23 | The Cosmic Wheel

IN several works allied to the Hermetic tradition^[1] we find references to a ternary Deus, Homo, Rota: God, Man, Wheel. Here the third term of the ternary Deus, Homo, Natura, which we examined in an earlier chapter, has been replaced by Rota, the ‘Wheel’. This is the ‘cosmic wheel’—a symbol of the manifested world, as we have pointed out on other occasions. We find it referred to by the Rosicrucians as Rota Mundi, the ‘wheel of the world’.^[2] Generally speaking, then, this symbol stands for Nature in its widest sense. However, it is also capable of being interpreted in various other, more specific, senses. In this chapter we will examine several of these other senses that have a direct bearing on the subject of the present study.

The symbol of the wheel derives from the geometrical figure of a circle plus its centre. Interpreted at a universal level, the centre stands for the Principle, which is symbolised geometrically by the point and arithmetically by the number ‘one’. The circumference will then stand for manifestation, which is ‘measured’ by the radius extending outwards from the Principle.^[3] This overall schema appears very simple and straightforward, but in fact it has a multiplicity of applications each of which corresponds to a different and more or less particularised point of view.^[4] To take just one example, which in fact is especially relevant to this point in our discussion: because the Principle acts in the Cosmos through the medium of Heaven, this means that Heaven itself can also be represented by the centre. In this case the circumference—against which the radii emanating from the centre come to a halt—will represent the other pole of manifestation, Earth; and the surface of the circle will correspond to the entire cosmic domain. Furthermore, the centre represents unity and the circumference multiplicity, which actually expresses the characteristics of universal Essence and Substance respectively. One could also limit oneself to considering one particular world or state of existence alone. In that case the centre will naturally represent the point at which the ‘Activity of Heaven’ manifests itself in the state in question, while the circumference will represent the _materia secunda_ or secondary matter of the world which—relative to that particular world—plays the same role which the _materia prima_ or primal matter plays in relation to universal manifestation as a whole.^[5]

The figure of the wheel is identical to the geometrical figure we have just been considering, with the one exception that it also includes a number of radii which mark in a more explicit manner the relationship between the circumference (where they end) and the centre (where they originate). It goes without saying that whereas the circumference cannot exist without its centre, the centre is absolutely independent of the circumference and contains principally all possible concentric circumferences, which are determined simply by the length of the radii. These radii can be depicted by any number of lines, because really they are as indefinite in their multitude as the points on the circumference which mark their limit. In fact, however, the traditional schemas

In alchemy, the same sign stands for gold, which as the ‘mineral of light’ is the metal that corresponds to the Sun among the planets. In the science of numbers it stands for the denary qua complete numerical cycle. From this perspective the centre is 1 and the circumference 9, which together make up 10. The reason for this attribution is that ‘one’ is the principle of all numbers and therefore belongs at the centre, not the circumference. In fact the circumference is normally measured not in decimals or tens but, as explained earlier, by division based on multiples of 3, 9 and 12.

always contain set numbers which have their own particular symbolic value; when these are added to the basic symbolism of the wheel they indicate the specific application to which the symbol is being put in each particular case.^[6] The simplest form of all presents just four radii dividing the circumference into four equal sections—i.e. two diameters at right angles to each other forming a cross inside the circumference.^[7] From a spatial point of view this figure of course corresponds to the determination of the four cardinal points.^[8] From a temporal point of view on the other hand, if the circumference is regarded as being traversed in one direction it is the image of a cycle of manifestation, while the four sections of the circumference marked off by the four extremities of the cross will correspond to the different periods or phases into which the cycle is divided. A division of this kind can be envisaged on any number of different scales, so to speak, depending on how large or small the cycle in question happens to be.^[9] One may add that the idea of a wheel evokes immediately the idea of rotation, and this rotation symbolizes the continuous change to which every single thing in manifestation is subject: hence the expression ‘wheel of becoming’.^[10] In this perpetual movement there is only one single point which remains fixed and unmoving, and that is the centre.^[11]

All these notions should need no further explanation. However, we will add one further comment, which is that if the centre to begin with is a starting point, it is also a point of termination.

