Parashat Lech L’cha 5786 – 11/01/2025
Beginning with Bereishit 5781 (17 October 2020) we embarked on a new format. We will be considering Rambam’s (Maimonides’) great philosophical work Moreh Nevukim (Guide for the Perplexed) in the light of the knowledge of Vedic Science as expounded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The individual essays will therefore not necessarily have anything to do with the weekly Torah portion, although certainly there will be plenty of references to the Torah, the rest of the Bible, and to the Rabbinic literature. For Bereishit we described the project. The next four parshiyyot, Noach through Chayei Sarah, laid out a foundational understanding of Vedic Science, to the degree I am capable of doing so. Beginning with Toledot we started examining Moreh Nevukim.
Bereishit 12:1-17:27
For the final three chapters of Part I (74-76) of the Guide , Rambam turns to the proofs that the Mutakallimūn advance for three important assertions, viz.:
1. The world was created in time – that is, the world is not eternal. I believe the Greeks asserted otherwise.
2. The belief in unity and
3. That Gd is non-corporeal
To give you a taste of Rambam’s approach, here is the beginning of Chapter 74, where Rambam lays out his program:
In this chapter I shall include for your benefit a narration of the proofs of the Mutakallimūn showing that the world is created in time. Do not demand of me that I set them forth in their terminology and at such length as they do. However I shall inform you of what every one of them intends and of the method he uses in order to adduce proof establishing the creation of the world in time | or refuting its eternity. I shall draw your attention with brevity to the premises used by the author of each method. When you shall read their lengthy books and famous works, you shall not find in them in any respect, in the proofs they adduce with regard to the subject in question, a single notion in addition to what you will understand from my exposition here. However, you shall find a lengthier exposition and resplendent and fine diction. Sometimes they use rhymed prose and symmetrical words and choose eloquent language. Sometimes also, they make their diction obscure intending to astonish the listener and to strike terror into the student. In their works you shall likewise very often find reiteration of notions, formulations of doubts and – as they think – their solution, and polemics against those who disagree with them.
You can see from the tone of the introduction that Rambam doesn’t think too highly of the arguments of the Kalām, even if he may agree with the conclusions. He does wish to show that these conclusions follow from the 12 premises we have outlined. For the first assertion, that the world was created in time, Rambam identifies 7 methods of proof used by the Mutakallimūn.
The first method of proof goes as follows : They argue that any finite thing proves that the universe must have been created. The reason is that finite objects have a cause, and that cause implies something outside the object to create it and oversee its evolution. They infer from this observation that the creation as a whole must also have something outside it (presumably Gd). I think the assumption here is that this process of change from one state to another cannot have gone backwards in time infinitely, therefore, at some point, Gd created the world.
The second method: This is similar to the first, and considers beings that can procreate. The son, who exists now, used to not exist, until his father begat him. The father was begat by the grandfather, etc. Since the Mutakallimūn do not allow for the existence of infinite regressions, there has to have been a first person or persons. How did this first person come into existence? From dust, which came from water, and we’re back to method #1.
The third method: This goes back to the existence of atoms, the basic building blocks of everything. Atoms can be separated or aggregated, and all the change that we see is simply the separation and re-aggregation of the atoms over time. But where did the atoms themselves come from, and who puts them together and takes them apart? (Again, presumably the answer is Gd.) Clearly the atoms must have been created at some point in time.
The fourth method: Now we move on from substance to accidents. The argument is that all substances have at least one accident, and all accidents are produced in time. It follows that the substances, which are the substrates of the accidents, must also be produced in time. This then gets reduced to the previous methods – since we have finite objects in the world, it implies that there is a chain of cause and effect. Since this chain cannot, by their logic, extend to infinity, it follows that there is an ultimate, temporal cause for the whole chain.
Rambam points out that, according to Aristotle, there is one accident that is not time-bound, and this is circular motion. According to Aristotle, the heavenly spheres moved in eternal circles – this circular motion not being subject to generation or corruption. This would obviate the need for a creation in time, as the spheres would be in motion eternally. While individual items within creation may come into being or pass out of being in finite amounts of time, the universe as a whole could continue in its eternal existence. Of course, both Rambam and the Mutakallimūn would reject this argument, and it goes without saying that modern physics does not comport with Aristotle’s view at all.
The fifth method: Again, this method is a bit more subtle than the previous ones. The argument is that every object in creation is particularized in some way. This apple happens to be red, and weigh 6 oz, etc. But it certainly could have been otherwise – the apple could have weighted 5 oz and been a green apple. These particularizations can be a function of time – the apple might grow and ripen. But as long as there is particularization, the object is defined – it is this and not that, and therefore we get either an infinite chain of causes of these particularizations, or there is some being, or some intelligence, that does the particularization. The Mutakallimūn identify this being as Gd. Rambam writes: “this is to my mind a most excellent method.”
