005* Spearhead of: Creation Story – PaRDeS – Bere’shith Genesis 1:1

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

005* Spearhead of: Creation Story – PaRDeSBere’shith Genesis 1:1

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

Herein we will give you a taster, to whet your appetite, as to what is PaRDeS, where it actually comes from in the Bible Creation Story 1:1-2:3. However, in spite of this brief being introductory, we will not leave out the Hebrew, including the Hebrew transliteration into the Latin alphabet, besides the usual English translation, obviously, though with changes that I deemed personally necessary.

I consider that getting used to seeing the original Hebrew, harnessed user-friendly by transliteration, alongside the English, will, on the long run, go a long way to making the kind and diligent listener and reader, more proficient on the Bible at hand.

Overall, my recommendation is to go back and forth between both websites, below mentioned. Also, once feeling comfortable, by all means, delay no more and delve deeply in my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”. It has a rather lengthy subtitle that professes to tell the whole narrative, namely, “(PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)”.

Is my book well written? Well, if you ask me, no, definitely not. Any inquiry, original, trailblazing, is initially far from easy reading. It wasn’t because I didn’t try, or care. I had my hands full, trying to make sense of my feelings, and interpreting my thoughts into legible language, trying to birth it, in the first place.

Somehow, by way of both these websites, www.Ric4USH21.com and www.PaRDeSism.com,  that I am now trying to make up for it. Taking it from hostile, enclaved, to amiable. Of course, the proof is in the practice; meaning: to the degree that my constituency embraces my supposed contribution to solving the crisis that has civilization in shackles.

Let me give examples to illustrate specifically what I mean. Commencing with including Hebrew all across the board. By way of contrast, even Jewish authors, addressing a captive audience by birth, wishing not to dissuade, avoid using Hebrew outright, preferring plain transliteration. I’m talking about an audience of born Jews, where most likely, some are fluent. I, on the other hand, use it right, front, and center, never missing an opportunity to display it.

Some close friends of mine, out of sincerity, though perhaps not, have advised me to leave out the original Hebrew entirely. That it may alienate potential readers; that it’s bad for business.

But, how can I omit it? How can you avoid the medium and still deliver the message? They are inseparable, the Holy Book HaSefer HaKodesh (הספר הקודש) and the Sacred Language Lashon HaKodesh (לשון הקדש), as I learned the hard way, not to mention the ’Éretz HaKodesh the Holy Land (ארץ הקודש). So much is lost in translation, and the further back you go, the more this maxim is accentuated.

Additionally, it is hard writing something down, when, I myself, am having difficulty understanding it. It is not something I already knew, and am striving for a more pedagogical manner of conveyance. It’s early work, imperfect by nature, brute, still with the wild call in it, like an uncut gem.

As for the delivery of instruction, I am trying my hardest to make the recording briefs as sequential as prudence would seem to have it. However, if you find the ride a bit bumpy, and jumpy, at times, it’s not for lack of exertion on my part. I must confess, that going from wearing a writer’s cap to a campaign helmet is not as easy as it sounds. I am still climbing, tooth and nail, up the learning curve to earn your vote and support, and, hopefully, eventually convince you to accompany me beyond the scope of the election, to the greater world arena.


A point to please bear in mind, is that the spoken word is an aid to the written word. The podcast is the popularization of the book. PaRDeS Universal Reconstitution for Washington and World Repair, the podcast, is the practice, of which PaRDeSism, the book, is the theory. The written word is more thematic, the spoken, is more topical. Actually, both website pages may serve the purpose of introduction to my book.

The two websites are, firstly the campaign page mentioned above, www.Ric4USH21.com, short for Ricardo for United States House of Representatives District 21. The second one, though first in time, is the global page that I use to promote the bigger picture view of things. It is simply named www.PaRDeSism.com, same as the first part of the book’s title. Of course, not case sensitive, just capitalizing parts of it here in order to facilitate its reading.

So, then, moving on. PaRDeSism is Israeli, and, is not Israeli. It is, in the sense that it is the contribution of Moses to humanity, as laid out during Revelation at Mount Sinai to the Beney Yisrael Children of Israel. It is not, in the sense that nobody owns it. It was given to humanity, entrusted to the Beney Yisrael Children of Israel, and charged with making it intelligible. PaRDeS is the entry 101 level to the Torah Teaching (תורה). At least that is the finding in my work “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”.