Everything issues from it, and everything must finally return to it. All things exist only through the Principle (or whatever represents the Principle in relation to manifestation or to a specific state of manifestation); and this means that a permanent link must exist between them and it, symbolised by the radii joining each point of the circumference to the centre. But these radii can be traversed in two opposite directions: proceeding first from the centre to the circumference, and then returning from the circumference to the centre.^[12] In short, we have two complementary phases: the first represented by a centrifugal movement, the second by a centripetal one.^[13] These two phases, as mentioned earlier, are traditionally compared to the two phases of respiration as well as to the double movement of the heart. What we actually have here is a ternary consisting of centre, radius and circumference, with the radius performing precisely the median function that we defined above. Here lies the reason why, in the Far-Eastern Great Triad, Man is sometimes equated with the spoke of the ‘cosmic wheel’ whose centre is Heaven and whose circumference is Earth. Just as the radius emanating from the centre ‘measures’ the cosmos, or the realm of manifestation, so ‘true man’ is precisely the ‘measure of all things’ in our world, as ‘Universal Man’ is the measure of all things for manifestation as a whole.^[14] In this connection it is worth noting that while the shape of a cross produced by two diameters at right angles to each other, which we just mentioned, is in a sense equivalent to all the radii of the circumference (because all the moments of a cycle are summed up as it were in its principal phases), so this same schema provides in its complete form the symbol of ‘Universal Man’.^[15]

Needless to say, this symbolism is different, at least in ap- pearance, from the symbolism that shows man at the centre of a state of existence and ‘Universal Man’ as identified with the ‘World Axis’: this is because it corresponds to a point of view which equally is to a certain extent different. However, fundamentally they are in perfect agreement so far as their essential meaning is concerned, and it is simply a case (as in any similar situation) of having to be careful to avoid confusing the various meanings which can become attached to their constituent elements.^[16] In this connection it is worth observing that, at each point on the circumference and relative to that point, the tangent can be regarded as the horizontal. This means that the direction of the radius, which is perpendicular to it, can be regarded as being vertical, so that every radius is in a sense a virtual axis. ‘Above’ and ‘below’ can accordingly be regarded as always corresponding to this direction of the radius, envisaged in both an ascending and a descending sense. But whereas in the realm of sensible appearances ‘below’ is towards the centre (in this case the centre of the earth^[17]), here it is necessary to apply the ‘law of inverse analogy’ and view the centre as actually the highest point of all.^[18] Accordingly whichever point on the circumference one starts from, the highest point will always remain the same. This gives us a picture therefore of Man—identified with the spoke of the wheel—with his feet on the circumference and his head touching the centre. In fact in the microcosm one can say that from every point of view the feet correspond to the Earth and the head to Heaven.^[19] As a final contribution to our study of the correspondences between traditional ternaries, we will say a few words about the ternary Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.

Together, these three terms make up the Triratna or ‘triple jewel’, which several Western writers have very misleadingly referred to as a ‘Buddhist Trinity’. It is important to state at the outset that it is impossible to make these terms correspond exactly and completely to the terms of the Great Triad. However, this is not to say that a correspondence between these two ternaries does not exist, at least in certain respects. In fact we have only to start from what is the most obvious point of similarity to see immediately that the Sangha or ‘Assembly’^[1]—that is, the Buddhist community—clearly represents the human element. From a purely Buddhist point of view the Sangha effectively stands for Humanity itself,^[2] because for Buddhism it represents the ‘central’ part of Humanity and therefore the term of reference for Humanity as a whole.^[3] Another reason is that, generally speaking, every particular traditional form is bound to be concerned directly only with its actual adherents; everyone else is, so to speak, outside of its jurisdiction. And there is one further consideration as well: the ‘central’ position ascribed to the Sangha in the human realm is justified in real terms by the presence inside it of the Arhats—those who have attained to the rank of ‘true man’^[4] and consequently stand at the very centre of the human state. The same would of course apply to the equivalent of the Sangha in any other tradition.

