A Brief History of Ether

A Fundamental Metaphysical Concept in Greek,

Indian, Jewish, and Christian Cosmology
Metaphysics is one science, whatever the local coloring it takes on.
Ananda Coomaraswamy (letter to Gershom Scholem, November 9, 1944)

Introduction
The concept of ether (Gr. αιθηρ) as it appears in the writings of the Presocratic philosophers and in
classical Greek, Hellenistic, Roman and Christian writings has been a source of confusion for many
scholars who often translate the term as “air” or in other inaccurate ways. A more precise definition
can be obtained using a cross-cultural perspective since equivalent terms are present in Hebrew
and Sanskrit texts dealing with creation and cosmology.1

Like many metaphysical concepts, ether was incorporated into physics in the 16th century to
explain two problematic issues: communication of motion, and action at a distance (magnetism,
gravity, etc.). This idea survived in a quasi-scientific form into the late 19th century. Ether also
found its way into physiology as a fluid in the nerves that provided vitality and motion; a kind of
“life energy” alchemists believed could cure disease and rejuvenate the old.

The confusion surrounding the definition and role of ether is bound up with a number of
misconceptions which we will need to address. Context provides meaning and it will help to create
a more accurate context by looking closely at some of the ways in which the definition of ether has
been framed or misframed.

Philosophy
The Greek philosophia (φιλοσοφια) translates literally into “love of wisdom” but history has
endowed the word with many more specialized meanings, including:

• The theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge,
and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic,
epistemology, metaphysics, etc.
• A search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather
than observational means.
• The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. For
example, the philosophy of science.
• The most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group. For example,
Chinese philosophy.
• A particular system of philosophical thought. For example, the philosophy of Kant.
Many variations on these themes are possible but none of them will provide an adequate
understanding of what the term meant originally. The most important word here is sophia

1. I have not had the time to examine the concept of ether in Islamic thought but many Islamic metaphysical ideas are close
to, if not identical with Greek, Hebrew and Sanskrit formulations (for example, Arabic Sakinah, Hebrew Shekinah, and
Hindu Shakti). The angel Metatron who plays an important role in Kabbalistic cosmology is an angelic teacher of Moses
in Islamic thought where he is known as Mitatrush. See Réne Guénon, Fundamental Symbols for other parallels.

Page 1
(wisdom) which equates to a skill in making, doing, or knowing.1 From the point of view of art,
there are two components to creation: imaginative and operative. Imagination is the work of the
mind (nous) and the operation the work of the hands (cheir). These correspond to the two parts of
us, the spiritual or intellectual Self and the psycho-physical ego, which work together. These two
faculties are the respective formal and efficient causes of a work of art to use the Aristotelian
terminology. St. Bonaventure explains:

…the work of art proceeds from the artist according to a model existing in the mind;
which model the artist discovers (excogitat = cintayati) before he produces, and then
he produces as he has determined. Moreover, the artist produces the external work
in the closest possible likeness of the interior model.2

Philo provides an account of the Building of the Tabernacle:

… the construction of which was clearly set forth to Moses on the Mount by divine
pronouncements. He saw with the soul’s eye the immaterial forms (ideai) of the
material things that were to be made, and these forms were to be reproduced as
sensible imitations, as it were, of the archetypal graph and intelligible patterns … So
the type of the pattern was secretly impressed upon the mind of the Prophet as a
thing secretly painted and moulded in invisible forms without material; and then the
finished work was wrought after that type by the artist’s imposition of those
impressions on the severally appropriate substances.3

The creation of the physical world is likewise a work of art with God as the artificer. In Greek
mythology the Creator is Zeus who acts through the agency of Athena and Hephaistos. Athena is
the goddess of wisdom who sprang from the head of Zeus. She is the mind of God (he theou
noesis, or nous). She provides men with the knowledge of the arts. Hephaistos is a craftsman
(smith) and is famous for his art. Athena inspires what Hephaistos creates.

In this relationship Athena’s function, in that she is the source of the formal pattern
or cause of the work to be done, is essentially authoritative and paternal rather than
receptive or feminine, we need not be surprised to find that the artist’s “inspiration”
(empnoia, empneusis), or the “divine power” (dynamis = Shakti) that moves him, is
referred to often as “the God”, the immanent “Daimon”, or Eros, that is to say the
Spirit to whom the very word “inspiration” points.4

Traditional Philosophy is not Proto-Science

The overwhelming tendency of modern scholarship is to see early cosmological ideas as attempts
to make sense of the physical world, a kind of primitive science. The Greek physicoi were not
“physicists” but “naturalists” in the sense that they were interested in what gives things their
natures (natura naturans), not in things as they have a given nature (natura naturata). The focus is
on the creative powers of the Deity and not on the composition of the physical world.5 Mother
Nature is separate from the natural world that we are part of. Philosophy corresponds to theology
rather than to natural history.

A second point of confusion is that since these ideas were shared by a good number of cultures and
religions (Greek, Vedic, Christian, Jewish) they can hardly be thought of as the expressions of a

1. The Hebrew equivalent is hokhmah, a branch of the Sefirothic tree in Kabbalistic thought. The Sanskrit maya denotes
the same “cunning” or “science” necessary for creation.
2. Saint Bonaventure, The Reduction of Art to Theology, 12. Quoted from, A. K. Coomaraswamy, On the Traditional Doc-
trine of Art, p. 20.
3. Philo, Moses, 2. 74-76. Quoted from, A.K. Coomaraswamy, On the Traditional Doctrine of Art, pp. 19-20.
4. A. K. Coomaraswamy, On the Traditional Doctrine of Art, p. 21.
5. In philosophical terms, the approach is realistic (speculative or idealistic) rather than nominative. The physical world
was seen as a reflection (speculum = mirror) of the Eternal. We see “through a glass darkly”.

Page 2
personal philosophy of the type we think of when we hear the term philosophy. They represent an
inherited wisdom that has been passed down from time beyond memory. Early philosophic or
religious texts put these ancient ideas into written form and elaborated and modified them in the
process by making them explicit. They were once expressed as images and stories.

Another reason for this misunderstanding is that the terminology of metaphysics is symbolic rather
than literal and traditional authors often use different metaphors to express the same ideas. They
follow what Philo termed the “allegorical way” (De Posteritate Caini 7 and Legum Allegoriarum).
Several examples will suffice.

The Sun

One of the most widespread symbols of the Deity is the sun which has led many scholars in
different fields to postulate “sun worship” as some sort of primitive religion. In fact, no one ever
worshipped the sun if you exclude some residents of Florida or Southern California. In traditional
contexts, the Sun refers to God, and not the sun we see with our eyes.

In all the contexts in which “Sun” has been capitalized the reference is, of course, to
the “inward Sun” as distinguished from the “outward sun, which receives its power
and lustre from the inward”—Boehme, Jacob, Signatura Rerum XI:75, to the “Sun of
the Angels” as distinguished from the “sun of sense”—Dante, Paradiso X:53:54;
compare Convito III:12, 50-60. This “Sun of the sun” — Philo Judeus, De specialis
legibus I:279; compare De cherubim 97—Apollo as distinguished from Helios —
Plato, Laws 898D, Plutarch, Moralia 393D, 400C, D—is not “the sun whom all men
see” but “the Sun whom not all know with the mind”—Atharva Veda X:8.14, “whose
body the sun is”—Brhadaranyaka Upanisad III:7.9. The traditional distinction of
intelligible from sensible, invisible from visible “suns” is essential to any adequate
understanding of “solar mythologies” and “solar cults.”1

Dr. Coomaraswamy comments on this confusion:

Aristotle’s doctrine that “Man and the Sun generate man” (Physics II.2), that of JUB
III.10.4 and that of the Majjhima Nikaya, may be said to combine the scientific and
metaphysical theories of the origin of life: and this very well illustrates the fact that
the scientific and metaphysical points of view are by no means contradictory, but
rather complementary. The weakness of the scientific position is not that the
empirical facts are devoid of interest or utility, but that these facts are thought of as a
refutation of the intellectual doctrine.2

Since most of us are more than familiar with the scientific outlook it is the “intellectual doctrine”
which needs to be better understood if we are to read early philosophy within its own context and
not in ours. Traditional metaphysics is not taught in universities and is generally misinterpreted
when it is encountered or dismissed as nonsense from the past.

Fire

A second case in point is the use of the term “fire.” When Heracleitus states that fire is the principal
(arche) of the world he is not talking about the fire that men make but about the Divine Fire.3 A. K.
Coomaraswamy provides the Indian parallels for the dicta of Heracleitus in his “Measures of Fire.”
Quoting William Kirk and then adding his own critique, he writes:

1. Coomaraswamy, The Bugbear of Literacy, p. 108, nt. 7.

2. Coomaraswamy, Selected Papers, vol. 1, p. 306. JUB = Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana. In regard to the relation
between science and metaphysics, see also Coomaraswamy, “Gradation and Evolution I” and “Gradation and Evolution
II” in What is Civilisation?, pp. 70-85.
3. Compare William Blake’s “Tyger, tyger burning bright,” a reference to God’s creative power. Also, Jacob Boehme’s
“The Fire is the principle of every life” (Signatura rerum xiv.29).

Page 3
 “Heracleitus is one of the Greek philosophers who sought to explain the whole
universe in terms of some basic entity…. After his time, to be sure, fire decreased in
importance, and men ceased to look for one principle.” This is a confession that men
have fallen to the level of empiricism of which Plato was so contemptuous, and to
that of the Greeks whom Plutarch ridiculed because they could no longer distinguish
Apollo from Helios, the reality (το ον) from the phenomenon, “so much has their
sense perception (αισθησισ) perverted their power of discrimination (διανοια).”1

The fire of Heracleitus is “everlasting” and “in measures being kindled and in measures going out”
(fr. 20). This is the creative fire of the Deity and not the fire of men which is destructive in that it
consumes its fuel. The Divine Fire is equated with light or with the mind (nous), the divine portion
of man.

The conception of a transcendent and universal Fire, of which our fires are only pale
reflections, survives in the words “empyrean” and “ether”; the latter word derives
from αιθω, to “kindle” (Skr. indh)…2

References to divine fire are common in both the Torah and Kabbalistic works particularly in regard
to God’s heavenly throne and to the angels.

From Isaiah’s description and the meaning of the name of the serafim, they can be
regarded as ‘igneous’ powers which stretch out, thanks to their ‘wings’ or
extensions, in all the ‘directions’ of the cosmos; according to the tradition, their holy
‘fire’ consumes evil and purifies and enlightens created beings.3

It may also be noted that the design of early technologies used to produce fire supports this
metaphysical conceit. Fire must be drawn down from Heaven using the appropriate ritual.

In the Vedic rite of fire making, two sticks (arani) designated male (uttarani) and
female (adharani) are employed. The vertical male stick is inserted into a notch on
the horizontal female stick and rotated to produce fire. The ancient Greeks had a
similar practice involving sacred fire sticks and attributed the invention of fire
making to Hermes, the messenger god.4

The Divine Fire is associated in this case with human sexuality and reproduction (Divine Eros).
Anthropology provides abundant support for this idea which is found widely in the tribal world.5
Traditional philosophy is itself an efflorescence of much older ideas which originally found
expression as images and stories and not as philosophy or metaphysical speculation.

Matter

Lastly, neither Greek nor Indian writings employ any words that correspond to our word “matter”
as it is used in science. The Greek word hyle (Sk. vana) which translates literally as “wood” is used
metaphorically to denote the primary matter out of which the material world is made. The Creator
is conceived as a carpenter or other craftsman, an idea familiar to Christians. According to Aristotle,
Plato equated hyle (primary matter, void, space, chaos) with that which can participate in form.6
This will become clearer when we discuss the five elements.

1. A. K. Coomaraswamy, “Measures of Fire,” in Selected Papers, vol. 2, pp. 159-165. William Kirk, “Fire in the Cosmo-
logical Speculations of Heracleitus” (Minneapolis, 1940).
2. A. K. Coomaraswamy, ibid, p. 160.
3. Leo Schaya, The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah, p. 75.
4. Mark Siegeltuch, The Thread-Spirit, p. 90. All traditional technologies have a symbolic meaning reflected in their
design.
5. See Siegeltuch, ibid. and “Crossed Figures,” available on Academia.edu.
6. Aristotle, Physics (iv.2.3); Plato Timaeus (51a). Quoted from A. K. Coomaraswamy, Selected Papers, vol. 1, p. 280, nt.
24. The medieval English word, ylem, discussed later, is derived from the Greek hyle.

Page 4
In Sanskrit, the term used for matter is closer to the word “properties” (Gr. exis, L. habitus), the
nature, disposition, or state or manner of the being of something or someone. This implies a
conditional existence and not a fundamental property of the physical world as science conceives of
matter and energy.

Ether in Greek Thought

The concept of ether is fundamental to early Greek cosmological thought and is an essential part of
the theory of the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) where it is conceived as a fifth element or
“quintessence” to use the Aristotelian and medieval Scholastic terminology. The concept of ether
can be found from the Presocratics through Aristotle. Though the specific term “ether” may not
always be used equivalent wording describes the same functions. The idea is found later in the
Hellenistic world in writers like Philo and appears in early Christian writings (Athenagoras,
Hippolytus, Pseudo-Clement, and Origen) and in the medieval Scholastics like Aquinas and
Bonaventure.

The Presocratics and Euripides

It would be difficult to construct a complete theory of the elements from the remaining fragments of
the Greek Presocratics but there are a number of quotations that suggest that such a theory existed.
Adrian Mihai summarized the references to ether found both in the Presocratic philosophers and in
the Greek tragedians in his article “Soul’s Aitherial Abode According to the Poteidaia Epitaph and
the Presocratic philosophers.”1 He begins with a funeral inscription found on the tomb of the
Athenian warriors who fell at the battle of Poteidaia at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war.