The sixth method: This method is similar to the previous one except instead of looking at the particularizations that may inhere in an object, we consider the fact that the object which exists, could just as easily not exist. Consequently, there must be some entity that brings things into existence and keeps other things out of existence. Rambam points out that although there is a superficial similarity to the fifth method, there is a difference between a particularization and existence vs. non-existence. He writes: “On the other hand, this notion cannot be represented in any respect of an existent thing as to which there is disagreement whether its existence, as it is, has had no limit in the past and will have no limit in the future or whether it has come to existence after non-existence.”
The seventh method: This last method talks about the number of souls. If the world were infinite in time going back in time, then there would have been an infinite number of people who would have lived – and died – in the past. That means, absent a concept of reincarnation, there would be an infinite number of souls existing together. Rambam points out that the existence of an infinite number of numerable things is impossible. So if souls are eternal, then we would have a contradiction, unless the world were created at some finite time in the past. I might point out that there is a Jewish esoteric tradition that there are a finite number of souls, and they are stored in a “chamber” called the guf (literally, “body”) and are taken out for each baby born. Mashiach will only come when the guf is emptied. On the other hand, it is clear that the concept of reincarnation is a part of our tradition as well, so it is not clear how well this method will fit into Jewish tradition. Of course, that was not an issue for the Mutakallimūn!
I think the common thread in all these arguments is that the creation is the world of objects – bounded and finite, and therefore not self-sufficient. Anything finite has to have been generated in some way, and it is generated from something else that is finite. This process of regress from effect to cause to prior causes cannot go on infinitely – it must come to rest in a First Cause, which we identify as Gd, Who is infinite and eternal.
My understanding is that Vedic Science takes a different approach. In Vedic Science the only real existence is Pure Consciousness, unbounded, eternal, silent yet with internal, infinite, virtual dynamism. The creation is actually that virtual activity within Pure Consciousness. So yes, there is a “First Cause” – Pure Consciousness – but it seems to me that creation is taking place all the time. Eternity is not just a long time, and creation happens at one point along that line, with an infinite time before it. Rather, eternity is beyond time altogether, and time is part of creation.
This is hard to picture from our time-bound perspective, but the constant virtual fluctuations within Pure Consciousness apparently give rise to infinite creations, all of which think they started at a specific time. We come to this conclusion in physics by noting that the universe is expanding, and we can project the expansion back until the universe has zero size, and note the time it would have taken to go from that point to the present. But what came before that time? The answer is that time, space and energy are all compressed into this one point, the singularity. Physics itself does not exist anymore – the arena of physics, time and space does not exist. We do not know how many of these singularities expand into universes – it may be an infinite number of them. We may never know with current physics. Research into certain types of Unified Field theories actually predict the generation of time and space from the fluctuations of the field. At some point physics may be able to teach us about what became space, time and our universe.
In the meantime, the Vedic literature tells us that “time is a concept we use to measure eternity.” Our creation may be limited in time as Rambam and the Mutakallimūn believed, but it may be only one of an infinite number of creations bubbling up and settling down within the infinite silence of Pure Consciousness.
***************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Lech Lecha
Genesis 12-17:27
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/3481585/jewish/Lech-Lecha-Audio-Recording.htm
Genesis 17:1
And Abram was ninety-nine years old, and Gd appeared to Abram, and He said to him, “I am the Almighty Gd; walk before Me and be perfect.”
Torah tells us that Noah walked with Gd, was righteous and perfect but Torah doesn’t tell us how this came about; with Abram we can see what he did after Gd’s command and we can draw some tips about how we may also walk before Gd and be perfect. The deepest activity is the literal meaning of the name of the Parshah: “Lech Lecha” means “Go to yourself.” It’s not usually translated that way but the Lubavitcher Rebbe writes this:
“2. Lech Lecha: Go To Yourself
This is usually translated as “Get thee out (from your country and your birthplace and your father’s house….)” But it literally means, “Go to yourself.” “Going” has the connotation in Torah of moving towards one’s ultimate purpose – of service towards one’s Creator. And this is strongly hinted at by the phrase, “Go to yourself” – meaning, towards your soul’s essence and your ultimate purpose, that for which you were created.” chabad.org (Source: Likkutei Sichot, Vol. V pp. 57-67)
This view of the Lubavitcher Rebbe resonates beautifully to most, perhaps all, of our Beth Shalom Congregation. “Go to your Self,” your universal, unbounded, Self is the first step in acting so that we walk before Gd.
What does it mean to “walk before Gd”? The preeminent commentator on Torah is Rashi, and he says it means “serve Me, cleave to My service.” The Rebbe looks at it the same way so we can be very confident in this guidance.
Whenever Abram was commanded by Gd, he did what Gd commanded. To Abram, Gd appeared in visions: Abram must have been very close to walking with Gd in order to trust such commands as to leave his home and to “go to a place which I will show you.” I personally don’t feel that confident that I can trust visions or voices and so I am left with cleaving to Gd’s service by doing the ordinary things that good people everywhere do: honor my religion, do my best to be healthy, happy and to share my happiness with others through work with organizations I respect so I can attune myself to Gd through service to people I feel are wiser, more experienced than I and to at least one who I feel does walk with Gd.
