(What DK has said about the Bigger Picture)
(Version 1: With Some Commentary)

Solar Systems and Constellations as Planetary in their Motion: “The orbital path of the solar system in the heavens around its cosmic centre is now being sensed, and the general drift also of our constellation is being taken into consideration as a welcome hypothesis. 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. This cosmic centre in turn forms part of a great wheel till – to the eye of the illumined seer – the entire vault of Heaven is seen to be in motion. All the constellations, viewing them as a whole, are impelled in one direction.” (TCF 1084)

Commentary: This is one of the most important references discussing the relationship of our solar system (or our constellation) to a centre around which it revolves. The difference between solar systems and constellations is blinded in this reference. In this case, our solar system may be a one-Sun(ed) solar system or may be a blind for our constellation. Conclusions which can be drawn from the paragraph above are that:

1) Our solar system is revolving around a cosmic centre;
2) Our constellation (composed of seven one-Sun(ed) solar systems) is revolving around a cosmic centre;
3) Seven constellations (including ours) are revolving around a cosmic centre.

If 3) is true, then 2) and 1) are also true.

Related References on the Revolution of our Solar System

“Ponder on this and remember also that our Sun is traveling through space (carrying our solar system along in its sphere of influence) around our own central and conditioning star which it has been rightly presumed exists in the constellation Taurus, the Bull, being found in the Pleiades.” (EA 111)

“4. The Rod of the cosmic Logos associated with our solar Logos is secreted in that central spot in the heavens around which our solar system revolves, and which is termed “the central spiritual sun.” (IHS  130)

“Note: The Pleiades as the central group of the Bull and Alcyone, one of the 7 Pleiades, is supposed to be the star around which our universe revolves.” (EA 679)

“The Pleiades are the centre around which our solar system revolves.”  S. D., II, 251, 581, 582. (TCF 1154)

“If we study astronomical books, and seek to ascertain whether [Page 152] astronomers say that this is so, we shall meet with a vast amount of contradictory opinion; we shall find that some astronomers say that within the Pleiades is a central point around which our solar system revolves; others say that in the constellation of Hercules is the point of magnetic attraction for our solar system. On the other hand, you will find this flatly contradicted.” (COA 151-152)

DK then extrapolates from our tiny solar system to the entire vault of Heaven.

“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.

Commentary: Only one turn would be necessary, as the reason for cyclicity is to allow a cycling entity to sequentially absorb from other entities (of a nature greater than itself). A superior force can only be completely absorbed by an inferior force in time.

The One Great Entity, however, has none greater than itself from whom to absorb. It’s one slow turn allows for a sequential emission to all lesser entities who must receive that emission. The night of time is lost in it, and kalpas measure less than seconds in the little day of man.

Commentary: If we attempt a little calculation, we note (TCF 39) that a Kalpa is measured as 4, 320,000,000 years. Ten million million kalpas is 4.32 x 10 (23rd). Assuming that a Brahmic cycle is 3,110,400,000,000, then twice ten million million Brahmic cycles is 6.2208 x 10 (26th). Let us suppose a generic age for the universe of 100 universal years or cosmic years, just as the age of our solar system or solar Logos is 100 years of Brahma. If we suppose (conservatively) that one hour of cosmic time has passed, then we wish to know how many hours there are in 100 years. So we take 24 hours in a day, x 360 days in a year, x 100 years and arrive at 864,000 hours.

If we look at the following sentence: “Ten million million kalpas pass, and twice ten million million Brahmic cycles and yet one hour of cosmic time is not completed.” – and interpret that ten million million kalpas are to be added to twice ten million million Brahmic cycles, the sum is 1.0525 x 10 (50th) which is (very, very roughly) the number of earth years which have passed during the time of one cosmic hour. But this figures must be multiplied by 864,000 to find out how many earth years pass is 100 cosmic years. The result is 9.0936 x 10 (55th) This means (if we can restrain our laughter at the absurdity of such calculations) then the following number of earth years will be found in the duration of the Entire Universe, according to the occult figures (and presuming the obviously figurative language used above to have some relation to fact).