Aither has taken their souls, and earth their bodies. They were undone around the
gates of Poteidaia. Of their foes, some have their portion in the grave, others fled and
made a wall their sure hope of life. This state and people of Erechtheus mourns its
citizens who died in the front ranks, before Poteidaia, children of the Athenians. They
cast their lives into the scales in exchange for valor and their country’s glory (Peek
1955.8-9).2

The soul itself is etheric and returns to its proper realm on high with the death of the individual. The
body is elemental and its constituent components are redistributed once their binding force (ether)
is removed. Euripides expresses the same idea in the Suppliants (531-36).

Now let the dead be laid in earth, and each part return thither whence it came into
the light of day, the breath into the aither of heaven, the body into earth. For the
body is not ours in fee, we are but lifelong tenants; and after that, Earth that nursed it
must take it back again.3

From the human perspective, life is a coagulation and death a dissolution, an ancient idea based in
part upon observation.4 The metaphysical principles involved in this transformation are important
to understand since they will clarify the relationship between ether and the other elements. In the
Hermetic formula, solve et coagula, solve is depicted graphically as the sign for Heaven while
coagula is represented as the sign for Earth. Solve is the ascending current of the cosmic force
while coagula is the descending force. The Chinese equivalents are yang (ascending) and yin
(contracting) which are said to “modify the ten thousand beings.” These dual forces govern the
movement of beings from an unmanifested formal state to a manifested and material one and also

1. In Numen 57 (2010), pp. 553-582.

2. Ibid., p. 556.
3. Ibid., p. 558. Translation by F.M. Cornford.
4. Aristotle compares the formation of the fetus to the curdling of milk (De Generatione Animalium, bk. I, 729a, 7-14 and
bk. II, 739b, 22-31), an idea shared by the Basque people in modern times. See Sandra Ott, “Aristotle Among the
Basques: ‘The Cheese Analogy’ of Conception.” She finds evidence for the same belief in India and the Old Testament.
Cf. Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms, which documents the survival of similar beliefs in Renaissance Italy.

Page 5
govern their return to the unmanifested. We will see presently how the ether enables both of these
processes.

After death, souls return to the divine ether or fiery upper air which exists above the air that men
breathe. Both gods and men are lifted to the “folds of aither” according to Euripides (Menelaus 605-
7). He describes the process as one of dissolution in which the soul is absorbed into its fatherly
substance, the ether. According to Homer and Hesiod, Zeus himself was said to live in the ether.1

The ether was seen both in cosmological terms and as the binding and animating force supporting
the psycho-physical composition of living beings. Empedocles believed that the heavens came into
being via the etherial medium. The fiery stars, Milky Way, and upper heavens are described as
etherial and fiery or golden. The lower air was generally described as dark and of less purity and
heavier than ether. There is always a connection made between the human soul, immortality and
the heavenly bodies, particularly stars.2

The ether was also considered identical to the higher mind (nous) which is thought of as a divine
allotment. Euripides says that “when people die, their mind does not live on, but it retains an
immortal consciousness once it has merged with the immortal aither” (Helen 1013-1016). We also
have a lower mind (psyche) which is associated with our feelings and opinions and which dies with
the body. In the words of Anaxagoras, nous “is the finest of all things and purest” and “mind is
unlimited and independent and has been mixed with no thing but alone in itself by itself … mind
controls all the things that have soul (psyche), both the greater and the smaller” (59 B 12 DK). The
doctrine of the two souls, one higher, one lower, is a commonplace in metaphysics and occurs in
many cultures.3

Empedocles deserves special mention among the Presocratics since he is credited with being the
first philosopher to describe the four elements or roots (earth, air, fire, and water) as the basic
constituents of the created world. While this paper intends to show that Greek philosophy inherited
these ideas and didn’t invent them, Empedocles make a number of statements that reflect the
common understanding of ether and its role in both the creation and in man’s consciousness.

Now, that the Soul is prior to the body—composite of the four elements, and the
prime mover and cause of life in all things—is Plato’s well established doctrine (Laws
891 C ff), and the distinction of the Soul from all that is made of “fire, water, earth
and air” amounts to speaking of it as a “fifth” essence; and actually if we return to
Timaeus (34E and 36B) we find the soul as described as “woven throughout the
heavens (universe) from the midst to the extremity, enveloping it in a circle from
without”and so “making a divine origin of incessant and intelligent life lasting
through all time”—expressions that taken by themselves one might suppose to have
been predicted of the ether that “binds all things together in a circle” (Empedocles fr.
386) equated with Zeus himself [Titan Aither].4

The four elements are brought together and separated by the twin forces Empedocles refers to as
“love” and “strife” equivalent to the Hermetic “solve et coagula,” Chinese “yin and yang,” and the
Philonic “Logos” which Philo Judaeus refers to as the “the Glue and the Cutter”.5 Empedocles also
connects the elements and their qualities with his theories about medicine, a connection made by
all of the cultures who write about ether. This particularly clear in medieval times.

1. Iliad 2.412, 4.166; Hesiod, Works and Days (18). Compare Cicero (On the Nature of the Gods, 2.29.40 and 2.45): “There
remains…the all-engirdling, all-confining circuit of the sky, called the ether” and “the highest part of the sky, called the
ether”.
2. This is a very old idea given the widespread mythologies that describe the Milky Way as a “road of souls.”
3. In some cases, the psycho-physical is described as tripartite: body, soul, and Spirit.
4. A. K. Coomaraswamy, Guardians of the Sun-Door, p. 75.
5. It is symbolized by the fiery double-edged sword of Genesis 3:24. See E.R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo
Judaeus, pp. 140-41.

Page 6
Plato

Let us continue with Plato since he is quite clear about the role of ether though he does not always
employ the term itself. In the Cratylus (410B) Plato speaks of ether as “so called because it runs and
flows about the air.” While the etymology of the word is confused, we note the distinction between
“ether” and “air,” often ignored in modern translations. Men breathe air, which is part of the lower
atmosphere. The gods, as non-material beings, breathe or are composed of ether which exists in
the heavenly regions above the air. In the Phaedo (109B-iii B):

…where Plato is describing “the true Heaven and the true light and true Earth” as a
veritable Paradise he says that this is only to be seen by those who wing their way to
the top of the air and lift their heads above it, for this is not just the aerial “sky” but
the “pure heaven” in which the stars move. Of this heavenly world he says that it is
“that which those who discourse about such matters call the ‘ether’, of which water,
mist and air are only the ‘dregs’”; and, further, of the dwellers there, that “what air is
to us, ether is to them,” all of whose conditions are “as much superior to ours as air
is purer than water or the ether purer than the air.”1

Plato’s most important work in this regard was the Timaeus which formed the foundation for later
Aristotelian and medieval cosmological thought. In the Timaeus (49) Plato provides an account of
the formation of the world using the traditional four elements and an “all containing space” which
he does not expressly call a fifth element but which serves the same function.

This space (τοποσ, χωρα) in which all things live and move and have their being,
participates in the intelligible; it is imperceptible, indestructible, formless, void, and
cannot be defined by or compared to any of its sensible contents.2

This all-receiving nature is sometimes compared to soft wax or other plastic medium which
assumes the forms that are impressed upon it. It is the ground or support for the created world and
can take on different appearances at different times. Thus the flux of the created world finds
support in the formless void which is its container. Plato refers to this formless void as physos
(equivalent to the Sanskrit sunyata) which is the nurse and mother of all becoming. The father is the
formal world of eternal realities, the mother the void, the offspring the created world.

Plato further describes the five elemental geometrical forms from which the living world is
constructed, including the bodies and souls of men.

In Timaeus 53, 32 C and 48 B we are told that the visible and concrete universe has
already been made out of the four elements, fire, earth, water and air, each having its
own geometrical form, and then in 55 E that “there remained still one form, the fifth,”
viz. the dodecahedron, and that God [Zeus] made use of this “to trace the forms of
living beings throughout the world.”3

Zeus represents the etherial principle that animates an otherwise soulless and inanimate world.
Without the Divine presence the world would be “not yet having within itself all living things, and in
this respect still unlike its perfect paradigm” (Timaeus 39). Zeus includes within himself all of Forms
or Ideas of the Celestial Deities, of the winged kind that live in the air, those that live in water, and
those that live on land (Timaeus 39 E, 40 A). The expressions life-giving “Titan Zeus” and “Titan
Aither” are references to God’s etherial nature and find equal expression in both Plato and Philo.4

1. Quoted from A. K. Coomaraswamy, Guardians of the Sun-Door, p. 71. The idea that there is a supernal world beyond
the sun is found in many traditions. In this ancient schema, the stars are light coming through holes in the sky dome.
2. A. K. Coomaraswamy, Guardians of the Sun-Door, p. 72.
3. Ibid., p. 74.
4. See also, A.B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 1, p. 31.

Page 7
A similar account of creation is provided in the Epinomis (981 E ff.) an appendix to Plato’s Laws.1
Here the five elements are identified as fire, water, air, earth and ether. The Soul, immutable and
invisible, is the efficient power that molds all living things from the elements (of which one
predominates in each kind). Aside from Zeus and Hera, who are beyond definition, the world
contains the fiery stellar gods, the etherial and aerial s who mediate between heaven and earth, the
beings in water (nymphs) and man and land animals.

The Soul, being prior to the body, is the composite of the four elements and the prime mover and
cause of the life of things (Laws 891 C ff.). This makes the Soul equivalent to ether, an idea we will
find in the Vedic writings. In the Timaeus (34 E and 36 B):

…we find the Soul as described as “woven” throughout the heavens (universe) from
the midst to the extremity, enveloping it in a circle without” and so “making a divine
origin of incessant and intelligent life lasting through all time”— expressions that
taken by themselves one might suppose to have been predicated of the ether that
“binds all things together in its circle” (Empedocles fr. 386) equated with Zeus
himself.2

The Soul’s equivalence to ether can also be found in Axiochus (366) where the Soul is spoken of as
“ever longing for heavenly native ether.”3

Throughout the Greek tradition the notion of the four elements and of a fifth Soul (or ether) is
standard. The four are the corporeal components of bodies and the fifth their immaterial source and
binding element.

Aristotle

Aristotle’s view of ether and his cosmological speculations should be familiar to us at this point:

Aristotle reasoned that a fifth element must be added to these four to explain the
behaviour of the heavenly bodies Whereas the terrestrial elements of earth, water,
air, and fire were all mutable and corruptible, coming into being and passing away,
no change could be perceived in the celestial realm. Moreover, while the motion of
the four terrestrial elements was towards or away from the centre of the cosmos in a
straight line, the natural motion of the heavenly bodies was uniform circular motion
around the centre. Aristotle therefore inferred that the cosmos above the terrestrial
sphere (that is, from the moon upwards) was not made out of any the mutable
terrestrial elements but must be composed of a different unchangeable substance,
the fifth element, or ‘quintessence’ which he called aether (αιθηρ).4

In De Caelo (270b, 20-23) Aristotle derives the term αιθηρ from the Greek words “always running”
(θειν αει), another poor etymology but one intended to describe the eternal circular motion of the
ether in the upper heavens, as described by Plato and others.

In addition, whereas the downward movements of earth and water were taken as
contrary to the upward movements of air and fire, the aither’s rotation could have no
contrary.5

1. Many scholars believe the Epinomis was not written by Plato. Despite this, the doctrines expressed in the work are con-
sistent with Plato’s other works.
2. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Guardians of the Sun-Door, p. 75.
3. Another work attributed to Plato which scholars agree is of Hellenistic origin.
4. Oxford University, cabinet, “The fifth element in medieval cosmology’. https://www.cabinet.ox.ac.uk/fifth-element-and-
medieval-cosmology-2.
5. M.R. Wright, Cosmology in Antiquity, p. 114.

Page 8
When we come to discuss akasha, the Sanscrit term for ether, we will find the same motions
ascribed to the four physical elements although their relation to one another is worked out in more
detail.

M.R. Wright and others, in discussing the critics of Aristotle’s definition of ether, confuse Divine and
earthly fire.

Aristotle’s theory of aither, however, had its critics, even among his own school.
Theophrastus, Aristotle’s successor at the Lyceum, seems to have accepted the idea;
Strato of Lampsacus, the next head, perhaps succumbing to Stoic influence, looked
upon aither as a species of fire, much as Anaxagoras had done and as Cicero was to
describe it in On the Nature of the Gods.1

Ether is always described as bright and fiery in all traditions as is Zeus or the angels in Hebrew
scripture.

Aristotle also connected the function of the celestial ether to the pneuma (spirit) that existed in all
living beings as their God-given source of life and motion. This breath of life holds both the cosmos
and the individual together and permits procreation.

Pneuma for Aristotle was a combination of breath (understood as air in motion) and
heat, as it was pneuma as the bearer of ‘what is called hot’ that made it the
generative factor in semen. Aristotle however was careful to make it clear that the
natural substance that was in the pneuma was not fire, but was analogous to the
element that made up the stars.2

Sexual intercourse is necessary but not sufficient to produce life. Both a Mediate cause and a First
cause are required. This is the meaning behind Aristotle’s statement, “man and the Sun generate
man” (Physics II.2), in which the metaphysical and scientific outlooks are combined. Similarly, we
find in Aquinas, “The power of the soul, which is in the semen through the Spirit enclosed therein,
fashions the body” (ST III.II), a view apparently shared by Pythagoras.3 The idea of Solar paternity
exists in a wide variety of cultures including Indian, ancient Greek, medieval European, Sufi,
American Indian, and aboriginal Australian.4

In Greek Mythology and Art

Ideas that appear in Greek philosophy had an earlier existence as myths and images. This is the
way that preliterate and newly literate civilizations express their ideas and conceptions of the
universe and man’s place within it. In time, these earlier forms of expression exist side-by-side with
the more rationalized and abstracted philosophies that will ultimately supplant them. Philosophy
has its origins in images. The magician ties slip knots in a rope. He pulls the rope and the knots
disappear, illustrating the philosophical problem that is later described as the “One and the
Many”.5

The Birth of Ether in Creation Myths

1. M.R. Wright, op. cit., p. 115.

2. Ibid., p. 119.
3. Diogenes Laertius, VIII.28, quoted from Coomaraswamy, The Bugbear of Literacy, p. 109, ft. 18.
4. See Coomaraswamy, “Spiritual Paternity and the Puppet Complex,” in The Bugbear of Literacy.
5. See Mark Siegeltuch, The Thread-Spirit for a fuller analysis of the sutratman or “thread-spirit” doctrine which is found
whereever the fiber arts exist.

