1

Reading in or reading out? Time and consciousness in ‘kabbalistic psychology’

Les Lancaster

‘Reading out’ in rabbinic and kabbalistic perspective

The elaboration of scriptural meaning lies at the core of most religious traditions. The

sacred text is viewed by adherents as more than simply a record of ancient history and

source of moral injunctions; it is seen as a living well, able to continually replenish

the teachings that sustain those who would drink from it. Religions such as Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam are essentially commentarial-based traditions, meaning that the

foundational text (Torah, Christian Bible and Koran) is subjected to intensive scrutiny

for new insights across the generations. Indeed, it is the very polyvalency of the text

that underlies the text’s sacredness. The surface narrative is understood as merely one

of many layers of meaning, and the believer is privileged potentially to have access to

concealed levels of insight that somehow transcend the normal historical flow of time.

In focusing my paper on ‘kabbalistic psychology’, necessarily the text of interest is

the Torah. The defining characteristic of Kabbalah is that its core works all insist that

the complex edifices of meaning they promulgate are ‘read out’ from the Torah; it is a

fundamentally exegetical tradition. As will be exemplified below, this principle can

somewhat stretch the imagination of a contemporary ‘rational’ mind. The concepts

being elaborated in, for example, thirteenth-century manuscripts appear to be bound to

the worldview of that age. To the extent that the author links them to the Torah, we

are more likely to think of a process of ‘reading in’ than ‘reading out’. This, then, is

the conundrum I wish to examine. A consideration of time in this context arises since

the ‘reading out’ mindset implies a backwards projection in time. The ‘new’ insights

that an exegete discerns in the text are held to have in some sense been already there

in the text’s inception, in the primordial past. In the following, I argue that there is

more to such backwards temporal projection than some quaint device which lends

legitimisation to an author’s words. The question I wish to address is, what are the

implications of the traditional notion of mystical exegesis for our understanding of

time and consciousness?

2

A fundamental axiom of the rabbinic and kabbalistic worldview holds that the Torah

is not a book in the normal understanding of the word. Crucially for my discussion

here, it is viewed as transcending time. ‘There is no before or after in Torah’, writes

Rashi, the most respected commentator on the Hebrew Bible. Given that much of the

Torah comprises a historical narrative, at a stroke this principle points to a deeper

sense of the Torah than its surface construction. More than this, the Torah is said to be

pre-existent. Within the Jewish tradition, its narrative of creation and the development

of the People of Israel is not merely a record of events but the plan by means of which

God effects creation. Its first word, the Hebrew bereshit, is decoded by commentaries

as meaning, not ‘In the beginning’ – as translations would have it – but ‘by means of a

beginning’. And what is that beginning? The Torah. As the core rabbinic commentary,

the Midrash, puts it ‘God gazed into the Torah and created the world accordingly’.

The major work of Kabbalah, the Zohar, conveys further the ultimate notion of the

transcendent status of Torah when it states that ‘God and the Torah are one’.

Against this background, it is no surprise that the Torah is considered to comprise all

truth. If it is the plan of creation, if its words pulsate with the very being of God, then

necessarily all wisdom is to be found within it. ‘Turn it around, turn it around, for all

is within it’, as expressed in the authoritative Mishna, the Ethics of the Fathers. The

approach of ‘reading out’ becomes a natural consequence of the rabbinic worldview:

if all truth is to be found in Torah, then any insights conveyed by kabbalistic authors

who situate themselves within the line of tradition will inevitably be seen as deriving

from its concealed depths. The point is expressed by the following midrashic exegesis

on the biblical account of the revelation of Torah at Mount Sinai:

When God was about to give the Torah, he recited it to Moses in order:

Bible, Mishnah, Aggadah and Talmud, for it says, ‘And God spoke all these

words’ (Exodus 20:1), even the answers to questions that learned scholars are

destined to ask their teachers in the future did The Holy One, blessed be He

reveal to Moses at that time’. (Midrash Tanhuma, Ki Tisa)1

Mishnah, Aggadah and Talmud are the authoritative rabbinic works dating from the

early centuries of the Common Era, which established the mindset and ways of ritual

practice that define Judaism as it is known today. The above extract cements the core

1 This and other citations above may be found in Lancaster (1993).

3

principle of ‘reading out’, since it portrays the revelation as incorporating all ‘future’

exegesis.

