The Holographic Universe, and Adam and Eve: a Kabbalistic Interpretation
Even though I am temporarily retired from writing on Medium, some recent activity by other writers has prompted me to write the following. The two topics in my title may seem completely unrelated, but I think there may be a connection.
Of some interest is an article I only recently came across, even though it was written last December, by Tanner the Humanist, who explains that the word ‘rib’ is nowhere to be found in the original Hebrew version of Genesis chapter 2, which is something of a relief since that would make the whole story somewhat ridiculous, and therefore unbelievable.
The main prompt, however, was a long response to a comment I made to the third article in a series on the holographic principle by Gerald R. Baron. (There are three articles so far, click here, here and here.) This is an incredibly important topic, since it opens the possibility of reconciling modern science with ancient spiritual traditions, something which Baron is exploring in depth in an open-minded way in this series and earlier articles, even though he is a Christian believer. (Also, since I started writing this, I came across this article on The Holographic Principle and Advaita Vedanta.)
Before making my response to Baron, I’ll mention some background to this current topic of his. One important book on this theme is The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot¹. The back cover reads: “Despite its apparent materiality the universe is actually a kind of 3-D projection and is ultimately no more real than a hologram. This astonishing idea was pioneered by two of the world’s most eminent thinkers, physicist David Bohm, a former protégé of Einstein, and the quantum physicist Karl Pribram. The holographic theory of the world encompasses not only reality as we know it, including hitherto unexplained phenomena, but is capable of explaining such occurrences as telepathy, paranormal and out-of-body experiences, synchronicity, ‘lucid’ dreaming and even mystical and religious traditions such as cosmic unity and miraculous healings”. (It’s worth noting that the idea of the material level being an unreal hologram corresponds with the Eastern idea of maya, and Plato’s allegory of the cave, thus shadows on a wall.)
A more recent book on this theme is The Cosmic Hologram: In-formation at the Center of Creation by Jude Currivan², who has had an extraordinary career in science, business, and writing about the New Paradigm. (Click here for her website.) The back cover reads:
“Our understanding of the Universe is about to transform at all levels, from the tiniest Planck scale to the vast reaches of space. Recent scientific discoveries show that the information that upholds all of our modern technologies is exactly the same as the universal in-formation that underpins, pervades, and is all we call physical reality.
Exploring how information is more fundamental than energy, matter, space, or time, Jude Currivan, Ph.D, examines the latest research across many fields of study and many scales of existence to show how our Universe is in-formed and holographically manifested. She explains how the fractal in-formational patterns that guide behavior at the atomic level also guide the structure of galactic clusters in space. Demonstrating how information is physically real, the author explores how consciousness connects us to the many interconnected layers of universal in-formation, making us both manifestations and co-creators of the cosmic hologram of reality. She explains how quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of relativity can at least be reconciled if we consider energy-matter and space-time as complementary expressions of information, and she explores how the cosmic hologram underlies the true origin of species and our own evolution.
Concurring too with ancient spiritual wisdom the author offers solid evidence that consciousness is not something we ‘have’ but the fundamental nature of what we and the entire Universe are. With this understanding, we can each transform our own lives and help co-create and in-form the world around us”.
Turning now to my main purpose, part of my response to Baron’s third article was: “Christianity may teach the creation of humans in the image of God, but this is based on a misunderstanding. If you are referring to Genesis 1, the NRSV edition explains that the Hebrew word in the original text was Adam which they have chosen to translate as ‘humankind’. That, however, is an assumption, presumably based on Christian tradition. Adam is created in the likeness or ‘image’ of God. I take this to mean that separate, individual consciousnesses were created with the same nature as ‘God’. As your text says, Atman = Brahman”. (This is merely one interpretation of the text that I consider possible. Others will be discussed below.)
Gerald R. Baron responded. The main purpose of this article is therefore to respond to him. The material seemed so interesting, however, that I thought it would be worth publishing it as a full article. I quote him here in full, but have added some italics, and also some comments where appropriate in brackets.
“I didn’t respond to the comment about Adam because I wasn’t sure how you were choosing to interpret the word. It seems you are saying that Adam is closely related to Atman, the individuated consciousness that is in God (Brahman), or part of it, or the same as. I went to Grok3 to see various interpretations of the word Adam. Not sure any of these align with your idea:
The word ‘Adam’ in Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, carries multiple layers of meaning and interpretation. Derived from Hebrew, it has been analyzed linguistically, theologically, and symbolically across different traditions. Here are the key interpretations:
Linguistic Meaning: ‘Man’ or ‘Humanity
In Hebrew, ‘Adam’ (אָדָם) is closely related to the word ‘adamah (אֲדָמָה), meaning ‘earth’ or ‘ground’. This connection suggests that ‘Adam’ represents humanity as created from the earth (Genesis 2:7: ‘God formed man from the dust of the ground’). (Me: this will be discussed later in the article, where a Kabbalistic interpretation will be offered.)