Page 9
Venturing into the confusing world of Greek mythology, Aither (brightness) is one of the primal
gods involved in the creation of the world. His genesis is described in a number of related ways by
Hesiod and others.

• According to the Orphic theogony he is the offspring of the snake Chronos along with
his siblings boundless Chaos and misty Erebos. Chronos also produces an egg
containing male and female elements, a multiplicity of seeds, and a bodiless god …
with golden wings on his shoulders, the heads of bulls attached to his sides … and on
his head a monstrous snake resembling all manner of wild beasts. This god is named
Protogenos or Zeus the arranger of all or Pan….1
• Chaos (chasm, yawning mouth) is the father of Erebos (darkness) and Nyx (night)
whose offspring is Aither (brightness).2
• “AITHER (Aether) was the primordial god (protogenos) of light and the bright, blue
ether of the heavens. His mists filled the space between the solid dome of the sky
(ouranos) and the transparent mists of the earth-bound air (khaos, aer). In the evening
his mother Nyx drew her dark veil across the sky, obscuring the ether and bringing
night. In the morn his sister and wife Hemera [day, also written “Hemere”] dispersed
night's mist to reveal the shining blue ether of day. In the ancient cosmogonies night
and day were regarded as elements separate from the sun.
Aither was one of the three "airs". The middle air was aer or khaos, a colourless mist
which enveloped the mortal world. The lower air was erebos, the mists of darkness,
which enveloped the dark places beneath the earth and the realm of the dead. The third
was the upper air of aither, the mist of light and blue of the heavenly ether. The aither
enveloped the mountain peaks, clouds, stars, sun and moon.

Aether's female counterpart was Aithre (Aethra), Titaness of the clear blue sky and
mother of the sun and moon.”3

Zeus and Ether

In his monumental three volume work, Zeus, A. B. Cook devotes eight pages to a discussion of
ether as the abode of Zeus.4 Both Homer and Theognis speak of him as “dwelling in Aithér” and he
is a god of the “bright” or “burning” sky, a reference to the Divine fire, sometimes manifested in a
frightening form as lightning, his thunderbolt.

Nay more, may we not venture to assert that Herakleitos’ cardinal doctrine of the
universe as an Ever-lasting Fire is but a refinement upon the primitive conception of
Zeus the Burning Sky. For not only does the philosopher speak of his elemental fire as
Keraunós, ‘the Thunderbolt,’ a word particularly appropriate to Zeus, but he actually
applies it to the name Zén or Zeus.5

Cook is of the opinion that the identification of Zeus with ether goes back to very early times as
witnessed by the epithet “Zeus Aithérios” as a cult title found in Arkadia and Lesbos.6 Another
indication of age is the primacy of the role of ether in early cosmological myths. The Titan Aither
appears before Zeus in the order of creation. Zeus himself is identified as etheric in his makeup and
his radiance permeates the heavens and the created world.

1. A B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 2, part 2, pp. 1022-1024s.

2. A B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 2, part 1, p. 315, ft. 4. Also, Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth, p. 4.
3. See https://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Aither.html.
4. A B. Cook, “Aithér as the abode of Zeus,” Zeus, vol. 1, pp. 25-33,
5. Ibid., p. 28. He adds a footnote on the same page: “That Herakleitos called his first principle Zeus, appears also from
Chrysipp. ap. Philodem.
6. A.B. Cook, ibid., p. 26.

Page 10
Ether in Greek Art

Depictions of the Titan Aither are rare in Greek art but the Hellenistic Pergamon Altar to Zeus (2nd
century B.C.) may provide an example. The theme of the altar is the mythological battle between
the Titans and the Gods. The south frieze [Figure 1], though partially damaged, has been described
as follows:

Behind Themis stands a powerful figure with spreading wings. Owl masks are tucked
among the feathers. This may be Uranos, father of the Titans and god of the night sky.
He is about to deliver a violent sword stroke to his enemy, who is already on his knees.
In a vain attempt to defend himself, the Giant raises his fist wrapped in an animal skin ….
The next group to the left shows a young god (Aither?) wrestling with a lion-headed,
snake-legged Giant. Although the centre of the south frieze is less well preserved, the
moon goddess Selene appears astride a mule facing left. In front of them, a young Giant
equipped with a helmet and spear faces off against the Titaness Theia (?).1

It is unclear, at least to this author, who the damaged figures represent but there are some other
opinions. A.B. Cook wrote: Both Hesiod and Hyginus make Hemera (or Hemere) the sister of Aither
and they “appear fighting side by side on the frieze of the great Pergamese altar to Zeus….”2 Lastly,
Jose Dorig adds the following comments taken from his article on Aither.

Figure 1: South Frieze of the Pergamon Altar showing Aither? (left) and Ouranos? (right)
Heinz Kähler appelle le dieu aux grandes ailes du côté sud des frises de Pergame le
seul dieu encore inexpliqué [Figure 1]. Les ailes ne conviennent pas à tous les dieux,
mais elles ont une signification particulière pour «la personnification de la plus haute
et plus pure sphère de l'air». Il est identifié comme «siège des dieux olympiens ou un
élément du feu très fin présent aussi parmi les astres célestes» comme Erika Simon
l'a formulé. Aither appartient aux vieux dieux. Le poète de la Titanomachie épique
l'appelle père d'Ouranos et il ajoute que tout descendait de lui. Nous connaissons un

1. The altar is housed in the State Museum of Berlin which provided the photograph and commentary. See https://artsand-
culture.google.com/asset/south-frieze-of-the-altar-aither-and-uranos-unknown/IQH35CYqBxV_fw?hl=en. Theia is a
daughter of Ouranos and Gaia.
2. A.B. Cook, op. cit., p. 27, ft. 3.

Page 11
 précurseur d'Aither dans le fronton archaïque en poros de l'Acropole, le dieu qui
tient un oiseau dans sa main [Figure 2].1

[Heinz Kähler calls the large-winged god on the south side of the Pergamon friezes
the only yet unexplained god [Figure 1]. The wings are not suitable for all gods, but
they have a special meaning for "the personification of the highest and purest sphere
of air". It is identified as "seat of the Olympian gods or a very fine fire element
present also among the celestial stars" as Erika Simon put it. Aither belongs to the
old gods. The poet of the epic Titanomachy calls him father of Ouranos and he adds
that everything descended from him. We know of a precursor to Aither in the archaic
poros pediment of the Acropolis, the god who holds a bird in his hand [Figure 2].]

The association of ether with birds or other winged creatures who act as psychopomps connects it
to the indwelling Spirit in man, a gift of God revoked at death.2 Ether represents the divine existing
at the heart of man. We will return to this idea when we discuss the Vedic and Jewish terms for
ether, akasha and avir, respectively.

Figure 2: “Bluebeard” Pediment, Acropolis, Athens (Photograph by F. Boissonnas (1919)

Ether in Philo Judaeus

Philo Judaeus (c. 15 B.C—A.D. 50) is of particular interest to us here because he represents both the
Greek and Jewish outlooks in his treatment of the elements and ether. Our sources here are the
works of E. R. Goodenough and an essay of Ananda Coomaraswamy, “The Concept of Ether in
Greek and Indian Cosmology,” both cited in the bibliography.

Philo was a resident of Alexandria which had a large Jewish population during the Hellenistic era.
He wrote in Greek like many Hellenistic Jews but was well grounded in his own faith. He was a
wealthy man and a political leader in his community acting as a spokesman for the Jews with the
various Roman emperors who reigned during his lifetime. His works went unmentioned after his
death by pagan writers such as the Neoplatonics —even when they contained similar ideas— but
were received favorably by Christian authors. He is considered one of the more difficult ancient
author due to his allegorical approach and to his use of Greek thinkers like Plato and Pythagoras
whose formulations he employed as a tool for understanding Hebrew scripture.

Following the spread of Greek culture in the wake of Alexander the Great, new forms of religion
began to develop and Judaism was not immune to these influences. Hellenistic Judaism may be
viewed as an emergent form of Judaism that had its own trajectory. Philo appears to be far more
orthodox than St. Paul whose vision of Hellenistic Judaism is reflected in the birth and

1. Jose Dorig, “Aither” in Antique Kunst 33, pp. 28-30.

2. This idea must be very old as we find birds depicted on poles as early as Paleolithic times. Birds can fly and have access
to the sky world. Sometimes the soul is depicted as winged in later iconographies.

Page 12
development of Christianity. But even in the Christian synthesis, where many age-old Jewish
practices were rejected and replaced with a new universalism, the metaphysics that accompanied
Christian thought was based firmly in traditional thought. There is a direct line of influence from the
Plato, Aristotle, the Neoplatonic philosophers, Proclus, and others right through to the Church
Fathers and later medieval scholastics. The idea of four basic elements and a fifth binding element
is one of these assumptions.

Most scholars struggle with Philo trying to determine which elements of his philosophy are derived
from Greek ideas, such as his use of the term “Logos,” and which are Jewish. Some even doubt his
attachment to Judaism but this is highly unlikely. One problem is that Philo is not a philosopher in
our sense of the word and is merely using existing Greek formulations to better express his
understanding of scripture. To this end, he uses diverse metaphors and ideas, some borrowed from
Greek philosophy and some age-old symbols like the Sun as a figure of God. Philo often refers to
the same powers by different names depending on his subject matter which makes his approach
appear ad hoc. Erwin Goodenough, perhaps the most knowledgeable of Philo scholars wrote “that
in many matters the Jews and gentiles were so close together that Philo might have had much of
what he wrote from either source.”1

Philo’s description of the elements does not differ in any substantial way from that of the Greeks.
The doctrine is summarized in the following paragraph:

On of Philo’s fullest statements is made in Heres 282-3, where what is bodily in man
is made of the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, the corresponding qualities
being those of dryness, moisture, cold and warmth, and of weight (earth, water) and
lightness (air, fire) all of which return to their principles at our death, “but the
immortal soul, whose nature is intellectual and celestial (νοερον και ουρανιον) will
depart to find a father in ether, the purest of essences. For we may suppose that, as
the men of old declared, there is a fifth essence (πεµπτη ουστα), one that revolves [or
circulates], and differs from the four by its superiority. Out of this they thought the
stars and all the sky had been made, and deduced as a natural consequence that the
human soul was also an offshoot thereof.” The quintessentia is our spiritual part;
“spirit—the most life-giving breadth of God—is the essence of the soul (πνευµα εστιν
η ψυχησ ουσια); “the spirit in the heart” (τοµεν εγκαρδιονπνευµα) is the father of
intellections.2

In some contexts Philo refers to only three or four elements but this is always in reference to the
physical world.3 The four elements, of which the Mind is independent, are lifeless whereas the
intellectual soul is a spark of God’s etherial nature. It is our share in divinity. Sometimes, as with
Empedocles or Plutarch he refers to the four material roots by substituting the names of the
divinities to which they correspond; for example: Hephaistos (fire), Hera (air), Poseidon (water) and
Demeter (earth). In Greek philosophy, the deities corresponding to the elements can vary from
author to author but the quintessence is usually Titan Zeus, Titan Ether, or the “etherial Father”
(Heres 282-3) to which the soul returns at death.

Philo never loses sight of his objective which is to explain the superiority of Jewish law as well as
its consonance with the highest thought of the gentiles. He quotes Torah and Talmud to this end.

Philo held that the world was governed by laws which were instituted by God at the
time of creation. He maintained that all objects in the universe were composed of
combinations of the four elements, interpreting the wings of the seraphim in Isaiah's
vision (Isa. 6) as the four elements, one pair representing earth and water, and the
second pair, fire and air. The third pair he interpreted as the forces of love and
opposition which initiate movement in the other four elements (De Deo, 9–10).4

1. E. R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, p. 13.

2. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Guardians of the Sundoor, p. 78.
3. For a more complete discussion of the elements in Philo see A.K. Coomaraswamy, ibid., p. 75-82.

Page 13
In regard to the creation of the physical world his approach is thoroughly Jewish.

The basic distinction for Philo is that between matter and the immaterial, for while he
says little about matter directly, he everywhere assumes the complete disparity of
the two. The immaterial alone has reality and being, and within the material only
God is real.1

In writing about creation, Philo makes frequent use of the Greek term “Logos” which has been
interpreted in any number of ways in philosophical and religions writings. In Christianity, the Logos
is identified with Jesus, the living Word of God. Philo’s often refers to the Stream of God’s radiation
as his “Logos” or by other terms such as his “Virtue” or “Sophia”.

That is, God gives forth a Stream from himself, the first representation of which is
the Logos, most like God because it is the primal emanation; it becomes
differentiated in lower types of manifestation, and the Logos is always a term which
can be used to include all the lower manifestations. Similarly, since the Logos is a
projection of divine reality and being, it can be called God, and all the workings of
the Logos can be called the acts or works of God.2

In his On Flight and Finding (Fug. 110) Philo states that as a man’s body is a garment for his soul so
the Logos wears the world as its raiment, for “he arrays himself in earth, water, air and fire and all
that is framed from these; and by the same token the High Priest, except upon his annual entrance
into the Holy of Holies, wears a long robe that represents the sublunary world.” The colors of this
robe correspond to the elements. When he enters the Holy of Holies, however, he puts off his
colored robe and dons one of pure white linen meant to represent the Divine Light. The symbolism
of flax is explained in On Dreams (Somn. 217) where he explains that it has a “very brilliant and
luminous aspect” which parallels that of gold and is “a symbol of tension (ευτονια), incorruptibility,
and most radiant light; it does not break, neither is it the product of any mortal creature.”