The complex analyses of biblical texts found in the kabbalistic tradition appear to

strain this core principle. The ‘reading out’ principle is extended to include highly

convoluted elaborations, involving complex codified techniques of exegesis, which

are assumed to be embedded in the sacred text. One example – which is actually at the

less complicated end of the continuum of codified exegesis – will suffice to make the

point. The thirteenth-century kabbalist, Abulafia, writes:

Know that it is by means of the two Divine Names YHVH and ’LHYM

(Elohim) that the entire world was created … and both names taken together

have the numerical value of YVM YVM (yom yom = ‘day day’). Thereby

you will understand the verse (Proverbs 8:30), ‘Then I was by Him, as a

nursling, and I was His delight day by day (YVM YVM)’, which informs us

of the days of creation and of the two millennia indicated in the manner of

the hidden secret meaning. (Cited, Idel, 1989, p. 117.)

There are two biblical texts at the root of Abulafia’s statement, one explicit and the

other implicit. The explicit verse, from the biblical book of Proverbs, is a core text on

which the principle of the pre-existence of Torah is based. The subject of the verse

from Proverbs (‘I’) is interpreted to be the Torah, and the two days are the two

millennia during which God enjoyed an intimate relationship with the Torah prior to

the beginning of creation. These two millennia are clearly symbolic, intimating a

timeless primordial condition, a window into ‘eternity’. The implicit text in the above

quote is the opening of Genesis: ‘By means of a beginning, God created the heaven

and the earth.’ Immediately we are confronted with a conundrum: how can a period

before time existed (for time is understood to have come into being with the

beginning of creation) be measured in time? Indeed, how can there be a source before

there are any products of the source? A source can only be such if it is the source of

that which derives from it. This koan of creation is resolved by re-interpreting the two

millennia (‘two days’) as cryptically referring to two aspects of God’s potency (here

represented by the two divine Names). The primordial state that pre-exists manifest

creation is conceived as involving a triadic interplay between the two divine potencies

and the Torah. For our purposes the important point is that this teaching is conveyed

4

by a numerical code,2 which is ‘the hidden secret meaning’. Abulafia is not simply

finding a convenient hook which happens to work; his traditional perspective holds

that he is uncovering a meaning which is intrinsic to the text of the Torah. In the

words of the Midrash cited above, his teaching was revealed ‘to Moses at that time [of

the revelation on Mount Sinai]’. His complex exegetical gymnastics are ‘read out’ not

‘read in’.

The value of ‘reading out’

event 1 event 2time

Revelation of Torah

on Mt Sinai

13th-century

interpretation etc

‘In the beginning’

‘day day’ etc. etc.

Role of divine potencies;

mediaeval constructs –

memory / imagination etc.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of Abulafia’s analysis of Proverbs 8:30.

Figure 1 summarises the principle of ‘reading out’, using the above extract from

Abulafia as an example. The exegesis entails a backward projection, whereby the

categories that the exegete wishes to bring to bear on scripture are conceived as being

already present in the foundational text. Although not specifically evident in the

quoted example, Abulafia and others amongst his contemporary kabbalists bring a

range of mediaeval constructs into exegesis of the Torah, based in scholastic notions

of intellect and realms of being. Concepts such as the intelligible intellects and the

role of imagination in prophecy, whose development we can date to the mediaeval

2 In addition to their linguistic function, Hebrew letters also serve as numbers. Therefore all Hebrew

words carry numerical significance. Abulafia’s analysis is based on the numerical equivalence between

‘YVM YVM’ and the sum of ‘YHVH’ and ‘’LHYM’. The Hebrew, YVM = 56, therefore the repetition

of the word gives the value 112, which is the combined numerical value of the two divine names.

5

period, are routinely projected back into the Torah. In our day this trend continues,

with authors discerning, for example, principles of astrophysics and relativity in the

sacred text.

Whereas Derrida proclaimed the author ‘dead’, religious biblical exegetes to this day

are in the business of ascribing infinities of meaning to the Author of the sacred text.

As Idel (2002) puts it, ‘Kabbalists operated with a radical trust in the text, rather than

a basic mistrust in its author as the generator of the text, which characterizes modern

deconstructive approaches’ (p. 104). Is it possible to square this religious perspective

with that of postmodernism, which holds that the business of textual interpretation is

essentially down to the psyche of the exegete? For postmodernism, interpretations are

always grounded in projections of our personal and societal constructs. In a nutshell,

the postmodernist ‘reads in’ whilst the traditionalist ‘reads out’.

In opening my answer to this question let me first make a couple of relatively simple

observations. Firstly, the emphasis on backwards projection promotes humility. Any

insights exegetes may discern in the sacred text are not theirs. They may have the

happenstance to be the agent of revelation, but the wisdom was already given, simply

not yet uncovered. In this sense, the tradition provides a guard against ego-inflation.

(Of course, the prophet may still gain personally from his or her chosenness! The

biblical story of Jonah, who – on the contrary – sought to hide from God after being

‘chosen’ as a prophet, provides an interesting exploration of the psychology of

‘chosenness’. A cynic might cast their eyes askance at the ego-inflated channellers

who seem to populate the New Age….)