As for the Buddha, he can be considered as representing the transcendent element through which the influence of Heaven is manifested. This means that the Buddha as it were ‘incarnates’ this celestial influence for the benefit of his immediate and indirect disciples, who then transmit a participation in this influence from one to another along an unbroken ‘chain’ by means of the rites of admission into the Sangha.

In speaking of the Buddha in this way we are not primarily concerned with him as a historical personality; actually his historical reality as such is of only incidental significance for our particular line of inquiry. Our main concern is instead with what he represents^[5] as a result of the symbolic characteristics ascribed to him.^[6] In fact these characteristics endow him primarily with the features of an Avatar.^[7] The manifestation of the Buddha is therefore the ‘redescent from Heaven to Earth’, as the Emerald Tablet describes it; and the being who in this way ‘incorporates’ the celestial influences in his own nature and brings them into this world can justifiably be termed the representative of Heaven as far as the human realm is concerned. Certainly this is a concept far removed from the rationalised form of Buddhism with which Westerners have become familiarised through the work of Orientalists. It might well be that it corresponds to a ‘Mahayanist’ point of view, but that for us is not a valid objection because it seems clear that the ‘Hinayanist’ point of view which is commonly presented as ‘original’ (no doubt because it fits in all too well with certain preconceived ideas), is in reality simply the result of a process of degeneration.

Be that as it may, the reader is warned against interpreting the correlation we just mentioned as a straightforward identification. Although in a sense the Buddha represents the ‘celestial’ principle, he only does so in a strictly relative sense determined by his role as ‘mediator’—that is, insofar as he plays what is properly the role of ‘Universal Man’.^[8] Similarly, so far as the Sangha is concerned we were able to equate it with Humanity, but only at the cost of understanding the term ‘Humanity’ in a purely individual sense. (This includes the state of ‘true man’, which is still the perfection of individuality.) In fact we need to add one further qualification, which is that (because the Sangha is an ‘Assembly’) Humanity here is to be conceived of ‘collectively’ rather than ‘specifically’. We could therefore say that while we have been able to find here a relationship comparable to the one between Heaven and Man, strictly speaking both of the terms in this relationship form part of what the Far-Eastern tradition designates by the one term ‘Man’—understood in the fullest and most comprehensive meaning of this word as containing in himself an image of the Great Triad in its entirety.

When we turn to the Dharma, or ‘Law’, it is not so easy to find a precise equivalent—even with the kind of reservations we made regarding the two other terms of the ternary. The matter is made even more complex by the fact that the word dharma possesses several different meanings in Sanscrit, which vary according to the context in which the word is used and make an overall definition virtually impossible. However, we can be guided to a considerable extent by the root meaning of the word, which is ‘to support’.^[9] This suggests an analogy with the Earth which (as explained in an earlier chapter) is what ‘supports’. Dharma must therefore refer to a principle of conservation and hence of ‘stability’—at least to the extent that stability is compatible with the conditions of manifestation, because the word dharma in all its applications is always concerned with the manifested world. As was said earlier in connection with the role ascribed to Niu Kua, the function of maintaining the stability of the world is associated with the ‘substantial’ side of manifestation. Admittedly it is quite true that the notion of stability refers to something which in the sphere of change is itself free from change, and therefore ought to occupy the ‘Invariable Middle’; but it is none the less something which comes from the ‘substantial’ pole—that is, from the side of ‘terrestrial’ influences, by way of the lower part of the vertical axis.^[10]

Understood in this sense, the notion of dharma is not confined in its application to man: it extends to all beings and all states of manifestation. In other words it can be said that in itself it has a cosmic scope. Nevertheless, in the Buddhist conception of the ‘Law’ it refers specifically to the human domain; and this means that although it presents a certain analogy to the lowest term of the Great Triad, here again the term is to be viewed in relation to Humanity (understood here as well in an individual sense).

