Fellowship of Cosmic Fire
Commentary Semester IX Section I
TCF - 1083--1087 : S9S1 Part II
Most of the Tibetan’s text is put in font 16, to provide better legibility when projected during classes. Footnotes and references from other AAB Books and from other pages of TCF are put in font 14. Commentary appears in font 12. Underlining, Bolding and Highlighting by MDR)
It is suggested that this Commentary be read with the TCF book handy, for the sake of continuity. As analysis of the text is pursued, many paragraphs are divided, and the compact presentation in the book, itself, will convey the overall meaning of the paragraph. So please read an entire paragraph and then study the Commentary
IV. THE TURNING OF THE WHEEL 12
Man must understand the nature of the wheel in which he is turned, called in Sanskrit the wheel of Samsara.
1. This is the wheel which turns through the World of Illusion, bringing successive rebirths.
This latter word derived from the root Sru, to move, indicates a motion wheel or the great wheel of changing life in which the human entities have been called upon to work
2. The operative word is “work”. This is the world which functions under the aegis of Saturn, Lord of the lower worlds and especially of the systemic physical plane.
and which must never be abandoned out of compassion for man and in obedience to the law of oneness which connects the many, in the opinion of all true yogees and Sri Krishna.
3. According to the Pledge of the Bodhisattva, one will return to this lower world voluntarily for the sake of the salvation of all sentient beings.
4. Even though, after a certain point of development, we need not return, we do so because we feel ourselves at one with all those who have not liberated themselves from the wheel.
The Teacher gives the nature of the samsaric wheel in a certain peculiar way which deserves to be thought over by you all. He says "all bhootas spring up from food and food from Parjanya or rain. Rain comes out of yagna and yagna out of Karma.
5. The chain of causation is as follows:
a. From food, bhootas
b. From Parjanya or rain, food
c. From yagna, rain
d. From Karma, yagna (a ritual of sacrifice)
e. From the Veda, Karma
f. From the Eternal, Karma
6. The seven involved are: bhootas, food, rain, yagna, Karma, Veda, the Eternal
Karma is out of the Veda and Veda is of the Eternal." Here you see a Septenary gamut is given with the bhoota (or manifested form) at one end and the eternal substance unmanifested to us at the other end.
7. Spirit is matter and matter is Spirit.
If we divide this seven according to the theosophical plane of a lower four dominated over by a higher triad, we get form, food, rain and yagna as the lower four and karma, Veda and eternal substance as the higher triad.
8. We note that “Veda” finds its place correlated with the second aspect. It is the great “Teaching”
The eternal substance that pervades all space, worked on by the world song and giving rise to all the laws of karma that govern the development of the world, develops a lower four and this four is started by yagna—the spirit of evolution that connects the higher and lower or in Puranic fashion, the spirit that seeks to add to the harmony of the unmanifested by giving it a field of disharmony to work upon and establish its own greatness.
9. This philosophical explanation is very interesting. Yagna finds itself in the fourth place and thus correlates with the fourth ray and possesses a linking function. Yagna is defined here as “the spirit of evolution”.
This spirit of yagna in its way to produce the manifested form gives rise to the Parjanya or rain. The word Parjanya is applied to rain and often times to a spirit whose function is to produce rain.
10. We can interpret this as signifying that the “spirit of evolution” working upon the inharmoniously related substance results in a precipitation symbolized by “rain”.
—Some Thoughts on the Gita, p. 127.
We come now to the consideration of another point, and one of very real moment; it emerges out of what we have been saying anent cycles and is the basis of all periodic phenomena.
One of the most elementary of scientific truths is that the earth revolves upon its axis, and that it travels around the sun.
11. In the modern world, it took a long time to establish this reality.
One of the truths less recognised, yet withal of equal importance,
12. This, from the Tibetan’s greatly expanded perspective…
is that the entire solar system equally revolves upon its axis but in a cycle so vast as to be beyond the powers of ordinary man to comprehend, and which necessitates mathematical formulae [Page 1084] of great intricacy.
13. Not just one formula but many…
14. Technically, the phrase should be “rotates upon its axis”. We are not speaking of the rotation of the Sun upon its axis—a motion which takes 25.38 Earth days at the solar equator, and about 27 days if sunspots are used as the reference points.
15. From the Wikipedia we read:
There is no fixed rate of rotation of the Sun (Solar), on its own axis. However, at the equator, the Sun's rotation period is 25.38 days. This slows considerably as latitude increases.
The orbital path of the solar system in the heavens around its cosmic centre is now being sensed,
16. In this case the term “solar system” (probably, but not exclusively) means precisely our one-Sun solar system.
17. We have to be careful with the term “solar system” as any system of stars (thus a constellation) can be considered a ‘solar system’. In this manner the term “solar system” can be used for occult blinding.
18. We must also ask “By whom is this orbital path being sensed?”—apparently there are few astronomers who think of this type of revolution as possible.
and the general drift also of our constellation is being taken into consideration as a welcome hypothesis.
19. In this case we have no assurance that the term “constellation” means our one-Sun solar system. It may or it may not. The term “our constellation” could also mean the stars of the Constellational Logos of which our one-Sun solar system is hypothetically a part. This Constellational Logos has been hypothesized as the Lord of the "Seven Solar Systems of Which Ours is One"—a cosmic structure which DK mentions with some frequency.
20. But if DK means that “our solar system” is identical with “our constellation”, He has named our solar system in two different ways within the confines of one sentence. This should awaken out attention. We should be alert to the thought that we may be in the middle of a process of ‘occult blinding’—the deliberate veiling of certain information which He is conveying “between the lines” as it were.
21. There is speculation by some deeper students of cosmology that our solar system may not be only a one-Sun solar system, but should be considered a “constellation”, because (as the theory goes—gathered to an extent from The Secret Doctrine), Mars was once a sun. Jupiter, so the theory goes, may one day become a sun—perhaps in the next solar system. As well, all the planets, including our Sun began as comets. This we have from The Secret Doctrine in the discussion of Maritanda (our Sun) and His “Seven Brothers”.
Scientists have not yet admitted into their calculations the fact that our solar system is revolving around a cosmic centre along with six other constellations of even greater magnitude in the majority of cases than ours, only one being approximately of the same magnitude as our solar system.