Secondly, backwards projection conveys a unified vision. The sacred text, which – as

we have seen – becomes identified kabbalistically with God, is the unitive root for all

authoritative insights. Indeed, as my first observation above emphasises, the authority

is not ultimately that of the exegete but that of the Author of the sacred text. I wish to

make a more psychological point here, however. The psyche is prone to dissociation.

Indeed, contemporary models of the mind tend to emphasise the modularity and lack

of integration within the brain/mind. The practice of backward projection provides an

antidote to this lack of integration, since all meanings are integrated as deriving from

a foundational Source, which is itself the kernel of unification. Indeed, all exegetical

6

insights are accompaniments to the central practices of unification that developed in

the Kabbalah. The traditional kabbalist seeks to annul their self in cleaving to God.

Kabbalistic techniques invariably involve meditations on the Name of God, which

may be construed as focusing the mind around a unified core. As I have expressed it

elsewhere, in relation to my proposal that memory comprises a self-tagging system:

We might formulate the intention [of kabbalistic practices of permuting the

divine Name] as that of substituting ‘I’-tags with linguistically-based ‘God-

tags’, as it were. On these lines, Abulafia’s system of language mysticism

may be viewed as re-formatting the memory system in relation to a higher-

order indexing system. Psychologically, the undifferentiated state [attained

through meditation] is merely a transition to a globally more integrated one.

(Lancaster, 2004, p. 258.)

These first two suggestions hold that there are worthy psychological consequences of

the traditional ‘reading out’ scenario. However, I wish to suggest further that the real

value of this scenario lies more in the intrinsic meaning of ‘reading out’: the backward

projection entails annulling our everyday construction of time. I shall argue that it is

via this disturbance of time that the mystic’s consciousness becomes fundamentally

aligned with a higher level of being.

A saucerful of backwards projection

A dream from many years back: I am at some kind of gathering … a party. The party

unfolds in detail – preliminary greetings, music, getting into conversations, snacking

… and then a meal and more complex intereactions …. It so happens that amongst the

guests are several doctors of my acquaintance. Suddenly, they are being bleeped …

some kind of emergency …. And I awake to hear my new-fangled alarm clock

beeping to tell me it’s time to go. (I said it was many years back ... when such beeping

alarm clocks were new!).

There are, of course, at least two ways to read the time element in this dreams (and I

am sure that we can all recall similar examples). One would hold that the entire dream

was constructed in the few moments that the alarm clock was sounding. It may have

seemed that the events leading up to the beeping unfolded over considerable time, but

such is a trick of the mind. My mind ‘heard’ the sound and immediately constructed a

scenario that would incorporate the sounds in relatively logical fashion. The second

interpretation is that the dream in some way anticipated the beeping; the sound was

7

backward projected such that the dream developed over time in such a way as to lead

into the noisy finale. (A third scenario would suggest that dreams of parties may not

be so infrequent and it just happened that I was dreaming of a party when the sound

was heard. The dreaming mind simply incorporated the sound as a distinctive end to

what would have been a fairly ordinary dream. Against this, I would note that the

doctors were an integral part of the storyline from an early phase of the dream. But I

recognise that various rational explanations are possible.)

The first kind of interpretation is given by Maury (1861) in relation to his ‘guillotine’

dream. The dream takes place in the French Revolution. Maury witnesses scenes of

massacre and is himself brought before a revolutionary tribunal. He is questioned by

Robespierre, Marat and other ‘villainous figures of this dreadful period’ and, after

other events, is condemned to death. Subsequently, his dream included details of his

journey to the place of execution, the executioner tying him in place and the final drop

of the guillotine blade. He felt his head separated from his body, then woke up … to

find that the top of his bed had fallen, striking him on the neck in the same place as

the blade of the guillotine in the dream. Maury informs us that his mother was in the

room and confirmed that he had woken the instant that the upper part of the bed had

collapsed. Maury’s explanation is that the impact had stirred up all his feelings about

the revolution and the dream narrative had been constructed in an instant.3

Unfortunately for this explanation, experimental evidence suggests that there is no

such mismatch between dream time and ‘real’ time. Events from the environment are

incorporated into dreams in a fashion that corresponds to the clock (Koulack, 1968).

We are left with the possibility of a precognitive interpretation: Maury dreamt of the

events surrounding the revolution because the forthcoming bed collapse would be

incorporated into that specific dream narrative; I dreamt of doctors at a party because

the bleeping would fit in.

