Parashat Bamidbar 5786 – 05/16/2026
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 1:1-4:20
Rambam begins his next chapter (II:11) with a remarkably prescient discussion of the difference between a mathematical approach to gaining knowledge, and an empirical one:
Know with regard to the astronomical matters mentioned that if an exclusively mathematical-minded man reads and understands them, he will think that they form a cogent demonstration that the form and number of the spheres is as stated. Now things are not like this, and this is not what is sought in the science of astronomy. Some of these matters are indeed founded on the demonstration that they are that way. Thus it has been demonstrated that the path of the sun is inclined against the equator. About this there is no doubt. But there has been no demonstration whether the sun has an eccentric sphere or an epicycle. Now the master of astronomy does not mind this, for the object of that science is to suppose as a hypothesis an arrangement that renders it possible for the motion of the star to be uniform and circular with no acceleration or deceleration or change in it and to have the inferences necessarily following from the assumption of that motion agree with what is observed.
Rambam begins with the mathematical approach. The mathematical approach begins with axioms, which are not proven, but are considered to be true, and we derive statements from the system of axioms using logic. Thus, we might start with the axiom that the celestial object had to move at constant speed and return to their starting places, and derive from that the assertion that the heavenly objects must move in perfect circles at a constant speed, as Rambam has done. This is logically consistent. The system of creation could be built this way. There are plenty of logically consistent mathematical structures that could be candidates for the model of the universe as it exists.
The important thing which differentiates between pure mathematics and the sciences, in this case astronomy, is that the mathematical structure has to agree with observed reality: “the object of that science is to suppose as a hypothesis an arrangement that renders it possible for the motion of the star to be uniform and circular with no acceleration or deceleration or change in it and to have the inferences necessarily following from the assumption of that motion agree with what is observed ” (my emphasis). The difference between science and pure mathematics is that pure mathematics takes place in consciousness and only has to obey the laws of logic. Science has an additional constraint – the mathematics must agree with measurement. That is, of all the possible structures of consciousness that mathematics can provide, the only ones that science can actually use are those that mirror the actual structure of the universe. From the perspective of Vedic Science, the physical universe is also a structure of Consciousness, but it is only one of an infinite field of possibilities, so perhaps different, logically consistent but empirically non-conforming mathematical structures could be the appropriate structures for another, parallel, physical universe. This is of course pure speculation on my part, and I can fairly well guarantee that this was not what was on Rambam’s mind in this chapter.
This insistence that any scientific theory should conform to observable facts seems quite obvious to us, but the need for observation, measurement and empirical verification really only entered Western thought in the 16 th century, 400 years after Rambam lived. Now it is the case often enough that two different mathematical structures can both match the observed data. In some cases, this is because the model has enough free parameters that they can be “tuned” to match observed data. In the words of a former colleague, “Give me three free parameters and I can draw an elephant. Give me 4 and I can wag its tail.” Rambam offers another way to distinguish between competing models:
At the same time the astronomer seeks, as much as possible, to diminish motions and the number of the spheres. For if we assume, for instance, that we suppose as a hypothesis an arrangement by means of which the observations regarding the motions of one particular star can be accounted for through the assumption of three spheres and another arrangement by means of which the same observations are accounted for through the assumption of four spheres, it is preferable for us to rely on the arrangement postulating the lesser number of motions. For this reason we have chosen in the case of the sun the hypothesis of eccentricity, as Ptolemy mentions, rather than that of an epicycle.
This principle of simplicity is called Occam’s Razor. It is one answer to the question of which of a number of competing models of reality one should adopt, namely, the simplest one. I would emphasize that this is neither a logical principle nor an empirical principle. There is neither a logical reason nor any observational reason to believe that the simplest model is really the correct one. Occam’s Razor is actually an aesthetic principle. We like simplicity, we like neatness, we get a settled feeling inside, and it’s a feeling we like.
We actually use this tendency every time we meditate. When we sit to meditate, we just keep the mind lively and let it go spontaneously towards the deeper, quieter, simpler, more orderly levels of thought. Why? Those simpler, more orderly levels are more charming to the mind, so the mind goes there naturally and effortlessly. Inherent in the human psyche is a desire for simplicity and order, both in our inner life and in our outer life. I think it’s because both our subjectivity and the objective world are both expressions of the same underlying Pure Consciousness, which itself is perfectly simple, unified and orderly. The purpose of our life is to infuse the qualities of Pure Consciousness into all aspects of manifest creation, and using Occam’s Razor in our scientific research is one way that we express that purpose.
