Torah and Vedah
- By Yakov - 11/22/2005
Many linguistic roots in Hebrew are cognate to roots in Sanskrit and they have similar referents, designate similar realities, concepts and propositions... The pragmatic and popularized notion of Aryan or Indo-European language families as being inherently divergent from the Semitic family of languages can mislead many who are not themselves, linguists. It is clear that the deep structure of these two languages groups share similar roots, ??? bara, is a term which designates a creative process directed by an unknown-to us infinitive REALITY.
From our perspective in one of the space-time manifolds, which we experience as out own material cosmos, we sense this process of bara as a uniquely divine creative capacity termed yesh miayin, something from nothing. A precise reading of the first chapter of Bereishit --Genesis-- indicates that God is not actually creating here from His own nothing but rather doing something which we perceive as the separating out of what to us are metaphysical levels of our own reality. He does this by creating various types of boundaries in the realm of something which for Him, is already there. Thus, in kabbalistic thought it is understood that God creates and destroys many worlds
Another difference inherent in this Divine sort of creation with respect to our own types of making, designated by the term: asiyah and also from angelic types of forming designated by the term: yetsirah is that, owing to the fact that, with respect to our own manifold, what is happening materially, is a perception of CREATING OUT OF NOTHING--the created universe as we experience it cannot have the logical parameters that our own human creations do. Thus, there are certain inherent fallacies in some so-called proofs of G-d based on the argument from design. A watchmaker designs and creates a watch. After she does so, she may send the watch away to a friend of hers and if it is well-made it will continue to function properly on its own. This is because making a watch is actually just a type of human rearrangement of energy which is already in place.
As long as the human reconfiguring of that energy in the form of a watch can continue to exist through its own inertia the watch continues to operate seemingly on its own as it continues to be driven by the same already--in--place energy base which has been humanly reconfigured. However when briat olam happens--the creation of the material cosmos by G-d--there is the making of something entirely new--from our perspective ---out of an apparent nothingness. Therefore, unlike the humanly-created watch, there is no pre-existing energy substratum in the universe where it is humanly perceived which can continue to drive it and cause it continue functioning through an inertia. Thus, it is LOGICALLY necessary that briat olam--Divine creation of the world--cannot be an event through which something is made at one point and then continues on its own afterwards. It is logically necessary that briat olam--Divine creation of the world--is ALWAYS AND AT EVERY INSTANT OCCURRING. God cannot manufacture this watch and then set it aside to operate automatically. God is, as it were, breathing the world out continually or thinking it or dreaming it all the time. If at once instant God does not do that , then all of what we consider real and solid evaporates like a mist .
This I what is behind the Lurianic notion of the nekuda rishon--the first point and of the several hakelim--the shattering of the vessels from the infusion of primordial light. And it is behind R. Nachman of Bretslavs notion of yerida lemaan aliyah--descending into depression as away of rising to higher levels. What this entails is that God in necessarily with us --all the time--as long as we choose to see that. But we MUST choose to see that there IS no other choice. This is what Bhagavan Prabhupada is speaking about when he refers to the two types of householders which are mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam. These two outlooks of the karmis who must access a pathway of acomodation owing to their decision to continue attaching to materiality are paralleled by the notion of baal habayit chiloni (the entrenched materialist) and the ben torah ve Daat (One who needs the secular life but is intelligent enough to live it according to halacha).
The nafka minah--the difference between the two styles --parallels the difference made in the Srimad Bhagavatm: one does NOT increase schar--merit--and therefore moves ever more confusedly into the felt and perceived universe of agony and of death , while the other moves toward true knowledge daat Torah--atma-satvam---and MORE into actual life. The term bara (divine creation) is related to borei--separation. And to Avram--the man, who through separating himself, channels a new human reality. Sarai his wife, is one who rules herself--as an individual must do and which the world itself must do in order to access the self who can will to see Who is creating these (Psalms). They become, when they do learn to see: Avraham-- one who can engender the creative potential and: Sarah:--one who can give birth to self-realized souls The cognates in Sanskrit are: Brahm--Brahma and His feminine dimension: Sarasvati Atma -tatvam knowledge of human self in Sanskrit is Adam-Tet-- humanity with a head-- A cognate notion In epicurean and latter physical theory it becomes: atom--the hypothesis which integrates variability with stability in the notion of atomic unit. The Islamic and Christian traditions participate with us in the Torah -based world of narrative content
The Vedic tradition parallels Torah- messorah in its similarity of spiritual -structure. Like the Torah-mesora it is open-ended, recognizing multiple pathways rendered appropriately, according to personal merit. And like Torah-messorah it preserves and maintains past knowledge through liturgy and ritual. And it integrates the font of past knowledge with changing empirical standards through differing times and places in order to generate and evolve a dynamic pathway of law and precept tuned to the immediate here-and-now. A Recent book by Barbara Holdrege, TORAH AND VEDA is highly recommended as a scholarly study of these two convergent pathways
YHVH: THE COMPLETE WHOLE
Hebrew ESH is similar to Indo-European *as- "to burn, glow" and Latvian UG-uns "fire"
The Latvian form UG-uns is primordial since Latvian UD-ens = "water".
The Indo-European root *AS is a more "modern" version.
Comparable words are English ASH
Latvian DEG or DEDZ "burn".
Latvian ASHs "sharp, pungent".
Related roots can also be seen in the reverse term
"to put out a fire"
in Hebrew D ' K and Latvian DZES
There is also good correspondence in other "fire"-words.
Hebrew 'OR and Latvian KUR "light up a fire, burn"
Hebrew B'R and Latvian PIRts "sauna" PEL-nis "ash"
BRuce "burn wound" and English BURn
Hebrew SUT and Latvian SUT "steam, heat food, stew, braise"
Hebrew KWH, KEWIJA and Latvian KVE-le "glow, heat" KVE-pi "soot"
Hebrew SARAB and Latvian SARAVA (SARAUT) which means "pulled together" and
whence in this sense "burned, the scarred skin" and, since Latvian MIESA means "body"
there is Hebrew MISHRAFOR i.e. MIESU-SARAVOT (SARAUT) with a root in SAR(T)- found in Hebrew as ZAR-
Hebrew LQT and Latvian LIESmOT German LOH "blaze"
Vav/Vau/Vayu - Air
vayum atmosphere; SB 2.2.28