There is no ultimate physical boundary – no biggest part. 

There are no fundamental building blocks – no smallest parts.

One way to understand the infinite universe is to draw lines around certain identifiable parts.  For instance: you.  We can draw an abstract boundary around you and treat you as a single thing - a single entity within the universe.

This is not a perfect way of understanding the infinite universe.  For instance, as you breathe you make an exchange of things with what is outside of your boundary.  When you were in your mother’s womb, you were an individual with its own boundary, but connected to your mum.  Or consider the cells within a joint between your thumb and your index finger.  Where does the thumb start and where does the finger start?  At which point can you truly say that this or that cell is a thumb cell, and this or that cell is a finger cell?

And if the universe is constantly changing, then the boundary of any entity within the universe is constantly changing.  Consider a leaf which has fallen to the ground.  As it slowly decomposes, at which point do you begin to consider it a part of the earth and no longer a distinct entity of its own?  You are, similarly, constantly changing.  New cells are born into your flesh all the time while existing cells die off.  Or take a cloud, with its ever-changing constituents – the droplets of water joining and those leaving the cloud – an incessant loss and gain of constituents, and its ability to blend in with other clouds or divide into smaller clouds effortlessly.  Is a cloud a distinct entity?

Each entity is composed of smaller entities.  Each entity is a ‘container’ or ‘grouping’ of smaller entities.  Each container contains smaller containers.  Each grouping groups smaller groupings.

You can basically pick and choose any group of entities and call it an entity, however distant or seemingly unrelated the parts may be.

You are a container of organs, which are containers of cells, which are containers of organelles, which are containers of molecules, which are containers of atoms, which are containers of sub-atomic things, which are containers of whatever sub-atomic things are made of, and so on.

You might be contained in a family or another form of small multi-human group, which might be contained in a house or some other building, which is contained within a town or city, which is contained within a bio-region or land-mass, which is contained within a planet, which is contained within a solar system, which is contained within a galaxy, which is contained within whatever galaxies constitute, and so on.

The constituents of an entity may remain together in any manner.  Some may be directly stuck to others in the group.  Others may stick together indirectly through other entities – like the members of a family held together indirectly by the earth.  Others may maintain no physical bond at all, but still keep together or near to one another somehow, like birds of a flying flock, or members of a solar system, or particles of water in a cloud. 

Some entities might share common constituents, like you might be part of the knitting club and part of the baking club whereas other members might only be in one of those groups.  Some entities might be intertwined together in the same general area while maintaining distinct existences, like a bunch of vines that have grown entangled together.  Some entities might have constituents which are incredibly distant from one another – the size of the individual constituents being a puny fraction of the size of the gaps between each other.  Some entities might have a variety of immediate constituents of great difference in size, shape etc...  Some entities might exist for only a very brief moment, the constituents then disbanding or re-grouping in a different formation.

Another useful way of understanding the universe is with the concepts of matter and empty space.

In regions where we cannot sense any entities around, we call this ‘empty’ space.  And where we can sense entities, we call this matter.

A living entity can only sense things by meeting resistance with them.  Where there is no bonding or proximity – no structure or union, we cannot sense anything, and so we perceive an absence of matter. 

Think of a group of entities which have little or no structure maintained between them, like a cloud of mist.  Now imagine squeezing the cloud.  As you apply resistance on any one of the constituents, it just gives way – it can’t lean on the other constituents to counter the external resistance.  Now if you take a pool of water, there is a ‘tighter’ bond or proximity maintained between the parts, and so, as you squeeze the water, the resistance is dissipated throughout more of the parts, so you feel more matter.  Make the bonds even tighter, with the same molecules, and you get ice, hard matter.

But this way of approaching the universe is also not perfect.  (in fact, there is no perfect way of describing/approaching/understanding the infinite universe).

Consider the decomposing leaf again.  Instead of always trying to assess whether it is a whole entity or not as it decomposes, you could use the concept of matter versus empty space.  So, the leaf gradually gives up its matter and reveals empty space.  But: the matter of the leaf was already filled up with plenty of ‘empty’ space, like the space between the electrons and the nucleus of the atoms.  And the empty space that the leaf reveals after decomposing is replete with matter, in this case: air molecules.  To us, the air is less tangible than leaf matter, but there is still a sort of ‘substance’ that we can breathe in and feel – very small matter from our perspective.

Although the matter of the leaf is gone – those bonds between those cells and most of the molecules having disintegrated – the matter didn’t totally disappear – the molecules that went into the earth are made of matter of their own.  Bonds continue to hold their constituents together.  It is all a matter of perspective.  If you were a cell, individual molecules might seem very different to you – being able to touch them just as you can touch what you call ‘hard matter’ in your realm of size.

Even in outer space, in those areas where no molecules or even sub-atomic things exist, there are infinite entities constituting that space, there is infinite matter there.  The same holds true for the empty space between electrons and the nucleus – it is not really ‘empty’ space.  That is simply something you have to hold true if you believe firmly in the universe being infinite.  That is part of the leap of faith.  Likewise, even in the most dense region of matter, there is plenty of space at some point.  And within that space there is matter, and within that matter there is space, and so on, ad infinitum.

All entities are incessantly moving, even if their motion is imperceptible to us.

There is no maximum speed inherent in any kind of entity if there are infinite entities in the universe.  Speed is a comparison of motion between entities, and so to measure the true speed of one, you would have to measure the speed of all other entities, which are moving in ever-changing unique ways.

But this is not to imply that all motion is unrestricted. 

Each entity is incessantly encountering others, even if this resistance is imperceptible to us.  There is no vacuum – no absolutely void space, in which an entity may cease to act upon or be acted upon by other entities.  There may be areas void of certain kinds of entities, but the infinite within each part of this ‘void’ contains entities, even if they are imperceptible to us.

When entities hit each other it changes their motion, which affects further collisions.  Motion powers resistance and resistance powers motion.

Actions between entities have no real beginning or end.  They are preceded by infinite previous actions and instigate infinite subsequent actions.  The whole deal never started and it will never stop.

