Parashat Balak 5785 – 07/12/2025
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.
Bamidbar 22:2-25:9
The Fifth premise of the Mutakallimūn has to do with both atoms and accidents. Here’s what Rambam writes:
This [fifth premise] is their saying that these accidents subsist in the atom and that it cannot be exempt from them. The explanation and the meaning of this premise are as follows. They say that every atom of the atoms that Gd creates is provided with accidents from which it cannot be exempt; such accidents, for example, as color, smell, motion or rest, but not quantity – since these atoms do not possess quantity. For in accordance with their opinion, they do not call quantity an accident and do not understand that quantity includes the notion of accidentality.
We have two things going on. Objects have accidents, as we discussed last week. But objects are not unified things, but are composites, made from atoms. The question is, in what do the accidents inhere? Are they in the atoms, or are they “emergent” properties of the conglomerate of atoms? Later in this passage Rambam brings evidence of a problem with assuming that accidents are inherent in each atom of an object:
It has been objected against them that we find that most minerals and stones have a very intense color, but when they are pulverized this color disappears. Thus when we pulverize the intensely green emerald, it turns into white dust – which is proof that the accident in question resides in the whole and not in every particle included in that whole. It is even more manifest that parts cut off from a living being are not alive – which is proof that this entity is constituted by the whole and not by each of the parts included in that whole.
If we consider modern physics the contrast is even more pronounced. Water, for example, is composed of water molecules, which are polar – they have one end that is electrically positive (where the two hydrogen atoms are) and the other end (where the oxygen atom is) is electrically negative. This gives rise to a weak bond, called a hydrogen bond. If the temperature is low (which means the degree of movement of the molecules around whatever container it is in) then the molecules can form a crystalline structure, which we know as ice. (This crystalline structure is most obvious in a snowflake..) When the temperature goes up, the rigid, crystalline structure breaks down and the molecules form clumps that can slide over one another. This is liquid water. When the temperature is raised even further, the clumps break up and individual molecules fly apart into the air. This is called water vapor.
So, water, which can have the accident “solid,” “liquid,” or “gas,” is composed of molecules that do not have any of those accidents, because those specific accidents only apply to bulk matter. Furthermore, although the water molecule has the accident (property) of being a polar molecule, this particular accident does not apply to its constituent atoms – both the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are basically spherical, and in their unconnected state, non-polar. And of course, neither has anything to do with any of the forms of water. Both the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are made up of protons, electrons and (oxygen only) neutrons. These particles are completely different from the atoms they make up, and we could continue on with the argument.
Whenever we build a system out of parts, it’s just a pile of parts until they interact with one another. It’s the interaction specifically that makes the whole more than the sum of the parts. Think of any system – a car for example. If you just put an engine and a transmission and some tires and a chassis together, it’s not a car until they are hooked up so the engine turns the transmission which turns the wheels. The solar system would be just a bunch of rocks flying through space if the planets and other objects didn’t interact with the sun through gravity. An atom would be just particles passing in the night if they didn’t interact by the strong nuclear and electrostatic forces. A society is not just a collection of individuals – it becomes a cohesive unit when the individuals interact with one another positively. When we lose the ability or the will to communicate with one another, society breaks down, and, in the words of the Bhagavad-Gita, adharma flourishes.
Now Rambam goes on to consider where the soul and the intellect reside:
As regards the soul, they disagree; the opinion of most of them is that it is an accident subsisting in one atom that belongs to the whole consisting of the atoms of which man, for example, is composed. This whole is designated as being endowed with a soul because of the fact that that atom subsists in it. Some of them, however, affirm that the soul is a body composed of subtle atoms and that these atoms are doubtless provided with a certain accident, which is their proprium and in virtue of which they become a soul. They affirm that these atoms are mixed with the atoms of the organic body. Accordingly they are not exempt from the belief that the thing that is the soul is an accident. As for the intellect, I consider that they are unanimous in thinking that it is an accident subsisting in an atom belonging to an intellectually cognizing whole. As regards knowledge, there is perplexity among them over whether it is an accident subsisting in every atom belonging to the whole endowed with knowledge, or an accident subsisting in one atom only. Both affirmations entail abhorrent conclusions.
As Dr. Tony Nader points out, the argument over whether consciousness is fundamental or an “emergent property” of sufficiently complex systems, has been going on for a long time. It appears that the Mutakallimūn recognized that consciousness, or the soul, or the intellect, are in fact not things that are completely bound to the physical system – in other words, they are not an “emergent properties.” However, their solution, locked in as they are to their atomic hypothesis, is to associate the property with a single atom of the body. Where that atom might be is left open, at least as far as Rambam goes into their premises. The difficulty is this: taking “soul” as an example, there are many ways to kill an organism, such that its soul departs the body, and not all of them affect the same part of the body. Therefore, one can lose one’s life without losing that specific atom that “carries” the soul, if that atom resides in a part of the body that is unaffected by the fatal injury. Interestingly, in the case of life itself, the Mutakallimūn held that it resides in all atoms of the organism:
Similarly life subsists, according to them, in every single part of the living body, and also the senses; every atom is a whole endowed with sensation, being according to them endowed with sensation. For life, the senses, intellect, and knowledge are, according to them, accidents just as blackness and whiteness are, as we shall make clear on the basis of their doctrines.