22. The terms “solar system” and “constellations” are, it seems, deliberately mixed. The implication could be:
a. That our solar system is really a constellation and is revolving with six other constellations around a cosmic centre.
b. That our solar system is simply a conventional solar system but is linked with six other constellations which together are revolving around the same cosmic centre.
c. That the our solar system is a one-sun solar system which, along with several other mostly one-sun (or perhaps two-sun) solar systems in the "Seven Solar Systems of Which Ours is One", is revolving around a common cosmic centre, taking either the literal or symbolical 250,000 years to do so together.
23. In the matter of magnitude, only Alpha Centauri (A and B) at 1.5 and .5 solar luminosities respectively are of approximately the same magnitude as our Sun. All the other stars hypothesized as grouped with Sol in His “cosmic group” have significantly higher solar luminosities.
24. If we start considering that six other true (i.e., conventional) constellations revolve around a common cosmic centre (constellations such as the Great Bear, Draco, Orion, Antares, etc.—which ever we choose), then the Tibetan has made a huge understatement when speaking of these constellations as being “of even greater magnitude in the majority of cases than ours”. The statement is disproportional, as, if we consider the combined magnitudes of all the stars in those constellations relative to Sol, they are thousands and even hundreds of thousands of times more luminous than Sol. In this case, only Sirius (at approximately 25 solar luminosities and if considered as a “constellation”) would be very loosely ‘approximately’ of the same magnitude as Sol, and that is a great stretch. The phrase “of even greater magnitude” is a modest statement more fitting for the comparison of Procyon (7.73 L☉) , Altair (10.6 [L☉) Vega (37 ± 3 L☉) , Sirius (25.4 (A) /
0.026 (B) L☉), etc. with our Sun.”
25. I consider it is a perilous assumption to take this statement by the Tibetan (the one concerning revolving constellations accompanied by our revolving solar system) literally until we check out those astronomical facts available to us. I suspect that when we do so, we will have demonstrated to us the literal impossibility of such concurrent constellational revolutions. I suggest that the revolution of seven associated suns (not “constellations”—as that term us conventionally understood) will not be shown to be impossible.
26. In occultism, the “cosmic centre” around which our solar system (or “our constellation”) and also the six other constellations, is considered to revolve is the Pleiades and especially Alcyone as the leading star of the Pleiades.
This cosmic centre in turn forms part of a great wheel
27. This could be our galaxy, or it could be a much lesser cosmic structure, for we may infer with reason that there are ever-larger wheels on the way to the galactic wheel, (which of course is probably involved in its own type of revolution around a still greater center, etc.)
28. There are many ever more inclusive “wheels” in our galaxy, until at last the galaxy as a cosmic wheel is considered.
29. We are dealing with chakra systems of ever-increasing scope.
till—to the eye of the illumined seer—the entire vault of Heaven
30. Presumably, this “vault” is not only the externally visible vault, but the ‘subjective vault’ and also the vault as expanded by all our instruments of observations—telescopes and sensing devices of all kinds.
is seen to be in motion.
31. The stars within the “vault of heaven” are certainly not fixed stars.
All the constellations, viewing them as a whole, are impelled in one direction.
32. We could possibly be within the galactic frame of reference, speaking of all constellations included within our galaxy, all revolving (whether clockwise or counter-clockwise) in the same direction around the center of the galaxy.
33. We could also be in a maximally large context, with DK positing that the entire Universe is the ‘Greatest of All Possible Wheels”, and that all constellations revolve together around the ‘common center’ of this Wheel—whatever that might be. I do not think we should resist the analogy.
34. In any case, it seems that there is no contrary movement of some constellations when compared to others. All are moving together and probably, we can assume, revolving together around a common center.
35. When we look carefully at the word “constellations” and attempt to define it in a general sense, we realize that it means ‘an organized gathering of related items’. Planets can be constellated together: Suns can be constellated; what we normally call constellations of stars can be constellated so that we have constellations of our customary constellations; and on and on, until we have constellations of galaxies and of super-galaxies, etc. The term “constellation” is a generic term suggested systematic, organic relationship. Therefore, this statement about “all the constellations” could refer to all manner of ‘constellations’ in the entire Universe.
36. Occult blinding occurs through a shifting of the meaning of terms. The reader is blinded because, as the shifting occurs, the reader’s attention is not drawn to the shifting. Thus, confusion will result unless the prepared and perceptive reader knows of deeper structures, relationship and dynamics than are referenced in the blinded text.
37. We do not know whether DK has taken the picture that far (i.e., as far as the one and only Ultimate Universal System of all cosmic systems or constellations), but we must be alert to the possibility of ‘level blinds’, by means of which DK speaks of several levels simultaneously or may switch levels suddenly without alerting the reader.
38. We find this ‘level blinding’ in The Secret Doctrine when discussing our tiny solar system and the entire Universe “in the same breath”. Who, after all, is The Eternal Parent, and yet hints are being given about the birth of our solar system at the same time.
The old Commentary expresses this obscure truth as follows:
“The one wheel turns. One turn alone is made, and every sphere, and suns of all degrees, follow its course. The night of time is lost in it, and kalpas measure less than seconds in the little day of man.
39. While we could be speaking of a galaxy, it is not certain that we are, given the time scales below. We have estimates that our Sun orbits our galaxy in a period of from 200 million to 250 million years, but we do not know how long it takes the galaxy to turn on itself. If our solar atom has a rotational period of about 100,000 years according to DK, then the rotation of the galactic atom (if of the same nature as the rotation of the solar atom) could endure for an immense period—much longer of course than the supposed total age of the universe as projected by contemporary science!
40. The “one wheel” could, of course, be the ‘One and Only Universal Wheel’. Can it be thought that this ‘Greatest of All Wheels’ turns but once? It is conceivable, but if it must turn faster with the appearance of every ‘new’ universe, then, since every universe has been preceded by an infinitude of universes, the 'Universal Wheel' would always be turning at ‘infinite speed’ which is an impossibility.
Ten million million kalpas pass, and twice ten million million Brahmic cycles and yet one hour of cosmic time is not completed.
41. A kalpa, according to H.P.B. has the duration of 4,320,000,000 Earth years. If we add the kalpic night we get 8,640,000,000 Earth years.
42. One “Brahmic cycle” (if by this we mean an “Occult Century”, is 311,040,000,000,000 years. But if a Brahmic cycle is smaller—such as a “Day of Brahma”, then the overall ‘Age of the Universe’ would be much greater.
43. I did a fanciful calculation some years ago for the number of Earth years involved in this somewhat poetic description by DK It was a figure with a great number of zeros—something like—5,501,980,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 –this is something like 5 octillion years. So, if the H.P.B. record on time (TCF 39) is substantial, as some of us think it is, and if the Tibetan’s quotation from the Old Commentary is not simply poetry, we are dealing with a simply huge figure which would far transcend the one turn of a galactic wheel—whatever that really means anyway. We could look at this figure as the Duration of our Universe occultly considered.