As regarding my approach, I would mention that it is that of a scientist, a philosopher, a humanist, a seeker of primeval common-sense, and not least, as an educator. I take from what, and where, I see, serves the purpose of fulfilling my calling.

I am a physicist by training, understood antiquity old-school to mean natural philosophy, and, I would take it a step further, archaically taken as human science. Moreover, take it to the very limit, that is, primevally as Kabbalah Reception (קבלה), reception of the original tradition since Revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai.

While I may have forgotten many of my research-level math and physics knowledge, the equations and the laws and the algorithms, and what not, proper to the profession, nevertheless, what still accompanies me is the problem-solving skills spirit. By this I’m referring to such things as modeling, so prevalent in my work, as is the case with the ellipse and the right-triangle, or bubble and triad, respectively.


At times, it is true that one can convey better by way of a story. With the kind permission of the listener, allow me to start my narrative by way of comparing it to polar bear living on a floating ice sheet, on an iceberg. As far as the white bear is concerned, he is living on ice. And all that he cares about is that it is a good vantage place to hunt seals.

But we know better, that the floating ice sheet that houses the polar bear, is actually just the part of a chunk of surfacing ice. Lucky for our buddy, its house is going to be around for quite a while, for as the top melts, it would be replaced by the next layer down, and so forth, to the very bottom of the heap of ice.

Same here, the iceberg below sight is the book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”, the sheet of ice is the podcast “PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair”. We get to play the part of the polar bear, and, the seal, gets to play the part of our sustenance.

The citizen of a polar bear lives off topical events, which cannot be understood in isolation, but by the light of the theme of our time of primeval common-sense, that keeps it all afloat.


We use language on a daily basis, not knowing how come. We learn it, by being part of a community of dialogue, however much, on the passive end of the conversation. Just because we use it, doesn’t mean we understand it; any more than just because we can drive a car, doesn’t mean we know what’s going on under the hood, or, behind the dashboard.

There is the composite part, the triad, that we understand, thanks to language, and, there’s the whole, the bubble, that we don’t, because it’s Sod Secret/Silent (סוד).


So much for the introduction, and I apologize for the delay. In a way, I feel bad doing it injustice. But, I promised to deliver what is PaRDeS, as found in the Creation Story Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3. Now I proceed to do just that. A caveat, it is not easy reading, mostly on account that it goes against the grain of what we’ve been taught since grade school.

In order to be able to identify what is it that we’re looking for, we had to make a great excursion. As if approaching by walking backward towards it, we have had to rely on Pythagoras as stepping stone between our dual culture, the West, heir of the School of Athens, on the one hand, be it via Newton, and, on the other hand, the Near East, Jerusalem Israel. This we have already covered in a previous brief.

Additionally, we are all embedded in our environment, for education is the baton of culture in the race of civilization. We all went through English Language Arts, and other core subjects as well, including Science, Math, and Social Studies. We know grammar, the rules of sentence construction.

As an aside, perhaps some of us have, on occasion, found useful a cheat-sheet. That piece of paper that we fold ever many times with key information to the probable questions to be assessed in some time or other. Well, this accordion insight is all we need to have with us to embark on the adventure of a lifetime.

In what follows we’ll be providing a brief, a skeleton if you will, of the ultimate origin of PaRDeS. For a more robust account, I recommend the diligent reader to consult directly the source of my book. That said, let’s preface by adding that of the seven days of Creation, there is one day (1:1-5), second day (1:6-8), third day (1:9-13), and so on, but, there’s no first day! We will mention certain nuances in passing, but not park explaining them, for reasons of economy of time.

All and everything is important, but certain things are more so than others. Everything builds on what came previously, down to the cornerstone, the bottom-line, PaRDeS, the four-tiered notion. One day is one, because all happened on it, the remaining days are its fleshing out. Of one day (1:1-5), regarding the object of this brief, the relevant verses are 1:1-3. Of this set, beyond a doubt, the prime verse is 1:1. And, of this one, by far, it is the very first word, namely, 1:1a.

This is verily, the one word, more so, than, a first word. This one word is made up of three parts, like a triad, with the bottom part of its first letter pointing backwards to a virtual fourth part. This latter one is the first (or one?) letter of the Hebrew alefbeth, álef a (א). This one letter happens to be silent, when appearing in a word, and for a reason. This one letter, in turn, is composed out of three parts, a diagonal, and an upper and a lower vertical. The whole narrative of the Creation Story actually has its start right here, behind the curtain, as it were.