90,936,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth years. This is a way to express such a number in words. I will check the Encyclopedia Britannica reference. Of course such a figure is wildly incommensurate with what present day science proposes, and, I would assume, includes vast cycles within the subjective universe.

Of course, according to the Old Commentary, the number would really be greater, because and yet one hour of cosmic time is not completed. We do not know how much is completed and how much remains. When, for the sake of simplicity (and because one hour is the only definite measurement we can use) we presume that one hour of cosmic time has elapsed, we are, of course, underestimating the number of earth years which would be contained within that hour of cosmic time.

From another perspective, IF kalpas were seconds of cosmic time (and we are told that they are less), then there would be 3.1104 x 10(9th) second in 100 cosmic years. Multiplying this figure by the figure for a kalpa 4,320,000,000 yrs we arrive at 13,436,928,000,000,000,000 years in a cosmic century. This figure is completely incommensurate with the huge figure given above. Thus, we must conclude that kalpas measure not only less that seconds in the little day of man, but far, far, far less than second in the little day of man!

Ten million million kalpas pass, and twice ten million million Brahmic cycles and yet one hour of cosmic time is not completed.

Commentary: In the calculation above, I added the two figures together, because of the word ‘and’, but it would be possible to use either of them alone. I think, however, that the Old Commentary is suggesting a sum. Still, the language is all figurative and poetic rather than exact and scientific, so the best we can hope for is to generate a figure with a reasonable order of magnitude.

Within the wheel, forming that wheel, are all the lesser wheels from the first to the tenth dimension. These in their cyclic turn hold in their spheres of force other and lesser wheels. Yet many suns compose the cosmic One.

Commentary: Ten dimensions are significant. We know that in relation to any Creative Hierarchy, there are seven divisions of form and nine divisions of consciousness. Perhaps there is a correspondence in Spectral Classes or in Luminosity Classes. Or more occultly, perhaps there is a correspondence in the orders which DK assigns to different stars or solar systems. For instance, our solar system is a system of the fourth order; Betelgeuse is a system of the second order. With regard to the Ten Dimensions, universally considered, perhaps some external cosmic structures can be suggestive.

1.Atom; 2.Man; 3.Planet; 4.Solar system; 5.Constellations (including Super-Constellations, like the OAWNMBS); 6.Clusters and Globular Clusters; 7.Galaxies; 8.Family of Galxies; 9.Super-Galaxies; 10.The Entire Vault of the Heavens. Of course, these are all external structures (in time and space), and at best can be only symbolic representations of the Entities Who ensoul them. I realize as well that I am not aware of all possible structures, so many other may be significant, and the ones listed may not all be primary. Still, it is an attempt to suggest possible dimensions of the wheels within the universe.

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.

Commentary: The great Law of Attraction (and Repulsion) is universally operative. The study of polarity is all-important on all levels. It would be interesting to know that solar system which is, to ours, the polar opposite, as well as those solar systems or constellations which are antithetical to the vibration of our solar system. The ‘mother’ here is probably ‘universal form’.

When the wheels of the fourth dimension, of which our sun is one and all that is of lesser force and higher number, such as the eighth and ninth degrees, turn upon themselves, devour each other, and turn and rend their mother, then will the cosmic wheel be ready for a faster revolution.”

Commentary: It is difficult to think that developments which occur in relation to our sun could have any influence whatsoever on the ‘cosmic wheel’, IF that cosmic wheel represents the One Great Wheel. But IF that cosmic wheel is a constellational wheel (in which our sun plays a role) or even a super-constellational wheel (like the OAWNMBS level-2) then developments in relation to our sun could have an effect. The word ‘degrees’ suggests that the word ‘dimension’ represents initiatory status – among the stars.