Philo’s use of the word “tension” in describing flax is of some importance in understanding the
concept of the etherial Logos and its role both within the cosmos and within man’s consciousness.

In the preceding context the word ευτονια is significant. Ευτονια (root τεινω, Sanskrit
tan) “tone,” “tension,” “intensity,” is the opposite of the slackening (επιχαλων) of the
ten-dons (τονοι) of the soul that Philo condemns elsewhere [The Special Laws, l.90].
Ευτονια presupposes the traditional ontology and psychology in which the Logos or
Spirit is the bond (desmos) or chain (δειρα) or cable (ορµισκοσ) or thread (sutram) on
which all things are strung and by which they are moved.3

The soul maintains the harmony and motion of the human body and prevents its dissolution until a
man dies and comes “unstrung”. This is the “mortal coil” that Shakespeare describes as being
“shuffled off”. Cosmically The Logos is the etherial and quintessential bond of the cosmos and
holds all things in its embrace just as it holds a human being together.

The idea is found in Plato and elsewhere in Greek, Indian, and Jewish metaphysics:

The Stoics, whose physical theories were profoundly influenced by Herakleitos, held
that matter alone has real existence. But matter is not inert and dead. It can act as
well as being acted upon, thanks to a certain tension or elasticity (tónos) which is
found to a greater or less degree in all matter. This tension is described by a variety
of names, among them those of Constructive Fire, Aithér, and Zeus.4

4. Jewish Virtual Library, “In Hellenistic and Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” at https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
nature.
1. E.R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, p. 127
2. E.R. Goodenough, op. cit., p. 131.
3. A.K. Coomaraswamy, op. cit., pp. 79-80. For a discussion of the sutratman or thread-spirit doctrine, see Mark Siegel-
tuch, The Thread-Spirit or the abbreviated article of the same title on Academia.edu.

Page 14
Internally, human perception and motivation is governed by the indwelling spirit which provides
our power of “intention” and allows us to make sense of the physical world via its roots in the
immaterial world of forms. The moral lesson for Aristotle, Plato or the medieval theologians was to
hold on to this etheric golden string and not be beguiled by the pull of our senses which would lead
us this way and that. In Aristotle’s words: nous is never wrong.

The Indian Theory of the Five Elements

Next we will analyze the role of ether as a fifth element or quintessence in Indian cosmology. I will
begin by summarizing an article by Rene Guenon, adding explanatory comments as required.1

Indian doctrine discusses cosmology under two different but interrelated points of view,
Vaisheshika (synthetic) and Sankhya (analytic). The Vaisheshika viewpoint applies to a knowledge
of things in their individual or distinctive modes. This approach resembles, mutatis mutandis, what
the Greek Presocratic philosophers called “physical philosophy”. Vaisheshika treats cosmology as
it relates to the sensible order, in particular, the theory of the elements which are the constituents of
the physical world. It is necessary to stress again that we are not dealing here with science or with
the elements as they are represented in the periodic table. The Vaisheshika point of view is always
referred to the Sankhya when dealing with the universal principles from which the elements
proceed. These two viewpoints are complementary because the mutable world available to our
senses can only be understood in reference to First Principles which are purely matters of the
intellect.2 This will become clearer when we discuss the elements and their formation.

There are five elements, referred to as bhutas in Indian thought. The word signifies something
manifested; that is, something viewed in its “substantial” aspect, as part of the world of becoming
which we perceive with our senses. This view is distinguished from the “essential” aspect of being,
which is immutable and can only be conceived by the intellect. The elements are seen as
modifications of Prakriti, the primordial substance.

The act of “creation,” as we have seen, implies a separation of Nature from Essence.
Nature or Earth, thus “receding from likeness to God” is then, as it were, “fallen”
into a state of passive potentiality (prakrti, krtya), complementary to the formative
actuality of the solar Creator (kartr);…3

Adrian Snodrass provides more context:

Purusha, “the Male”, identified with Prajapati, is the essential principle of

manifestation, and prakrti is the substantial principle. Prakrti is pradhana, “that
which is laid down before all other things”; it is the amorphous, plastic, tenebrous
and chaotic support of the worlds. It gives birth to existences and is therefore
identified with Maya, the Mother of Forms, the Great Illusion that generates
phenomena, the Earth Mother and Fertility Goddess, all of the multifarious and
multiform aspects of the cosmic Matrix.4

This “mother” of all creation is a formless void and is clearly identical to Plato’s “all receiving
nature”.

4. A.B. Cook, Zeus, vol. 1, p. 29.

1. René Guénon, “The Indian Theory of the Five Elements” in Studies in Hinduism.
2. The term “intellect” is used in a technical sense in metaphysics to indicate the faculty which receives intuitions and
apprehends realities of a supra-phenomenal order. The intellect receives and transmits, acting as a mirror of the divine.
This term should not be confused with “reason” which is a lower function of the mind according to traditional thought.
3. A.K. Coomaraswamy, “Rape of the Nagi” in Selected Papers, vol.1, p. 335.
4. Adrian Snodgrass, The Symbolism of the Stupa, pp. 211-212. The term “Great Illusion” is imprecise and has generated a
lot of misunderstanding. The physical world is an epiphany; it is transient but not illusory. The notion of what is “real”
has a different meaning in metaphysics than it does in modern speech. In traditional thought, only God can be described
as “real”.

Page 15
Essence and substance are complementary and represent the two poles of universal manifestation.
Substance corresponds to an equal number of essential or elementary essences which are the ideal
or formal principles of the corporeal domain but are not corporeal themselves. Rather, they belong
to the domain of subtle manifestation and are referred to as tanmatras. The term means a
“measure” or an “assignation” that delimits the domain of a certain property or “quiddity”.
Tanmatras are not perceptible to the senses and can only receive their proper designations by
analogy to the sensory qualities that correspond to them:

• Auditory or sonorous (shabda)

• Tangible (sparsha)

• Visible (rupa), with the double meaning, form and color.

• Palatable (rasa)

• Olfactory (gandha)
These designations must be taken as analogical for these qualities can be experienced only through
the bhutas (five elements) which serve to manifest them in the sensible order. The tanmatras serve
to explain the relationship between the five elements and the principles of Universal Existence
when seen from the viewpoint of substance.

The five elements are always listed in the following order starting with ether, the primordial
element.1

• Ether (akasha)

• Air (vayu)

• Fire (tejas)

• Water (ap)

• Earth (prithis)
This is the order of their generation from ether; the reverse order is used to describe their
reabsorption into ether.

To understand how the different elements are all generated from the ether it is necessary to
remember that Prakriti, the formless void and mother of forms, holds all substantial qualities in
equilibrium. All manifestation or modification of substance represents a break in this equilibrium.
While Prakriti is one in itself with no distinctions it contains within itself a “triplicity” which
becomes actualized under the organizing influence of Purusha (the active principle) which give rise
to a multiplicity of determinations.

Prakriti, in fact, possesses three gunas or constitutive qualities, which are in perfect
equilibrium in the state of primordial indifferentiation; every manifestation or
modification of substance, however, represents a rupture of this equilibrium, and
beings in their different states of manifestation participate in the three gunas in
different degrees and, so to speak, in indefinitely varying proportions.2

The three gunas are:

• sattva—Conformity to the pure essence of Being (Sat) which is identified with

intelligible light or Knowledge and is represented by an upward tendency.

1. Most notably in the Chandogya Upanishad and the Taittiriya Upanishad where ther genesis is described.
2. René Guénon, Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, p. 52.

Page 16
 • rajas—The expansive impulse, in accordance with which the being develops itself in a
given state at a determinative level of existence.
• tamas—Obscurity, assimilated with ignorance, and represented as a downward
tendency.
The gunas are not states but conditions of universal Existence to which all manifested beings are
subjected and must be carefully distinguished from the special conditions which determine and
define such and such a state or mode of manifestation.

The three gunas are present in all elements but not in the same proportion. Rajas predominate in
air while sattva predominates in fire because fire is the luminous element and rises like a flame. In
water and earth, but particularly in earth, it is the tamas that predominate. The descending force
corresponds to gravity or weight. René Guénon diagrams the relationship of the three gunas to the
four elements and the ether in the following figures.1

Figure 3: The Three Gunas

The ascending and descending forces create an equilibrium on the vertical axis while expansion
occurs on the horizontal axis. The elements appear in this diagram following the tendencies that
predominate in them.

Figure 4: The Five Elements

The creation and disposition of the elements follow the tendencies that predominate in them. The
earth (prithis) occupies the lowest point due to its tamasic tendencies. It is regarded as the region of
obscurity at its lowest point while the equator marks its surface. It should be noted that the gunas
affect all the elements in some measure which accounts for the oblique arrows on this diagram.
This prevents any of the elements from reaching an extreme. Water (ap) occupies the lower portion
of the diagram. The tamasic tendency of water corresponds to density while the rajasic tendency
corresponds to fluidity. The intermediate region is that of air (vayu), a neutral element that

1. René Guénon, “The Indian Theory of the Five Elements,” p. 40 (Figure 2) and p. 41 (Figure 3).

Page 17
maintains equilibrium between the opposing tendencies of tamas and satva. Where these two
tendencies neutralize each other there is a transverse spreading (rajas) that separates the zones of
water (ap) and fire (tejas). As regards the element fire, the horizontal aspect (rajasic) provides heat
while the vertical aspect (sattvasic) provides light.

Ether (akasha) occupies the highest point. It is the most subtle of the elements and exists in the
region of pure light dominating the sphere of the other elements. This arrangement reflects the
cosmological point of view but ether also envelops and penetrates all four elements by reason of its
state of indifferentiation. It is omnipresent but invisible in the corporeal world.

As Shankaracharya says in Atma Bodha, “ether is spread everywhere, and it

penetrates at once outside and inside things.” We can therefore say that among the
elements, ether alone reaches the point where the action of sattva operates at the
highest degree. But we cannot localize it there exclusively, as we did for earth at the
opposite point, and we must consider it as occupying at once the totality of the
elementary domain…1

Ether is therefore not space but the content of space viewed prior to all differentiation. The sensory
modality the corresponds to ether is sound. Sound is propagated by vibrations that radiate in all
directions. This is how ether is uniformly distributed in space as an unclosed spheroid. All of the
other elements will proceed from this original sphere and will move in specific directions. This idea
is incorporated into many traditional cosmologies whether Greek, Hebrew, or Vedic.

It should be noted that there is a metaphysical equivalent to the law of the conservation of matter
and energy. While the manifested world may be transitory nothing is ever lost by its dissolution.

Let us add here that nothing of what is manifested can “be lost,” to use a frequently
heard expression, except by its passage into nonmanifestation. Naturally, this very
passage (which when it concerns individual manifestation is really a
“transformation” in the etymological sense of a passage beyond form] does not
constitute a “loss” except from the point of view peculiar to manifestation. All things
subsist eternally in principle in the state of nonmanifestation, independently of the
particular and limiting conditions that characterize this or that mode of manifested
existence.2

Ether acts as the point of coagulation and dissolution in this process of transformation. It mediates
between the unmanifested and the manifested.

Ether in the Heart

According to the traditional Indian doctrine of sense perception, greatly summarized here, the
senses and their faculties are described as “breaths.” Prajapati. who is identified with Breath itself,
divides himself to give life to his children. Our senses are “rays” which act as God’s “lookouts.”
Each sense organ is attuned to a particular element as described above. The role of ether in this
process is described in the Chandogya Upanishad (8.1.1):

In this abode of Brahma (that is, the vital center just mentioned) there is a small lotus
flower, a dwelling place in which there is a small cavity (dahara), occupied by Ether
(Akasha); one must seek what is in this place, and one must know it.3

Ether is also seen as the divine principle that dwells in the heart of every being. The term “heart”
does not refer to the physical organ but to the vital center in which the human being is located in
relation to both the divine and human worlds. This living soul (jivatma) contains in principle all of
the possibilities which can be developed in the human soul, both corporeal and supra-individual.

1. René Guénon, “The Indian Theory of the Five Elements,” p. 42.

2. René Guénon, The Multiple States of Being, pp. 45-46.
3. Quoted from René Guénon, “The Ether in the Heart” in Fundamental Symbols, p. 303.

Page 18
We should not conceive of this center as having a fixed position in space. The language of the
physical world is used symbolically to refer to a reality beyond space and time. Traditional
symbolism is always applicable to different levels of reality in virtue of the correspondences that
exist between them.

Another point of emphasis is the smallness of the etheric cavity which is related to the mustard
seed in the Bible.1 The presence of the Deity is hidden in man but if nurtured, reveals all of the
possibilities inherent in the human state, both individual and supra-individual. This understanding
is referred to as “knowledge of the heart”. This Divine Principle in man is also referred to as a “city”
or “kingdom” (Sk. Brahma-pura).2 The same terminology is used in Christianity. In the words of St.
Augustine: “He hath a kingdom in Heaven who teaches from within the heart”.3

The notion of ether in the heart is not to be taken as a literal statement but as an analogical one. The
role of ether as the first of the elements is what makes this transposition possible.

What must be sought is the spiritual reality which corresponds analogically to Ether
and of which Ether is, so to speak, the expression in relation to the physical world.

Metaphysics assumes that principles that apply relatively, in this case to the physical world, are
reflections of the Divine Principle and have analogies at every level of being and non-being.

Ether in Judaism
There is mention of the four basic elements (yesodot) in Judaism both as basic constituents of the
physical world and in regard to their properties (heat, dryness, etc.).4 The Hebrew equivalent of the
Greek ether is avir (pronounced a-weer), a word that can be used to mean “air,” “weather,” or
“ether” depending on the context. The word avir does not appear in the Torah but only later in the
Mishna (c. 3rd century A.D.). Some scholars believe that avir is a loanword from the Greek word for
air (αερ), perhaps through Aramaic, but there is another possible source since a similar word does
appear in the Old Testament in a number of places.