In the parapsychological literature, Bem (2003) presents seemingly robust evidence

for precognitive habituation. This effect draws on the well-established mere exposure

effect (Zajonc, 1968), in which the mere repetition of a stimulus tends to increase its

3 I am grateful to Tony James for furnishing detail of this dream and of Maury’s thinking on this topic.

8

attractiveness (an effect central to the advertising industry). In Bem’s adaptation of

this effect, the situation is reversed in time. A participant expresses a preference for

one of two stimuli. One of the two stimuli is then chosen at random by a computer for

repetitive, subliminal exposure to that participant. Evidence of precognition is claimed

on account of the statistically-significant observation that the stimulus chosen for

repetitive presentation had been the one for which the participant had expressed

preference. In other words, the random choice of the target stimulus appeared to have

been determined retrospectively by the participant’s preference.

I would be disinclined to build an argument on such controversial areas of psychology

were it not for the fact that the pattern of backwards projection in time is suggested by

authors in disciplines including neuroscience, psychology, quantum mechanics and

astrophysics. The diversity of sources leading to this common pattern is suggestive, at

the least.

In a series of studies dating from the 1960s, Libet et al (1964) explored the timing of

conscious experience in the somatosensory modality (for more recent reflections on

the implications of his work, see, e.g., Libet, 1996; 2002). In brief, he observed that

internal stimulation of the sensory pathway via implanted electrodes resulted in

conscious experience only when it was sustained for a relatively long duration (in the

region of 500ms). External stimulation to the skin, by contrast, appeared to give rise

to a conscious sensation with a significantly shorter delay (approx. 200ms). Given that

the external stimulation must be mediated by the internal conduction of signals, there

appears to be a mismatch in these timings. Libet’s interpretation is that the 500ms is a

prerequisite for conscious experience (‘time on’ hypothesis) but that the experience is

back projected to the initial marker of the skin stimulation.

It should be noted that Libet is not implying any objective time distortion here. The

backward projection is a subjective phenomenon (akin to the first interpretation of my

alarm clock dream above). The distortion is one of memory, not time. Drawing on the

implications of quantum mechanics, Penrose (1989), by comparison, argues that

consciousness is literally projected backwards in time. The classical – but of course

controversial – position that integrates quantum phenomena, time and consciousness,

was articulated by Wheeler (1977): ‘The quantum principle shows that there is a sense

9

in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past –

even in a past so remote that life did not then exist’ (cited in Davies, 1984, p. 39).

I should add here that Wheeler’s position might seem to be diametrically opposed to

that implicit in the ‘reading out’ scenario discussed above. As we saw, the rabbinic

position is that there is a sense in which the past defines the future (as cited above:

‘…even the answers to questions that learned scholars are destined to ask their

teachers in the future did The Holy One, blessed be He reveal to Moses at that time’).

This difference is apparent only. The real point at issue concerns the conceptualisation

of time as a unidirectional arrow proceeding in linear fashion. It is this view that is

challenged in all the areas under discussion.

Wheeler’s stance is consonant with the strong version of the anthropic principle in

astrophysics (Barrow and Tipler 1986). The anthropic principle derives from analysis

of the parameters present at the inception of the universe. Had these parameters varied

by the slightest degree, a universe such as ours, which supports life as we know it,

could not have come into existence. In essence, the anthropic principle addresses the

question why these parameters should have been such as to enable our universe to

evolve. There are a variety of versions of this principle. The strong version holds that

the parameters were as they were in order that life – and, more specifically, the power

of observation – could evolve. It is a short step from here to assert that consciousness

is the determining factor. Again, in terms of my interest in time distortion, we might

say that the consciousness of creatures that evolved in the future determined the

properties in the first microseconds of the Big Bang.

From the macrocosm to the microcosm…. Recent years have witnessed significant

progress in our quest to understand the neural correlates of consciousness. Various

studies have demonstrated that the neural pathways that project backwards in the

brain are crucial for consciousness. Sensory and perceptual processing broadly entails

two classes of pathways: feedforward pathways that convey sensory signals through

ascending levels of hierarchical processing, and recurrent pathways that project from

higher centres back to interact with the feedforward system. Consciousness of sensory

input arises only with the activation of the recurrent pathway (Lamme, 2006; Sergent

10

et al, 2005). The system, and the way in which I postulate it as operating in relation to

perception, is diagrammatised in Figure 2.

sensory input

(e.g., slightly

obscured pen)

neuronal input

model

1. Analysis of input by

sensory analysers

(‘feature detection’)

2. Resonance activates

schemata sharing specific

features with input

MEMORY

schemata accessed

from memory (maybe

several alternatives)

e.g

.