There is no force in the universe other than entities in motion.  (Resistance is simply the motion of entities changing direction and being passed along) 

When super-small entities (relative to us) move, it may seem that the force comes out of nothing – out of some void, outside of actual physical entities; but this is simply because those entities are too small for us to observe.  For instance, back in the day, the movement of air might have been conceived of as an invisible force borne out of a void.  But now that we can observe and measure the atomic realm, we know that the force of wind is the force of actual physical entities in motion – with actual matter consisting of bonds between sub-atomic things.

An entity may, at times, exhibit life.  This is brought about by the unified action of multiple living constituents of that parent entity.  To say the same thing in another way: multiple living entities acting together in a unified coordinated way produces an instance of living activity of the parent entity they constitute.  And in yet another way: a lifeform is the combined activity of smaller lifeforms.

Each living entity is composed of an infinite tree of life within.  Each living entity is animated by infinite smaller entities, and that is one of the reasons why life can be so unpredictable and dynamic at times.  Your living self is the result of infinite living entities within you, each acting on its ‘branch’ of the tree.

Some living entities may stay in the same general area and participate in the unified action of multiple living parents.  Some may regularly roam back and forth between areas to be able to participate in the unified action of multiple living parents.  Some may continuously move from living parent to living parent, never to return, always seeking new networks to join.  Some may remain loyal members in a single network throughout their entire finite existences. 

Some living entities may not be active members in any larger living entities at all.  They may simply be contained within their parent entities, acting upon them and being acted upon by them in an un-organized way, instead of interacting with them in an organized way. 

When a bunch of these living entities are found together and remain unorganized between themselves, we get: stuff.   Stuff and things, things made of stuff, pools of living entities, held together somehow, directly or indirectly, which together form non-living un-organized entities as a whole. 

So, inanimate (non-living) materials, objects, substances etc… are all made up of living entities.  A non-living entity might consist of non-living entities, who consist of non-living entities, and so on; but at some point you will encounter living entities, however deep you may have to search through the infinite within the object or pool of stuff, and however varied these living constituents may be.

An entity may be living at times and it may be non-living at other times.  For instance, when you wake up and find that you have slept on your arm and you cannot move it at all, it is limp and lifeless.  But at other times, it can act in a living way – with its multiple parts effecting dynamic action to achieve a common result.  The very process of you going to sleep is another great example.

Also, life can be fleeting.  Some living entities do not maintain rigid structure and habitual activity.  Some living entities might have all of their constituents physically disband and rejoin in a regular pattern, to interact in a living way only as the need arises, or as the constituents wish, or for whatever other reason.  Some living entities might have multiple groups of constituents which take turns in being active, in a regular rotation.  The constituents of some living entities may come together, act once, and then disband, never to interact again and without maintaining any structure afterwards. 

Many strange scenarios are conceivable when contemplating the infinite, which we might have a hard time imagining with our habitual encounters with things in our finite realm, with their particular properties.

There are two narratives brilliantly woven together in Semitic scripture.  There is a narrative of finite things, and there is a narrative of things found throughout the infinite.

The narrative of the finite includes mythology, allegory, parables, riddles, prohibitions, commandments etc. - concerning finite things, with words that refer to finite things with which we are familiar, such as mountains, kings, battles, cities, chariots, houses, people, etc.  This is the story of Semitic scripture that we are familiar with. 

The narrative of the infinite is embedded within this narrative of the finite, in the letters of the same words. 

The term ‘Semitic scripture’ refers to any work penned in a Semitic language which (usually) makes reference to the characters, places and events found in the old testament, such as Moses, Jerusalem or the exodus.  Examples of Semitic Scripture include:

·       The Hebrew old testament (OT) of the Bible.

·       The Aramaic new testament (NT) of the Bible.  [1]

·       The Arabic Qur’an.

·       Other works, such as the Ethiopic book of Enoch.

(The term ‘Semitic’ does not merely mean ‘Jewish’.  Other peoples, such as Arabs and Ethiopians, are also referred to as Semitic peoples with Semitic languages.)

The alphabets of these Semitic languages are thought to stem from a common 22-letter alphabet called ‘Proto-Semitic’, which can be seen in some stone inscriptions in the Sinai peninsula and in Egypt.  [2]

Each letter in this common Semitic alphabet represents something fundamental found throughout the infinite. 

Whereas the narrative of the finite can be translated, more or less, into other languages, the narrative of the infinite is confined to the original language.

Here is a font which has been compiled to represent the letters of the main Semitic languages in a standardized way.  This font, and others required to view this page, can be downloaded for free here:   PC  MAC    Once you install the fonts, the table below should show the special characters.

ALEF q is multiple entities (two or more), which are detached from one another, such as strangers wandering around on their own – completely removed and independent from one another, or like multitudes of bats flying about – but not swarming together – having no relation, or like the air.  Clouds don’t really apply because they aggregate together to a noticeable degree (well, maybe those high wispy clouds that remain thinned out might apply), nor would something like a flock of birds apply – who stick close to one another in proximity.  ALEF is the absence of structure or proximity but it still consists of actual entities who themselves do consist of structure.  Where there are multitudes of detached entities, which are small enough to be imperceptible to us, and which together occupy a great deal of space, that space may have the appearance of being empty (giving us the so-called ‘empty’ space).

YUHD a is multiple entities (two or more), attached to one another (like cells in your flesh), or otherwise maintaining static direct contact (like you and the earth as you stand still).  These bonds give us what we call matter or structure.

QOAF z represents a combination of ALEF(q) and YUHD(a).  It is the nearness or inter-mingling of entities.  A sort of disconnected connectedness.  It can be the quasi-structure of things divided by holes, crevices, gaps, clefts, breaches, etc, like a solar system or a flock of birds, or those cumulonimbus clouds (where the water particles keep together).  Also, it can be a relationship between things which are directly touching, but not in a static way, like the relationship between a table and a ‘top’ spinning on the table – when both the table and the spinning ‘top’ are considered together, it forms a sort of disconnected connection.  When the ‘top’ stops spinning, and just sits on the table, then that would be more like YUHD(a).  QOAF is entities staying ‘with’ or ‘near’ one another but not being directly joined or maintaining static direct contact with one another – whatever its substance may be, by whatever means it is maintained, however distant the entities may be from one another, and however long it may last.