44. Let us suppose that a Brahmic cycle is but a “Day of Brahma”. Then we would have to multiply the huge figure above by 360 x 100 or by 36,000 and the speculative ‘Age of the Universe’ would be: 1.98071308832. Another three zeros or so would be added to the 5 octillion figure. By USA and “Modern British” figures we would have a figure above 200 nonillion Earth years.
45. Of course, such calculations are ridiculously fanciful, but they may give a clue concerning the huge number of Earth-years which the universe may endure. This would certainly involve subjective endurance as well. Relatively, the number of years which an entity spends in strictly objective existence is short compared with the total span of spiritual, subjective and objective endurance.
Within the wheel,
46. We are speaking either of the 'Greatest of All Wheels' or of the ‘Galactic Wheel’.
forming that wheel, are all the lesser wheels from the first to the tenth dimension.
47. We must bear in mind that the Tibetan and other writers on deep occult matters, frequently switch the scope of their perspective without telling us they have done so. The vastest of all universal perspectives may be considered side-by-side with a much smaller perspective, and no warning given that different contexts which are being discussed.
48. The entire Universe may have ten dimensions. This will mean that when we draw representations of systemic planes, cosmic planes, super-cosmic planes, we will have to determine how far to go.
49. On this scale of ten dimensions, where would a galaxy fit? If we could determine this, we would have a marker. Is the atom of substance representative the first dimension? Is man representative of the second? Is a Planetary Logos representative of the third? Is a Solar Logos representative of the fourth?
50. Or should the dimensions be considered strictly in relation to planes? Would we begin with a sub-sub-plane and from that level begin increasing sizes to a subplane, a systemic plane, a cosmic plane, a super-cosmic plane, etc., or would we begin simply with a systemic plane? These are questions which we are in no position to answer at this time.
51. Of course, within any system (holographically considered) there could also be ten dimensions—representative of the Tree of Life. So there may be concrete applications of this ten-dimension idea as well as the ultimate universal application.
These in their cyclic turn hold in their spheres of force other and lesser wheels.
52. It seems that wheels of the major ten dimensions have within themselves lesser wheels which might be called ‘sub-dimensional wheels’.
53. Therefore, only certain wheels are considered representative of the ten dimensions of cosmos. Yet there are many other wheels. Who knows how many lesser wheels may be contained in each of the major dimensions of cosmos?
Yet many suns compose the cosmic One.
54. Notice here the use of the term “cosmic One”. This establishes that the term “cosmic” is entirely flexible, for we are far, far beyond anything we might name as the conventional "One About Whom Naught May Be Said"—considering Him (as I think there is a tendency to do mistakenly, as the only Being to which the term “Cosmic Logos” must apply). Of course, as I have stated, philosophically, the "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" could be a Galactic Logos, OR, ultimately, it could be, with greatest philosophical accuracy, the ABSOLUTE, the ABSOLUTE INFINITUDE, the NAMELESS ONE, about WHOM, literally, naught can be said!
55. So when we speak of a “Cosmic Logos” it does not seem justified to me to attach that name solely to what we conventionally think of as a "One About Whom Naught May Be Said"—i.e., a Super-Cosmic Logos. The word “cosmic” is utterly flexible. Even our Planetary Logoi are considered cosmic Beings and so is our Solar Logos. I suggest that we do not become too concrete or fixed about the term “cosmic”.
Wheels within wheels, spheres within spheres. Each pursues his course and attracts or rejects his brother, and yet cannot escape from the encircling arms of the mother.
56. By the “mother” in this case, for me, the ‘universally diversified Mulaprakriti’ is suggested. We are dealing with the Law of Attraction universally applied.
57. The “Mother” embraces all B/beings of any kinds except for the Universal Spirit, Itself.
When the wheels of the fourth dimension, of which our sun is one
58. Now, suddenly, the whole scenario is collapsed down to intra-galactic matters. We have just made a huge level-leap. We can investigate this, but I do not think that only six more types of aggregations exist between our solar wheel, and the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’. We need some astronomy here to discuss varieties of Sub-Universal Wheels leading progressively and sequentially to the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’—i.e., varieties for which there presently exists evidence.
59. The addition of Constellational Wheels, Super-Constellational Wheels (of which the "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" could be one)—would take us already to a sixth dimension, and so I think it can be clearly seen, that if we proceed in this manner we will not even go beyond our galaxy before the 10th dimension (calculated in this manner) is reached.
60. This being the case, it seems clear that a dimensional model of cosmos relating categories of planes to the ten dimensions is the best model. With this type of model, only a few of the very many types of wheels will be considered representative of the ten major dimensions.
61. The major representative of any dimension will always have as a plane of expression the atomic subplane of a series of seven subplanes.
62. It behooves us to be humble in the face of these huge aggregations or ‘constellations’ (generically considered). We have to remember that there are Beings (not necessarily the greatest ‘Archetypal Universal Beings’—such as the Universal Twelve, or the Universal Seven) in relation to which our Solar Logos is simply as a “crystal” or a “cell”. We cannot pontificate about the nature of the Universe. If DK tells us that it is “wasted energy” to speculate about the (conventional) "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" (a Being, great to us but tiny on the universal scale), then it would be quite ridiculous to think that we could know anything about Occult Universal Structure of those Great ‘Constellations’ in relation to which our entire galaxy could be considered but a ‘cell’.
63. The danger is that the mind can go anywhere and feel very good about itself, and yet we have not even controlled our astral bodies! Nor filled our minds with love! Nor become soul-infused! So—we are in the midst of a huge joke (albeit an irresistible one) if we really think we can talk about these subjects with occult or scientific accuracy. Yet we persist, as the flea yearns to know something about the purposes of the Solar Logos.
and all that is of lesser force and higher number, such as the eighth and ninth degrees,
64. A very interesting hint about numbers used to classify potency. For instance, Betelgeuse is a Solar Logos of the second order and Sol of the fourth.
65. From this perspective, the higher the order number, the lesser the force of the Being involved.
66. It might be advisable to think that if our Sun is of the fourth order and is to be considered a wheel of the fourth dimension, we have to ask, “Within what type of system of dimensions is our Sun a representative of the fourth dimension?” Is such a system galactic, super-galactic, etc., or is it the ‘Ultimate System?