‘pen’ ‘spoon’

3. Compare

schemata accessed

with input model

Does schema match input?yes

4a. Perceive input-

schema match

no

go to

1

4b. Mismatch from

phase 1 drives

modulation of sensory

analysers in attempt to

fit accessed schema

Rec

urr

en

t syste

m

fee

dfo

rward

sy

ste

m

Figure 2. A model of perception, illustrating the roles of feedforward and recurrent

pathways in the brain (see Lancaster, 2004 for full details).

It is evident that the pen I see (to follow the example given in Figure 2) is a product of

memory systems interacting with sensory processing. Inevitably, the past (memory)

imposes on the present (e.g., the event of my hand grasping the pen), and the agent of

this imposition (the recurrent pathway) is the correlate of consciousness.

I have argued (Lancaster, 2004) that this system whereby memory is brought to bear

on the present sensory input brings about the construction of ‘I’. In the basic everyday

sense, consciousness unfolds as an ‘I’-narrative, a self-centred commentary that we

mistakenly take to be reality. Just as the narrative is a construction, so is the ‘I’ that

lies at its focus. According to this analysis, the immediate sense of ‘I’ at any given

time is constructed in relation to the stored representations of ‘I’ (‘I’-tags) which had

become associated with those memory elements currently being activated by the

feedforward system.

11

According to this model, then, perceptual consciousness – including the sense of ‘I’ as

the putative receiver of impressions comes about through the backwards projection of

the recurrent neural system. Analogous arguments hold for volitional consciousness.

The sense of ‘I’ as instigator of action is a retrospective construction, giving the false

sense that actions are initiated consciously4 (Lancaster, 1991; Wegner, 2002).

Figure 3 summarises this section of my paper by collating the various perspectives I

have considered in relation to the basic backwards projection paradigm as illustrated

in Figure 1. As mentioned above, I regard the pattern that emerges from these diverse

areas of inquiry to be suggestive in relation to the central question I am addressing in

this paper. I leave it to the final section to draw the threads together, but at this stage

let us simply note that the mindset involved in ‘reading out’ from the sacred text is not

so removed as we may have initially thought from a range of phenomena in scientific

areas of investigation. Time distortion in some sense appears to be involved in all the

various phenomena discussed in this section.

4 In this formulation (as in my model of the perceptual aspect of the ‘I’-narrative), I am using the term

‘consciousness’ in its mundane sense. I think that a state in which the person is more detached from ‘I’

entails a greater degree of conscious control. Perhaps paradoxically (but these paradoxes are well

explored in the mystical traditions) our mundane sense of consciousness lacks the real dimension of

control that states cultivated through mystical practice can achieve.

12

event 1 event 2

Choice of 1 from a

pair of targets

Subliminal repetition

of 1 of the targets

Bem (2003)

Precognitive habituation

Primary evoked

potential

Generation of neural

adequacy

Libet et al. (1964)

Backwards referral

Behaviour of

subatomic particles

Act of observationWheeler (1977)

Quantum mechanics

Perception / initiation

of action

Generation of ‘I’Lancaster (2004)

Narrative consciousness

Feedforward

processing

Re-entrant processingSergent et al (2005)

Attentional blink

time

Figure 3. A saucerful of time reversals….

Time and consciousness in kabbalistic perspective

Ten sefirot of nothingness, their end is embedded in their beginning and their

beginning in their end, like a flame in a burning coal (Sefer Yetzirah, 1:7. See

Kaplan, 1990, pp. 57-64)

The sefirot constitute the primary symbol system of Kabbalah (Lancaster, 2005). They

depict both the emanations of God and the stages through which creation unfolds (and

kabbalistic teaching holds that any creative process follows the same pattern). Since

creation entails a temporal order (the archetypal seven ‘days’ of Genesis), the above

extract from the Sefer Yetzirah (a foundational text of Jewish mysticism) is consistent

with the pattern we have been examining. The ‘end’ of the creative process is linked

with the ‘beginning’. Whilst the source of creation is beyond time, the will to create

necessitates its entering into the sequential form of time. Nevertheless, the presence of

the source in all elements of creation determines that transcendence of time is inherent

within the temporal form of creation.

In the context of a thorough survey of the implications of kabbalistic conceptions of

time, Wolfson (2006) suggests that, ‘A proper understanding of the structure of

13

temporal intentionality yields the insight that retentions of the past, impressions of the

present, and expectations of the future are interwoven in the garment of time’ (p. 167).

He goes on, quoting Heidegger, to assert that, ‘From this perspective we can invert the

commonsense understanding of time and speak meaningfully of expecting the past by

remembering the future…. In this state, the “future is not later than the having-been,

and the having-been is not earlier than the present. Temporality temporalizes itself as

a future that makes present, in the process of having-been” (Heidegger, 1996, p. 321).