To give an example of ALEF(q), YUHD(a), and QOAF(z):

Place your hands firmly together – flat upon one another.  This would form some YUHD(a). 

Now, start rubbing your hands together, and then break this ‘bond’ and hold your hands near one another, so that there is a gap between your hands.  This gives two examples of QOAF(z) – both the direct but non-static contact between things (rubbing), and proximity with ‘empty’ space in between (the expanse between your hands).

Now, remove your hands as far apart from one another as is possible.  This would be more like ALEF(q).

Again, these symbols are all a matter of perspective.

Even when you have your hands stretched out as far as possible, they are still pretty much maintaining some nearness to some degree. 

No matter how much you squeeze your hands together, you can never really close the gap to form perfect absolute unbroken matter.  There will always be some sort of empty space between them, or between any two entities bound together, even with the strongest ‘glue’.

When you were holding your hands near to one another (QOAF), imagine an amoeba on the tip of one of your fingers, looking out across this expanse.  For the amoeba, the other hand is quite a distance away – it is not at all near.

The next three letters represent individual entities (‘containers’, ‘groups’), whether living or not.

BAIT(w) represents entities which are separate from others – essentially ‘pointing’ toward ALEF(q).

KAF(s) represents entities which are bound to others (or otherwise maintaining static direct contact) – essentially ‘pointing’ toward YUHD(a).

RAISH(x) represents individual entities which are near or ‘with’ others without maintaining static direct contact – essentially ‘pointing’ toward QOAF(z).  A RAISH may be hovering around, it may be indirectly attached, it may be rubbing up against, skimming upon, or it may be moving throughout the interior of the entities to which it is associated, or it may be intertwined with them while not directly bound to them and not maintaining static direct contact; --- or any other sort of ‘nearness’ or ‘intermingling’ or ‘proximal association’.

An entity might be free and unbound in one area but bound in another area.  For instance, as you stand firmly on the ground, you are a KAF(s) in relation to the earth; but other parts of your body are more free and unbound, making you a BAIT(w) in relation to the open sky; and if you were to start trotting along the ground, the bond between you and the earth would become more intangible, you would still be ‘with’ or ‘near’ the ground, but no longer maintaining static direct contact, so in this case you would be a RAISH(x) in relation to the earth.

So, again, these symbols are a matter of perspective.

GIMEL(e) is the motion of BAIT(w).  It is the motion of entities where they are unbound.  

LAMED(d) is the motion of KAF(s).  It is the motion of entities where they are stuck to or maintaining static direct contact with other entities. 

SHEEN(c) is the motion of RAISH(x).  It is the motion of entities where they are near others or otherwise staying ‘with’ other entities.

DALET(r) is the resistance of BAIT(w).  It is the resistance that occurs when entities encounter other entities from which they are separate.

MEM(f) is the resistance of KAF(s).  It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage other entities to which they are stuck or maintaining static direct contact.

TAWV(v) is the resistance of RAISH(x).  It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage with other entities to which they are ‘near’ or otherwise staying ‘with’.

Take, for example, a baseball game. 

When the pitcher is throwing the ball, at the point where his hand is ‘pushing’ the ball, that would be LAMED(d). 

The side of the ball that is open to the air (where the pitcher’s hand does not touch the ball) that would be GIMEL(e).  When the ball is free-flowing in the air, that would be GIMEL(e) all the way around the ball.

If the ball were to hit a pile of mud and shoot through the mud a little, as it moves through the mud, that would be SHEEN(c), in the relationship between the ball and pile of mud.  Or if a player would rub and roll the ball on his sleeve for good luck, the ball would be SHEENing up against the sleeve.

Where the ball hits the bat, that would be DALET(r).

If the ball were to be caught in a glove and be held there, that would be MEM(f), where the ball is being pressed-up against by the glove.

If nobody catches the ball and it bounces along the ground, tip-tapping along ground, that would be TAWV(v).  Or if the coaches get into a heated argument, taunt each other and get up in each other’s face and yell at each other in close proximity, start spitting at each other, and start exchanging punches with each other, that would be TAWV(v).  If the fans start clapping their hands, they would be TAWVing their hands together.  If a fan is confused about the umpire’s decision concerning a play, and scratches his head, the friction of his fingers against his scalp would also be TAWV.

HAY(t) represents the life of entities, where they are generally more free and unbound. 

NOON(g) represents the life of entities, where they are generally more bound. 

Seeing as at times an entity might be living and at other times it might be dormant or otherwise not organized as a whole, HAY and NOON represent the aspect of an entity when it is living, where it is living.  It is the life exhibited by the entities symbolised by the letters BAIT(w), KAF(s) and RAISH(x).

The reason why there is no QOAF-level letter for living entities is because, with life, it is not so much the immediate physical relationship with other things as much as how the life acts in relation to other things.  For instance, a servant, even if not directly bound to his master with manacles, maintains a constant ‘relationship’ with him, indirectly.  Or you might be free and unbound in an open area on vacation, but pretty much act in a repetitive way unable to shake loose from your habits.  Or you might plant yourself in a peaceful spot and free your living mind from habit as you remain stationary.

Also, a living entity does not always simply act outward, so its external physical relationship with other things is not a central consideration.  A living entity may even act outward and inward at the same time, as part of the same unified action.  For instance, if you were to pinch your nose as you remove a dead rat from the shed.  You are acting upon yourself (nostrils) at the same time as you are acting upon external things (rat corpse). 

So, there is little use in having a QOAF-level letter for living entities.  What is more useful is just a more general state of living activity: more bound and conditioned(g) or more free and unconditioned(t).  The 12 letters described above already symbolise the external physical relationship of the ‘container’ of living entities, so you can combine those letters with these letters for life, to convey a more precise external physical relationship for living entities.

This being said, the immediate external physical state of a living entity does affect its activity.  For instance, a slave, if shackled, is more limited in the possible activity that he can perform.  So, these two letters for life can still reflect an external physical state, but in a less precise manner than with BAIT(w), KAF(s) and RAISH(x).