Grammatically, ‘Adam’ can function as a common noun meaning ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ rather than a proper name in some contexts, emphasizing a collective human identity rather than an individual. (Me: in that case Adam would not necessarily be the first human being, unlike what some Christians think.)
Proper Name: The First Man
In Genesis 2–3, ‘Adam’ is often interpreted as the name of the first human, a specific individual created by God. This is the traditional reading in both Jewish and Christian exegesis, where Adam is the progenitor of the human race, alongside Eve. (Me: I would say that is a misunderstanding of the text by taking it literally.)
This interpretation is reinforced in Genesis 5:1–5, where Adam is listed in a genealogy as a named figure with a lifespan (930 years). (Me: this may well be a later writer who has misunderstood the original text. Given what we now believe about the history of the human race, this genealogy makes no sense.)
Symbolic or Archetypal Figure
Beyond a literal individual, ‘Adam’ is sometimes seen as a symbol of humanity itself. In Jewish mysticism (e.g., Kabbalah), ‘Adam Kadmon’ (Primordial Man) represents a cosmic archetype, a spiritual blueprint of creation that encompasses all human souls. (Me: this is the true meaning of the ‘first man’, i.e. some kind of blueprint for humanity.)
In Christian theology, particularly in Pauline writings (e.g., Romans 5:12–14, 1 Corinthians 15:22), Adam is the ‘first man’ whose disobedience introduced sin, contrasted with Christ as the ‘second Adam’ who brings redemption. Here, Adam symbolizes fallen humanity. (Me: I would disagree. Adam symbolizes the fallen spiritual being which became human. It required another spiritual being (Baron would say God himself) to descend to earth to redeem humanity. These passages in Paul may well confirm my previous point, and this may be what Paul meant by ‘first man’.)
Gender and Duality
Some scholars and interpreters note that the initial creation of ‘Adam’ in Genesis 1:27 (‘God created man in His own image… male and female He created them’) might suggest an androgynous or dual-gendered being before the separation into Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. This view appears in certain Jewish midrashic traditions, where ‘Adam’ is a unified entity split into male and female. (Me: this seems far more likely if we are talking about a spiritual entity, which exists above the levels of separation into opposites, i.e. the lower levels of reality.)
Etymological Play: “Red” or “Ruddy”
Another linguistic link ties ‘Adam’ to the Hebrew root ‘adom’ (אָדֹם), meaning ‘red’. This could allude to the reddish hue of soil or human skin, reinforcing the earthy origin of humanity. While less prominent, this interpretation adds a poetic dimension to the name.
Cultural and Comparative Contexts
In broader ancient Near Eastern literature, names like “Adam” resonate with creation myths where humans are formed from clay or earth (e.g., Mesopotamian stories like the Enuma Elish). While not a direct borrowing, this parallel highlights ‘Adam’ as a figure tied to the material world.
Each interpretation — literal, symbolic, or linguistic — reflects the priorities of the tradition or scholar engaging with the text. Whether seen as an individual, a representation of humanity, or a theological archetype, ‘Adam’ remains a richly layered term in Genesis”.
Baron’s response is very interesting and comprehensive. The most obvious observation is that to say that Adam definitely refers to the first human, and means nothing more than that, is a vast oversimplification. The word has many interpretations, and potentially rich layers of meaning. That will be the theme of what follows, as I try to dig deeper into the text.
The first thing to note is that in the era when Genesis was written, a system known as Pardes was in operation. This basically means that there are four levels of meaning in any given text, as explained in this wikipedia article: “Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text… The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, and Sod represents the hidden meaning”.
The most knowledgeable writer on Medium about this I’m aware of is NJ Solomon, who has written many articles about the Old Testament from a Pardes perspective.
Also noteworthy is this quote from Saint Jerome, the translator of the Bible into a Latin version known as the Vulgate: “The most difficult and obscure of the Holy books, Genesis, contains as many secrets and mysteries as it does words, even concealing many mysteries under each word”³. We cannot now know whether he thought he had penetrated to the deepest levels, and whether he thought he had expressed them in his translation.
Something else that has to be taken into consideration is the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah, which is the inner, esoteric teaching of Judaism. As noted Kabbalist Z’ev ben Shimon Halevi says in Adam and the Kabbalistic Tree⁴: “Its basis is in the Bible although the system is never directly outlined”. This suggests that we cannot find the true intended meaning in the Bible, which is hidden behind the text (Christian literalists take note), and presumably can only be understood by those who have ears to hear, in the same manner as the parables of Jesus.