And so we return to the Torah, for, as we saw earlier, the Torah is identified with the

Source and therefore ‘does not fall under time’ (Maharal of Prague, cited in Wolfson,

op cit, p. 68). In Jewish thought, the Torah is not only infinite and transcendent of

time, but its revelation is an eternally recurring phenomenon – it unceasingly re-enters

the time-bound world of hermeneutics. The exegete who discerns new features in its

words is effectively viewed as being present at its inception – the revelation on Mount

Sinai.

These mystical excursions may be conceived as grounded in a grammatical feature of

the text, which will appear bizarre from our consensual view of time’s arrow. As even

a cursory inspection of the translated text of the Torah will demonstrate, its narrative

is cemented by the word ‘and’. It is, of course, obvious that the conjunction is needed

to bring entities together (e.g., ‘In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the

earth’, Genesis 1:1). The more distinctive use I wish to elaborate upon comes with

verbal forms, where, in normal English usage, for example, a conjunction would not

be required. Thus, where a new idea would normally be conveyed by a paragraph

break in English, the equivalent in the Hebrew of the Bible uses ‘And’. To continue

with the example of Genesis Chapter 1, new ideas include the creation of light (‘And

God said, ‘Let there be light’) and all the other items depicted through the archetypal

seven days. Should the reader require further evidence of this device, I provide the

text of Genesis Chapter 1 as an appendix. All 30 verses following the opening verse

begin with ‘And’. (In the King James’ translation given here one verse begins with

‘So’. In fact, the Hebrew original uses ‘and’; no doubt the translators wished to inject

a note of variation!)

14

The grammatical point of interest is that when the conjunction is attached to a verb, it

has the effect of converting the tense from past to future and vice versa. In Hebrew,

‘and’ is conveyed by a single letter – the letter vav – attached at the beginning of the

word. This grammatical point is often referred to, therefore, as the vav conversive.

Given the centrality of this device in the biblical text, it would be no exaggeration to

state that time distortion runs through the very fabric of the Torah. In the vast majority

of cases it is an event in the ‘past’ that is being conveyed, with the effect that a future

verbal tense is employed.5 To make the point clearer, let me give a ‘literal’ English

translation of the biblical section on the creation of light:

And God will say, Let there be light; and there will be light.

And God will see the light, that [it is]6 good; and God will divide the light

from the darkness.

And God will call the light day, and the darkness he called7 Night. And there

will be evening and there will be morning, one day.

Considerable symbolism attaches to the Hebrew letters, in terms of their shapes, the

meanings of the words giving their names, and their numerical values (Ginsburgh,

1990). The letter vav is shaped like a hook, and the word associated with its name,

vav, literally means a hook.8 The symbolism here is quite transparent: the grammatical

conjunction is simply a hook, connecting things together. The broader meaning of this

construction is that the sacred text is an interconnected, unitary extension of the ‘In

the beginning / by means of a beginning’ of its opening word. Bearing in mind the

verbal tense changes associated with vav conversive, the text in its entirety is, as it

were, hooked onto the beginning through an inversion of time.

Authentic exegesis9 is the act of adding to the interwoven whole, an act depicted most

concretely in language by the simple conjunction. When the exegete hermeneutically

5 Technically, the verbal form is imperfect not future. Strictly, therefore the implication of the verbal

tense is that the events described could be considered as ongoing rather than having been completed

(not ‘perfect’, which in this grammatical sense means ‘completed’. Thus, for example, God, in this

sense, continually creates light and all the other works of creation. The reader should bear this in mind

when reading my ‘literal’ translation of the creation of light, below. 6 There is no verb here in the original – I have simply inserted ‘it is’ to give some flow to the English.

But the tense is irrelevant. 7 Since the conjunction is attached to the Hebrew word for darkness the verb has no vav conversive and

therefore is in the perfect tnse. 8 The numerical value of vav is six, which is interpreted as referring to the six directions of space. The

symbolism here concerns the view of space as conjoining the macrocosm to the microcosm. 9 What qualifies as ‘authentic’ is too large a subject to enter into here. Suffice it to say that the key

criterion is that the exegesis does not annul what has gone before it. Extending the ‘hooking’ paradigm,

15

adds to the body of the written text, time is transposed, as we have seen. What appears

to be new becomes in the category of already there. The insight has been ‘read out’

and not ‘read in’. In other words, we might elaborate on this distinctive grammatical

device of the vav conversive by suggesting that it touches the deeper meaning of the

tradition of ‘reading out’: the ‘and’ which embeds commentary into the sacredness of

the text effectively renders the commentary itself sacred by placing it above the

normal category of time.

Putting Humpty together again

Well … they couldn’t, could they:

All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again.