Next Shabbat is the second day of Shavuot, and Gd willing, we will continue this line of inquiry. Chag Same’ach!
***************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Bamidbar (in the Desert, the Wilderness)
The desert/wilderness symbolizes both barrenness and transcendence. Depending on our level of awareness we perceive it either as the opportunity of transcendence or the sorrow of barrenness. Fortunately, even the sorrow is temporary because the relation between Gd and Israel, Gd and human, Wholeness and expression, is such that Gd more and more deeply unfolds the opportunities within the seeming barrenness, eventually revealing to each individual that even within the barrenness there is Gd and Gd Is all there is, each individual is an expression.
We have a saying, “Gd helps those who help themselves,” not selfishly but as members of a community dedicated to service of Gd, Full Restoration of Awareness. For those experiencing bamidbar as transcendence helping our selves means acting with Love to bring the Transcendent Self into the everyday life of our self and our community.
For those who are experiencing bamidbar as sorrow, acting to create joy in that sorrow, fertility in the barrenness, is the way to reduce the sorrow and reveal the Transcendent within it.
We have another saying “Gd is in the details” meaning: “Don’t just look at the Transcendent as an Abstractness but see the liveliness within it; see it vibrating; hear it singing.” And also meaning “Look more carefully, more lovingly, into the barrenness and find opportunities for growth and happiness.”
When we don’t just pray to Gd for help but act from our own side to fulfill our desires then Gd is more and more revealed as the Source of our desires and our actions and not only is our immediate desire fulfilled but the purpose of all life is fulfilled: the return to experience the Oneness which we Are and which expresses Itself within Itself as Infinite Detail, Infinitely Harmonized.”
In this parshah, Gd commands a census – revealing the details of the population of the Children of Israel – at least, of the males of military age – and revealing the detailed opportunity to serve.
We also say, “You count!” People can get the sad feeling that they don’t matter: they’re just one person in a crowd. With a census it becomes clear that everyone counts, matters. We also say, “Stand up and be counted!”: stand up for what you believe in. The census requires everyone to stand up and acknowledge they are not just individuals, they are part of the Children of Israel, the Community of the World, dedicated not just to their individuality but to Gd.
When Gd gives details or asks for details, Gd is showing us something of the Details of Gd, of the All-in-All. Gd is Showing us that Gd Is not just an abstract mass of Fullness, Gd has a Structure, just as do our bodies, our communities, our nations, planet, Universe. In the census that took place in Bamidbar, I could not think of any way the number “603,550” – the number of males of military age, excluding the Levites that were counted – connects to the Nature of Gd and I found only one source on the Internet that addresses the issue.
The source looks at the census from the point of view of Gematria, a traditional way of interpreting Torah from the standpoint of the symbolism intuited from comparing one word to another through the use of the numerical value that each letter in the Hebrew alphabet has.
The author looks at the earlier census Gd commanded and to this one, finds the number 1820 is significant in terms of one aspect of the difference between the censuses, and finds that this number is significant in terms of some of the Names of Gd and also the nature of Creation, of Amen, of the Messiah.
I mention this source, because from the standpoint that Gd is in the details, the author is attempting to attend to the detail of the census, to find meaning in it, and since every aspect of Torah is useful in our life, paying attention to its detail is an action that helps reveal to us the Nature of Gd as All-in-All, One that is All-in-All.
The parshah also describes the separate roles of the three Levite clans and also the spatial orientation of the different tribes in the encampment: Levites, including Moses, Aaron and Aaron’s sons, in the inner circle, the twelve tribes around that in the groups of three tribes for each direction.
Here we have a possible symbolism of Gd not just in terms of numbers but also in terms of space: not that Gd is limited to space that we can perceive with our senses but that Gd is Wholeness with a structure that we can perceive more and more as through our actions we attend to the details of Torah and of our lives as members of families, communities, planet, universe.
We have in Torah: “Gd created Man (Humanity) in His own Image” Genesis 1:27.
Torah is the Liveliness of Gd, One with Gd, and so to look at its structure and meaning helps us to find the way, the ways, in which we are Images of Gd, and to gradually find that we are not merely Images of Gd, but expressions of Gd. We find that Gd fully Acts through us.
Let us continue standing up to be counted, to act in the Service of Gd so that we can continue growing together and Fully Remember and Experience our Oneness.
Baruch HaShem