The second letter of the Hebrew alefbeth is beth b (ב), with its lower part pointing backwards, as mentioned above, and its upper part pointing up, with its mouth open towards the front. This, coupled with the third letter gímel g (ג), our letter c, suggestive of a person walking, can be interpreted as symbolically stating: don’t look, down-&-back, rather, move, up-&-forward.

Not surprisingly, the first letter of the first (one) word, Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית), starts with the aforementioned second letter beth b (ב). The reason this is so should be clear in light of the previous explanation.

Now to translation. In order to make any progress, making sense of the spirit, one has to start by taking the Greek influence out of the original Hebrew text. Bere’shith (בראשית) translates as InHeadOf (ב-ראש-ית), not as Genesis, Greek for beginning. This, as we saw way above, is problematic leading into painting ourselves into a corner with all that about the Eternal Universe of the infinite regression, and so on. Quite contrary to the very message of Revelation, beginning with the Creation Story of Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית) 1:1-2:3.

The Hebrew Bible scroll is written with consonants only. However, later on the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribe-scholars, devised a way of putting vowels and pauses to facilitate its usage, without altering the original text. The vowel signs are called Nikkud Point/Dot (נקוד), and the cantillation Ta‘amey Hammikra’ Symbols of accents (טעמי המקרא), or simply Te‘amim Tropes (טעמים).

Regarding interpretation, again the issue of translation in the grammar, there’s this word known as direct object marker ’eth (את). It happens to be the case that it starts with the first letter of the alefbeth, álef a (א), and ends with the last one, tav t (ת). This I interpret as language, that is, as ’eth language (את), rather than as ’eth direct object marker (את).

In the text, it will be put as dialogue-with-you, or simply, as language-with or dialogue-with, since it means the same thing. This on account that ’eth (את) is equally translated as “language”, as previously mentioned, as well as “with”, and “you”, masculine singular personal pronoun.

I don’t want to bore you with more subtleties. Let’s, instead, take the plunge. In what follows I will write the Hebrew without vowels and tropes; instead, include these in the transliteration and translation, by way of accents and usual punctuation signs, begging the reader to fly to the Internet to an appropriate Hebrew Bible website for the full version.

Here, we are not going to sweat the small stuff, focusing instead on the big picture view of things. However, I will write Bere’shíth, instead of Bre’shíth, and ve’éth instead of v’eth, for ease of pronunciation. The álef a (א), a silent letter, is transliterated as (’), end of single quotation mark, as is clearly visible in the text below. This shouldn’t be confused with the other silent letter, with no equivalent in English, áyin (ע), that we transliterate as (‘), beginning of single quotation mark.

The Hebrew transliteration is in italics, the English in regular font. When citing, I will first place the Hebrew transliteration, the English translation in-between, and then the Hebrew, in parenthesis, in that order, to save on quotation marks. Lastly, recall that Hebrew is written right-to-left, English, left-to-right.

We will pack light to travel fast. After all, this is a political campaign site, but still, we have to first dig the foundations before we get to the slab, and later, elevation of the legislative proposal of PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair. No one starts building a house by the roof, but from the foundations, exception noted, perhaps, of the usual campaign parties, Republican and Democrat, that start the day by putting on their hats first. Pun not to be taken seriously, of course.

Back on focus, in the title, for facility of identification, I will continue using Genesis, though will employ InHeadOf in the actual text.

Also, I will not translate the Hebrew ’Elohim, leaving it simply in English as Elohim. I will leave it to the listener any changes in the actual reading. The reason is that literally it is plural, the -im s (-ים) ending, though takes a masculine singular verb bara’ created (ברא). The philosophy is built-in the grammar, from get-go.

Recall that there’s no capitalization in Hebrew, all is lower case, adding to the difficulty of translation. Exception noted is the very first letter, our tour-guide, the beth b (ב) 1:1a. I will write the first (one) word Bere’shith (בראשית), as is constructed, (ב-ראש-ית), that is, as InHeadOf, instead of Inheadof, so as to highlight its composition.

