Rosh haShanah 5787 – 09/12/2026
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. The text we are working from is the two-volume translation by Prof. Shlomo Pines, University of Chicago Press, 1963.
Shabbat Rosh HaShanah
Rambam continues to analyze Aristotle’s position. He has previously stated that Aristotle has no real proof for his contention that the universe is eternal, because apparently Aristotle makes no such claim. In fact, Aristotle buttresses his position by citing the opinions of previous “physicists”:
All the physicists preceding us believe that motion is not subject to generation and passing-away, except Plato, who believes that motion is subject to generation and passing-away, and the heaven too according to him is subject to generation and passing-away. Now it is certain that if there had been cogent demonstrations with regard to this question, Aristotle would not have needed to buttress his opinion by means of the fact that the physicists who preceded him had the same belief as he. Nor would he have needed to make all the assertions he makes in that passage concerning the vilification of those who disagree with him and the worthlessness of their opinion. For when something has been demonstrated, the correctness of the matter is not increased and certainty regarding it is not strengthened by the consensus of all men of knowledge with regard to it. Nor could its correctness be diminished and certainty regarding it be weakened even if all the people on earth disagreed with it.
It may seem obvious, but this passage brings up some interesting points about the means of gaining knowledge. For Aristotle logical deduction is the only way to acquire sure knowledge. I think this is because the rules of logic are structured in human consciousness and in the structure of the objective world. In any event, as we have discussed in a previous post, the validity of any syllogism depends on the validity (truth value) of the premises. “If A then B” proves “B” only if “A” is true. Typically the chain of proof starts with a set of axioms, which are assumed to be true, but are not amenable to proof. We accept them because they appear right intuitively. However, our intuition may not be so refined, and our axioms may not be as true as we assumed.
A perfect example of this phenomenon occurs in the field of geometry. Geometry means “measurement of the earth,” and in general, the land in any small area is flat, small fluctuations disregarded. Of course in the large, the earth is spherical (NOT flat!), and we will see the significance of that shortly. Euclid starts with two basic concepts: points and lines. Euclid has four basic postulates:
- A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
- Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
- Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
- All right angles are congruent.
These seem pretty straightforward – they allow us to construct lines and shapes and circles. As we will see, we will have to clarify what a straight line is, but these four postulates are not really in question. It is the 5th postulate that gives rise to an interesting insight into the nature of postulates. The 5th postulate, known as the “parallel postulate,” states:
Given any straight line and a point not on it, there “exists one and only one straight line which passes” through that point and never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended.
Euclid actually stated his postulate a bit differently, but the two statements are equivalent, and this formulation is better-known and will be more useful for our discussion. See here for a discussion.
Now on a flat surface, this seems to make perfect sense. We’ve all stood on railroad tracks, which are two parallel lines of steel, and watch them recede into the distance, never to touch one another. However, there turn out to be other possibilities. For example, on a curved surface, a “straight line” is defined as the shortest distance between two points. On a spherical surface, these lines are the “great circles” – circles that have thee center of the sphere as their center, like the equator. Those of us who can remember the early days of transatlantic air travel may remember airlines’ bragging that they take “the great circle route” or they “fly over the pole.” Of course they do – it’s the shortest and quickest way to go! Now if you get out your globe out, you can quickly convince yourself that any two great circles intersect with each other. In fact, they intersect twice, one on either side of the globe. Since the great circles are the “straight lines” on the spherical surface, this means that on a spherical surface there are no parallel lines.
We see that there are two different versions of the “parallel postulate,” and both lead to coherent geometries – very different from one another, but coherent and internally consistent. I bring this out simply to indicate that postulates that seem obvious may not be so obvious, and there may be a variety of postulates that can give us consistent logical structures. So we can’t rely strictly on our intuition to give us a complete set of true premises, from which we can answer all our questions logically.
If we add to this the result of Gödel’s Theorem, which states that for any system of axioms rich enough to include the number system, there will always be true statements that cannot be proven. So if we can’t intuit which postulates we should use, and whatever postulates we do come up with are guaranteed to be incomplete, how are we to get reliable knowledge?
Rambam, as we will see, finds an answer in Scripture. Scripture is Gd’s message to us that tells us how the universe is created, and what our place and our role is in the Creation. So, for example, on the question of whether there is creation in time, Bereshit Chapter 1 gives us an answer. It’s different from Aristotle’s answer. Now Rambam’s whole thrust in the current work is to reconcile Scripture and science/philosophy – because Truth is Truth and there’s ultimately only one Truth. Nonetheless, Scripture, which comes from Gd, will take priority.
Vedic Science adds another dimension to this. The Vedic Science understanding of what Scripture is that it is a record of the finest vibrations of Pure Consciousness, out of which all creation is structured. So Scripture is an important source of Truth. But Scripture cannot be understood strictly on the intellectual level. Since Scripture is actually the vibration of Consciousness, we are able to cognize Scripture in the depths of our consciousness – in other words, when our consciousness is refined enough, we experience Scripture as the fluctuations of our consciousness – internally. This is the ultimate source of Truth – unchanging, unbounded, eternal Pure Consciousness, which is our own consciousness. We just have to rise to a state of consciousness where it is all spread out before us, beyond all logic, beyond any possibility of doubt.
L’Shanah Tovah to all!