One other point worth considering is that the idea of ‘law’ always includes an implication of ‘necessity’^[11] or ‘constraint’ —regardless of how it is interpreted or applied—which situates it on the side of Destiny. To this we can add the fact that, for every manifested being, _dharma_ is an expression of conformity to the conditions imposed upon it from outside by the environment, which is equivalent to ‘Nature’ in the broadest sense of the term. This—together with our comments in the previous chapter—enables us to understand why the principal symbol used for denoting the Buddhist _Dharma_ is the wheel.^[12] Also, this symbol makes it clear that the _Dharma_ is to be understood as a passive principle in relation to the _Buddha_, who is described as ‘turning the wheel of the Law’.^[13] Of course it could not be otherwise, considering that the _Buddha_ and the _Dharma_ belong to the realms of celestial and terrestrial influences respectively. Finally, we note that the fact of the Buddha’s being beyond the conditions of the manifested world means he would have nothing in common with the _Dharma_^[14] if he did not have to apply it to Humanity. This exactly parallels the situation described earlier, where Providence would have nothing in common with Destiny if it were not for Man and his role as the link between these two end terms of the ‘universal ternary’.

At the beginning of this book we stated that we had no intention of analysing the symbolism found in the rituals of the T'ien Ti Huei. However, there is one particular point which we wish to draw attention to, because it concerns a ‘polar’ symbolism not unconnected with some of the subjects we have been considering.

The ‘primordial’ nature of such a polar symbolism, regardless of the particular forms which it happens to assume, should be apparent from our remarks earlier in this book on the subject of orientation. It can also be easily appreciated if we consider that while the centre is the ‘place’ corresponding to the ‘primordial state’, fundamentally centre and pole are one and the same thing: both are representations of the one and only point that remains fixed and unchanging throughout the turning of the ‘wheel of becoming’.^[1]

The centre of the human state can therefore be conceived of as the terrestrial pole and the centre of the universe as the celestial pole. The first can accordingly be described as the ‘place’ belonging to ‘true man’; the second as the ‘place’ of ‘transcendent man’. Furthermore, the terrestrial pole is as it were a reflection of the celestial pole. This is because the terrestrial pole, as representative of the centre, is the point at which the ‘Activity of Heaven’ manifests itself directly, and these two poles are linked to each other by the World Axis, along which the ‘Activity of Heaven’ exerts itself.^[2] This is why certain stellar symbols which strictly speaking refer to the celestial pole can also be applied to the terrestrial pole, which is the point from which they are as it were reflected by ‘projection’ into the corresponding domain. Putting to one side those cases where the two poles are expressly designated by different symbols, there are no real grounds for distinguishing between them. The same symbolism can with equal correctness be applied at two different degrees of universality. This means that the centre of the human state and the centre of the state of the total being are virtually identical;^[3] and so we are brought back to our earlier conclusion that from the human point of view ‘true man’ is indistinguishable from the ‘trace’ of ‘transcendent man’.

On initiation into the T’ien Ti Huei, the neophyte first of all passes through a number of preliminary stages, culminating in the stage called the ‘Circle of Heaven and Earth’ (T’ien Ti Ch’üan). After this he arrives finally at the ‘City of Willows’ (Mu Yang Ch’eng), which also has another name: ‘House of the Great Peace’ (Tai P’ing Chuang).^[4] The first of these two names has a simple explanation: in China the willow is a symbol of immortality. It is therefore equivalent to the acacia in Freemasonry, or to the ‘golden bough’ in the ancient mysteries.^[5] As a consequence of this meaning the ‘City of Willows’ is identical to the ‘Abode of the Immortals’.^[6]

As to the second of these two names, nothing could be more obvious than that it refers to a place considered as ‘central’.^[7] The ‘Great Peace’ (Es Sakinah in Arabic^[8]) is identical to the Shekhinah of the Hebrew Kabbalah: that is to say, the ‘divine presence’ which is the manifestation of the ‘Activity of Heaven’ and as such can, as was said earlier, only possibly reside in a place of this kind—or in a traditional sanctuary assimilated to it. In accordance with what we said above, this centre can be the centre either of the human world or of the entire Universe as a whole. The fact that it is beyond the ‘Circle of Heaven and Earth’ indicates that, in terms of the human world, whoever reaches it has escaped from the movement of the ‘cosmic wheel’ and the endless alternations of yin and yang. In other words he has escaped from the cycle of lives and deaths and can therefore truly be termed ‘immortal’.^[9] In terms of the entire Universe, the fact that it is beyond the ‘Circle of Heaven and Earth’ is a clear and explicit allusion to the fact that the ‘pinnacle of Heaven’ is situated ‘outside’ the Cosmos.