Normally all verses are split into two parts, below we’ll use the semi-colon (;) for that purpose, and all end with a colon (:). The commas (,), we will use in place of the cantillation tropes. Of course, actual tropes are musical strings of notes, which we will cautiously omit. All translation is already interpretation. Hopefully all these caveats should suffice, moving forward with our task at hand. I will place accent marks for the time being.

Now we quote our verse in question:

Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית) 1:1

(בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:)

Bere’shíth, bará’ ’Elohím; ’eth hashshamáyim, ve’éth ha’áretz:

InHeadOf, created Elohim; dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

Now, comes the fun part.

Off the bat, the very first problem is with the very first word. It ends with –ith of (-ית). But, how can that be, if immediately following is bará’ created (ברא)? It simply doesn’t make sense. Literally it reads as follows: InHeadOf, created, or In-Head of, created. It would seem that there’s something missing, to couple with the “of”.

Grammatically, this would be translated as “In the beginning of, created…” But, in the beginning of what? Well it doesn’t say, nor could it say. That’s the whole point of the Creation Story, the Big Bang, that clocks time at number zero.

Instead, there’s where the beth b (ב) mentioned above of pointing down-back, to the álef a (א), a silent letter, and signaling to walk instead up-forward, in consonance with the third letter gímel g (ג), our c. This thus avoids the stumbling block that Athens Greece faced of the celebrated Eternal Universe of the infinite regression of sorts.

That is, were it not for that, we would then have to effectively make an equivalent infinite regression ourselves. Say we said, “In the beginning of X”, we would then inquire, and, what came before “X”, Say, “Y” came before “X”, but then, what came before “Y”. You get the idea.

It leads nowhere, as proven in a previous podcast. This is telling us that there’s a divine, no-man’s land, symbolized by the álef a (א), the silent letter of secrecy. That it is simply beyond language, the medium of thought, to begin with. You may know it in your heart, but you cannot speak about it. The stuff of meditation, if you prefer.

Historically, within the tradition, the accepted interpretation is due to Rashi, a Middle Ages Torah Teaching (תורה) foremost Ashkenazi commentator from France. He is the standard in literal interpretations, being right 99.99% of the time. Fortunately, there’s a 0.01% chance for posterity.

IMHO, he gave a convoluted argument, reasoning that the first three verses actually comprise a complete thought, 1:1-3. Within his logic, the first word of 1:1 is parenthetical, a suspense, followed by verse 1:2, about the state of things, until the thought is completed in verse 1:3, with the creation of light.

What he did was interchange the genitive “of” with the conjunction “when”. Totally uncalled for, and unsupported by the text. Within Judaism there is another version, what this one does is change the verb instead, from “created”, perfect, to “creating”, participle, as well as switch the order of verb subject to subject verb. Not supported by the text either.

There are currently three accepted interpretations of verse 1:1. They are the following, I will only cite the English, since it is a question of translation, not appearing whatsoever in the actual Biblical text, obviously. The third interpretation simply ignores the genitive “of”, possessive.

These are as follows, starting with Rashi, followed by the alternative Jewish one, and finishing with the King James, mostly found in Christian Bibles. Additionally, at the bottom of the heap I will place our literal translation as well, the one previously quoted above. However, for purposes of comparison, I will translate “InHeadOf”, as is more customary, “In the beginning of”. I will include solely in the case of Rashi up to 1:3, but place in italics, since that is the complete-thought justification for his translation. I will continue using “Elohim” instead of “G’d”.

These are as follows:

1:1 When Elohim began to create the heavens and the earth: 1:2 the earth was unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from Elohim sweeping over the water: 1:3 Elohim said, “Let there be light”, and there was light:

1:1 In the beginning of Elohim’s creating the heavens and the earth:

1:1 In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth:

1:1 In the beginning of, created Elohim; dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

I harbor the opinion, that one shouldn’t, under any circumstance, add, or detract, from the Biblical text. Under this criterion, the first three interpretations are disqualified. The question now, is, how to interpret the fourth one above such that it makes actual sense.

As science teacher, not enjoying overabundance of knowledge on the subject, I would instead look for something that is ordinarily observed in the classroom, namely, the cheat-sheet. That piece of paper folded with answers and occupying little space, easy to hide, very useful when testing the memory. Now that we know where the accents go, I will dispense from their further use, except where customary.