................................................

What makes a text sacred? In the first place, it is perhaps only sacred in the eye of the

beholder, the ‘believer’. My interest lies in understanding the answer as it relates to

transpersonal psychology, and, in this sense, it is the transformative potency of the

text that concerns me. No amount of discussion will convince the sceptic, for whom

all writings are equivalent; some may be more subtle or more effective than others in

their ability to involve the reader in complex worlds of meaning. But there is nothing

intrinsically sacred in their words. For myself, more than three decades of exploring

the extraordinary world of the Kabbalah have kindled a deep empathy with the awe

which these writers bring to their view of the Torah. More than this, a state of mind –

‘neither belief nor disbelief’ is maybe a way of phrasing it – which acknowledges the

potentially infinite ‘more’ in scripture seems to be the key that turns the lock, making

the kabbalistic system change from an interesting set of complex ideas into a path of

transformative growth.

There are two sets of characteristics that I would use in defining the sacred. The first

set revolves around setting apart that which becomes sacred from the mundane, with

the intention of bringing about transformation. Thus, for example, the paradigm of the

sacred in spatial terms, a Temple, is bounded to demarcate it from the mundane, and

authentic exegesis adds onto the totality of all that which has been classed as authentic in the history of

a given tradition. For Judaism, this corresponds to the notion of the Oral Torah (see Lancaster, 1993).

16

is built, or approached, with the conscious desire to engage in transformative ritual (be

it sacrifice, prayer, meditation, dance etc.). The second set of characteristics which I

consider central in defining the sacred concerns establishing some inner resonance

with a greater whole. Classically, it is the resonance with the macrocosm that renders

the microcosm sacred. Thus, again in the spatial domain, Temples the world over

have been built using principles of correspondence to the macrocosm (Eliade, 1957;

Lancaster, 1993; Patai, 1947).

There are a whole host of rituals that set the Torah apart from the mundane. Thus, for

example, the scribes who write the scroll must observe intricate details in preparing

themselves, using special implements, and holding the proper intention in mind:

[It is said in the name of R. Meir]: When I was studying with R. Akiba I used

to put vitriol into the ink and he said nothing, but when I subsequently came

to R. Ishmael he asked me, ‘My son, what is your occupation?’ I told him, ‘I

am a scribe’, and he said to me, ‘My son, be meticulous in your work, for it

is the work of heaven; should you omit one single letter, or add one too

many, you would thereby destroy the whole world’. (Talmud, Eruvin 13a)

The scroll has its own separate niche in the synagogue, the Holy Ark, and rituals that

emphasise the Torah’s status accompany all stages of opening the Ark, taking out the

scroll, returning it, and closing the Ark.

I suggest that the principle of ‘reading out’ relates to the second set of characteristics

defining the sacred, those whereby the sacred item resonates with a greater whole. For

the kabbalist, the Torah’s connection with a greater whole is promulgated through the

teaching that it comprises an ‘infinity of worlds and infinity of meanings’ (Idel, 2002,

p. 94; see also Idel, 1986). ‘Reading out’ is, of course, predicated on this belief – if all

truth is in the text, then what may be new in some exegetical insight is simply a new

uncovering. But it is the distortion of time entailed in ‘reading out’ which I wish to

emphasise. As we have seen, such ‘backwards projection’ seems to relate to processes

operating in cosmological, physical and psychological domains. It is not simply that

the exegete acknowledges tradition by asserting that their individual insights were

‘already there’. More subtly, by embracing this device, the exegete aligns their being

with these other domains. ‘Reading out’ is the device which crystallises the exegete’s

own resonance with the macrocosm.

17

For transpersonal psychology, the point really concerns the link between time and

consciousness. As insights from modern physics demonstrate, time as we generally

construe it – mundane time – is a construct of the conscious mind. The extent to

which the ‘unconscious’ embraces an ‘illogical’ time basis is a continuing subject of

speculation. As I have argued elsewhere (Lancaster, 2004), the term unconscious may

carry unfortunate implications of being somehow outside of consciousness (see also

Whyte, 1962). My own view is that the ‘I’ constellates a subset of consciousness in

time, and that beyond this constellation is a boundless realm of consciousness which

is not ruled by the construct of time. Putting this another way, ‘I’ construes causality

as being determined by time, whereas the boundless realm operates with meaning as

the causal determinant of events.10

Transpersonal development entails a shift in order

that we operate more consciously in relation to the boundless realm. Detachment from

‘I’ (which does not mean denying its importance in the general economy of the mind)

and embracing a non-linear view of time are both means towards effecting this shift.