67. It may be the case that within every major dimensional wheel, there are ten subsidiary wheels. We are asking then, “Within what type of Wheel is our Sun a representative of the fourth dimension?” This is no small question.
68. The words “eighth and ninth degrees” are problematic. Usually as the number or the “degree” rises, the power of the Being concerned rises.
69. Perhaps, then, we will have to focus on the meaning of “lesser force”. Can it suggest that Beings of the eighth or ninth degrees have lesser force within the lower worlds but much greater energy within the higher worlds?
turn upon themselves, devour each other, and turn and rend their mother, then will the cosmic wheel be ready for a faster revolution.”
70. In this case, the Cosmic Wheel could be the galaxy. It is hard to conceive that the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’ turns more than once. As we have just been told:
"The one wheel turns. One turn alone is made…
71. The process of devouring each other is related to the stages of obscuration, synthesis and absorption.
72. Each B/being has a “mother” which is but an aspect of the ‘One Universal Mother’. To ‘rend the mother’ signifies the destruction of the form which encapsulates the subtle principles and the volatile essence, and the subsequent escape of those subtle principles and that volatile essence into a greater, synthesizing sphere.
73. We must be aware that DK or the writer of the Old Commentary in this case, slides between levels, just as H.P.B. seems to do in The Secret Doctrine. The student must be very alert to see when the level discussed is changed.
74. He did this when He began to talk of the “wheel of the fourth dimension”. Suddenly we were out of the context of the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’.
It will, therefore, be apparent that the power of man to conceive of these whirling constellations,
75. DK seems to pointing to the rotational and revolutionary movements of constellations of all kinds.
to measure their interaction, and to realise their essential unity is not as yet great enough.
76. Again, a magnificent understatement!
77. Perhaps, even in the case of the Masters, the ability to measure such interaction is “not yet great enough”.
We are told that even to the [Page 1085] liberated Dhyan Chohan the mystery of that which lies beyond his own solar Ring-Pass-Not is hid.
78. Shall we pause for a moment of humility, or shall we debate strenuously over what is hidden to “liberated Dhyan Chohans”? Who are these “liberated Dhyan Chohans”? Initiates of the sixth degree?; of the seventh?; initiates beyond? We are not They, and so any pontificating about that which lies beyond our “solar Ring Pass-Not” is pure folly, though fascinating to contemplate.
Certain influences indicate to Him
79. It seems that Master DK is speaking of the perceptions of a liberated Dhyan Chohan.
80. We notice that Master DK is capitalizing the word “Him”, indicating a Being of very great stature, and the limitations of knowledge to which such a Being is subject.
and certain lines of force demonstrate to Him the fact that some constellations are knit with His system
81. Remember the generic quality of the word “system”. It is like the word “constellation”—utterly protean, and the sooner we get used to the uncomfortable idea that we are dealing with slippery terms, the less foolishly rigid we will become. Can you imagine how the experts in Hierarchy look at our calculations when DK implored us not to make any calculations at all because too little is known?
I would conjure students here to refrain from attempting (in years to come) to form cyclic computations of any kind, for as yet the many constellations which exist only in physical matter of an etheric nature are unknown and unseen. Yet they are potent in influence and until etheric vision is developed, all calculations will be full of error. It suffices for man as yet to master his own dharma, to fulfil group karma, and to dominate what is called "his stars." (TCF 1058)
82. Yet, we persist, as we seem fated to do—to calculate and compute. But let us not think we have spoken the last word on the greater universal structures and the dynamics of those structures.
in a close and corporate union. We know that the Great Bear, the Pleiades, Draco or the Dragon are in some way associated with the solar system but as yet He knows not their function nor the nature of the other constellations.
83. We are speaking of the limitations of knowledge which characterize a liberated Dhyan Chohan.
84. These are the constellations familiar to us when we think about the ‘Members’ (as chakras and principles) of our local "One About Whom Naught May Be Said". In this case the term “solar system” can mean exactly that—a one-Sun solar system, or it could include the system of the Cosmic Logos (of the first order—and such exist, TCF 292-293) in which our one-Sun solar system is but a part—a seventh part of its major structure.
85. DK seems to be telling us that even the liberated Dhyan Chohan does not know the function of the Great Bear, the Pleiades, and Draco. (Do we, then, think we do?)
86. He is also saying that other constellations are associated with our “solar system”, but that the liberated Dhyan Chohan does not know which constellations. Do we think we do?
It must also be remembered that the turning of our tiny systemic wheel,
87. The “systemic wheel”, in this instance, is probably the wheel of our one-Sun solar system.
and the revolution of a cosmic wheel
88. A “cosmic wheel” in this instance is probably wheel of a Cosmic Logos—a Being which has for its major chakras seven Solar Logoi.
can be hastened, or retarded, by influences emanating from unknown or unrealised constellations whose association with a systemic or a cosmic Logos is as mysterious relatively as the effect individuals have upon each other in the human family.
89. Here we are saying that a systemic wheel can be affected by other known and unknown systemic wheels and by cosmic wheels (or even greater wheels). We are also suggesting that cosmic wheels can be affected by other known and unknown cosmic wheels (and even greater wheels). As well, it is possible that cosmic wheels can be affected by systemic wheels which are lesser in scope than cosmic wheels.
90. Even the greatest Intelligences on Earth do not know all of these various causal relationships.
This effect is hidden in logoic karma and is beyond the ken of man.
91. We read the words, “beyond the ken of man”. In this case we are probably not speaking of the influences of the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’, but maximally of a galaxy and probably of lesser “cosmic wheels”—yes, all of them cosmic wheels, existing beyond our solar system—“cosmic” in that sense.
92. DK is suggesting that our little systemic wheel (much smaller than the Systemic Wheels listed a little way down the page) can be influenced by Beings much greater than Cosmic Logoi (however we choose to conceive of Cosmic Logoi).
93. I maintain here that the term “cosmic” applies to multiple kinds of extra-systemic wheels. Our Solar Logos is not a Cosmic Logos, and the chakras of a Cosmic Logos consist of solar systems. I believe we must proceed incrementally with no gaps if possible. Thus my sequential and incremental treatment of the Tabulation on TCF 293 (well prepared by DK’s discussion on TCF 292)
The wheels in order of their importance might be enumerated as follows:
The wheel of the universe, or the sumtotal of all stars and starry systems.
94. I call this the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel. BUT, let us be careful because sometimes the term “universe” or “universal” can apply even to a solar system.