We know our sun is one of the fourth order; that it is said, here, that our sun is a wheel of the ‘fourth dimension’ seems to suggest that the term, dimension (as here used) is equivalent to order number. That the wheels ‘turn upon themselves’ suggests fourth dimensional rotation – the wheel turning on itself, as chakras are said to do. That they ‘devour each other’ suggests the processes of absorption and obscuration. Those more inclusive entities of a higher order, remain; the lower entities are absorbed into them, just as the Brahmic planets are absorbed into Saturn, Mercury into Uranus and Venus into Neptune – and the three synthesizing planets into the Sun.

It will, therefore, be apparent that the power of man to conceive of these whirling constellations, to measure their interaction, and to realise their essential unity is not as yet great enough. We are told that even to the liberated Dhyan Chohan the mystery of that which lies beyond his own solar Ring-Pass-Not is hid. [TCF 1085]

Commentary: So, largely, we are dealing with the unknowable, and simply trying to understand certain structural probabilities, without being able to enter into the quality of such entities, esoterically. It is significant that constellations are called whirling constellations, suggesting both rotary motion and the motion of revolution (which is connected to the spiral cyclic motion of the second ray). The kind of motion which is called ‘drift’ is allied to the motion which is called ‘driving forward through space’ or progress onward, and it is first ray motion.

Certain influences indicate to Him and certain lines of force demonstrate to Him the fact that some constellations are knit with His system 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.

Commentary: DK has given us the function of Draco the Dragon as associated with the center at the base of the spine of the OAWNMBS. Much has also been given on the Great Bear and the Pleiades, so it is difficult to reconcile the statement here given that the Dhyan Chohan does not know the nature of their function.

It must also be remembered that the turning of our tiny systemic wheel, and the revolution of a cosmic wheel can be hastened, or retarded, by influences emanating from unknown or unrealized 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. This effect is hidden in logoic karma and is beyond the ken of man.” (TCF 1084 – 1085)

Commentary: Here DK is talking about our solar Logos and (I believe) the next type entity in hierarchical order, a cosmic Logos (i.e., a constellational Logos: cf. TCF 293)

The Universe

Before entering the next section, which raises the scale of our consideration far beyond the usual, let us see if we can understand how DK uses the word ‘universe’.

Several meanings are possible:

1. The Manifest and Unmanifest Entirety
2. The Manifest Entirety, both visible and invisible, as there are many manifestations on (to us) invisible planes.
3. That part of the Manifest Entirety which is visible and objective – i.e., conventionally material.
4. Some aspect of the Manifest Entirety. For instance, a ‘universe’ might be a relatively small structure, such as a galaxy.

There are too many references to ‘universe’ (367), but perhaps some references to ‘our universe’ can be telling, presumably because if there is an ‘our universe’ there is also a universe with is not ours. In this case, the ‘universe’ would not represent the Entirety (visible and/or invisible).

The Universal Universe: “This solar Deity is a peculiar and characteristic expression of the quality of the solar Logos.  Forget not that in the great scheme of the universal universe (not just our universe) our solar Logos is as differentiated and distinctive in quality as are any of the sons of men.” (EP I 25)

Commentary: It is clear from the foregoing, that one must be careful when interpreting the word ‘universe’, because clearly, it does not always represent the Entirety. Perhaps the term universal universe represents the Entirety, but there is no assurance of this. I have found in the AAB books, that such words as ‘universe’ and ‘infinite’ are not used in their ultimate senses, but only to refer to structures or numbers which are very large.

The Solar Logos Bringing our Universe into Being: “Let us, talking necessarily in symbols, consider the universal Soul, or the consciousness of the Logos Who brought our universe into being. Let us regard the Deity as pervading the form of His solar system with life, and as being conscious of His work, of His project and His goal. This solar system is an appearance, but God remains transcendent. Within all forms God is immanent, yet persists aloof and withdrawn.” (EP I 57)

Commentary: Although this reference could be considered somewhat blinded, it does seem to discuss the creation of a solar system as a universe. In this case, a universe is simply a very large entirety – the whole thing of a large thing (even though this thing may be very very small within the structure of the ‘universal universe’).