HAY(t) is life that is generally more unconditioned and unpredictable.

NOON(g) is life that is generally more conditioned and engaged in more similar activity (repetition).

Think of your hands compared to the webbed feet of a duck.  If your hands were webbed all the way up to the tips of your fingers, your hand as a whole would be much less versatile – much more conditioned in its activity.

Think of your hands compared to your torso.  Seeing as there is more space within the hand (the space between the digits and the space in which the joints pivot in their sockets), the hand is more versatile, agile, dynamic and can adapt and recombine itself in various fresh new ways.  Whereas if your whole body were a torso, as is the case with the snake, your options would be more limited, your action would be more conditioned; whether you wish to act upon yourself or upon external things.

VAWV y is the organized unified living motion of HAY. 

SAMEK h is the organized unified living motion of NOON. 

ZAIN u is the organized unified living resistance of HAY. 

OYIN j is the organized unified living resistance of NOON.   

HKET i is the aspect of entities where they are not living, where they are more free and unbound.  A whole bunch of HKET together makes stuff and substances, (a more free and loose arrangement), like air molecules which are not interacting with each other in a living way.

PHAY k is the aspect of entities where they are not living, where they are more bound.  A whole bunch of PHAY together makes stuff and things, (a more bound arrangement), like molecules of stone which are not acting with each other in a living way.

Even though you can get stuff and things out of a whole bunch of HKET and PHAY, these symbols could also refer to just a small number of entities (even just 2) which are not interacting in an organised unified way together – like a few strangers sitting together on the bus, each minding his/her own business.

An entity(BAIT, KAF, RAISH) can either be in a living state at times(HAY, NOON), or in a non-living state at times(HKET, PHAY), and it may be living in relation to some things and non-living in relation to others at the same time.  For instance, as you communicate with someone, your focus on them may preclude your focus on and communication with someone else at that moment who may be trying to get your attention and you don’t notice it due to your focus on the existing conversation.

Whereas HAY and NOON need extra letters to distinguish their unique type of living motion and resistance(VAWV & SAMEK / ZAIN & OYIN), the motion and resistance of HKET and PHAY is already encapsulated in the letters which describe the simple motion and resistance of BAIT, KAF and RAISH (GIMEL, LAMED, SHEEN  &  DALET, MEM, TAWV).

TET o is the coming together, combining, joining, binding, bonding, placing together, etc...

TSADY l is the breaking free, the splitting, separating, parting, expulsion, releasing, etc…

A table with short definitions of each letter is available on a separate page, which you can keep open for quick access as you read on.  It is available here.  To open it as a separate window, right-click on the link and hit the 'Open in a separate window' button.

For all of these tables throughout the book, the definitions of the words are taken straight from the dictionaries or straight from the English translations of Semitic Scripture, without change or embellishment. 

Also, for all of these tables throughout the book, the majority of words in the theme are listed.  The exceptions are almost always rare, obscure, or can be explained with the letter-code in another way.

In these tables, the languages where the words are found are listed in tooltips.  Just hold your mouse over the definition.  Each comma-delimited definition may have a unique language tooltip. 

There are also tooltips for some entries with multiple spellings.  Just hold your mouse over the individual spellings.

VOWELS

All of the letters of the alephbet are consonants – no vowels.  Semitic scripture was originally written without vowels.  The way to pronounce the consonants was understood by the speakers of the language.  For instance, you and I can read this:

2 bdrm  n smkng  n pts  avlbl nw

We are able to deduce how to pronounce these words – which vowels to add where, because we understand the context.  If you were to read: “pts n pns”, you could discern that the “pts” means “pots” rather than “pets” as was read above.

There arose two ways of writing down vowels for the alephbet.  One was the addition of little dots above and below (and within) the letters.  Another method was the insertion of extra consonants which sort of have vowel-like tendencies: YUHD, VAWV, ALEF and HAY.  These can be found inserted within words or padding the outside of words.

And so, the same consonant combination, with different vowel markings, can mean different things, albeit on the same general theme.  Although this can help with translation or to otherwise grasp the specific meaning of the surface narrative, it can also cause the reader to overlook the transcendent commonality between words with the same consonants but different vowels.  This is the reason why the Torah scrolls used in the Synagogues are written without vowels, even to this day.

“The scroll of the Torah is written without vowels, in order to enable man to interpret it however he wishes – as the consonants without the vowels bear several interpretations and [splinter into sparks].  This is the reason why we do not write the vowels of the scroll of the Torah, for the significance of each word is in accordance with its vocalization, but when it is vocalized it has but one single significance; but without vowels man may interpret it [extrapolating from it] several different things, many, marvellous and sublime.”

Bahya ben Asher (13th – 14th centuries)  [3]

“…the content of the Torah possessed infinite meaning, which revealed itself differently at different levels and according to the capacity of the contemplator.  The unfathomable profundity of the divine speech could not possibly be exhausted at any one level alone…

…”Many lights shine forth from each word and each letter”…”

Gershom Scholem

Foremost modern historian of Jewish mysticism

  [4]

Throughout this book, the pointed vowels have been eliminated, and only mentioned briefly in a few instances.  As for the consonants used as vowels (YUHD, VAWV, ALEF and HAY), it is often hard to determine if a particular instance of these letters is a vowel or not.  Where it is certain that it is a vowel, it has been eliminated; where uncertain, it has been retained but coloured a reddish hue.

Also, you might notice certain Arabic characters, for which no definitions have been given (bnm,./), as well as the letter SEEN ($).  This is explained in the appendices page, which also includes a detailed explanation of how the definitions of the letters were deduced, along with the reasoning for the character selections made for the common font.

TEXTURE OF SEMITIC SCRIPTURE

Many academics and theologians have pointed out that there is great word-play in Semitic scripture, with many patterns within and between verses.  But this, in fact, is not just word-play, it is also (and primarily) letter-play. 

This sort of texture of Semitic Scripture is simply untranslatable.