One may remark further, that some scholars see a relation of Greek "awèr" with the
Hebrew root , “Aleph, B R ", that amongst others has also given Biblical
meanings like " to fly, soar ", ways of moving through the air. Adding that the
Hebrew pronunciation of the letters Beth, and Waw, , in the same position
between vowels is about identical, both sounding like English W, we have a further
indication that "avir" may well be of old Hebrew origin.5

The role of avir in creation and cosmology is limited primarily to Kabbalistic works like the Zohar
(Sepher Hazohar or Book of Splendor). Kabbalistic writings first appear in the 12th and 13th
centuries in southern France and Spain. The Zohar has been attributed to the Spanish Kabbalist,
Moses of Leon (d. 1290), but much of the material included in Kabbala has far older roots.6

1. Matthew 13:31-32 Mark 4:30-32 Luke 13:18-19. See also, René Guénon, “The Mustard Seed” in Fundamental Symbols,
pp. 296-302.
2. See René Guénon, “The Divine City” in Fundamental Symbols, pp. 308-312.
3. In Ten Homilies On The Epistle Of John To The Parthians.
4. Midrash Rabba, Bamidbar 14,12, ‫טבעים‬, and in greater detail throughout the Zohar and other Kabbalahistic works.
5. Http://www.de-bruyn.it/english/0092_awir.shtml. For the use of abir in the Old Testament see https://biblehub.com/
hebrew/46.htm. Soaring and flying suggests birds and other winged beings generally associated with the soul in tradi-
tional thought.
6. The Zohar contains a number of sections and some scholars believe they were composed by different authors. For a full
history, consult the works of Gershom Scholem listed in the bibliography. The Hebrew word kabbalah is derived from
kabbel, “to receive,” “to welcome,” “to accept.”

Page 19
 Esotericism was apparently first taught in ancient times. The schools established by
the prophets (“sons of the prophets”) certainly discussed ways of preparing
individuals to receive the gift of prophesy and dealt with the inculcation of specific
intellectual methods of comprehending these matters. Such groups continued their
activities in the Second Temple period [586 B.C. to A.D. 70], and the various Essene
sects were apparently influenced by the secret teachings, as may be ascertained
from sources outside the Talmud (Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, etc.). The mishnaic
and talmudic sages who engaged in esoteric studies were the heirs of this ancient
tradition, which is rooted in the days of the prophets and has survived to the present
day.1

From the beginning, esoteric speculation was kept apart from exoteric studies and restricted to
members of an initiatic chain. A rabbi might have one chosen pupil who was deemed worthy of this
honor. Early esoteric writings are anonymous or attributed to notable figures from the past who
may or may not have written them. In the case of Moses Leon, however, he is known to have been
part of a group of Kabbalists centered in the Catalan town of Gerona in Spain. Although the Zohar
was to have a profound affect on Kabbalistic studies, Kabbala only achieved success in esoteric
circles after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. From the Renaissance on, it was a major force in
Jewish culture and it has influenced Christian thought as well.2

Kabbalistic thought shares certain ideas and images with other esoteric traditions including the
Pythagorean, Neoplatonic and Gnostic, but always solidly within the framework of Judaism. All
esoteric commentary is grounded in exoteric study of the Torah and Talmud. Tradition is at the
heart of both exoteric and esoteric thought and older ideas are never discarded but may be
reexamined at a later date and sometimes reworked within a new context. The author’s approach
depends on the time period, the individual, the sources used, and the particular school or group of
scholars the author is part of. There is always discussion, disagreement and sometimes consensus,
but never any finality. It is often said that there is one thing that Kabbalists agree upon and that is
that they don’t agree.

In order to understand the role of avir in Hebrew creation and cosmology some background in
Kabbalistic thought is required. For this, we must begin with the doctrinal basis of Kabbalistic
metaphysics, the ten Sefiroth. This abbreviated summary is necessary for the same reasons that we
saw in the Indian theory of the five elements. Any discussion of creation involving the sensible
world must be rooted in universal principles whose ultimate source is God.

My sources for this complex metaphysical system are Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Gershom Scholem,
and Leo Schaya, whose writings are listed in the bibliography. I will confine my summary to those
matters that will help explain the concept of avir; much will be omitted.

The Ten Sefiroth

The Sefiroth are the “numbers” or “numerations” of the divine aspects of God. They are the eternal
causes of all things, human and divine. They lie at the heart of Jewish esotericism and are the
principle keys to the mysteries of the Torah. They are ten in number and are the esoteric
complements to the ten commandments which form the exoteric basis of Jewish culture and
education.

The origin of the Sefiroth is the Godhead, the concealed and unknowable source of all, referred to
as Ein Sof, the Infinite. The Ein Sof is beyond definition and can only be spoken of in negative
terms—what it is not. No images can depict it. By contrast, the active God of Creation has a mystical
shape which can be conveyed by both names and images. These images appear in the writings of
the prophets which are formulated within a metaphysical structure built from the ten Sefiroth and
their complex interactions.

1. Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, pp 212-213.

2. For the influence on Christianity, see Frances Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age.

Page 20
The Sefiroth can be depicted graphically in a number of ways depending on the nature of the
relationships that are emphasized but the most common form is a tree with the Sefiroth
enumerated from the highest to the lowest (Figure 5).

The Sephirothic tree is also described as a body with a left side (female) and right side (male). The
depiction of the Sefiroth in this way is one of the more archaic ideas in Judaism and can be
connected to the earlier anthropomorphic Shi’ur Komah literature which deals with the
measurement of God’s body and the association of hidden names with various bodily organs.1

Each Sefiroth has a definite name after which the angels are also named and these names reflect
the various powers of God.2

Figure 5: The Ten Sefiroth

• Kether—Crown

• Hokhmah—Wisdom

• Binah—Intelligence

1. Gershom Scholem believed the Shi’ur Komah writings dated from either the Tannaitic (A.D. 10–220) or Amoraic (A.D
200–500) periods but others have assigned them to a later date. This anthropomorphic imagery was also associated with
the body of the “beloved one” in the Song of Solomon which was the subject of much early esoteric commentary. Exo-
teric Judaism had little sympathy for anthropomorphic imagery and the orthodoxy of the Shi’ur Komah was bitterly con-
tested by many scholars including Moses Maimonides (A.D. 1138-1204) who declared it to be a Byzantine forgery.
Anthropomorphic imagery, while primarily limited to esoteric Judaism, has parallels in other religious traditions includ-
ing the Vedic and Egyptian where the body of a god was used as a measure for laying out temples. The notion of Cre-
ation from the body of a First Ancestor is common in many tribal societies so we may be dealing with the remnants of
very old ideas. The same may be said for the metaphor of the cosmic tree which features in both exoteric and esoteric
Judaism.
2. Speculation about the true name of God is a major focus in Jewish esotericism. The tetragrammaton (YHVH) or secret
name of God is central to Kabbalistic thought. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet are felt to contain the secrets of Kab-
bala when properly combined.

Page 21
 • Hesed—Grace

• Din—Judgment, power, fear

• Tif’ereth—Beauty or mercy (rahamim)

• Netsah—Victory or constancy

• Hod—Glory or majesty

• Yesod—Foundation or justice (tsedek)

• Malkuth—Kingdom or royalty or divine immanence (Shekinah)

The Kabbalistic “hymn of praise” summarizes the doctrine:

Master of the worlds! Thou art One, but not according to number [for thou art the
only reality]. Thou are the sublimest of the sublime, the most hidden of all hidden
things. No thought can conceive thee [in thy pure and intelligible essence]. Thou has
brought forth [determined] ten [supra-formal and principial] forms [representing the
eternal archetypes of all things] which we call Sefiroth [‘numbers’ or ‘pure
determinations’’], in order to govern through them [which are the first and
intelligible causes] the unknown and invisible worlds and the visible worlds.1

The distinction of the Sefiroth as separate powers is a reflection of the human perspective since
they are all unified in the Godhead. At the same time, they provide a map of creation.

The revelatory, creative, and redemptive light of the divine Being is, so to speak,
‘refracted’ through the causal ‘prism’ of his aspects, the Sefiroth, into the indefinite
multitude and variety of universal manifestation.2

The Sefiroth are emanations from En Sof, often described as sparks, fire or flames. En Sof only
appears to man in the process of creation and revelation. The closer the Sefiroth are to God, the
less knowable they are from the human state, yet man is made in the image of God and is the locus
of both divine and human forces.

Now, the ‘image of God’ par excellence is man, whose integral being alone includes
all cosmic realities and their uncreated archetypes. There is no other creature which
manifests the totality of the Sefiroth so synthetically and at the same time so
explicitly as man; he alone incorporates the ‘figure of the all’—the universal
prototype in its wholeness—whereas other created beings and things, be they the
angels the heavens or the earth in its entirety, only partially express the divine being
in one case or another of his aspects. The ‘figure of all’ in divinis is man’s own
archetype, his uncreated being. ‘Man above’ (adam ilaah); where the ‘image of the
all’ is his cosmic manifestation, his created being: ‘man below’.3

Kabbalistic cosmology also provides a means of reunion with God.

The consensus of Kabbalistic opinion regards the mystical way to God as a reversal
of the procession by which we have emanated from God. To know the stages of the
creative process is also to know the stages of ones own return to the root of all
existence.4

1. ‘Prayer of Elijah’ or ‘Hymn of Praise’ in the Tikkune Zohar. Quoted from Leo Schaya, The Universal Meaning of the
Kabbalah, pp. 14-15.
2. Leo Schaya, op. cit., p. 18.
3. Ibid., p. 107. This is why the biblical Adam is both male and female. He is the form of humanity. Genesis describes the
descent of this Man into the material world. Adam and Eve are the human results of this process. Male and female are
united in divinis as are all contraries.
4. Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 20.

Page 22
The Sefirothic tree has a female left side or “arm,” a male or right “arm” which act as antinomies
and balance the divine attributes. These forces descend stage by stage by joining in union in the
central pillar. To see how this process works we will summarize the aspects of each Sefira since the
role of avir in Jewish creation and cosmology is related to their hierarchy and interactions.

Kether or “supreme crown” (kether elyon) is the uncreated and infinite all reality of God and is
identical to the En Sof. Kether is described, as much as it can be, as selfless unity without duality,
and beyond being.

Kether rests in its essence, its super-being—more than conscious of itself, without
wishing anything whatsoever, without activity of any kind. For its essence is all; and,
in it, all is it—all is all, without the slightest restriction, distinction, opposition or
relation. In essence there is neither subject or object, neither cause nor effect; there
is only the One without a second, selfness without otherness, indivisible totality.1

This unknowable “mystery of mysteries” is the eternal object of search, the “ancient of ancients,”
the supreme principle. There is nothing outside of Kether which is why it can contain the other
Sefiroth. Kether contains all possibles of being and non-being, manifestation and non-
manifestation. It emanates a hierarchy of universal degrees while remaining its unchanging self.

Hokhmah or “wisdom” is the first divine emanation that issues from the luminous “nothingness”
of Kether. Hokhmah is also referred to as mahshabah, meaning “thought,” “meditation” or “art”.
Hokhmah is called the “father” or active determinant from which all causal emanations proceed. At
the same time, it is contained within Kether as are all the Sefiroth.

Hokhmah is both luminous and dark, intelligible and superintelligible. It issues from
the divine being, yet, without issuing from it; in its infinity, it is hidden in kether—
which is itself contained in ain [nothingness], the absolute and superconscious self—
while at the same time, in becoming conscious of all its knowable possibilities, it is
as it were outside of kether.2

How does Hokhmah emerge from the Nothingness of Ein Sof? The process is explained
metaphorically by the image of a primordial point. This point forms the mystical center around
which the process of creation can crystallize.

In the beginning, when the will of the King began to take effect, he engraved signs
from the divine aura. A dark flame sprang forth from the innermost recess of the
mystery of the Infinite, En-Sof, like a fog which forms out of the formless, enclosed in
the ring of this aura, neither black nor white, neither red nor green, and of no color
whatever. But when this flame began to assume size and extension it produced
radiant colors. For in the innermost center of the flame a well sprang forth from
which flames poured upon everything below, hidden in the mysterious secrets of En-
Sof. The well broke through, and yet did not entirely break through, the ethereal aura
which surrounded it. It was entirely unrecognizable until under the impact of its
break-through a hidden supernal point shone forth. Beyond this point nothing may
be known or understood, and therefore it is called Reshith, that is ‘Beginning’, the
first word of creation.3

This primary point is identified with the wisdom of God, Hokhmah. The other Sefiroth develop this
undifferentiated point into a “building,” an architectural metaphor for creation. The point itself
abides and contains all possibilities of future beings. This primary point is identified with the
wisdom of God.

1. Ibid., p. 28. A good description of God in all of the major religions and the rationale for the via negativa.
2. Leo Schaya, The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah, p. 31.
3. Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 219. Quoting from the Zohar, 1 15a

Page 23
 God created man in the mystery of wisdom [Hokhmah], which is his intelligent and
intelligible essence] and fashioned him with great art and breathed into him the
breath of life, so that he might know and comprehend the mysteries of wisdom to
apprehend the glory [or real presence] of his Lord.1

Binah or intelligence is located on the left or female side of the Sefirothic tree. Binah is conceived
as a womb and the mother of Shekinah, or the divine radiance, another feminine aspect of God that
we will discuss later. What is undifferentiated in the divine wisdom exists in the womb of Binah.

Binah discerns all of the ‘sparks’ or ‘seeds’ of the created, all manifested possibilities that exist in
the undifferentiated light of the ‘father’. This determination of qualities should not, however, be
confused with the discrimination exercised by any created being. Binah is the principle of
distinction without including any effective distinction.

Hokhmah pours out the all of the possibilities of Kether into the midst of Binah in a single
emanation. This radiation from the face of God enters the void of boundless receptivity as if into a
divine mirror. The union of Hokhmah and Binah ("the higher union," in Kabbalah), the "father" and
the "mother" is continual, and is referred to in the Zohar as "two companions that never separate."