One additional point which is particularly striking is that the ‘City of Willows’ is represented in ritual by a dipping bowl filled with rice and planted with a number of symbolic emblems or standards.^[10] This may seem rather strange, but it is easily understood by the fact that the ‘Dipper’ (Tou) is the name given in Chinese to the constellation of the Great Bear.^[11] The importance traditionally attached to this constellation is well known; for example in the Hindu tradition the Great Bear (saptariksha) is considered the abode of the seven _Rishis_, which identifies it clearly with the ‘Abode of the Immortals’. Also, since the seven _Rishis_ represent the ‘supra-human’ wisdom of the cycles prior to our own, the Great Bear is a kind of ‘ark’ in which the store of traditional knowledge is contained with a view to preserving and transmitting it from age to age.^[12] This also makes it a symbol of the spiritual centres which actually perform this function and, beyond them, of the supreme centre which is the depository of the primordial Tradition.

While on this subject we will briefly mention one other instance of ‘polar’ symbolism which is equally interesting. In certain of the ancient rituals of Operative Masonry the letter G is depicted at the centre of the vault, at the very point which corresponds to the Polestar.^[13] Suspended from this letter G is a plumbline which falls directly to the centre of a swastika traced out on the floor, which therefore represents the terrestrial pole. As to the plumbline, it is the ‘plumbline of the Great Architect of the Universe’, suspended from the geometrical point of the ‘Great Unity’.^[14] and descending—as an image of the World Axis—from the celestial pole to the terrestrial pole. As we have referred to the letter G, it is appropriate to add that this letter should really be the Hebrew _yod_, for which it was substituted in England as a result of phonetic assimilation of _yod_ to ‘God’. In fact this substitution does not fundamentally change the meaning of the symbol.^[15] The various interpretations usually given to this letter (the most important being the one that relates it to ‘Geometry’) are for the most part only possible in the context of modern Western languages and—whatever certain people may claim^[16]—they represent purely secondary explanations that have incidentally gathered around the essential meaning just mentioned.^[17] As for the letter _yod_, it is the first letter of the Tetragrammaton and it represents the Principle, which means that it is considered a divine name in its own right. Also, its form makes it the principal element from which all the other letters of the Hebrew alphabet are derived.^[18] It should be added that the equivalent letter I in the Latin alphabet is also a symbol of Unity, both on account of its form and because of its value in Roman numerals. It is, to say the least, curious that the sound of this letter is identical to the sound of the Chinese letter _i_ which—as we have noted already—is also symbolic of unity in both its arithmetical and its metaphysical sense.^[19] But, if anything, even more remarkable is the fact that in his _Divine Comedy_ Dante makes Adam say that the first name of God was _I_^[20] and that he was later called _El_. Here we find yet another confirmation of the primordiality of the ‘polar’ symbolism mentioned above. And there is also the fact that, in his _Tractatus Amoris_, Francesco da Barberino had himself portrayed in an attitude of adoration in front of the letter _I_.^[21] What this all means should by now be clear. Whether it is a case of the Hebrew _yod_ or the Chinese _i_, this ‘first name of God’—which in all probability was also the secret name of God for the _Fedeli d’Amore_—is none other than the very expression of the principal Oneness.