Also, for some books, it is obvious that the usage of words was not intended for regular forms of writing, but rather for ‘formulas’ or little chunks for contemplation.  For example, the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah are so obscure, that whenever you look up an entry in the Hebrew dictionary of the OT, and you find an obscure definition that doesn’t match the standard usage, you can rest assured that it is from one of these books, and there are plenty of these instances.

“The most difficult and obscure of the holy books contain as many secrets as they do words, concealing many things even under each word.” 

Saint Jerome (342-419 AD), author of the ‘Vulgate’, a translation of the Bible from Hebrew & Greek into Latin

[5]

“Seventy sages translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy.  That day was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made; for the Torah could not be fully translated.”

Talmud: tractate Sefer Torah, 1:8   [6]

-------------------

Here is the very first verse of the very first book:

If you read it as it is translated, then the first letter (w) should be read as a prefix (meaning ‘in’), and not part of the word itself, but the second word is mysteriously found in the first half of the whole of the first word including its w prefix:

wxqcav

wxq

This basically screams out from the get go: “Not so fast – study every single letter!”.

-------------------

Here is the account of Adam’s creation, the second time around, in the second chapter:

So,

qrf was created from the

qrft which was watered by some

qr

-------------------

-------------------

When vocalised in the original tongues, these passages come to life with acoustic properties unavailable in the translations.

This sort of texture/style of writing in Semitic scripture is particularly noticeable in the Qur’an.  For example:

dq qdt qdq qddt 

“There is no God but Allah”

In the Sufi tradition, this cryptic line is widely used as a dhikr – the practice of contemplation upon certain names or phrases (more on this in the next section).

“… [there exists a] delicate aspect of cadence through which the Qur’an achieves euphony, [and] musical sounds which exist in every single verse, like a symphony. [7]  There is, in the Qur’an, a subtly varied rhythmical flow of the discourse. [8] “

[9]

“In the translation of the Qur’an, we sacrifice the flow of sound to sense while in the Qur’an sound and sense are interrelated.”

[10]

“Unlike any other book, Asad claims [11], the Qur’an’s meaning and its linguistic presentation form one unbreakable whole.  The position of individual words in a sentence, the rhythm and sound of its phrases and their syntactic construction, the manner in which a metaphor flows almost imperceptibly into a pragmatic statement, the use of acoustic stress not merely in the service of rhetoric but as a means of alluding to unspoken but clearly implied ideas: all this makes the Qur’an, in the last resort, unique and untranslatable – a fact that has been pointed out by many earlier translators and by all Arab scholars.”

[12]

“The task [of translating the Qur’an] is so frustrating and the Qur’an-bound linguistic and rhetorical intricate problems so unsurmountable that some translators like C. Turner (1997) [13] threatened to throw in the towel.    T. B. Irving (1985) [14] talks of the Qur’anic conjunctions and connectives as one of the first problems the Qur’an translator encounters.  He [15] is of the opinion that the Qur’an could be considered untranslatable, because each time one returns to the Arabic text, he finds new meanings and fresh ways of interpreting it.  It is a living document.”

[16]

“… the translation of the Qur’an has been traditionally rejected by Muslim scholars. [17]  They only allow exegetical translation which is based on commentary and explication of the Qur’anic text.  For them the translated version of the Qur’an should never be a replacement to the original Qur’an in Arabic when performing the daily prayers since “no translation is entirely acceptable or entirely ‘adequate’ ” [18] ; a translation of the Qur’an “is not the Qur’an and can never be” [19] ”

[20]

“The Qur’an, according to Asad [21], should be viewed as one integral whole; every structure has an intimate bearing on other structures, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another.  Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its passages.”

[22]

“The Qur’an, in the view of Mir [23], has a small vocabulary.  According to one computation, the total number of Arabic roots used in the Qur’an is 1702.  This may suggest that, from the point of view of language, the Qur’an is a simple enough book to follow, and its small vocabulary does facilitate one’s understanding of it.  A serious student, however soon realizes that the language of this book is only deceptively simple, as is testified by the scores of volumes that exist on Qur’anic syntax and grammar alone, almost every Qur’anic verse presents one or more linguistic problems that claim attention and demand a solution.  It is only on a close study of the Qur’anic language that one begins truly to appreciate its richness and complexity.  What largely accounts for this richness and complexity is the most varied linguistic structures that, manipulating its small vocabulary, the Qur’an generates.”

[24]

“The language of the Qur’an is synthetic and imagistic – each word has a richness having to do with the special genius of the Arabic language.”

[25]

It is held that even those who commit the Qur’an to memory still do not fully comprehend the variance in meaning of each word and verse.

One fascinating mystery of the Qur’an is that at the head of 29 suras (chapters) are individual letters.  For example, at the head of sura 2, there is written: ALEF, LAMED, MEM:        q d f         And that’s it.  No explanation.  Just seemingly random letters.

“Throughout the ages, scholars both Muslim and European, have pondered and wrestled with these mysterious letters, advancing a great number of theories, sometimes fanciful and far-fetched, to explain their origin and meaning.”    

[26]

Not only is there evident letter-play between a few key-words and across a few verses, which produces an untranslatable acoustic quality in Semitic Scripture, but there is also evident letter-play across chapters, between a wide array of words. 

For example, in chapter 4 of Genesis, Adam and Eve beget Cain, whose descendants are all listed throughout the rest of the 4^th chapter, and then his line ends, never to resurface in the narrative.  Then, in chapter 5, Adam and Eve beget Seth, whose descendants are listed throughout the rest of chapter 5, ending with Noah and his three sons.

 (Shem, ancestor of Abraham, is where the term ‘Semitic’ comes from.)

Again, Cain’s line of descent in chapter 4 dies off after the first Lamech and his children, and is separate from Seth’s line of descent in chapter 5, which goes on to populate the rest of the earth.

The first 5 chapters of Genesis have been compiled in a color-coded interlinear format here.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

This next section includes excerpts from literature (outside of scripture itself) which alludes to there being meaning invested within each letter.