Location of ‘Our Universe’!: “We need to bear in mind that our universe (as far as the highest human consciousness can as yet conceive of it) is to be found on the seven subplanes of the cosmic physical plane, and that our highest type of energy, embodying for us the purest expression of Spirit, is but the force manifestation of the first subplane of the cosmic physical plane. We are dealing, therefore, as far as consciousness is concerned, with what might be regarded symbolically as the brain reaction and response [Page 6] to cosmic purpose, – the brain reaction of God Himself.” (EP II 5-6)

Commentary: Clearly, our universe, as here discussed, is simply the entirety of a great entity (an entity relatively limited compared to the greater Entirety).

Second Ray Souls Work on the Line of Least Resistance within Our Universe: “Souls on this ray, as they come into incarnation through desire, attract. They are magnetic more than they are dynamic; they are constructive, and they work along the line which is, for all lives and forms, the line of least resistance within our universe.” (EP II 81).

Commentary: Thus, clearly, there must be other universes in which the line of least resistance might be some other ray.

Our Universe of Heavens: “It must be remembered that, from certain angles, the circle of twelve signs or constellations constitutes a special unity which revolves within our universe of heavens as our planet revolves in the centre of our circle of influences.” (EP II  196)

Commentary: Local, again. Our Universe of Fixed Stars:

“c. They are thus considered (Alcyone, in particular) as the central point around which our universe of fixed stars revolves.” (II. 582.) – (EP II 657)

Commentary: Alcyone/the Pleiades cannot be the center of the entire Entirety, obviously. So clearly there are certain stars and star groups which, in their aggregate, are considered ‘our universe of fixed stars’, and all of these revolve around Alcyone/Pleiades.

The Same Idea: “Note: The Pleiades as the central group of the Bull and Alcyone, one of the 7 Pleiades, is supposed to be the star around which our universe revolves.” (EA 679)

A Peculiar Sequence: “I realize that this information has little meaning to you and lies beyond your understanding, but so was much that I gave you in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. Its sole value for you lies in the revelation of the linking up and the interplay between all parts of our solar system, our universe and the zodiac.” (R&I 269)

Commentary: So if the term ‘universe’ (as here used) meant ‘the Great Entirety’, it would be most peculiar to list it in a sequence with our solar system and the zodiac. Thus, I think it is clear that we must be most careful lest we jump to conclusions in thinking that the term ‘universe’ necessarily extends to the Entire Entirety – though at times, it may.

Different Wheels and their Magnitude

“The wheel of the universe, or the sumtotal of all stars and starry systems.” (TCF 1085)

Commentary: We can accept this statement at face value – namely that this ‘wheel of the universe’ does, indeed, represent the sum total of the Great Entirety. Whether this is possible we shall see. Or, it could represent the sumtotal of all stars and starry systems within a limited structure, such as a galaxy.

“A cosmic wheel, or group of seven constellations. These are grouped according to:
a. Their magnitude,
b. Their vibration,
c. Their colour,
d. Their influence upon each other.

Commentary: Words like ‘constellation’ and ‘system’ are generic – they often do not apply to one particular structural level in the greater universe. DK does define them specifically, in the way we would consider conventional (EP I 152), but frequently He uses these terms in a less precise, more blinded or blinding way.

A cosmic wheel could be a galaxy or something less. On face value, we cannot tell anything about the scope of such a cosmic wheel. Perhaps there will be hints below.

These cosmic wheels, according to the esoteric books, are divided into forty-nine groups, each comprising millions of septenary constellations.

Commentary: Now we begin to see something of the size of such a cosmic wheel, which will tell us something about how to interpret the universal wheel. Let us look at some of the largest cosmic structures which DK has mapped for us. On TCF 344, we see seven large Beings, each with seven subdivisions. There are therefore, 49 subdivisions, on the cosmic monadic plane. BUT, it is suggested that each of these 49 triangles has only one group of seven constellations. In the diagram, the seven stars of the Great Bear are one such sevenfold constellation.

