There is only one pi. It is the same pi throughout the universe. It is
eternal, and it is timeless. (It's also a subset of Torah.)
If we merely give lip service to the idea that the sequence of letters in
Torah represents a template of creation, then we are not obliged to take
this idea seriously. If we take it seriously, then surely it must mean that
Torah is even more universal than pi.
Sentient creatures, on Earth, or in space, all live by the same laws of
science and nature, as given by Hashem. _ALL_ conscious will is derived
from the one and only singular Source of Will -- the Will of Hashem,
exploding into reality upon contact with tzimtzum. Because all
self-awareness (as measured by the presence of conscious will) must come
from Hashem, and since it all reaches the physical level, whether on earth
or in space, there need be (and in fact is) only one path, and it is
specified by the sequence of letters in Torah, just as surely as the one and
only transcendental relationship between radius and circumference is
expressed universally by the same transcendental number, pi.
Torah does not specify a universal story. The pshat will differ for
porpoises, gorillas, elephants, and extraterrestrials. Their cultural
history is different; their context and experience is different. But at the
"tachlis," bottom-line level, the process of birth, life, and death is always
_topologically_ identical. It is this universal, singular, and unique
topology, based on the dispensation of the Will of Hashem into our
consciousness and into our world, that is specified by the sequence of
letters in Torah.
The letter-skip patterns are a symptom that there is deeper structure and
meaning in Torah. They admonish us to get on with the job of understanding
the message they carry.
If we wish to avoid the massive confusion that is now beginning to result
from free-lance Christian, Moslem, and occult interpretations of statistical
patterns in Torah, we must stop selling Torah based on the presence of these
patterns. When we understand the meaning of these patterns, we will be able
to sort those that are real and valid from those which are spurious and
misleading. We cannot tell others that their patterns are wrong, and ours
are right, unless we can also explain what our standards are, and how and
why this must be so.
Comments and questions, please.
Director of Research,