“When our solar universe came into being, we are told in the allegorical language of the ancient scriptures, there "was war in Heaven"; "the sun and his seven brothers" did not function with true unanimity; hence (and herein lies a hint) our Earth is not one of the seven sacred planets. (EP I 394)
“This "fall of the angels" was a tremendous event in the history of our planet, but was nevertheless only a passing and interesting phenomenon in the history of the solar system, and a trifling incident in the affairs of the seven constellations, of which our solar system is but one. Pause and consider this statement for a moment, and so readjust your sense of values. The standard of happenings varies in importance according to the angle of vision, and what (from the angle of our Earth's unfoldment in consciousness) may be a factor of prime importance and of determining value may (from the angle of the universe) be of trifling moment. (EP I 395)
95. The mutability of the term “solar system” is evident above. In my view, DK can easily call “solar systems” as “constellations” because a constellation is a system of solar stars, and He can easily call “constellations” “solar systems”, because in a solar system, a number of heavenly bodies are ‘constellated’ together.
96. This means that the term “our solar system” can mean precisely our one-Sun solar system, or it can also mean the ‘system of seven solar systems which together form the constellation of a Cosmic Logos’. I know this is a disputed point, but anyone who thinks that DK is rigid in His terminology has not carefully compared a sufficient number of references using the same or similar terms.
97. It behooves us to contemplate the term, the "Wheel of the Universe". It is far more than the wheel of a solar system. In fact, it is the largest of all possible wheels.
98. If by the "Wheel of the Universe" means only our ‘Galactic Wheel’, then a very huge occult blind is in effect.
A cosmic wheel, or a group of seven constellations. These are grouped according to:
99. If we are not to jump from the Ultimate Universal Wheel to a relatively tiny wheel of a "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" in our galaxy (skipping the galactic level altogether), then this “cosmic wheel” is minimally a galactic wheel, and I would not be surprised if it is not a still larger structure, because galaxies, themselves are members of “families” and other still greater groups. The Logoi manifesting through these huge galactic aggregations or ‘constellations’ should not be skipped.
100. So we see the ambiguity of the term “cosmic wheel”. In one respect, and most often, it means the wheel of a Cosmic Logos (a Being with either seven suns as its major chakras, or in some instances, seven seven-sunned constellations as its chakras). BUT, the term “cosmic wheel” can also indicate a far greater structure—even a super-galactic structure.
101. Usually a “cosmic wheel” (being the vehicle of a Cosmic Logos) is well within a galaxy. I am suggesting, however, that the term “cosmic wheel” could indicate the wheel of a Galactic Logos or the wheel of a Being even greater.
102. This point of view could, I know, be disputed by some, but I think it is logical in this context.
103. The “constellations” in which a “cosmic wheel” is divided, must be immense structures—whether intra-galactic, galactic or super-galactic (‘level’ of these seven constellations will depend upon our determination of the nature of a “cosmic wheel”).
a. Their magnitude,
b. Their vibration,
c. Their colour,
d. Their influence upon each other.
104. Minimally DK is, in my view, speaking of the magnitude, vibration, color and mutual influence of the systems of Galactic Logoi—and he could be referencing even greater Logoi and Their super-galactic systems. But we cannot know this.
105. Let us pause to consider that these stupendous Logoi can be classified by the descriptors above.
106. This means, bring the matter as close to ‘home’ as possible, that the Logos of our Milky Way Galaxy has a certain galactic magnitude, a certain vibration to be compared with the vibrations of other Galactic Logoi, a certain colour and an influence upon other Galactic Logoi just as They influence Him.
107. In the case of our Milky Way Galaxy and the galaxy called Andromeda, we know they are rapidly approaching each other and can certainly be considered ‘interactive’ on the galactic level.
These cosmic wheels, according to the esoteric books, are divided into forty-nine groups, each comprising millions of septenary constellations.
108. “Divided into” can mean the following:
a. Subdivision: in this case, an original unit is definitely subdivided into lesser units.
b. Classification: Because used the plural “cosmic wheels” instead of the singular, “cosmic wheel”, there is a possibility that the term “divided into” means “classified into”. In other words, instead of one cosmic wheel being subdivided into forty-nine lesser groups, cosmic wheels themselves can be classified as of forty-nine types.
c. The ambiguity arising from these two possibilities makes it difficult for us to pin-point the scope and status of a “cosmic wheel”.
109. FIRST a “cosmic wheel” is divided into “seven constellations”—as we just learned above. This seems definitely to be subdivision.
110. But now something further is said suggesting that whatever we meant by “seven constellations” above, each of these seven must have many, many subsidiary “constellations” within each of them—probably at least a million. (Notice the various scopes which a term like “constellation” can represent.)
111. It seems most probable that, when speaking of “cosmic wheels”, we are minimally speaking of Galactic Logoi. No other Being could be comprised of “millions of septenary constellations”. This is far, far, far beyond the scope of any "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" of the kind usually mentioned by DK (though such a Being could very legitimately be thought of as manifesting through a "cosmic wheel"—given the more ordinary sense of the term “cosmic wheel”)
112. As the term “divided into” is ambiguous, how we interpret it could have implications for our estimation of the scope of the Entities discussed.
a. One type of Cosmic Wheel could be of such scope that it contained forty-nine galaxies, or even forty-nine groups of galaxies. (We can assume that these “esoteric books” are all about the real Esoteric Astronomy.)
b. So if the Cosmic Wheels are structures larger than galaxies, the forty-nine groups could, each of them, be a galaxy or even a group of galaxies.
c. From another perspective, however, we could simply be speaking of a Cosmic Wheel as a galaxy, in which case, each of the forty-nine groups would be intra-galactic and would have millions of septenary constellations—a reasonable assumption. In this case the “forty-nine groups” and the “millions of septenary constellations” would all occur within a galaxy.
d. But these forty-nine groups would be the ‘systems’ (‘solar systems’ in an interesting sense) of huge Entities, in order, each of them to contain millions of septenary constellations.)
e. OR, from still another perspective—there could even be (depending on how we interpret “divided into”) forty-nine groups of Cosmic Wheels in the Universe. Such groups would consist of Cosmic Wheels as chakras.
f. In the last analysis, what I am trying to say is that the smallest structure a Cosmic Wheel could be is a galaxy, but one can make a good case for a Cosmic Wheel (as presented in this context) being a structure much larger than a galaxy.
g. We need a study of all likely “cosmic wheels” (remember the protean nature of the term “cosmic”) contained within a galaxy. After that we can study the manner in which galaxies aggregate, and how many dimensions of aggregation we are likely to encounter-- Cosmic Wheels within greater Cosmic Wheels, etc.—on our way to the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’.