The kind of cosmic wheel we are dealing with has forty-nine groups each of which contain ‘millions of septenary constellations’, thus, when considering a cosmic wheel of this kind, we may be talking about a galaxy (or even something larger). On the largest level, such cosmic wheels, could be an Archetypal Seven, composed of forty-nine groups, each of which is composed of millions of sevenfold galaxies! On this level, rather than a solar Logos and its solar system being the fundamental unit, a galaxy could be considered a fundamental unit.

Then, just as there are solar systems, constellations, super-constellations and supreme constellations (which are mapped, I believe, on TCF 293) – there would be a galaxy, a constellation of seven galaxies, a super-constellation of forty-nine galaxies, and a supreme-constellation of 343 galaxies. Of course, that could not be the end of the story!

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. The Chohans of high degree know the forty nine sounds which give the quality of the consciousness aspect of these great Beings Who are as far removed from the consciousness of our solar Logos as the consciousness of man is removed from that of a crystal.

Commentary: Now this is a big hint. Man is as a cell to the planetary Logos, and presumably, more like a crystal to a solar Logos. Crystals, I believe, can be both elementary (composed of elementary substance) or molecular. I could not go so far as to say that to a solar Logos, man is as an atom. But it is necessary for us to say that man, to a solar Logos, is less than the cell he is to the planetary Logos.

Considering the billions or even trillions of cells which can be found in the human body, to what type of Entity could a solar Logos be considered a cell. Well, there are, I believe, billions of stars in a galaxy. One was discovered, relatively recently, which has six trillion!

Thus, to me, I think the proportion which sees a solar Logos as a cell within the Galactic Logos is reasonable.

But what is the hierarchical distance between a cell and a crystal. I don’t know. Also, what is the hierarchical distance between a cell and an atom? Certainly 1) internal cell structures, 2) complex-organic molecules, 3) simple molecules, and then 4) atoms must lie between. Then, there is the question of whether there are EXISTENCES in relation to which the analogy must be extended to include sub-atomic particles (of various magnitudes). SO!

If a solar Logos is as a cell (we hypothesize) to a Galactic Logos, to what sort of EXISTENCE is it as a crystal (which is an aggregation of simple molecules or atoms). The idea of aggregation is here important, otherwise the Tibetan could have said, ‘as a molecule’ or ‘as an atom’. But in a crystal is to be found the idea of many – enough to make a crystalline structure.

Perhaps the Being we are looking for is an Entity ensouling seven galaxies or forty-nine galaxies, or 343 galaxies. We can discuss. Such a being would be to the Galactic World what a ‘Cosmic Parabrahm’ would be the world of solar Logoi! (See TCF 344)

The knowledge thus appreciated by the Chohans is naturally theoretical and conveys only to their relatively limited consciousness the general nature of the group of constellations, and the force occasionally emanating from them which has at times to be taken into calculation.” (TCF 1085 – 1086)

Commentary: Coming ‘back to earth’ so to speak, it would be hard to imagine that a Chohan, whose technical knowledge does not lie beyond the solar ring-pass-not, could be interested in any extra-galactic structure. It is hard to believe also that anything beyond our OAWNMBS would be of concern.

“Systemic wheels, or the atomic life of individual constellations. These again are divided into 343 groups known to the Adept again through a series of characters forming a word which – through its ideographic nature – conveys essential information to the Adept. 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.” (TCF 1086)

Commentary: It becomes clear that a ‘systemic wheel’ is much larger than a one-Sun(ed) solar system.

The ‘constellations’ here cited are very large as they contain 343 groups. The fundamental unit (of which there are 343) is probably a solar system like our own. From this perspective a ‘systemic wheel’ would be a Cosmic Parabrahm (TCF 344), each containing 343 solar Logoi (at least major solar Logoi). Every one of the 343 is in a sense a group because every solar Logos has planets revolving around it (or the potential for such lesser lives which cooperate with it).