What did Abram do to be perfect? Prior to this command of Gd to leave his homeland, Abram had already come to the conclusion that all creation was made by One Creator, Gd, and he and Sarai spread the word and brought many to share this belief – and perhaps a taste of the experience.
Parashat Lech Lecha tells us that, after leaving his homeland to go to an unknown place, Abram continued to spread the word of monotheism and to build altars to Gd. From this we learn the very important message that we should share what we know, especially what we know by experience, and that Gd, as it says in Kaddish, is “beyond any words to describe” so simple acts of reverence, such as offering prayers, building altars, and temples for them to be in are ways to grow in our ability to walk before Gd and with Gd.
When a famine caused him and Sarai to leave Canaan (the land where Gd promised him he would make him a great nation) and go to Egypt, this may have seemed like an exile but the Rebbe comments that it was an exile with a purpose: it gave Abram an opportunity to serve Gd by spreading the word of One Gd to a people who worshiped only partial values of Gd.
Abram told Sarai to say that she was his sister, not his wife. He did this because he thought otherwise, he would be killed.
Few of us are likely to be in such an extreme situation but we may take it that a lie to save our life, if we are otherwise innocent of any crime, is a way of serving Gd and being perfect.
In Egypt, Abram and his nephew, Lot, acquired many possessions, including cattle, which they took to Canaan. In Canaan their herdsmen quarreled. Abram and Lot decided to separate. This is like taking a rest from duality. Though on the surface, there were two separate groups in two separate lands, at the depth there was the freedom, the peace, from quarrels. There was a transcendence.
From this we can learn, that if we have no other way to create harmony, separation is a valid way to create harmony, which is the essence of serving Gd. In a deeper sense, Lot moved to Sodom, an evil kingdom, and was captured when the city was captured. Abram took his trained men, though they were only few, and pursued the army holding Lot, defeated them, restored Lot’s possessions to him and restored four kingdoms, including Sodom, to their kings. From this we learn, that we should be concerned with following right action as a way of serving Gd, not be afraid that our resources are to small: Gd protects those who serve Him.
Abram refused to accept any recompense from the King of Sodom for restoring his possessions to him. His reason: he did not want the King of Sodom to be able to claim he had made Abram rich. A traditional explanation of Abram’s reasoning is that he wanted it to be clear to everyone that any accomplishment of his was through Gd: it was not Abram who defeated the armies, it was Gd; it could not be through evil hands such as those of the King of Sodom that he would acquire possessions but only through the Hand of Gd. Certainly we can be kind to even those who are evil; our kindness will give them a softening of heart and they will become less evil. We certainly should refuse to accept any compensation from them – there is a saying “The gifts of the evil do not bring blessings.” Certainly, we can recognize that any accomplishments of ours are Gd’s Gift to us.
Abram is blessed by Malchizedek, who was a king but also a priest of the Most High – this means Malchizedek was not only a monotheist In belief but also in experience and enough experience of Gd to serve as Gd’s priest, and to be referred to more as a priest than as a king. We too can put One first and material possessions second so that we are protected by our sense of proportion and serve Gd first.
And we can read Torah, listen to Torah, read from the Siddur, attend services at the Synagogue, as ways to raise ourselves up to direct experience and to priestly service, whatever our actual roles are in life.
Abram tells Gd, when Gd says his reward for this action will be great: Of what use is this to me since I have no son to inherit? And Gd responds: you will have a son and be a mighty nation, more than the stars. From this we learn that service to Gd can include asking Gd to redress a situation we feel is amiss: we can pray for help; we can ask simply and Gd responds. To Abram, He responded clearly; to us, perhaps not so clearly but we need to be alert to the response.
Abram’s son, Ishmael, is born with Hagar, Sarai’s maidservant, and Isaac is born, with Sarah.
From this we learn that when we serve Gd, we raise ourselves up, and what Gd promises, Gd delivers. Trusting Gd is very important and when we are not able to experience Gd directly, trusting our Traditions, especially Torah, is very important.
Gd tells Abram to circumcise his son and that all males of the community shall be circumcised as a Covenant with Gd. From the Babylonian Talmud we learn that through circumcision Abram became sanctified. he became not merely a physical person fathering physical children but a spiritual person protecting Gd’s Spiritual Wisdom and spreading it in its purity.
We can treat circumcision not merely as something physical for males, but something everyone, males and females, can do: cut off anything that binds us only to the physical and thus rise to be spiritual: to walk before Gd and become perfect as Abram did, become Abraham, father not only of Isaac and Ishmael but of nations, and as Sarai did and became Sarah: princess not only of Abram but of all souls.
Baruch HaShem!