For purposes of study by the Adepts, they are each known by a symbol, and these forty-nine symbols embody all that can be apprehended anent the size, magnitude, quality, vibratory activity, and objective of those great forms through which an Existence is experiencing.
113. Let us say that , in all probability, either—
a. We are speaking of a Cosmic Wheel as the manifestation of a Being which has forty-nine galaxies as centers—really probably a Being who has centers consisting of a fusion of seven galaxies for each center, with each of these seven centers having lesser centers each of which is a galaxy.
b. OR—we are simply speaking of a Cosmic Wheel as a system of a Galactic Logos, each of which has forty-nine major subdivisions. Probably the justifiably-reeling-mind would prefer this option.
c. Thus, either forty-nine galaxies are each known by a symbol, which tells all that can be known a great Super-Existence which embodies them—as in Option 1.
d. OR, we are speaking of one galaxy with forty-nine major subdivisions, each of which has a symbol. When the meanings of these forty-nine symbols are combined, all that can be known of a Galactic Logos is evident.
e. Maybe some students can think of still other options.
114. I am not happy with the very big jump from the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’ down to a tiny galaxy, but will admit it as a possible hypothesis. Who knows what DK is leaving out of the picture, just to provide us with some degree of clarity?
115. The question is—“Just how much do Masters know about the entire Universe—about the ‘Ultimate Universal Wheel’? Probably They know something about our galaxy and local galaxies (like Andromeda) and even about our family of galaxies, but how far do Their minds go, when matters beyond this solar system are obscure to even a liberated Dhyan Chohan?
116. Obviously, all such knowledge would be, even to Them, theoretical.
117. The scale we are dealing with here is huge—far beyond anything listed on Chart V of TCF. And the word “cosmic” is being applied to these huge structures. Thus, I say, let us not rigidify the word “cosmic”.
The Chohans of high degree [Page 1086] know the forty-nine sounds which give the quality of the consciousness aspect of these great Beings
118. Either Galactic Logoi or Sub-Galactic Logoi (i.e., Intra-Galactic Logoi)…probably.
119. We surely know that there are not only forty-nine galaxies in cosmos! But there could easily be forty-nine super groups of galaxies—billions of galaxies in each.
120. To each of these forty nine a particular symbol or sound could apply—but of course, this is a huge stretch.
121. The mind would feel much more comfortable thinking one galaxy with forty-nine subsidiary logoi within it (each with its symbol and sound) or of forty nine galaxies (each with its symbol and sound)—these forty-nine being analogous to globes organized into chains (‘galactic chains’) and the chains organized into schemes (‘galactic schemes’)
Who are as far removed from the consciousness of our solar Logos as the consciousness of man is removed from that of a crystal.
122. Here we have another significant hint—and maybe one which will help us establish the ‘level’ on which these forty-nine Beings exist—a matter which is not easy of determination.
123. To any of these forty-nine Beings, our Solar Logos is as a crystal. This gives us reason to think that we are speaking of the forty-nine major Beings within a galaxy (though one would think there had to be a still more major seven and not forty-nine), for compared to a galaxy, our Solar Logos and His system could be considered as a “cell”—of which there are some trillions in the human body (just as there are billions of stars in many galaxies and even trillions in some larger galaxies). Thus, we can use this analogy as reasonable. So if a crystal is greater than a cell (though so much depends on what DK means by “crystal”), then the forty-nine Beings are lesser than Galactic Beings (Galactic Logoi), IF a Solar Logos can be considered a “cell” in relation to a Galactic Logos.
124. If the forty-nine Great Beings are to our Solar Logos as the consciousness of man is removed from that of a crystal, we can assume that the distance between the conscious of a Galactic Logos and a Solar Logos is much greater. (I think it is reasonable to consider a Solar Logos as a cell to a Galactic Logos.) But, to what type of Being would our Solar Logos be as an atom or a subatomic particle?
125. What is our Solar Logos to the Ultimate Universal Logos?
126. But is a crystal greater than a cell? We are mixing inorganic and organic contexts here.
127. Of course, we do not know exactly what DK means by a “crystal”. Does He mean a unit in the mineral kingdom? Maybe a higher member of the mineral kingdom? Or, does He mean a chemical element? Or even a chemical atom?
128. If by a “crystal” DK means a chemical atom, then a chemical atom is much smaller than a cell, and then the Seven Great Beings would have to be much, much larger than a Galactic Logos.
129. Of this much we are certain: in speaking of “cosmic wheels” and the seven “constellations” and even millions of “constellations” into which they are subdivided, we surely are not speaking of any conventional "One About Whom Naught May Be Said", because compared to that (to us) supremely august Being, our Solar Logos is certainly no crystal—when reasonable theorists think that our Solar Logos is even a full heart chakra, and others, a minor chakra. But certainly not a crystal!
130. So the Cosmic Wheels have forty-nine divisions each of which compared to our Solar Logos is of very great magnitude and scope. We are far beyond Chart V here.
131. As we see, also, there are numbers of ways to interpret what DK has said. This great subject is still veiled.
The knowledge thus appreciated by the Chohans is naturally but theoretical
132. They, too, speculate. They could not possibly have practical knowledge of such Beings when our Solar Logos relates to them as a crystal relates to a man.
and conveys only to their relatively limited consciousness the general nature of the group of constellations,
133. Remember how vast a “constellation” can be when there are seven constellations in a “cosmic wheel”.
134. If we are attentive, we may notice that DK is involved in a ‘level-drop’ at this point. Certainly a conventional “Cosmic Logos” such as the "One About Whom Naught May Be Said", has within it seven major constellations. Such a Cosmic Logos is, of course, larger than one which has in it seven major solar systems.
and the force occasionally emanating from them which has at times to be taken into calculation.
135. Where do we (in our little solar system) fit in any one of these forty-nine Great Beings? Where does our "One About Whom Naught May Be Said", and in fact seven such "Ones About Whom Naught May Be Said" or even forty-nine of Them fit within such a Being in Whom there are “millions of septenary constellations”—millions! DK has taken us “off the map”—at least off of Chart V or off any map which we have so far generated.
136. Of course, we could take the time to make the wildest speculations possible and generate such a map, but that would not help a whole lot in keeping humanity from entering WWIII.