We will conclude this study with a few final comments on the ‘Middle Way’. Earlier on we explained that this is the same as the ‘Way of Heaven’, and so is depicted in the form of a vertical axis envisaged in an ascending direction. However, we must now add that this only applies in the case of a being who has reached the centre of the human state and strives to raise himself from there to the higher states, but has not yet achieved complete realisation. On the other hand, once this being has identified himself with the axis by following its direction and ‘ascending’ to the ‘pinnacle of Heaven’, what he has effectively done as far as he himself is concerned is to make the centre of the human state from which he started coincide with the centre of the whole being. In other words, for such a being the terrestrial pole and the celestial pole are one. This, after all, is only logical, because he has finally arrived at the principal state which is prior to the separation of Heaven and Earth (if in such a case it is still permitted to use a word which evokes temporal symbolism). Once this has been achieved there is strictly speaking no axis left. It is as if this being ‘re-absorbed’ the axis to the extent that he identified himself with it, until it was reduced to a single point; but needless to say, this single point contains in itself all the possibilities not just of one particular state but of the totality of all the states, both manifest and non-manifest. Only for other beings does the axis remain as it was: nothing has changed in their state, and they have stayed in the realm of human possibilities. The idea of a ‘re-descent’ that we spoke of earlier is therefore only really valid for them; it should not be difficult to appreciate that this apparent ‘re-descent’, while admittedly a reality at its own level, will not have the slightest effect on ‘transcendent man’ himself.

The centre of the total being is the ‘Holy Palace’ which is spoken of in the Hebrew Kabbalah, and which we have discussed elsewhere.^[1] Continuing with our use of spatial symbolism, we could say it is the ‘seventh direction’, which is not itself a specific direction but contains all directions principally. In terms of another symbolism it is also the ‘seventh ray’ of the Sun, which passes through the centre of the Sun itself. Truly speaking it is that centre, and can only really be depicted in the form of a single point. And also, it is the true ‘Middle Way’ when understood in an absolute sense, because this centre and this centre alone is the ‘Middle’ in every possible way. When we talk here of ‘every possible way’ we are referring not just to all the different meanings that a word is capable of conveying, but—once again—to the symbolism of space and spatial directions. In fact the centres of the different states of existence are only the ‘Middle’ by participation and, as it were, by reflection, and consequently only incompletely. If we turn again to the geometrical schema of the three axes of coordinates which determine space, we can say that such a centre is indeed the ‘Middle’ in relation to two of these axes, but not in relation to the third. It is the ‘Middle’ in relation to the two horizontal axes that define the plane of which it is the centre; but not in relation to the vertical axis through which it receives this participation in the total centre.

In the ‘Middle Way’ as we have just defined it, there is ‘neither right nor left, neither forward nor backward, neither above nor below’. It should not be hard to appreciate why, for a being that has not yet reached the universal centre, only the first two of these three pairs of complementary terms can cease to exist. Once a being has arrived at the centre of its own state of manifestation, it is beyond all the contingent oppositions that derive from the alternation of yin and yang;^[2] from then on there is no longer any ‘right or left’. Also, temporal succession will have disappeared, transmuted into simultaneity at the central and ‘primordial’ point of the human state of humanity;^[3] and the same will naturally apply to any other mode of succession if it is a question of conditions in another state of existence. This—as we explained when discussing ‘triple time’—means there is no longer any ‘forward or backward’. However, ‘above and below’ will always continue to exist in relation to such a point, and even along the entire course of the vertical axis; and this is why that axis itself is only the ‘Middle Way’ in a purely relative sense.

For there to be ‘neither above nor below’ any longer, what is required is that the point where the being is located must effectively be identified with the centre of all the states. From this point the ‘universal spherical vortex’ which we have described elsewhere^[4] extends indefinitely in every direction. This is the ‘Way’ along which the modifications of all things flow outwards. But as to the vortex itself, in reality it is only the unfolding of the possibilities of the central point; and this means that principally it must be regarded as being contained in its entirety in that central point,^[5] because from the principal point of view (which is not a specific or a ‘distinctive’ point of view) it is the centre which is everything.

This is what Lao Tzu meant when he said that ‘the way which is a way (which can be travelled) is not the (absolute) Way’,^[6] because for the being who has become effectively established at the total, universal centre, it is this unique point and this point alone that is the true ‘Way’—apart from which there is nothing.