The Talmud is a record of various rabbinic discussions which outline and explore Jewish civil and religious laws and also provides commentary on the Hebrew scriptures.  It was compiled between the 2^nd and 5^th centuries (AD).

“A scribe must provide a distinguishing mark for the section beginning “And it came to pass when the ark set forward” both at its beginning and at its end, because it is a book on its own.”

Talmud: tractate Soferim  6:1

“The HAY (t) of Ha-Adonai (t-qrga) must be longer than any other HAY, because it is a word on its own.”

Talmud: tractate Soferim  9:6

In the Talmud were various guidelines concerning the copying of manuscripts.  If, how, where and when these rules were applied and just how old these rules are is not known.

There were guidelines for the preparation of the skin of the parchments, the preparation of the ink, the repairing and discarding of scrolls, the proper handling of scrolls, the use of foodstuffs when dealing with scrolls, the qualifications of the scribes, etc…  But the guidelines which most concern us here are these:

·         The words written could not be duplicated from memory but had to be reproduced from an authentic copy that the scribe had before him.

·         The scribe had to say each word aloud as he wrote it.

·         Letters and words had to be spaced at a certain distance.  No word could touch another and no letter could touch another.

·         Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing or it was condemned.

·         If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned.

·         If there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned.

·         Every word and every letter in a completed scroll was meticulously counted.  If a letter or word was omitted, the manuscript was condemned.

 [27]

“Rabbi Meir, one of the most important teachers of the Mishnah [early part of the Talmud], relates: “When I was studying with Rabbi Akiba, I used to put vitriol in the ink and he said nothing.  But when I went to Rabbi Ishmael, he asked me: My son, what is your occupation?  I answered: I am a scribe [of the Torah].  And he said to me: My son, be careful in your work, for it is the work of God; if you omit a single letter, or write a letter too many, you will destroy the whole world…”

[28]

“… Bezalel knew how to combine the letters by which the heavens and the earth were created.”

Talmud: tractate Berakoth 55a

“He hath formed, weighed, transmuted, composed, and created with these twenty-two letters every living being, and every soul yet uncreated…   …For He indeed showed the mode of combination of the letters, each with each, Aleph with all, and all with Aleph.  Thus in combining all together in pairs are produced these two hundred and thirty-one gates of knowledge.”

Sepher Yetsira (around 2^nd – 6^th centuries AD)

Not all of the authors quoted throughout this section would have agreed with my definition of the letters, let alone my interpretation of scripture.

For instance, in the Sepher Yetsira just quoted, the letters are subsequently associated with cardinal directions, body parts, planets, and other elements.  (Although, it may be that the Hebrew words for these things used in the Sepher Yetsira need to be read letter-by-letter themselves)

Also, the authors quoted throughout this section did not necessarily agree with each other on the definition of the letters, or on other matters.

The only purpose of this section is to point out the fact that many authors writing about Semitic scripture viewed the letters as being invested with meaning.

In the middle ages, particularly in France and Spain, there arose a whole body of literature called “Kabbalah”, which simply means ‘to receive’ or ‘tradition’.  As has been demonstrated with the previous quotes, the Kabbalah is not the only literature which alludes to meaning within the letters, so the available literary evidence is not restricted to the middle ages.  Also, ‘Kabbalah’ was not the only term used in Jewish literature to denote a sort of esoteric understanding of scripture:

“The Talmud speaks of sitrei torah  and razei torah (“secrets of the Torah”)”

“In the mystical literature from the close of the Talmudic period and afterward, the terms ba’alei ha-sod (“masters of the mystery”) and anshei emunah (“men of belief”) already occur.”

“In the period of the Provencal [French] and Spanish Kabbalists the Kabbalah is also called hokhmah penimit (“inner wisdom”),  ……   and the Kabbalists are often called maskilim (“the understanding ones”), with reference to Daniel 12:10, or doreshei reshumot (“those who interpret texts”), a Talmudic expression for allegorists.”

“From the beginning of the 14^th century the name Kabbalah almost completely superseded all other designations.”

[29]

The Torah is likened to a nut by some Kabbalists.  Just as a nut has an outer shell and an inner kernel, so too does the Torah.  Moses de Leon used the acronym PaRDeS to denote four levels of meaning in the Torah:

“…P stands for peshat, the literal meaning, R for remez, the allegorical meaning, D for derasha, the Talmudic and Aggadic interpretation, S for sod, the mystical meaning.”

[30]  [31]

“Every letter and every word in every section of the Torah have a deep root in wisdom and contain a mystery from among the mysteries of understanding, the depths of which we cannot penetrate…”

Abraham bar Hiyya   (1065 – 1136 AD)  [32]

“Just as in the body of a man there are limbs and joints, just as some organs of the body are more, others less, vital, so it seems to be with the Torah.  To one who does not understand their hidden meaning, certain sections and verses of the Torah seem fit to be thrown into the fire; but to one who has gained insight into their true meaning they seem essential components of the Torah.  Consequently, to omit so much as one letter or point from the Torah is like removing some part of a perfect edifice.  Thence it also follows that in respect of its divine character no essential distinction can be drawn between the section of Genesis 36, setting forth the generations of Esau [a seemingly superfluous passage], and the Ten Commandments, for it is all one whole and one edifice.”

Rabbi Azriel of Gerona (1160 – 1238 AD)   [33]

“Alas for the man who regards the Torah as a book of mere tales and [everyday] matters.  If this were so, we might even today write a Torah dealing in [everyday affairs] and still more excellent.  In regard to earthly things, the kings and princes of the world possess more valuable materials.  We could use them as a model for composing a Torah of this kind.  But in reality the words of the Torah are higher words and higher mysteries…

…When fools see a man in a garment that seems beautiful to them, they do not look more closely.  But more important than the garment is the body, and more important than the body is the soul.  So likewise the Torah has a body, which consists of the commandments and ordinances of the Torah, which are called gufe torah, (“bodies of the Torah”).  This body is cloaked in garments, which consist of worldly stories.  Fools see only the garment, which is the narrative part of the Torah; they know no more and fail to see what is under the garment.  Those who know more see not only the garment but also the body that is under the garment.  But the truly wise, the servants of the Supreme King, those who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, [penetrate right through to the] soul, which is the true foundation of the entire Torah…

…Wine cannot be kept save in a jar; so the Torah needs an outer garment.  These are the stories and narratives, but it behoves us to penetrate beneath them.”