For instance, the interest awakened in the public mind lately by the giant star Betelgeuse in the constellation of Orion is due to the fact that at this particular time there has been an interplay of force between our tiny system and this giant one, and communication between the two informing Existences.
137. Note the huge level jump or ‘level-drop’. DK is now down in our local "One About Whom Naught May Be Said". (Remember too, the R2 nature of Betelgeuse, and think what this could mean when DK uses it as a blind for Orion. But that is another subject).
Systemic wheels or the atomic life of individual constellations.
138. In this case, each chakra is ‘atomic’ in nature.
139. From a very conventional perspective, solar systems are as ‘atoms’ within a Constellational Wheel—but let us remember, “atoms” are not necessarily tiny: man is an atom; a Planetary Logos is an atom; a Solar Logos is an atom:, etc.
These again are divided into 343 groups,
140. So, again, are we speaking of subdivision or of classification?
141. A “group” in this context could be a Solar Logos with His group of planets.
known to the Adept again through a series of characters forming a word which—through its ideographic nature—conveys essential information to the Adept.
142. Are there 343 “words”, one for each “systemic wheel”? Or are the “systemic wheels” divided into 343 parts?
The ideograph for our solar system may in part be disclosed—not the characters themselves but a digest of that for which the characters stand.
143. It seems that for our little “systemic wheel” there is an ideograph, but our systemic wheel could be 1/343 of a greater systemic wheel.
144. Our little systemic wheel could be a seventh part of a Cosmic Logos, which was as seventh part of a "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" which was a seventh part of a ‘Sub-Parabrahmic Logos”. In this case, a “systemic wheel” which had 343 groups within it, would be of the stature of a ‘Sub-Parabrahmic Logos’—one of the large circles in TCF Chart V, 344.
145. As we descend to a consideration of “Systemic Wheels”, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that the word “systemic” is anything but protean.
146. When speaking of “systemic wheels” which are subdivided, we may be talking about tiny solar systems, but much more likely we are taking about Systemic Beings each of which contains 343 Solar Logoi. This would be a case of subdivision.
147. Again we have the question of the use of the term “divided into”.
a. Is each “Systemic Wheel” divided into 343 parts, each of these parts being a solar system?
b. Or are there 343 categories of Systemic Wheels—i.e., 343 classifications of Systemic Wheels.
c. I prefer the first option, which does not specify how may “systemic wheels” there are in a “cosmic wheel”.
d. To think that there were only 343 “systemic wheels” in a “cosmic wheel” would be far too few (at least if we consider the minimum size of a “cosmic wheel” to be a ‘Galactic Wheel’.
e. There might be 343 groupings of “systemic wheels” in a galaxy, but then the “systemic” wheels could each contain millions of stars!
f. I am assuming, in general, that there are forty-nine major Solar Logoi in a "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" and not 343, so the minimum ‘Enfolding Entity’ to be classified as a “systemic wheel” would be a ‘Sub-Parabrahmic Logos’ (one level higher than the conventional "One About Whom Naught May Be Said").
g. In any case, when discussing “systemic wheels”, we are, in my view, discussing Beings far greater than our Solar Logos, because the number 343 suggests certain fundamental combinations of units—a Being with 343 Solar Logoi, and lesser Beings consisting of 49 Solar Logoi and still lesser Beings consisting of 7 Solar Logoi—but all of them far greater than the Being expressing through one solar system.
i. Through one solar system a Solar Logos expresses.
ii. Through seven solar systems—a Constellational Logos (i.e., Cosmic Logos of the kind given on TCF 293) expresses.
iii. Through forty-nine solar systems—a Super-Constellational Logos—A "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" or an “Unknown” expresses.
iv. Through 343 solar systems—a ‘Super-Duper—Constellational Logos’ (forgive me J) expresses. (This Being s seven times greater than a "One About Whom Naught May Be Said".) Is this a Cosmic Parabrahm or one level lower? Debate is needed and has been attempted, yielding no consensus.
v. I consider a Cosmic Parabrahm to contain 2401 major Solar Logoi.
h. I think it is obvious that the Logos manifesting through a “Systemic Wheel” is much greater than our Solar Logos. Again, “divided into” has to be analyzed, but in either case, if our Solar Logos is one of 343, then several greater, ascending Septenary Beings are implied.
i. Thus, caution is advised when dealing with the meaning of the word “systemic” just as “cosmic”.
Our solar system is disclosed as being:
a. A system of the fourth order, having its force centres upon the fourth cosmic plane,
148. Notice this—this is not about cosmic ethers. This is about the fourth ‘super-cosmic ether’. To analogize, what type of force centers does man have upon the buddhic plane? Eventually, He surely has seven—but they can be on different subplanes of the buddhic plane, and I infer that the cosmic buddhic centers of our Solar Logos can also be on different subplanes of the fourth cosmic plane.
149. We have to compare the statement here with the one which shows our Solar Logos having His centers upon the fourth cosmic ether. Obviously, different orders of centers are involved.
150. We can also ask: “Is our Solar Logos at such a developmental level that his cosmic buddhic centers are organized? Perhaps, to some extent, they would have to be.
151. We can also ask if man, as presently developed, has force centers on the buddhic plane? Perhaps, to some extent, this would have to be the case, though such centers would have to be simply ‘place holders’—latent, undeveloped centers in the vast majority of cases.
and making its objective manifestation from the fourth systemic plane,
152. The fourth cosmic ether…
via the fourth subplane of the systemic physical plane.
153. Nothing surprising here. The real task is to match our various Planetary Logoi with positions on the fourth cosmic plane. A whole new field of inquiry…
b. Blue in colour, esoteric orange and green.
154. VSK offers: “This is one of the most curious colour phrases, and puzzles me endlessly. Esoteric orange and green in this case seems to relate to the “first” (third-aspect or previous) solar system. So why would our current (exoterically?) blue system be esoterically orange and green? I could rather understand it is exoterically orange and green, and esoterically blue.
155. The term “esoteric” in this case may simply indicate an implicate condition derived from the previous solar system.
c. A system which is occultly known to the Adept as “in an airy sign in which the Bird can fly.”
156. VSK offers: “The bird, we recall, is key to the symbol of the five liberated Hierarchies, or Kumaras. The one Kumara with the bird symbol however is associated with Taurus; not airy. However, the solar system is of a higher magnitude than five kumaras of this world period. Would it even relate to any of the twelve signs of our zodiac, or refer rather to the (cosmic) buddhic plane, which is fourth order? And airy.”
157. Cosmologist Niklas Nihlen has pointed out that the section of space in which our solar system and, in my view, “our constellation” can be found is associated with “Birds”.