The ‘reading out’ exegetical phenomenon that I have been examining may be viewed

as a factor in promoting such transpersonal development. This is not to say that in and

of itself ‘reading out’ can bring genuine transformation of being. Psychological

change demands more than merely adopting a specific mindset. Rather, I would argue

that transformation of consciousness potentially comes about through an individual

working with a range of practices, such as those promulgated within the kabbalistic

tradition, together with a state of mind that embraces the meaning of eternity,11

such

as may be inculcated by the tradition of ‘reading out’.

References

Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford

University Press.

10

The reader will appreciate that in this formulation I am embracing the notion of synchronicity. It is

worth noting in relation to my earlier discussion that the recognition by ‘I’ that events have occurred

through the synchronistic principle entails a ‘backwards projection’. In general, ‘I’ recognise that two

or more events appear to be related and proceed to construct an interpretation which assumes that some

meaning had already underpinned their occurrence. 11

‘Eternity’ should be understood not as an endless prolongation of time, but as a transcendence of the

time that ‘I’ inhabits (see Lancaster, 1993).

18

Bem, D. J. (2003). Precognitive habituation: Replicable evidence for a process of

anomalous cognition. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The

Parapsychological Association 46th Annual Convention. 6-20.

Davies, P. (1984). God and the New Physics. Pelican Books.

Eliade, M. (1957). The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, translated by

W. R. Trask. Harvest/HBJ Publishers.

Ginsburgh, Y. (1990). The Hebrew Letters: Channels of creative Consciousness.

Jerusalem: Gal Einai Publications.

Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh, State

University of New York Press.

Idel, M. (1989). Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia.

Translated by M. Kallus. State University of New York Press.

Idel, M. (1986). Infinities of Torah in Kabbalah. In G. H. Harman and S. Budick

(eds.), Midrash and Literature. Yale University Press.

Idel, M. (2002). Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Kaplan, A. (1990). Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation. Samuel Weiser.

Koulack, D. (1968). Dream time and real time. Psychonomic Science, 11(6), 202

Lancaster, B. L. (1991). Mind, Brain and Human Potential: The Quest for an

Understanding of Self. Element Books.

Lancaster, B. L. (1993). The Elements of Judaism. Element Books.

Lancaster, B. L. (2004). Approaches to Consciousness: The Marriage of Science and

Mysticism. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lancaster, B. L. (2005). The Essence of Kabbalah. Arcturus (UK) & Chartwell (US).

Libet, B. (1996). Neural processes in the production of conscious experience. In M.

Velmans (ed.). The Science of Consciousness: Psychological,

Neuropsychological and Clinical Reviews. Routledge.

Libet, B. (2002). The timing of mental events: Libet’s experimental findings and their

implications. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 291–299.

Libet, B., Alberts, W. W., Wright, E. W., Delattre, L. D., Levin, G., & Feinstein, B.

(1964). Production of threshold levels of conscious sensation by electrical

stimulation of human somatosensory cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 27,

546–578.

Maury, A. (1861). Le Sommeil et les Rêves (Sleep and Dreaming). Didier.

Patai, R. (1947). Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual. Nelson.

Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and

the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.

Wegner, D. M. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Bradford Books/MIT Press.

19

Wheeler, J. A. (1977). Genesis and observership. In R. E. Butts and K. J. Hintikka

(eds.). Foundational problems in the Special Sciences. Reidel.

Whyte, L. L. (1962). The Unconscious before Freud. London: Tavistock Publications.

Wolfson, E. R. (2005). Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic

Imagination. Fordham University Press.

Wolfson, E. R. (2006). Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and

Death. University of California Press.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement 9 (No. 2), 1–29.

Appendix: Torah - Genesis Chapter 1

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the

deep. And a wind from God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

4. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the

darkness.

5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was

evening and there was morning, one day.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide

the waters from the waters.

7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the

firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was

morning, the second day.

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together to one place,

and let the dry land appear; and it was so.

10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters He

called Seas; and God saw that it was good.

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree

yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so.

12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree

yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

13. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day

from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years;

15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the

earth; and it was so.

16. And God made two great lights; the large light to rule the day, and the small light

to rule the night; and he made the stars.

17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the

darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20

20. And God said, Let the waters be filled with many kinds of living creatures, and

birds that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21. And God created the great crocodiles, and every kind of creature that live in the

waters, and every kind of winged birds, and God saw that it was good.

22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the

seas, and let the birds multiply in the earth.

23. And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures, cattle, and

creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind,

and every thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind; and God saw that it was

good.

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them

have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the

cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

27. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male

and female He created them.

28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and

replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and

over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon

the face of all the earth, and every tree, on which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to

you it shall be for food.

30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that

creeps upon the earth, where there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and

it was so.

31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And

there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day