Rabbi Simeon in the Zohar - III 152a   [34]

“Verily the Torah lets out a word and emerges a little from her sheath, and then hides herself again.  But she does this only for those who know and obey her.  For the Torah resembles a beautiful and stately damsel, who is hidden in a secluded chamber of her palace and who has a secret lover, unknown to all others.  For love of her he keeps passing the gate of her house, looking this way and that in search of her.  She knows that her lover haunts the gate of her house.  What does she do?  She opens the door of her hidden chamber ever so little, and for a moment reveals her face to her lover, but hides it again forthwith.  Were anyone with her lover, he would see nothing and perceive nothing.  He alone sees it and he is drawn to her with his heart and soul and his whole being, and he knows that for love of him she disclosed herself to him for one moment, aflame with love for him.  So is it with the Torah, which reveals herself only to those who love her.  The Torah knows that the mystic [hakim libba, literally, the wise of heart] haunts the gate of her house.  What does she do?  From within her hidden palace she discloses her face and beckons to him and returns forthwith to her place and hides.  Those who are there see nothing and know nothing, only he alone, and he is drawn to her with his heart and soul and his whole being.  Thus the Torah reveals herself and hides, and goes out in love to her lover and arouses love in him.  Come and see: this is the way of the Torah.  At first, when she wishes to reveal herself to a man, she gives him a momentary sign.  If he understands, well and good; if not, she sends to him and calls him a simpleton.  To the messenger she sends to him the Torah says: tell the simpleton to come here that I may speak to him.  As it is written [Prov. 9:47]: ‘Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither, she saith to him that wanteth understanding.’  When he comes to her, she begins from behind a curtain to speak words in keeping with his understanding, until very slowly insight comes to him, and this is called derashah. [derashah means here the mode of interpretation practiced by the Talmudists, by which they derived the exoteric oral doctrine from the words of Scripture in accordance with certain fixed norms]  Then through a light veil she speaks allegorical words [millin de hida] and that is what is meant by haggadah.  Only then, when he has become familiar with her, does she reveal herself to him face to face and speak to him of all her hidden secrets and all her hidden ways, which have been in her heart from the beginning.  Such a man is then termed perfect, a ‘master’, that is to say, a ‘bridegroom of the Torah’ in the strictest sense, the master of the house, to whom she discloses all her secrets, concealing nothing.  She says to him: do you see now how many mysteries were contained in that sign I gave you on the first day, and what its true meaning is?  Then he understands that to those words indeed nothing may be added and nothing taken away.  And then for the first time he understands the true meaning of the words of the Torah, as they stand there, those words to which not a syllable or a letter may be added and from which none may be taken away.  And therefore men should take care to pursue the Torah [that is, study it with great precision], in order to become her lovers as has been related.”

Zohar, II, 99a-b   [35]

Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (‘Ghazali’, or ‘Algazel’ for short), (1058-1111), was one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Sufi Islamic thought.  Although he doesn’t specifically explain that the letters are imbued with meaning, he wrote at length about the hidden meaning of the Qur’an.  It would seem that the reason he doesn’t explain about the letters in his writings is because of his contention that the esoteric meanings should not be divulged to the common man [36].

esoteric = inward, hidden meaning

exoteric = outward, surface meaning

exegesis = interpretation of scripture

“ ‘Ali said, “If I wished I could load seventy camels with the exegesis of the opening Surah of the Koran.”  What is the meaning of this, when the exoteric interpretation [of this surah] is extremely short?  Abu al-Darda’ said, “A man does not understand until he attributes [different] perspectives to the Koran.”  A certain scholar said, “For every verse there are sixty thousand understandings, and what remains to be understood is even more.”  Others have said, “The Koran contains seventy-seven thousand two hundred sciences, for every word [in it] is a science, and then that [number] can be quadrupled, since every word has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an end and a beginning.”

The Prophet’s repetition of [the phrase] “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate” twenty times was only for the purpose of pondering its esoteric meanings.  Otherwise its explanation and exegesis are so obvious that someone like him would not need to repeat it.  Ibn Mas’ud said, “He who desires the knowledge of the ancients and the moderns should ponder the Koran,” and that is not something that can be attained merely by its exoteric interpretation.”

“The rejection of exoteric meanings is the opinion of the Batiniyya, who, being one-eyed, looked only at one of the two worlds and did not recognize the correspondence between the two and did not understand its significance.  Similarly, the rejection of the esoteric meanings is the position of the Hashwiyya.  Whoever takes only the outward meaning is a Hashwi, and whoever takes only the inward meaning is a Batini, but whoever combines the two of them is perfect.  For this reason the Prophet said, “The Koran has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an ending, and a beginning.”

One should not neglect the learning of outward exegesis first for there is no hope of reaching the inward aspect before having mastered the outward.  One who claims to understand the secrets of the Koran without having mastered its outward exegesis, is like a man who claims to have reached the main room of a house without having passed through the door…”

- Ghazali  [37]

In the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddiya order of the Sufis, there are a series of contemplative practices, one of which is the Contemplation of the Reality of the Koran:

“When an adept attains this stage, he receives the blessings, and perceives the light of the Eternal Speech of God and learns its arcane secret.  He finds that every word of the Koran is expressive, significant and pregnant with meaning.

… At this stage, the meaning of the abbreviated letters [chapter-heading letters] of the Koran is revealed, but this cannot be expressed in words.”

[38]

The Sufis, however, are not the only Islamic tradition that sees meaning in the words and individual letters of the Koran, the Isma’ilis also held similar beliefs:

“[In an] early Isma’ili text: the second treatise of the Kitab al-kashf, which the Isma’ili tradition attributes to Ja’far b. Mansur al-Yaman, …  … the Arabic alphabet, which consists of twenty-eight consonant signs, is divided into four groups of seven letters each, and thus into four heptads, from the combinations of which all words – and with them the very things they signify – come into being.”