My claim is that the text is to be read literally, but, requiring ironing it out first. Or, using modern IT parlance, previous to reading, decompressing it. After all, it is a source code. Like when you buy a new electronic device, you have to start by flipping the pages of the instruction manual, before watching your new TV set. Let’s follow the insight of the IT accordion.


The first fold is Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית). It is a stand-alone word, as signaled by the comma cantillation. This is amply justified bearing in mind the beth b (ב) argument above of its lower part pointing down-backwards, towards the silent letter alef a (א), with its upper part pointing up-forward, with its mouth opening forward in the direction of gimel g (ג), and so on.

The first fold would read:

Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית).

The second fold, with the first one already open, with the crease as covering the comma, would then read as follows:

Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InHeadOf created Elohim (בראשית ברא אלהים).

The third fold, bending back out of view the first fold, with the crease covering the semi-colon, and now exposing the next word, would read:

bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language-with (ברא אלהים את).

The fourth fold, bending the first and second folds out of view, and now exposing the last set of words, with the crease covering the comma, would now read: (note: dialogue-with = d-w)

’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is d-w the heavens and d-w the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:).

In case it is not transparent, allow me to place the four texts, undisturbed by the explanations.

Zero-fold: alef a (א)

First fold: Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית).

Second fold: Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InHeadOf created Elohim (בראשית ברא אלהים).

Third fold: bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language (ברא אלהים את).

Fourth fold: ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:).

The above is making four separate statements, plus, the behind the curtains alef a (א), same that we’ve crossed out. These four statements are: InHeadOf; InHeadOf created Elohim; created Elohim language; Elohim is d-w the heavens and d-w the earth.

Now let’s proceed to put the translation together as verse 1:1, using the forward slash in instead of the previous punctuation marks, leaving the Hebrew unchanged, of course, but modifying the transliteration to adjust to the translation.

Verse 1:1 would now read:


(בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:)

Bere’shith / Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim / bara’ ’Elohim ’eth / ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim, ve’eth ha’áretz:

InHeadOf / InHeadOf created Elohim / created Elohim language / Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth:


In a nutshell, that’s all folks!

Now, if it’s still not all that clear, let’s make the connection with daily speech. Ordinarily we use the Divine, G’d, and we, as Spirit, Mind, and Body.

Better still, let’s make the connection with PaRDeS, which, after all, is the objective of this brief. But, instead of more writing, let’s recourse to our synoptic slides. Shall we?

Now that we’ve settled the interpretation of verse 1:1, in strict adherence to the

Biblical text, the next question is, now what? Well, simply put, verse 1:1 establishes the template that the rest of the Creation Story is to follow. While we won’t do it here, for lack of space and time, the case is that verses 1:2, and 1:3, and together verses 1:1-1:3, equally so follow this pattern. And the rest of one day, and all the remaining seven days, for that matter. That is, that the Creation Story provides us the cue to civilization, and that is PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס).

If you want to unravel a skein of yarn, you need to first find the tail of its beginning. It’s similar to the electromagnetic spectrum in physics, it just keeps going without end in either direction, beyond letters and numbers. But, a window of visible light opens, and we are able to take it from there outwards. We can spend a few minutes, or many hours, and either way it won’t make a difference, so awesome it is. Let’s, then, together do the first, and separately, each on its own, do the second.

My take on the matter, inasmuch as it’s possible to frame the infinite into language, is that verily it is the way out of the impasse that we’re presently paper-jammed in. That said, let’s, nevertheless, give it a try. Let’s try to make the connection, with, on the one hand, the above, and, on the other hand, something of our immediate experience, so that we can have a good handle of it all.

Starting with what comes before the beginning, with the álef a (א), the silent letter of the Hebrew alefbeth. This is just telling us that the place to begin will always be like the beth b (ב), pointing us forward, as the walking gimel g (ג), our letter c, suggests. Unless, that is, what you’re really after is losing your mind. This we identify as 1:1, álef a (א), PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), the square of frame, the infinite, and the absolute. The closest I can point to would be the index finger of the Creator, as portrayed in Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam fresco.

Once that notion is left behind us, we move on to the insight, to the human heart, which doesn’t understand reason, captures things holistically, whole-wise. Of course, this is such that you know it in your heart, but can’t pass it on. Like love, you know when you’re in love, but can’t give an account of it, other than through poetry, which doesn’t even come close to it, anyway.