Let’s work on the reasonable hypothesis that Genesis is such a Kabbalistic text. I’ll continue by quoting some passages from Halevi’s book. This one from the introduction clearly shows that his Kabbalistic interpretation is based upon the text of Genesis 1, but expands upon it: “God generates, out of the Void of Non Existence, beyond which God is All and Nothing, the first state of Unmanifest Existence. From this World without End, crystalizes a realm of Limitless Light, in the midst of which, there emerges a point of no dimensions, called the First Crown”. (This probably corresponds to what Martin Timms, writing about Vedic traditions in an excellent series of articles, calls Bindu.)
“These three states of Unmanifest Existence become the negative background to the positive universe that streams through the primal point of the First Crown to evolve into the archetypal world of Emanations. This manifestation on its completion is known as Adam Kadmon, that is the Primeval and Universal Man. Although composed of the ten aspects of the Creator, Adam is the symbol of a unified working whole, the first man being a living image of the universe and mirror of its Maker… Adam Kadmon is the Universe made after a likeness to God”.
(It would be tempting to think that this is the figure referred to in Genesis chapter 1. As we will discover below, this is not the case. Note also the use of the phrase ‘the first man’, which is not intended to mean the first human. Also, in case you are thinking that this figure is unique to Judaism/ Kabbalah, it may well be the equivalent of Purusha in Hinduism.)
Chapter 2 begins thus: “Adam Kadmon contains in principle the whole of the manifest Reality. Stretching between the greatest and smallest his head touches the Absolute, and his feet the relative of Existence. Made in the image of God, Adam Kadmon expresses the ten prime attributes of the Divine and the four major laws which govern the Universe”.
Chapter 3 begins: “ ‘In the beginning’, that is, after Adam Kadmon had been emanated into existence, God created heaven and earth, time, the firmament and the elements. He also brought forth plants and living creatures. On the sixth day of Creation God said ‘Let us make (a) man in our own image’ and so a second Adam came into existence who was the perfection of Beriah, and its steward. Later, in Gen. 2:7, ‘The Lord God formed man’ and this third Adam became the synthesis of the World of Formations. When the yeziaratic Adam fell with his Eve, he descended into Asiyyah, the world we live in. These four Adams are an expression of the four levels within the azilutic Tree of Adam Kadmon”.
Halevi explains these obscure terms, which refer to different levels of reality, here: “While the azilutic Adam Kadmon is the universal man the beriatic is the possibilities of man… Like Adam Kadmon the beriatic Adam is androgynous (Male and female created He them, Gen. 1:27) that is, still in a high enough estate to be a single being (this was before Eve came on the scene) containing both sexes, or in kabbalistic terms active and passive pillars in constant union”.
On the theme of the word Adam meaning earth, Halevi has this to say: “The Hebrew word ‘Adam’ means ‘earth’ and the body is indeed composed of this material substance. Included in the solid state are many minerals and traces of metals, enough iron for instance to make a 2-inch nail, and sufficient carbon for 9000 pencils”. (This is somewhat different from the literal interpretation.)
So here we have an esotericist explaining what he believes to be the hidden meaning of Genesis chapters 1–3, which is somewhat different from Christian interpretations. What do you think? It certainly makes more sense to me than ideas like woman was created from the rib of the first human man, who was literally created out of the earth of the ground. The one thing that seems certain, to me at least, is that the Hebrew term Adam at Genesis 1.26 does not refer to ‘humankind’, despite what modern translations say. (I’ve written a long series of articles about these three chapters here.)
Also, I think Halevi’s understanding of the process of creation has a lot of similarities, albeit in markedly different language, with the holographic principle as explained by David Bohm, Michael Talbot, and Jude Currivan. Bohm developed his ideas on this theme from his theory of implicate and explicate orders, i.e. that there are different levels of reality, each higher one generating the lower. That would seem also to be the case with the four levels of Adam in Halevi’s understanding. Food for thought.
=============================================================
Since I wrote this article Timah has published two articles, following up on mine, and going into much more detail about this theme. They are worth reading for anyone interested in a deep understanding of the world’s religious traditions:
Adam, the Primordial Man: A Symbolic and Metaphysical Reading Across the Three Religions of the Book
Footnotes:
- Grafton Books, 1991. Also in paperback, HarperCollins, 1996
- Inner Traditions, 2017
- as quoted by Shabaz Britten Best in Genesis Revised: The Drama of Creation, Sufi Publishing Co. Ltd., second printing 1970. I haven’t been able to establish where Jerome wrote this; it probably comes from his Hebrew Questions on Genesis, but I don’t have a copy.
4. Samuel Weiser Inc., 1974
==============================================================