Let it be made clear that all this is concerned with one unique principal action;
hokhmah and binah emanate simultaneously from kether, the dark receptivity of the
‘mother’ being entirely filled with the luminous fullness of the ‘father’; these two
complementary principles are never in any way separate. They are not, therefore,
really two; the created being, man, sees them as differentiated, being himself subject
to distinction. In reality, hokhmah and binah are indivisible and inseparable aspects
of kether, the One.2

More succinctly, Kether, Hokhmah and Binah are the one and only God revealing himself to
himself. They are referred to as “the Great Face”. This union is necessary for the continual creation
of the world beginning with the emanation of the remaining seven Sefiroth.

Hesed or grace is the first cosmological radiation of God and descends from Hokhmah on the right
or father’s side of the Sefirothic tree. It also has connecting links to Binah on the female side. Hesed
represents the boundless charity of God and its adaption to the limits and conditions of created
beings.

Din or judgment is the complement to Hesed and descends directly from Binah on the left or
females side of the tree. The gift of grace present in Hesed would not be possible without the rigor
or judgment of Din which determines the cosmic limits and conditions for created beings. The
judgment of Din is inherited from the supreme discernment of Binah.

Hokhmah determines the being of the archetypes, binah their quality; hesed
manifests their unity and unlimitedness, din ‘measures’ their differentiated
manifestations and thereby fixes the fundamental conditions or limitations of all that
exists.3

Tifereth or God’s beauty is the infinite unity of God as revealed in the plenitude and harmony of all
possibilities. The supreme identity in Kether appears as many particular archetypes in Tifereth each
of which is connected to the other. The Kabbalah says: “When the colors (or qualities of the
principle) are intermingled, he is called Tifereth.” Tifereth is located in the middle of the tree and
acts as a mediator which embraces and fuses what is above and below, what is left and right.
Tifereth acts as God’s ‘heart’ or ‘compassion’. As the central Sefiroth, Tifereth unites all ten Sefiroth
and acts as “the small face” that constitutes the synthesis of all the divine emanations, both those
at its source and those that emerge from it.

1. Zohar, Terumah 155a.

2. Leo Scheyer, The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah, p. 65.
3. Ibid., p. 38.

Page 24
Tifereth determines the ideal form of the cosmos in a spiritual or superformal state, referred to as
olam haberiyah, the prototypical world of creation. Figure 6 depicts Tifereth as it harmonizes and
synthesizes the other Sefiroth in the center or “heart” of God.

Netsah—Victory or constancy is the “male” active power of the Creator which produces all of the
manifested worlds by extension, multiplication, and force. As the infinite flow of pure life it allows
Tifereth to spread over the whole of creation.

Hod—Glory or majesty is the antithetical counterpart to Netsah and also flows from Tifereth as the
“female” and negative power of the Creator. Hod separates and transforms all the worlds produced
indifferently by Netsah. This “glory” of God emerges from his “victory” and projects the apparent
multiplicity into the cosmos in order to reabsorb this apparent diversity into One.

Figure 6: Tifereth as the Union of the Sefiroth in the “Heart” of God

Yesod—Foundation or justice (tsedek)1 acts as the foundation of cosmic existence. Yesod is

located in the middle of the Sefirothic tree and acts as the union of the light and active emanation of
Netsah and the dark and receptive emanation of Hod. When the “male” light of Netsah fills the
darkness or emptiness of the “female” Hod with its creative overflow then cosmic equilibrium is
established. This is a kind of second creation but only from the human point of view since the
phenomenal world of appearances has its sole source in the One.

This deceptive image of the cosmos, this vast phantasmagoria, with all its worlds, its
beings and its things, is produced by the unreal ‘multiplication’ of the One. Netsah,
the full and continuous flow of manifestable possibilities—a flow which never ‘dries
up’, in its circuit carrying all things from the One to the One—fills its ‘receptacle’,
hod; and the emptiness of hod coats and separates each ‘spark’ hidden in the
luminous and undifferentiated influx of netsah. Then netsah penetrates the
interruptions produced by hod with its uninterrupted emanation and thus ensures
the causal concatenation of all these illusory separated possibilities.2

1. Called justice because Yesod manifests two opposing aspects, Netsah and Hod, in perfect complementarity. The scales of
justice are in balance.

Page 25
It should be noted that the first nine Sefiroth form three triads which have a common recipient, the
tenth and last Sefiroth, Malkhuth, the immediate cause of the cosmos.

• Kether-Hokhmah-Binah represent the essential ontological principles.

• Hesed-Din-Tifereth represent the cosmological principles.

• Netsah-Hod-Yesod represent the cosmic powers and creative act.

Malkhuth—Malkhuth is divine immanence, the Kingdom or omnipresence of God. It is the
archetype of olam ha’asiyah, the sensory world of “fact,” the corporeal world.

Malkhuth, situated at the lower extremity of the ‘middle pillar’, is not only the
‘recipient’ of all the emanations of the Sefiroth on the luminous or intelligible ‘right
side’, and on the dark or unintelligible ‘left side’, but also of the central Sefiroth, the
highest of which is kether, the superintelligible principle. In other words, malkhuth is
the ‘descent’ of the Shekinah or omnipresence of the supreme, which is manifested
on the one side by intelligible emanations united in the universal spirit and on the
other by unintelligible emanations, the darkness of which becomes concrete in
creative substance.1

Malkhuth is often referred to as the “Daughter” or “Lower Mother” to distinguish it from Binah, the
“Supreme Mother.” These names indicate the one maternal and receptive principle which is
expressed transcendently and ontologically as Binah and immanently in Malkhuth.

Creation depends on God’s contraction or retreat (tsimtsum) within himself to make room for the
worlds he has created.2 This contraction is described in a number of ways. God is said to withdraw
his powerful light from one part of himself to leave a void to serve as a place for cosmic expansion.
This weakened light allows for the creation of souls, angels, and the material world. Another
metaphor used to explain this process is that God appears to withdraw by drawing down a cosmic
curtain (pargod) before himself to create a darkness. This darkness is really nothing more than the
cosmic receptivity which allows his reality to appear through its light; but God’s infinite light
appears weakened through this veil and is fragmented and limited. We see “through a glass
darkly”. God is both hidden and revealed in everything created.

Tsimtsum occurs in the heart of Malkhuth, the plastic cause, and through its effect the divine
fullness withdraws to a certain extent from the “lower mother,” and awakens the creative
receptivity in her. This void is then ready to receive cosmic manifestation.

The Triple Principle: Shekinah-Metatron-avir

The supreme three Sefiroth Kether-Hokhmah-Binah are reflected immanently in the triple principle
Shekinah-Metatron-avir. Shekinah is the immanence of Kether, the glory or presence of God.
Metatron is the manifestation of Hokhmah as the active aspect of the Shekinah and the source of all
created forms. avir is ether, the manifestation of Binah or cosmic receptivity which gives birth to
every created substance, whether subtle or corporeal. Shekinah-Metatron-avir in its
undifferentiated unity constitutes the prototypical world of creation (olam haberiyah).

The Shekinah or divine immanence externalizes Metatron, all its cosmic possibilities, which are
both spiritual ‘sparks’ and existential ‘seeds’; it then clothes them in their created and celestial
‘habit’, by the first subtle and differentiated manifestations of avir.

2. Leo Schaya, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

1. Leo Schaya, op. cit., p. 49.
2. Dr. Coomaraswamy noted the similarity of tsimtsum to William Blake’s description of creation as the process by which
the Divine is “identified and contracted into variety.” Letter to Gershom Scholem, November 9, 1944.

Page 26
Shekinah

The Shekinah, using the most general definition, is God’s “indwelling” or “presence” in the world.
The concept is quite old in Judaism and long predates Kabbalistic metaphysics. The term appears
in the Talmud from the first century B.C. where it refers to God’s visible or hidden presence in a
particular place.1

Most particularly, it is applied to God’s divine presence in the Tabernacle (mishkan) or Temple
which, as the spiritual center, was considered the “heart of the world.” The center was not fixed
originally since the Jews were nomadic until the time of David and Solomon when the Temple was
constructed. The abode of Shekinah then became the Holy of Holies in the heart of the Temple
which itself was conceived as the center of Zion in the center of Israel. The land of Israel, in turn,
was conceived as the center of the world. This kind of spiritual geography is known to many
cultures and is directly related to the concept of “ether in the heart” discussed earlier.

This presence may be manifested in a supernatural glow of light, known as the

“radiance (ziv) of the Shekinah.” It is also depicted in various images, such as the
“wings of the Shekinah“ under which the pious or proselytes take shelter; the
“countenance of the Shekinah“ beheld by the righteous (perhaps parallel to the
“countenance of the Lord“ found in the Bible?); and the “feet of the Shekinah,”
which are pushed out of the world by those who sin in secret. But the Shekinah can
also exist without any particular manifestation of this sort, simply as the presence of
God and the awareness of His presence.2

Kabbalistic authors developed and elaborated on the concept of the Shekinah using their central
metaphor of the Sefirothic tree.

The essence of the Kabbalistic idea of God, as we have already stated, lies in its
resolutely dynamic conception of the Godhead: God’s creative power and vitality
develop in an unending movement of His nature, which flows not only outward into
Creation but also back unto itself.3

Again, the parallels with Vedic thought is evident. In referring to the symbolism of the waters René
Guénon writes:

This is the ‘celestial river’, which descends toward the earth and which, in Hindu
tradition, is designated by such names as Ganga and Saraswati, which are strictly
names of certain aspects of the Shakti. In the Hebrew Kabbala this ‘river of life’ finds
its correspondence in the ‘channels’ of the Sephirothic tree by which the influences
of the ‘world above’ are transmitted to the ‘world below’, and which are also directly
related to the Shekinah which is a near equivalent of the Shakti…4

No direct influence is suggested but rather a common language of metaphysics inherited by both
cultures and adjusted accordingly to their languages and customs.

As he rightly remarked [referring to Ananda Coomaraswamy], this use of different

symbolisms, which are contrary only in appearance and really have the same
spiritual significance, agrees with the very nature of metaphysics which is never
systematic while being always perfectly coherent.5

1. For a more complete discussion, see Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, chapter 4.
2. Gershom Scholem, op. cit., p. 147. The foot or feet of God is an older anthropomorphic image found in other religions.
God’s foot is associated with the central pillar or beam of light and it is said he “puts his best foot forward.”
3. Gershom Scholem, op. cit., p. 158.
4. René Guénon, Fundamental Symbols, pp. 233-234. The Bahir also refers to the downward and upward movement of the
Shekinah. The Bahir (Book of Brightness or Book of Illumination) is an anonymous mystical work attributed to a 1st cen-
tury rabbinic sage, Nehunya ben Hakanah (c. A.D. 100).

Page 27
Like the Vedic Shakti, the Shekinah is described as a feminine or receptive element in Kabbalistic
thought and is in some ways identical with the last Sefiroth, Malkhuth, the “daughter” or “lower
mother”. Gershom Scholem cannot locate this idea in early Jewish writings and believes it to be a
product of Kabbalistic speculation though he concedes that there are many precedents in other
cultures for the idea.

It is more likely that there is a confusion here between sexual differentiation and the passive or
active functions which can coexist in any metaphysical relationship. We noted this earlier in regard
to Athena who is passive with respect to her father (Zeus) and active with respect to Hephaistos. In
this sense, the Shekinah as a vessel for divine forces is both a restrictive agent and an active force
in the creation and sustenance of the world.

In fact, Scholem identifies this duality in Kabbalistic thought. He quotes from the Zohar:

This is the angel who is sometimes male and sometime female. For when he
channels blessings to the world, he is male and is called male; just as the male
bestows [fecundating] blessings upon the female, so does he bestow blessings upon
the world. But when his relationship to the world is that of judgment [i.e., when he
manifests himself in his restrictive power as a judge], then he is called female. Just
as the female is pregnant with the embryo, so he is pregnant with judgment, and is
then called female.1

This passage links the female characteristics of the Shekinah with its restrictive and dangerous
features acting as a restraint of the flow of life, a quality inherent in judgment (Din). On the other
hand, when the Shekinah functions as an agent of the downward flow of blessings and energy it is
understood as male and associated with the divine name, Adonai (Lord). A lot more can be said in
regard to the Shekinah but it would take us too far afield as we are chiefly concerned with its
relationship to avir.

Metatron

The second member of the triple principle Shekinah-Metatron-avir is the angel Metatron. He is
mentioned three times in the Talmud and in the mystical Hekhaloth and Merkabah literature as well
as in various Kabbalistic texts. There is no mention of him in the Bible but he is associated with the
patriarch Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, who, due to his piety, was raised to the rank of first
angel: “Enoch walked with God, then he was no more, because God took him” (Gen. 5:24). After
this transformation, Enoch is given the name Metatron.

God took me from the midst of the race of the flood and carried me on the stormy
wings of the Shekinah to the highest heaven and brought me into the great palaces
on the heights of the seventh heaven Araboth, where there are the throne of the
Shekinah and the Merkabah, the legions of anger and the hosts of wrath, the
shinanim of the fire, the cherubim of the flaming torches, the ofannim of the fiery
coals, the servants of the flames, and the seraphim of the lightning, and He stood me
there daily to serve the throne next to the throne of glory.2

Enoch is perhaps best known through the Book of Enoch (c. 300 - 200 B.C.) which survived in the
Ge’ez language in Ethiopia and in Aramaic fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.3 The work is not
considered canonical among Jews except in Ethiopia, nor was it considered so by Christians after

5. Ibid., p. 233. The lack of systemization is what makes metaphysics difficult for modern people to understand. As Rabbi-
Adin Steinsaltz wrote: “When a man begins to study Talmud, he always finds himself in the middle of things, no matter
where he starts. Only through study and a combination of facts can he arrive at the ability to understand.”
1. Gershom Scholem, op. cit., p. 186. The quote is from Zohar (1, 232a). The Shekinah is sometimes referred to as the
“Hand of Discipline” but also functions as the “hand that blesses.”
2. 3 Enoch quoted from Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 67.
3. There are two other books named "Enoch": 2 Enoch in Old Slavonic (c. 8th century A.D.) and 3 Enoch in Hebrew (5th
or 6th century A.D.).