158. More research is needed here. The buddhic nature of our solar system is apparent, for the flying bird is an Egyptian Symbol of the liberation of “Ba” (the human Jiva) and Horus (the Solar Angel) at the fourth initiation.
159. In much of the foregoing it has been my objective to place our Solar Logos and even our local "One About Whom Naught May Be Said" in a more cosmic context, and show how tiny They really are. I wish to demonstrate that we have to proceed cautiously and with utmost humility as we investigate these subjects. Terms are fluid; contexts are far more vast than we can imagine; and there are many rungs on the ladder connecting one dimension or stage of being with a higher—rungs of which we have absolutely no clear idea.
d. A system formed of “three fires which form a fourth.”
160. The three fires may relate to thee three elements which combine, eventually, to produce liberation into the buddhic element of “air”.
161. On the other hand, the three fires which we are used to discussing—fire by friction, solar fire and electric fire—may be considered three aspects of an inclusive fourth fire.
e. A system in which the Bird has “four tail feathers” [Page 1087] and hence can occultly “mount to a higher plane and find its fifth.”
162. Our Solar Logos is to achieve, minimally, the fourth cosmic initiation through this particular solar system.
163. To find the fifth “tail feather” may be considered equivalent to taking the fifth cosmic initiation—which may also be possible in this second major solar system.
164. VSK offers: “This does relate to the symbols of the Five Kumaras—a symbol which has a bird with five tail feathers. (And, for illustration, has been the drawing for FCF Yahoogroups homepage.) Does the fifth then relate to atmic plane?”
165. The following s of our solar system are extremely occult in nature.
f. A system which has four major cycles, and minor periods of manifestation which are multiples of that figure.
166. Does this mean that of seven cycles, four of them are major?
167. Because our solar system is one of the fourth order, will only four rays work through it (majorly) at any one time?
168. To this, we may relate the thought that our Solar Logos is in his fourth ‘solar systemic round’.
g. A system which in the alchemical phraseology of the Masters is viewed as being “a product of the fourth;
169. The fourth in a series of six or seven solar systems is the antedating solar system of our present fifth solar system (second major solar system).
the fourth itself in process of transmutation;
170. The personality nature of our Solar Logos is in process of transmutation.
171. As well, we could say that the fourth systemic plane in the dense physical body of our Solar Logos is in process of transmutation.
and the living stone with four shells.”
172. Graduates of ‘Earth-School’ are to become “Living Stones”
173. Our Solar Logos is not yet a cosmic Initiate of the third or fourth degree. At the fourth degree He would become a “Living Stone”.
174. The “shells” can be considered as coverings of the “stone” or cosmic "Jewel in the Lotus".
175. The shells could also be considered the mental, emotional, etheric and dense physical nature of our Solar Logos.
All this can be seen at one glance by the Master who has the ideographic word before Him.
176. The ideographic word definitely refers to our tiny one-Sun solar system. The words apparently do not refer to the greater “systemic wheels”.
Other ideograms are available for His use which give Him the immediate information as He studies the influences contacting our solar system.
177. The information available to the Masters is very great and conveyed in the most economical terms.
178. Other solar systems influence our solar system; other constellations as well and aggregations of constellations (which are also, in a way, constellations). For each of these, we presume, there is an ideogram.
Planetary wheels. For these there are ten modes of expression.
179. DK not telling us how many planetary wheels there are in our solar system.
180. There are over 115 planets (visible and ‘invisible’) in our solar system, but perhaps only ten can be considered major, and of these ten, perhaps only seven.
181. Yet each has a tenfold mode of expression—three major modes and, relatively, seven minor.
Chain wheels, called in some of the books rounds.
182. Thus far, a “wheel” has been a vehicle of expression for some type of Being or Logos.
183. A “round” does not fit this criterion. A round is a kind of ‘circular evolutionary motion’ within a “chain wheel”.
184. A chakra is a wheel. A wheel turns and a chakra, also, turns.
185. There are a number of rounds in any “chain wheel”.
The revolution of any one globe.
186. A “globe” too must be considered to rotate and also, in its own way, revolve.
187. All spheres rotate and revolve, but the cycles involved in such rotation and revolution for chains and globes are not given to us.
The cycle of the three worlds.
188. Perhaps each of these is to be considered a developmental cycle.
189. The reincarnating Ego pursued certain cycles through the three worlds.
190. Probably each of the three worlds has its duration. The duration of the dense physical plane must be the shortest and the cycle of the mental plane the longest.
The wheel of a plane.
191. Planes are spherical, we are told, and rotate.
192. There is probably a planar rotation for each Planetary Logos and for the planes of the Solar Logos—a larger cycle.
193. Again, this is a very occult cycle.
The revolution or cyclic appearance of a kingdom in nature.
194. Kingdoms of nature are systemic expressions rather than strictly planetary expressions.
195. Relatively, and within the three lower worlds, the mineral kingdom has the longest cycle and the human kingdom the shortest.
196. Every kingdom is life-unit in revolution. A kingdom of nature, too, is an atom in revolution and rotation.
This applies within a scheme but only to the four kingdoms in objective appearance.
197. There are three subjective kingdoms: the Kingdom of Souls, the Kingdom of Planetary Lives, the Kingdom of Solar Lives.
198. The four kingdoms in objective appearance are the mineral kingdom, the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.
199. The cycles of appearance and disappearance are strictly determined, but among the units within any kingdom, there is room for some variability of cycles.
The revolution of a planetary centre producing monadic appearance.
200. Every Monad is a constituent member of a planetary center—probably any one of the seven major planetary centers, but perhaps only the three highest—head, heart and throat. The first option is more likely.
201. As the planetary center revolves, its constituent Monads undertake their pilgrimage and pass through different phases upon that pilgrimage.
The monadic wheel, or the periodic appearance of units of the fourth Creative Hierarchy.
202. This occurs, it appears, somewhat independently of the turning of the wheel of a planetary center.
203. The “monadic wheel” has its cycles of ones and threes.
204. Not all Monads from the same center come forth towards individualization at the same time. Once in incarnation, Monads also progress at different rates and at different times.
Thus we pass down the scale through all the kingdoms and forms till we arrive at the tiny revolution of an atom of substance.
205. The ‘rounds’ through such an atom involve activation of and emphasis upon different spirillae.
206. It would seem that all such spheres both rotate and revolve.
207. In this section of text we have travelled from the ultimately universal down to the sub-microscopic.