottom of this one, may prove useful in this regard for those who might wish to explore further about Raghavan Iyer.

As for whether the original Theosophical literature ever mentions that every astrological age has an Avataric incarnation accompanying it, the fact is that it does not say anything like that in any specific way but someone so inclined might draw that conclusion from the part of HPB’s article “The Esoteric Character of The Gospels” which vaguely mentions Avatars in connection with the closing and dawning of such ages.

It is true that HPB never stated that the 1975 Teacher from the Masters’ Brotherhood would be an Avatar but it’s also true that she never said that this would not or could not be the case.

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. This statement is certainly true, regardless of whether or not one believes it can be applied to him: “The Avatar cannot be comprehended from below. By its very nature, such a rare exemplification can only be grasped by tapping the depths of universal love and impersonal wisdom it releases and incarnates . . . all feeble and presumptuous attempts to fashion a convenient image of the Guru would be the greatest barrier to finding one.” (Raghavan Iyer, “Myth and Redemption” article)

WAS RAGHAVAN IYER THE 1975 MESSENGER?

Raghavan Iyer’s manifold work for humanity, both within the Theosophical Movement and the world at large, was highly 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 and individual Theosophist 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 quote from Iyer in numerous 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 the vast majority of the accusations, criticisms, and information commonly provided about Iyer by many ULT associates who do not support him are in fact false, misleading, misinterpreted, 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 but, while speaking in defence and support of him, we feel it is only right to give a broader and more open view for people to consider and reflect upon.

There is a view, held 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, although unfortunately most of those who hold that view have formed such a conclusion.

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 only mentioned extremely briefly and in passing 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 very 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 mostly 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,” though some might explain it by saying that the same Force or Presence that was behind HPB was also behind RNI.

SO WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL WORK AND MESSAGE OF THE 1975-2000 CYCLE?

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 consider that the Masters’ plans and intentions for the 1975 cycle may well, 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. Some are of the view, however, that the extraordinary nature and capabilities of Raghavan Iyer were themselves the fulfilment of an Adept being there “to teach and demonstrate the truths of Theosophy.”

* 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 a personal view, opinion, and perspective. That does not mean one cannot hold a view, opinion, or perspective on this subject that is actually correct; what it means is that one cannot definitively prove it to be correct, even though it might be so. With this in mind, 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. If the latter be so, then it could in fact be wrong to imply that the 1975 Cycle was inherently less important or significant than its centennial predecessor. And if it truly was the culminating period and manifestation and expression of the Seven Century Plan, would the Masters really just let it go by without sending anyone to spearhead it, thus breaking with Their strict tradition and making that cyclic period a bizarre and unaccountable anomaly when compared with its preceding six Impulsions? These are all things to think about.

Robert 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.

But another important factor, which it appears no-one has yet spoken about, is that it very much appears that quite a few Theosophists, including in the ULT, didn’t genuinely want a new Messenger to come in 1975, because it would take them out of their “comfort zones” too much and make them have to reconsider some things and adopt different approaches in various areas. In other words, it might shake up and prevent the development or the increasing of a sort of fundamentalist and sectarian “orthodoxy” that may have developed in some quarters and which could understandably feel very “mentally comfortable” to many, despite it certainly not being what HPB and the Masters had in mind for the Movement. Naturally, no-one would ever admit – perhaps not even to themselves – not wanting the 1975 Teacher to appear on the scene but the attitudes of many students of the original Theosophical teachings, both then and now, strongly indicate it to have been the case for some.

One other point which also seems to have gone unmentioned until now is that if associates of the United Lodge of Theosophists believe that the promised 1975 Teacher did not turn up, this automatically equates to saying that the ULT failed in one of its biggest aims, which – as can be seen in the writings of Robert Crosbie, B. P. Wadia, and ULT magazines in the first half of the 20th century – was to provide a vehicle suitable for use by that new Teacher or Messenger. One’s declaration that there was no 1975 Teacher is thus also a declaration that the ULT had proved a partial failure, since there is no other way around the matter. And if one thus believes that, surely the right thing to do is to reflect on the matter, try to work out how or in what ways the ULT failed, so that the needed lessons can be learnt, mistakes corrected, and the ULT be made fit for the Masters’ direct and public use in some future cycle. On the other hand, some ULT associates believe the area where the ULT proved itself a partial failure (for the time being, at least) was in the great majority of its most devoted associates not recognising or accepting the 1975 Teacher when he did turn up – just as B. P. Wadia had clearly warned could well happen – and thus causing the ULT at large to miss out on a great opportunity for regeneration, revivification, and the right kind of modernisation.

Whatever the case may be, this is not a subject that a serious student of Theosophy can just sweep under the carpet, ignore, and forget about, as if it is not really important or does not really matter. We may not be able to find the complete answer to “the 1975 question” but it nonetheless demands one’s serious thought and reflection. To act or speak as if it is an inconsequential subject is akin to saying “the law of cycles doesn’t matter,” and we are sure every student of Theosophy realises that cycles do matter.

Regardless, we expect that 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 ~

For more about Raghavan Iyer, please see

THE WORK AND MESSAGE OF RAGHAVAN IYER