[39]

The earliest known Ismaili cosmology describes individual letters in the process of creation:

“Then God breathed into it a spirit and directed at it a voice: “Be!” (kun), thus it came into being with God’s permission.  All things were made by God through creating them (mubda ‘atan) from the letters kaf and nun [KAF and NOON] [making the word kun.  … Then through the waw [VAWV] and ya’ [YUHD], which became a name for what is above it, calling it therefore kuni. ”

[40]

“Certain esoteric schools of Islamic thought, such as the Isma’ili Shi’is, developed teachings about the letters of the alphabet to represent the human form and face.  Entire portraits were created using only the names Allah, Muhammad, and ‘Ali.  Sufi-influenced groups – such as the Bektashi order in Ottoman lands, the Hurufi (“letter”) sect, and the Nuqtawi (“dot”) school – employed letter-symbolism and diagrams to convey their teachings; their elaborate metaphysical speculations on the cosmic significance of the letters were frequently combined with messianic activism.   Quasi-magical treatments of the Arabic alphabet associated with the circle of the sixth Shi’i Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, were elaborated in connection with the occult sciences…

… In terms of discipline, the most important class of Sufi practices involving the word was the recitation of divine names as a kind of meditation [dikr, pronounced zikr by non-Arabs].  The movement towards interiorization of the Qur’an that was so decisive for the development of Sufism lent itself especially to the practice of meditation in which the [ninety nine] names of God are chanted over and over again, either in solitude or in company, aloud or silently.”

[41]

The most widely used dhikr of all was the name Allah (qddt).  Here is how it is carried out in the Chishtiyya order of the Sufis:

“… the seeker retires into a secluded place and contemplates that the word Allah is written on his heart in golden letters and that he is reading it with zest and fervour, and that he is in the presence of Allah.  He should be engrossed enough in these thoughts as to lose awareness of his own individual being.

At the beginning of this contemplation, the heart is filled with the resplendent light of the golden letters of Allah; then gradually the Alif [ALEF] (of Allah) disappears from sight and only a ring of light remains.  This ring gradually assumes the form of a big circle, and in this circle many unseen worlds will be seen.  The seeker should not pay attention to them and be lost in this spiritual exhibition.  All this will result in complete absorption and the state of fana or ‘total effacement’ will follow.  The seeker attains the rank of persons who have attained total annihilation in God (fana-fi-Allah).”

[42]

In the Qadiriyya order of the Sufis, it is written concerning the use of Allah as a dhikr:

“Allah, Allah is the name of the pure Essence of the Friend.

This great name is meant for attaining His proximity.

Allah, Allah, what good taste this name reveals,

Every letter of this word intoxicates life with the wine of love.”

[43]

Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī (or ‘Rumi’ for short), (1207-1273):

“Do not apply musk to the body, rub it on the heart.  What is musk?  The sacred name of him who is full of majesty.”

[44]

Abū abd-Allah Muhammad ibn-Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-`Arabi al-Hatimi al-TTaa'i (or ‘Ibn Arabi’ for short), (1165-1240):

“I dreamt one night that I had copulated with all the stars of the heavens, and there was not a single star left with which I had not copulated with supreme spiritual pleasure, and when I had finished copulating with the stars, I was given the letters and I copulated with them.”

[45]

Now, if we return to the Kabbalists, we find much of the same sort of passages:

“Prepare to meet your God.  Prepare to devote your heart.  Purify your body and select a special place where no one in the world can hear your voice.  Be totally alone.  Sit in one spot in the room or the loft, and do not reveal your secret to anyone.  If you can, do this by day, even for a little while, but the best way is to do it at night.  As you prepare to speak with your Creator, to seek the revelation of his power, be careful to empty your mind of all mundane vanities.  Wrap yourself in your tallit and put your tefillin on your head and your hand so that you will be filled with the awe of Shekhinah, who is with you at this moment.  Wear clean garments, all white if you can.  All this helps immensely in focusing your awe and love.  If it is night, light many candles, until your eyes shine brightly.

Then take hold of ink, pen and tablet.  Realize that you are about to serve your God in joy.  Begin to combine letters, a few or many, permuting and revolving them rapidly until your mind warms up.  Delight in how they move and in what you generate by revolving them.  When you feel within that your mind is very, very warm from combining the letters, and that through the combinations you understand new things that you have not attained by human tradition nor discovered on your own through mental reflection, then you are ready to receive the abundant flow, and the abundance flows upon you, arousing you again and again.

Now turn your thoughts to visualizing the Name and its supernal angels, imagining them as if they were human beings standing or sitting around you, with you in the middle like a messenger about to be sent on a royal mission, waiting to hear about it from their lips, either from the king himself or from one of his ministers.  Having imagined this vividly, prepare your mind and heart to understand the many things about to be conveyed to you by the letters being contemplated within you.  Meditate on them as a whole and in all their detail, like one to whom a parable, a riddle, or a dream is being told, or like one perusing a book of wisdom, pondering a passage beyond his grasp.  Interpret what you hear in an uplifting manner, approximating it as best you can.  Based on what you understand of it, evaluate yourself and others.  All this will happen after you fling the tablet from your hands and the pen from your fingers, or after they fall by themselves due to the intensity of your thoughts.”

Abraham Abulafia (13^th century)

[46]

“…place in front of the eyes of your mind the letters of God’s name, as if they were written in a book in Hebrew script.  Visualize every letter extending to infinity.  What I mean is: when you visualize the letters focus on them with your mind’s eye as you contemplate infinity.  Both together: gazing and meditating.”

Isaac of Akko (13^th-14^th centuries)

[47]

Even in the daily Jewish prayers, stress is laid on the name itself:

“May the LORD’s name be praised from now and to all eternity.  From the rising of the sun to the going down thereof the LORD’s name is to be praised.”

[48]

And again, from the Sepher Yetsira:

“…blessed and more than blessed be the name of the living God of ages.”

IMPORTANCE LAID ON NAMES AND WORDS WITHIN SEMITIC SCRIPTURE ITSELF