Or, alternatively, you know that you are, what a program, a robot, can’t know. However, it can fake it, and even fool anyone into believing it, but will never get there, not any time ever. All this we identify as 1:1a, Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית), and represent it by Sod Secret (סוד), the ellipse of the whole, corresponding, in turn, to the Divine, and, the sphere of religion proper.

Now we come to the human triad, to the brain, our organ of thinking, that is best described as having two hemispheres, and a linkage. This is popularly better known as right-brain, left-brain, and mid-brain, making up the whole-brain. For the following we’re deeply indebted to the triad of Pythagoras, our familiar right-triangle of the Pythagorean Theorem.

Previously we made the connection between the ellipse and the right-triangle, now we’ll rely on it as well. Following our train of thought, next we will identify 1:1a-c, Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InHeadOf created Elohim (בראשית ברא אלהים), with Derash Discover (דרש), that is, with the vertical side of the right-triangle, corresponding to the Spirit, and to Philosophy.

In continuation with our organ of thought, it’s the turn of the mid-brain. Now we identify 1:1c-d, bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language (ברא אלהים את), with Rémez Remite (רמז), corresponding to the Mind, and to Science.

Last on the list, would come the left-brain. Now we identify the closing words 1:1d-g, ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is language-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:), with Peshat Plain (פשט), corresponding to the Body, and to Technology.

A point of order here, just a matter of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. Rabbinic tradition, within Judaism, uses PaRDeS, but, to the best of my knowledge, uses it differently, assigning it a different role in the bigger picture view of things. A very minor role, I would add, as compared to that one that we herein assign, nothing less, than the very cornerstone of civilization!

Like separate layers, they make the further connection of PaRDeS with other passages of the TaNaKh Bible (תנ׳׳ך), quoting from Nevi’im Prophets (נביאים), and from Ketuvim Writings (כתובים). This practice is very well attested in the Talmud Instruction (תלמוד), Halakha canonical Jewish religious law (הלכה), and in the Midrash (מדרש) and Aggadah canonical Jewish non-legalistic literature (אגדה).

While this may very well be the case, herein, we would then need to distinguish one from the other. Let’s call the rabbinic one the Tree of life approach, leaving the mosaic, under the name of Seed of life. Connected, yes, yet, distinct. Theirs is more comprehensive, all across the board, while, ours, is restricted to the Creation Story. Ours puts the accent on connecting Moses with philosophy, science, and technology, while theirs, is more focused on internal religious concerns.

Ours is shallower by all measures, needless to say. However, it is anything but that. Our trend, mosaicism, to distinguish it from the broader of rabbinism, in a way, is a resurfacing of a movement that prospered in Spain, but was put out with the Jewish expulsion in 1492, and thereabouts elsewhere. It is become more generally known as Kabbalah Reception (קבלה). By reception it is referring to that tradition started by Moses at Revelation on Mount Sinai. Of course, our scope is limited to the spearhead of the Creation Story.

It would be presumptuous on my part to say it forms part of Judaism, unless, and until, it was actually endorsed by the community. Similar, or parallel, would be Spinoza’s thought. It is not Judaism, by a long shot, being the case that he was expelled, but does hold kin to it, absolutely. And the same could likewise be said of the writings of other contemporary thinkers, of Jewish thematic.

While there’s a lot of material out there on the subject, perhaps, this snapshot of yours truly may motivate the listener to take a peek at my modest contribution. My hope is that this taster has whetted their appetite to want to know more about the Bible Creation Story.

Last thing before we part company, for it wouldn’t be complete without as much as a glimmer of an assessment. As feedback, homework, if you will, for life is a classroom. Please do the synoptic slide for a pencil. After all, my teaching environment is home of the pencil culture.

Let me get you pointed in the right direction. Given, a created pencil, which we then perceive as a whole pencil. Now follows the idea pencil, the idea of pencil which allows us to distinguish it from that of pen, however much we can write with both; then the word pencil, which we use to communicate; and, finally, the thing pencil, the one we actually use to write on a piece of paper.

Well, we have to leave it here, however painful it is to suspend something so rewarding, personally, and otherwise politically. A promise made is a promise kept. A quick recap. What we have done above is demonstrate that verse 1:1 establishes the source code, that is, PaRDeS, and that it is as represented above employing the Seed Model.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and get my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” at Amazon, in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and digital.

Thank you, so very much. God bless!