We have to see how literally we wish to take the word ‘atomic life’. If a Cosmic Parabrahm is as an atom to the ‘septenary constellations’ listed above – (millions of them are found in each of the 49 groups into which a cosmic wheel is divided), then what must be the magnitudes of a cosmic wheel and its 49 groups, and the millions of constellations found in each of those groups.

One can see how very blinded or blinding are these references. There is no certainty here. Since solar systems are the type of Entities which have ideographs, it becomes clear that Beings in the category of ‘Systemic Wheels’ are Cosmic Parabrahms. The question is, are these Cosmic Parabrahms atomic to
1) a Cosmic Wheel;
2) to one of the 49 groups into which Cosmic Wheels are divided, or
3) to one of the millions of ‘constellations’ which comprise one of the 49 divisions of a Cosmic Wheel? As there are even billions of galaxies in our cosmos, it may be that the fundamental unit of such Cosmic Wheels are not solar Logoi at all, but are galaxies themselves.

The Major Divisions of the Cosmic Entirety could look like this:

1. One Universal Wheel – all stars and starry systems;
2. Cosmic Wheels – the seven largest substructures in Cosmos;
3. Sub-Cosmic Wheels – the sevenfold divisions of each Cosmic Wheel;
4. Forty Nine Groups – the sevenfold divisions into which each Sub-Cosmic Wheel is divided;
5. Millions of septenary constellations (in which the basic unit is a galaxy);
6. Galaxies, themselves;
7. Seven Sub-Galactic Divisions;
8. Globular clusters within Seven Sub-Galactic Divisions (maybe this is not a legitimate category);
9. Systemic Wheels (of 343 solar Logoi) within the Globular Clusters, or some galactic subdivision. Each Systemic Wheel is a Cosmic Parabrahm;
10. Seven OAWNMBSs within each Systemic Wheel. (TCF 343);
11. Seven sevenfold constellations within each OAWNMBS;
12. Seven solar logoi within each such sevenfold constellation;
13. Seven major planets (planetary schemes) within each solar Logos;
14. Seven chains within each planetary scheme;
15. Seven globes within each planetary chain;
16. Seven groups of Monads within each planetary globe. (‘Monadic groupings’);
17. Seven sub-groups within each monadic grouping – these sub-groups correlating to the seven subrays of the Monad. (cf. TCF 176) These are essentially Ashramic groups;
18. Etc. down to the microcosmic level.

“Our solar system is disclosed as being:

a. A system of the fourth order, having its force centres upon the fourth cosmic plane, and making its objective manifestation from the fourth systemic plane, via the fourth subplane of the systemic physical plane.
b. Blue in colour, esoteric orange and green.
c. A system which is occultly known to the Adept as “in an airy sign in which the Bird can fly.”
d. A system formed of “three fires which form a fourth.”
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.”
f. A system which has four major cycles, and minor periods of manifestation which are multiples of that figure.
g. A system which in the alchemical phraseology of the Masters is viewed as being “a product of the fourth; the fourth itself in process of transmutation; and the living stone with four shells.” All this can be seen at one glance by the Master who has the ideographic word before Him. Other ideograms are available for His use which give Him the immediate information as He studies the influences contacting our solar system.

Planetary Wheels. For these there are ten modes of expression. [Scheme rounds should be included] Chain wheels, called in some of the books rounds. [There are chain rounds and scheme rounds. Including….the Wheel of the Chain, the Wheel of a globe, the Wheel of a race.]
 
The revolution of any one globe.
The cycle of the three worlds.
The wheel of a plane.
The revolution or cyclic appearance of a kingdom in nature. This applies within a scheme but only to the four kingdoms in objective appearance.
The revolution of a planetary centre producing monadic appearance.   
The monadic wheel, or the periodic appearance of units of the fourth Creative Hierarchy. Thus we pass down the scale through all the kingdoms and forms till we arrive at the tiny revolution of the atom of substance.” (TCF 1087)