Page 28
the 4th century A.D. Nonetheless, the work was well known in antiquity and the Middle Ages and is
still the object of a good deal of scholarship.1

As was noted earlier, the patriarchs were deified in Jewish tradition and associated with angels
who were given specific roles within the Kabbalistic structure. As an angel of the first rank,
Metatron is of particular importance. The name Metatron itself has obscure origins and many
possible derivations have been suggested. Most generally, the Kabbalah describes Metatron as a
kind of deputy of the Shekinah with powers of its own.

The term Metatron conveys the multiple meanings of guardian, Lord, messenger,
mediator; it is the ‘author of the theophanies [God’s manifestation] in the perceptible
world’; it is the ‘Angel of the Face’, and also the ‘Prince of the World’ (sar ha-olem)…2

Metatron is not to be identified with God but acts as his spokesman who mediates with humanity.
The multiple epithets attached to his name each specify an aspect of his complex functions.3 He is
sometimes referred to as the “small YHVH” or “God in action,” the first revelation of the Shekinah,
the whole of God’s spiritual descent through which his totality is realized in this world. The
Merkabah literature stresses his role as the "governing power over the nations, kingdoms and
rulers on earth." 3 Enoch portrays him as the Prince of the World, the leader of seventy-two princes
of the kingdom of the world, who pleads in favor of the world before the Holy One. He is also called
the Divine Scribe who writes the creative thoughts of God in the book of creation. He writes the
heavenly letters that find expression in the written works of the Jewish faith and is the master of all
the teachers of the Misnah (oral tradition).

His ‘pen’ is the ‘middle pillar’ along which flows the luminous ‘ink’ of divine
emanation, descending from the triple ‘brain,’ kether-hokhmah-binah, as
omniscience (da’ath) and then accumulates in the fullness of the Shekinah, and is
engraved on the pure and translucent ‘parchment’ of avir, the generative ether.4

Most significantly, Metatron is a spiritual form from which issues all things. He is called by the
name “Man” because all humans share in the divinity of God and it is the presence of God within
that enables spiritual transformation.5

…of all created beings, man alone is equipped to transform himself spiritually, in a
conscious and active way, into metatron, who is his own immanent prototype, of
which the other cosmic archetypes are only ‘aspects’. This possibility of spiritual
transformation of man into supra-individual and universal man is confirmed by
tradition in the account of the ascent of Enoch to heaven where he became
metatron.6

Avir

The role of avir in Kabbalistic metaphysics is that of substantial receptivity, the emanation of the
transcendent receptivity of Binah. This is the same role that ether has in Greek and Vedic
metaphysics. The Shekinah unites the spiritual radiation of Metatron with the subtle manifestation
of avir to form and heavens and earth. Let us look more closely at how this occurs.

1. See, for example, the work of Andrei Orlov: http://www.andreiorlov.com.

2. René Guénon, The Lord of the World, pp. 15-16.
3. For a more complete list and description of these epithets, see the work of Andrei Orlov, ibid.
4. Leo Schaya, op. cit., p. 112, ft. 3.
5. Compare Sk Manu, Gr Minos, Celt. Menw, Eyg. Menes as a legislator and archetype of man as a thinking being (Sk.
manava).
6. Leo Schaya, op. cit., p. 112.

Page 29
Creation of the Material World
As in Vedic and Greek metaphysics, the creation of the physical world is rooted in the celestial
world. The eternal source is always distinguished from its temporal manifestations or “vanities”
which come into being and pass away.

The divine ‘throne’ is the first crystallization of all the creatural possibilities. It
synthesizes all their spiritual, subtle, and corporeal, or prototypical, celestial, or
terrestrial aspects. This synthetic creation serves as a ‘vehicle’ for divine immanence,
when the Shekinah comes down in its ‘chariot’ to the lower limit of the cosmic
expanse, all created things issue from it and open out on their respective existential
planes.1

The chariot throne is reflected on earth as the divine “footstool” or “foundation stone” where the
divine is revealed as fire (spiritual light), water (subtle substance) and air or ether (the quintessence
of the corporeal elements). In other terms, in the form of Spirit, soul, and body.

God breaks a stone from the celestial throne and hurls it into the cosmic abyss. The stone
represents all creatural possibilities. The stone remains fixed in the abyss while the top is anchored
to the divine throne. In this fashion the possibilities of creation emerge from chaos.

In Jewish cosmology there are seven heavens or regions that represent states intermediate
between the corporeal universe and the subtle or celestial worlds. There are also seven hells or
shadows of these regions which are the abodes of impurity.2 They are a mixture of heavenly water
with “snow,” a term referring to the quintessence of matter. This mixture is the confused mass in
tohu, which is the darkness filling the abyss. The lowest boundary of the abyss is the realm of
Satan, man’s “adversary” or “enemy,” who is the extreme, but ultimately illusory negation of
divine infinity.3 This layered structure requires further clarification.

Let it be made clear that hell, or the world of tohu, is situated below the seven
degrees of clarification of matter, which are the ‘earlier worlds’; the latter did indeed
issue from tohu, but they actually belong to the realm of bohu, the realm of the
formation of the elements. Although hell is identical with “chaos,” nevertheless a
kind of hierarchy of states or degrees can be distinguished here; this hierarchy is the
last reflection of the cosmic order, projected into the midst of the primordial disorder
of nature.4

The two phases of creation are Chaos and Fiat Lux. As is written in Genesis, creation takes place in
seven days and the creation of the Earth is the work of the seventh day, completed with God’s Fiat
Lux. The last day is the crystallization of all the terrestrial possibilities and it ends with in the
Sabbath or day of rest.

It is during the last phase that the material elements begin to emerge from avir, their indistinct
quintessence. They emerge in the same way as the four subtle elements which are their celestial
archetypes, but the latter spring from avir as manifestations of light while the corporeal elements
are their “shadows” or “adversaries”. The celestial elements emerge from the four hayoth
(supports of the celestial throne) while the earthly elements come from the foundation stone within
the abyss.

1. Leo Schaya, ibid., p. 90.

2. The separation of heavens and hells may be seen as analogous to the Vedic distinction between essence and nature dis-
cussed earlier in which nature recedes or “falls” into a state of passive potentiality due to God’s “contraction”.
3. This contrast between light and dark, lightness and heaviness, the material and the spiritual, and good and evil is a com-
monplace in all the cosmologies we have seen.
4. Leo Schaya, op. cit., p. 101. A reversal of the darkness and reabsorption into the divine order is always possible since
Satan is a fallen angel and all creation can ultimately return to its source in God.

Page 30
The Zohar (Bereshith 16a) describes the clarification of the corporeal elements and their emergence
from “chaos” by interpreting the first chapter of Genesis:

a certain film [‘earth’ properly so-called] detached itself from the refuse [chaotic
‘earth’], like the film which remains on the top of boiling broth when the froth has
been skimmed off two or three times. When tohu [impure ‘earth’] had thus been
sifted and purified … similarly bohu was sifted and purified [until the element ‘water’
came out from it, for as the Zohar tells us further on, bohu is called ‘the face of the
waters’] … Then what we call ‘darkness’ [covering the abyss] was sifted, and there
was contained in it [the element] fire … When what we call ‘spirit’ [which hovered
over the face of the waters’ after having come out from the ‘abyss’ with the other
elemental forms] was [also] sifted, there was contained in it a still, small voice [the
‘voice of YHVH’ which mysteriously filled the element air].1

Thus the elements gradually arise from the abyss in the process of clarification and manifestation
toward the translucence of avir through which the cosmic divinity is revealed. As soon as air issues
from the abyss and hovers over the waters the corporeal world is ready to receive the divine word.

This is the Fiat Lux (Yehi Aor) of Genesis, the first affirmation of the Divine Word in
the work of creation—the initial vibration which opens the way to the development
of possibilities contained potentially in the state “without form and void” (thohu va
bohu) in the original chaos.2

God’s word is revealed as light (avr) which issues from avir and spreads out. This action causes all
of the details of the material universe to unfold in perfect order and sets all of the terrestrial and
astral bodies in harmonious motion. The four material elements (earth, air, fire, water) are all
penetrated by the corporeal forms imprinted on them by the radiation of the Fiat Lux.

It is said the substances composing man’s body belong to two worlds; the corporeal elements and
their celestial prototypes derived from the hayoth. The four earthly elements (yesodot) are felt to be
components of a man’s nephesh or lower soul. The relative balance of the elements is associated
with the respective qualities of the individual much in the manner of the four humors that were part
of medieval medical practice.

Finally, It might be noted that unlike the Greeks, the nature of the physical world was not a major
focus of Jewish thought.

Though the Bible is full of the awareness and appreciation of nature from the
creation narrative up to the Psalmist's declaration, "The heavens declare the glory of
God…" (Ps. 19:2), it does not profess a comprehensive doctrine of nature in relation
to man and God. Nature is a testimony to the work of the Creator (Isa. 40:26; Amos
5:8; Job 38–41), not a subject for speculation. As opposed to the pagan world-view
which endowed natural objects with divinity, the Bible makes it quite clear that the
natural world was produced by, and totally subject to, God – not in any way part of
Him. This, in sum, is its doctrine of nature.3

1. Ibid., pp. 93-94.

2. René Guénon, Fundamental Symbols, p. 297 ft.
3. The Jewish Virtual Library, under “Nature”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nature

Page 31
Ether in the Middle Ages
The medieval method of education, rhetoric, provided the connecting link between the classical and
medieval worlds. In manuscript cultures, people read aloud and slowly and depend on memory
training to organize their thoughts. Any argument has to be based on authority and the authority of
the ancients, Christian or pagan, was the locus for any further debate or discussion. Aristotle had
collected and analyzed a good deal of information about the physical world and had also provided a
metaphysical context for the origin of the world and the beings in it.

Greek thought was quite coherent within the Christian framework since, like the Jews, Christians
could substitute God for the Platonic One, Zeus, Jupiter, or whatever other names the ancients used
to describe the Creator. Augustine believed that Christianity, at least in a nascent form, existed
before Christ and many Christian writers saw adumbrations of Christian thought in the writings of
the ancients. There is more continuity here than has been suspected. The Christian Holy Spirit is
equivalent to the Greek daimon, both taken from the root word for something given, “the gift of
God” which was associated with the Greek pneuma as we have seen.1

The major contributors to medieval cosmological thought between A.D. 500 to 1500 were Plato and
Aristotle. The Timaeus was known through Cicero’s Latin translation and the work of early
medieval commentators. Most of Plato’s other writings were not rediscovered until the
Renaissance but his influence was felt strongly through the writings of St. Augustine, Boethius, and
Pseudo-Dionysius. We have also noted how strongly the early Christian theologians were
influenced by the writings of Philo Judaeus and Proclus.

Beginning in the second quarter of the twelfth century and continuing for more than
a century, a vast treasure of Greek and Arabic science and philosophy was translated
from Greek and Arabic into Latin. As more and more of it became available,
medieval scholars came into possession of a complex cosmology and world view.
The core of this new cosmology was formed by Aristotle’s physical and
metaphysical works, especially his On the heavens (De Caelo), Physics, Meteorology,
On generation and corruption, and Metaphysics. To those of Aristotle’s works must
be added those of Ptolemy (especially his Almagest and Tetrabiblos) and those by
numerous Arabic authors and commentators, notably Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126-98),
Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037), Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham, 965-c. 1039), al-Farabi, (c.
870-950), Thabit ibn Qurrah (836-901), and the Jewish author, Maimonides (1135-
1204).2

Most of these authors were influenced by Aristotle and make mention of ether in the context of
cosmology, the soul, or medical practices. I have neglected to include the Islamic perspective in this
paper but as was the case with Philo, Muslim authors used the formulations of Greek philosophy to
clarify their own beliefs.

Al-Farabi and Avicenna adopted the idea that the concentric spheres were ethereal
and eternal, but unlike Aristotle explained them in terms of emanation from God, in
keeping with the general tendency of early Islamic philosophy to combine elements
of Aristotle with Neoplatonic emanationism.3

In general, the medieval conception of ether did not differ from that of the Greeks and Romans: four
material elements and a fifth non-material element. In the words of St. Bonaventure: “Quinque sunt

1. If Christian apologists condemned the Greeks for believing in demons, it was only to further their own cause. A man
may soil his own daimon by impious acts but the daimon itself was God given. The gods of the old religion become the
devils of the new.
2. Edward Grant, “The Medieval Cosmos. It’s Structure and Operation,” p. 147. Available at https://articles.adsabs.har-
vard.edu//full/1997JHA....28..147G/0000147.000.html.
3. Caner Dagli, “Ether (OEPSTI)” available on https://www.academia.edu/10989138/Ether_OEPSTI_.

Page 32
corpora mundi simplica, scilicet quatuor elementa et quinta essentia.”1 The term quintessence is
simply the Latin name for the ether.

In addition to the cosmological speculations inherited from the classical world, ether had a primary
role in medieval alchemy and medicine.