This is closer to the emergent property idea, even though the idea that life is an accident seems a bit odd. In any event, we can see from all our discussion over the past two weeks, the simplistic atomic theory presented by the Kalām has numerous problems and inconsistencies.
I think we can get a better idea of the structure of creation from modern physics. First, consider systems of particles. Everything in creation is a system of objects, including the universe itself and every atom in it. These systems are all held together by interactions between the individual constituents, as we have discussed. And the properties and behavior of the system are radically different from the properties and behavior of the constituents. So when things interact a whole is created which may be completely different from its parts. The same thing holds true for fields. If two fields interact, for example the electric and magnetic fields, it always turns out that they are two aspects of an underlying field – in this case the electromagnetic field.
Now with Quantum Field Theory we have discovered that the “particles” we have been talking about are actually energy levels of abstract fields, and we believe that underlying all the different fields, both force and matter fields, is one Unified Field, which encompasses all the laws of nature. Every form and phenomenon in the universe is a pattern of vibration of this Unified Field, and the objects and their accidents are nothing other than the interaction of these patterns with our limited consciousness. That snow is cold and white is not due to anything essential in snow – snow is the Unified Field expressing itself in a certain pattern. Cold and white are attributes that our consciousness creates, as it were, to reflect regularities in the patterns of vibration of the Unified Field. But on some level, snow does not exist. All the really exists is the Unified Field. When we reach Unity Consciousness this becomes our lived reality, not just an intellectual under-standing. We understand and experience that everything is consciousness expressing itself to itself.
********************************************************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Balak
“Balaam” means “swallowing up the people, the kinsman.”
“Balak” means “empty, desolate.”
Why would any parents give their children these names?
Perhaps the parents meant that Balaam would be the Ocean of Joy and would view all with Love, as kinsmen. Balaam would swallow their limits and reveal the Ocean within them.
Perhaps the parents meant that Balak would be the Transcendent Wholeness in its Appearance as Blissful Emptiness.
Such a hope was not fulfilled: Balam and Balak travelled the path of greed and brought out the negative meanings of their names.
In this parshah, we are reminded that Gd is always protecting us, blessing us: by doing our best to follow His Will, this Protection and Blessing becomes clearer and more livable in our daily life. Balaam, though requested by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel could only speak what Gd gave him to speak and that was blessings for Israel. Although Balaam was forced to give a blessing, he would have been happier to curse and tried to find ways to do so.
From our side we can be armored in purity and receive and give only Blessings by behaving like Moses who served Gd with all his heart and soul in leading Israel to high spiritual consciousness and to the physical Promised Land.
Or we can behave like Balaam, always holding something back so we can make a personal profit if at all possible. According to Jewish legend, Balaam was made a prophet so that the non-Jewish nations could not say, “If we only had our own prophet, like Moses, we could also have served Gd well.” But Gd abandoned him and he lost his status as a prophet after his advice to Balak to set up the conditions of harlotry and idolatry that would tempt a people too weak to resist – despite the blessing they had so recently received.
This parshah shows us that we need to be alert: We really need to be following the straight path and we cannot forget that our good life is a gift from Gd for being good people; we cannot sharply depart from the Path of Virtue. Hardly a moment after Gd blessed Israel through words he put into the prophet Balaam’s mouth, the people are sinning with harlots from Midian and worshipping their gods – abandoning Wholeness for partiality.
Key in the blessings of this parshah are the words, “Ma Tovu, ohalecha Yaakov, mishkanotecha Yisroel”: “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, thy dwelling places, O Israel.” This is the prayer we recite when we enter the synagogue. And these words Gd put into Balaam’s mouth instead of the curse that Balak, king of Moab, wanted Balaam to speak.
Balak means “Destroyer”; Balak, the king of Moab, sends messengers asking Balaam (his name means “no nation,” he does not serve a nation, a whole: he is a prophet that can be hired by individuals to bless or curse) to curse Israel as they pass through Moab.
Balaam replies that he can only speak what Gd puts in his mouth to speak and try though Balak does, Gd puts only a blessing for Israel in Balaam’s mouth.
This is the comforting side of this parshah: The warning side is the sinning with harlots and worshipping their idols, actions which result in a plague and Moses ordering each of the judges in the community to slay two wrong-doers to stop the plague.
The parshah ends with Pinchas, grand-son of Aaron, slaying an Israeli prince along with the harlot he took into his tent in full view of the community.
Though we can hardly take such action today to end plagues and immorality in our community, in the world, we can do our best to live good, pure lives so that our community, our world, is blessed by Gd flowing through us and everyone feels comforted by this Blessing.
Our congregation can and is creating a world in which Gd’s Presence is becoming more visible (perhaps not in the mainstream news) but in everyday life and setting up the conditions so, as Rabbi Tuvia Bolton likes to say when ending his commentary on the weekly parshah: “Moshiach Now!”
Baruch HaShem.