The Liber de secretis naturae seu de quinta essentia is the central work in the
Pseudo-Lullian Alchemical corpus, a large collection of as many as 143 different texts
that circulated as the work of Raymond Lull (Ramon Llull or Raimundus Lullus; 1232-
1316), the famous Catalan philosopher, theologian, and mystic. Notably, the author
of this work used large sections of an earlier work by John of Rupescissa (c. 1310-c.
1362), De consideratione quintae essentiae omnium rerum, which links alchemy with
medicine by describing the process of producing aqua vitae (Latin for "water of life")
by the distillation of wine; per Rupescissa, the resulting substance could prevent
corruption and decay, and thus prevent illness and premature aging. The Liber de
secretis naturae, in contrast with Rupescissa’s text, is not primarily interested in the
medical application of the quintessence, but instead interprets these ideas as part of
an alchemical system that includes medicine, the transmutation of metals, and the
artificial production of precious stones. 2

The prevailing medical theories saw ether as a kind of life force and physicians believed they could
distill ether from alcohol (the “water of life”) and use it as an elixir to cure disease and prolong life.
Alchemists believed that the liquid obtained from distillation was a concentration of the essential
elements of any substance, whose properties and characteristics were determined by its
“spirit.”This association of alcohol with ether has very old roots since the use of intoxicants of
various kinds in religious ceremonies is widespread in both the Old and New World. The grinding
or pressing of plants or grapes was felt to release their “virtue” or essence which, like the Indian
soma, was associated with the food of the gods and the creation and sustenance of life.3

Lastly, we have the Middle English word ylem defined in Webster’s Dictionary (2nd edition) as “the
primordial substance from which all matter is formed.”4 The word is derived from the Greek hyle
commonly mistranslated as “matter” as we noted earlier.

Ether in Early Modern Science

The concept of ether was so firmly established by the Renaissance that it found its way easily into
early scientific speculation as an explanatory principle for several different physical phenomena.

In the case of René Descartes (1596-1650) ether was a “primary matter” in which objects swam. The
ether formed vortices in which visible bodies, such as planets, were carried around by the divine
laws that governed the vortices. He conceived of the bodies themselves as purely mathematical.
They possessed no qualities but those deductible from extension and free mobility in the
surrounding medium. E. A. Burtt comments:

What he did not appreciate was that this speculative success was bought at the
expense of loading upon the primary medium those characteristics which express
themselves in gravitation and other variations of velocity–the characteristics in a
word which Galileo was endeavouring to express mathematically, and which
Descartes himself, in his more exact mathematical mood has conceived as
dimensions.5

1. De Reductione Artium ad Theologiam, 3.

2. Science History Institute at https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/82ul4ik.
3. See Mark Siegeltuch, “The Water Symbol,” available on Academia.edu, for more background. When many American
Indian tribes were first introduced to alcohol they used it in religious ceremonies to communicate with the spirit world.
When the government sought to restrict its distribution patent medicine was sold in its place.
4. See “Ylem” in Wikipedia.

Page 33
Galileo (1564-1642) was the first to understand that the motion of physical bodies could be reduced
to exact mathematical formulae. This required that bodies must have qualities other than merely
geometrical ones. The new mathematics was beginning to make inroads against the older
geometrical-symbolic ideas inherited from antiquity. Descartes was not able to resolve this
dilemma.

The chemist Robert Boyle (1627-1691) also adopted the prevalent notion that ether pervaded space,
however, as an experimentalist he was more cautious:

That there may be such a substance in the universe, the asserters of it will probably
bring for proofs several of the phenomena I am about to relate, but whether there be
or be not in the world any matter that exactly answers to the description they make
of their first and second elements I shall not here discuss, though divers experiments
seem to argue that there is an etherial substance very subtle and not a little
diffused.1

By Boyle’s time ether had come to serve two functions in theoretical physics. The first was the
communication of motion by successive impact. This was necessary to support Descartian
mechanics and agreed with current experiments that argued against a vacuum in nature. Ether was
conceived as a homogeneous, phlegmatic fluid, filling all of the space that was not occupied by
other physical bodies. The second function of ether was to explain phenomena like magnetism or
gravity which operated at a distance.

Boyle was also the first to question the validity of the traditional theory of the four elements.

He published The Sceptical Chymist [1661], a book in which he discussed the criteria
by which one can decide whether a substance is or is not a chemical element. He
concluded that the four Aristotelian elements and three principles commonly
accepted in his time cannot be real chemical elements since they can neither
compose nor be extracted from substances. The theory, however, was so influential
that even Joseph Black (1728-1799) was still teaching his classes that water was
transmutable into earth.2

Thinkers like the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More (1614-1687), more religious in his outlook
referred to a “spirit of nature” which possessed powers of vegetation, nourishment, regulation and
guidance without consciousness, reason or purpose. More was a strong influence on Isaac Newton
(1643-1727) whose own outlook, despite his extensive contributions to science, was still deeply
metaphysical. Ether played a major role in his theory of vision as defined in his Opticks:

Is not vision performed chiefly by the vibrations of this medium [ether], excited in the
eye by the rays of light, and propagated through the solid, pellucid, and uniform
capillamenta of those nerves into the place of sensation?3

In such a way did the new science seek to create a bridge between traditional thought and the new
insights provided by mathematics and experimentation. The concept of ether would survive into
the late 19th century in one form or another.

The Michelson-Morley experiments conducted first in Germany (1880-1881) and later in the United
States (1887) attempted to detect ether which was believed to carry electro-magnetic waves.

5. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, pp. 111-112.

1. Ibid., p. 190.
2. Fathi Habashi, “Zoroaster and the Theory of the Four Elements,” in Bulletin of the History of Chemistry, vol. 25, no. 2,
p. 109. Available at http://acshist.scs.illinois.edu/bulletin_open_access/v25-2/v25-2%20p109-115.pdf.
3. Burtt, op. cit., p. 234. For a fuller discussion of Newton’s theory of ether, see Philip E. B. Jourdain, “Newton’s Hypothe-
sis of Ether and of Gravitation from 1672 to 1679.”

Page 34
 Michelson reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the
proposed ether through which Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by
comparing the speed of light in the direction of Earth’s motion and the speed of light
at right angles to Earth’s motion. No difference was found. This null result seriously
discredited the ether theories and ultimately led to the proposal by Albert Einstein in
1905 that the speed of light is a universal constant.1

But even Einstein was not completely ready to abandon the idea of ether though he reframed the
matter within the context of relativity.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is
endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in
such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time …2

He clarified his opinion in a paper published in 1924, “Concerning the Aether” where he explained
the difference between his conception of ether and the older Newtonian one. The ether of general
relativity is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the ether, just as matter influences the
structure of the aether.

The term “ether” is no longer used by physicists due to its association with older Newtonian
concepts of space but the issues raised by Einstein are still debated in relation to unified field
theories.

To summarize, the Reformation and the growth of modern science created a split between
traditional metaphysical ideas and those of science. This was not immediately apparent to those
living throughout this shift. Early scientists sought to resolve the conflict but were ultimately
unsuccessful and it became increasingly clear over time that the domains of science and religion
would be difficult to reconcile. One result of this split was that the fields of philosophy and science
began to look upon ideas like ether as proto-science rather than as metaphysics. In the process, the
past was distorted to bring it into line with current thinking.

Some Final Remarks

It is difficult to know how old the idea of ether and the concepts related to it are since they existed in
images, metaphors, and stories before being incorporated into philosophy or religious doctrine.
What is certain is that when we find these same ideas expressed in writing in Chinese, Indian, Greek
and Jewish culture, clear evidence of a common origin, whatever the minor differences.

It is a wonder that the older metaphysical ideas were actually so serviceable to modern science
when we consider their origins. They served as a stable bridge upon which to build a more accurate
description of the physical world based on observation, experimentation, and new forms of
mathematics. This is due in part to the fact that many metaphysical ideas were built from simple
observations or metaphors drawn from observation.

The modern scholar’s difficulties arise largely from the fact that he cannot forget his
science and does not think in the technical terms of metaphysics, which terms are
not those of an imperfect “science” but simply those of the appearances that are
presented alike to primitive man and to our own eyes, to which the Sun still seems to
rise in the East and set in the West.3

1. https://www.britannica.com/science/Michelson-Morley-experiment
2. Albert Einstein, from an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. Quoted from https://medium.com/@Gatot-
Soedarto/albert-einstein-began-by-rejecting-the-ether-theory-2e0d8ff8a812

Page 35
In regard to the Ptolemaic system as a whole it can hardly be characterized as “bad science.”

The rejection of the Ptolemaic system and the acceptance of the Copernican really
involved a “metaphysical revolution.” This has been definitely demonstrated in
many books, but especially by Burtt in his Metaphysical Foundations of Modern
Science. It was not so much, then, ignorance of scientific method that dictated the
structure of the Ptolemaic system as too great a reliance on naive observation and
the acceptance of certain metaphysical presuppositions.1

The Jews, while rejecting many of the older religious ideas and images inherited from Neolithic
times, retained a lot of the older imagery within their sacred writings and sought to integrate it with
more rationalized forms of thought in later periods of time. In later periods, they borrowed from
Greek philosophy, often to identify the numerous commonalities in their belief systems or to clarify
concepts for which they had no words.

The Indians and Greeks on the other hand show a strongly analytical bent which may be due to
their common Indo-European inheritance but particularly to the influence of writing. This is
particularly true in their development of technical vocabularies more suitable for explicating older
ideas (for example, “unlimited” or “being and non-being”).2 But even here, the older images and
stories deriving from earlier times required integration.3 All of early philosophy resorts to myths
and images borrowed from the past just as science was obliged to borrow metaphysical ideas from
the classical and medieval worlds.

Mark Siegetuch

New York City

July, 2022

3. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Guardians of the Sundoor, p. 147. It should be noted that Dr. Coomaraswamy was a geologist as
well as an art historian and metaphysician.
1. Louis Kattsoff, “Ptolemy and Scientific Method: A Note on the History of an Idea.” Isis, vol. 38, no. 1/2, Nov. 1947, p.
18.
2. See Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato, for a discussion of the revolution in language that made this transition possible.
3. See A.K. Coomaraswamy, Yaksas, on the synthesis of the older Neolithic Dravidian culture and the incoming Indo-Euro-
pean one in the Vedas and later writings. Some of this is summarized in Mark Siegeltuch, “The Water Symbol,” on Aca-
demia.edu.

Page 36
Bibliography
Burnet, John. Early Greek Philosophy (3rd edition), Meridian Books, New York (1963).

Burtt, Edwin A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Dover Press, Mineola, N.Y.
(2003).

Cook, Arthur Bernard. Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion. 3 volumes. Biblo and Tannen, New York
(1964).

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. Selected Papers Vol. 1: Metaphysics and Vol. 2: Traditional Art and
Symbolism. Bollingen Series, LXXXIX, Princeton University Press (1977). Edited by Roger Lipsey.

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. ‘The Concept of “Ether” in Greek and Indian Cosmology,’ in Guardians
of the Sun-Door, Fons Vitae Press, Louisville, Kentucky (2004). Edited by Robert Strom.

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. The Bugbear of Literacy, Dennis Dobson Ltd., London (1943).

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. What is Civilisation?, Lindisfarne Press, Great Barrington,

Massachusetts (1989).

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. On the Traditional Doctrine of Art, Golgonooza Press, Ipswitch, England
(1977).

Dagli, Caner. “Ether (OEPSTI)”bavailable on https://www.academia.edu/10989138/Ether_OEPSTI_.

Dorig, José. “Aither,” Antique Kunst 33, pp. 28-30. Available on JSTOR.

Encyclopedia Britannica Web site. “Michelson-Morley experiment” (https://www.britannica.com/

science/Michelson-Morley-experiment).

Ginzburg, Carlo. The Cheese and the Worms. New York, Penguin, 1982.

Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judeus, Yale University Press, New Haven,
Connecticut (1940).

Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light. The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. Yale University
Press (1935).

Grant, Michael. “The Medieval Cosmos. It’s Structure and Operation.” Science History Publications,
Ltd. Available at https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1997JHA....28..147G/0000147.000.html.

Guénon, René. ‘The Indian Theory of the Five Elements,” in Studies in Hinduism, Navrang, New
Delhi (1985).

Guénon, René. Fundamental Symbols, Quinta Essentia, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1995).
Translation from the French by Alvin Moore. Revised and edited by Martin Lings.

Guénon, René. Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta. Munshiram Manoharlal
Publishers, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, India (1981).

Guénon, René. The Multiple States of Being, Larson Publications, Burdett, New York (1984).

Guénon, René. The Lord of the World, Coombe Springs Press, Moorcote, England (1983).

Jourdain, Philip E. B. “Newton’s Theory of Ether and Gravitation from 1672-1679,” in The Monist,
January, 1915, pp. 79-106. Oxford University Press. Available from JSTOR.

Kattsoff, Louis. Ptolemy and Scientific Method: A Note on the History of an Idea.” Isis, vol. 38, no. 1/
2, Nov. 1947, p. 18.

Page 37
Mihai, Adrian. “Soul’s Aitherial Abode According to the Poteidaia Epitaph and the Presocratic
Philosophers.” In Numen 57 (2010), pp. 553-582.

Orlov, Andrei. Mutliple essays on the Enochian tradition and the angel Metatron, available on http:/
/www.andreiorlov.com.

Ott, Sandra. “Aristotle Among the Basques: ‘The Cheese Analogy’ of Conception.” Man, vol. 14, no.
4, pp. 699-711.

Oxford University, cabinet, “The fifth element and medieval cosmology.” https://
www.cabinet.ox.ac.uk/fifth-element-and-medieval-cosmology-2.

Schaya, Leo. The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah. Sophia Perennis, Hillsdale, N.Y. (2005)

Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Shocken Books, New York, N.Y. (1946).

Scholem, Gershom. On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, Shocken Books, New York, N.Y. (1991).

Siegeltuch, Mark. The Thread-Spirit, Fons Vitae Press, Louisville, Kentucky (2011)

Siegeltuch, Mark. “Crossed Figures. A prehistoric motif and its relation to later artistic,
metaphysical and mathematical ideas.” On Academia.edu.

Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. Basic Books, (1976)

Snodgrass, Adrian. The Symbolism of the Stupa. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, New Delhi, India
(2007).

The Jewish Virtual Library: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nature.

Wright, M.R. Cosmology in Antiquity. Routledge, London, England (1995).

Yates, Frances. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and
New York (1979)

Page 38