‹ The Fire & the Veil

The Fire & the Veil · Foundation of Asha

The Garment and the Abyss

Torah, the Upanishads, and the Zohar on the Hidden Absolute Behind the Name of God

Asher Wilder · Foundation of Asha

Abstract

This essay defends a narrow and durable version of a comparison that is usually made badly. The careless version says that Kabbalah came from India, that the Torah descends from the Upanishads, or that Judaism and Hinduism are secretly one religion. None of that is defensible, and this essay claims none of it. The defensible claim is smaller and, I think, more interesting: the Zohar, a medieval mystical reading of the Torah, exposes inside the Torah a movement from outer form to hidden depth that structurally resembles the far older Upanishadic turn from Vedic rite toward an unnameable absolute. The comparison is therefore not Zohar versus Upanishads as two ancient texts of one age. It is Torah-as-exposed-by-the-Zohar beside Veda-as-interiorized-by-the-Upanishads. The resemblance is a resemblance of form — a shared mystical grammar — and not evidence of descent, and not, as we will see, evidence that the two traditions mean the same thing at the bottom. They do not. The point where they diverge is as important as the point where they rhyme.

I. The Real Question

The question is not whether Ein Sof "equals" Brahman, or whether YHWH is the "angry God," or whether the various Semitic words for the divine share a root. Those are fragments of a deeper problem, and taken alone they mislead.

The real question is this: how does the unnameable Absolute become the named God of scripture? Or, put more sharply: when scripture says God, is it naming the Absolute itself, or is it giving the Absolute a mask, a voice, a role, an interface through which a people can pray, obey, remember, and narrate?

Every developed tradition feels this pressure. In the Hebrew Bible the divine appears under names and offices — El, Elohim, YHWH, Adonai, the God of Abraham, the liberator, the lawgiver, the jealous covenant-keeper, the one who speaks from fire and cloud. In the Indian material the ultimate appears across an equally wide spread of concepts — deva, Brahman, Ātman, Īśvara, Krishna, the imperishable, the inner ruler, the supreme Self. The naming is not a defect. The religious mind names the sacred precisely so that it can be addressed.

But mysticism, in both worlds, interrupts the surface. It says: do not confuse the name with the named, the address with the abyss, the garment with the body. The ancient religious mind names the divine so it can be approached; the mystical mind then asks what stands behind even the holiest name. It is at that second moment — not the naming, but the looking-through — that the comparison between the Upanishads and the Zohar becomes worth making.

II. An Old Comparison, Usually Made Badly

The instinct to set these two literatures side by side is not new, and its history is a warning. In 1900 the rabbi and scholar Asriel Günzig published a Hebrew essay, "Kabbalah and Indian Philosophy," in the journal Ha-Eshkol, arguing — by way of the newly available Upanishad translations and Schopenhauer's enthusiasm for the Vedas — for a "wonderful resemblance" between Indian and Israelite religion (his essay is discussed in Boaz Huss's 2022 survey of Hindu-Jewish mystical comparison). A few years later, the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 stated flatly that the Zohar "is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch, as the Upanishads are the mystic interpretation of the Vedas." So the pairing is more than a century old.

It is also, in those early forms, romantic and overreaching. The temptation is always to slide from resemblance to influence — to imply that one tradition fed the other. And against that slide stands the single most important voice in the academic study of Kabbalah. Gershom Scholem located the roots of Kabbalah not in the East but inside Judaism itself, in an inner-Jewish development fused with Gnostic and Neoplatonic currents from the Mediterranean and Near-Eastern world. On Scholem's account Kabbalah is a textual tradition in continuity with the biblical and rabbinic inheritance, not an Indian import in Hebrew dress.

I take Scholem's correction as binding. It is the reason this essay claims structural resemblance and nothing more. The comparison worth defending is not historical and genealogical — this came from that — but morphological: two systems, separated by an ocean and a thousand years, that execute the same formal move. To see why that move is genuinely the same, and exactly where it stops being the same, we first have to keep the dates honest.

III. Keep the Chronology Clean

The Upanishads are ancient. The Zohar is medieval. This matters, and pretending otherwise is how the comparison gets discredited.

The principal Upanishads belong to the late-Vedic and early post-Vedic world, the older ones composed roughly in the middle of the first millennium BCE. They represent an inward turn: away from sacrificial ritual toward metaphysical discovery, from outer rite toward inner realization, from a crowd of cosmic powers toward a single hidden principle behind all appearance. They ask: What is the Self? What is the imperishable? What is that by knowing which all else is known?

The Zohar, by contrast, surfaces in Christian Spain at the end of the thirteenth century, in the circle around Moses de León in Castile, written in an artificial literary Aramaic. It is not a Bronze Age text. It is not older than the Upanishads. It is not historically parallel to them. It is a mystical midrash on the Torah.

So the comparison cannot be Zohar and Upanishads are ancient sibling texts. They are not. The better comparison is: the Upanishads are an ancient Indian disclosure of a hidden metaphysics beneath Vedic religion; the Zohar is a medieval Jewish disclosure of a hidden metaphysics beneath the Torah. The Zohar's lateness is not a weakness in the argument once you see its role correctly. It is not the source-layer; it is the exposure-layer. It claims to uncover what was folded inside the Torah all along. The question then becomes precise and answerable: when the Zohar opens the Torah and insists there is a soul beneath the stories, does the soul it reveals resemble the older Upanishadic turn inward? The answer is yes — not identically, not as a copy, but structurally. Here is the structure.

IV. The Torah as Garment

The decisive move in the Zohar is its doctrine of the Torah's garments. In the passage that has become its signature on this point (Zohar III:152a, in the Beha'alotcha portion; rendered in Daniel Matt's Pritzker edition and discussed by Scholem in his essay "The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism"), Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is made to say, in paraphrase of a now-famous text: Woe to those who see in the Torah nothing but ordinary tales and everyday words. If that were all it were, we could compose a finer Torah ourselves. The narratives, he says, are the garment of the Torah. Beneath the garment is a body — the commandments. Within the body is a soul, and the truly wise perceive even the soul of the soul. Fools look only at the garment and go no further.

This is the whole bridge, compressed into one image. Once the Torah is read as a garment over a concealed depth, the comparison with the Upanishads stops being decorative and becomes methodological. For the Upanishads do exactly this to the Vedic world. They do not discard the hymn, the sacrifice, the sacred sound; they interiorize them. The fire altar becomes inner knowledge. The outer rite becomes a sign of inner realization. The many powers are grounded in one hidden reality. The human being is no longer merely a ritual or social creature but a doorway into the absolute.

The Zohar does the same thing to the Torah. It does not abolish the Torah; it opens it. It treats the scriptural surface as clothing wrapped around concealed divine intelligence. So the resemblance is not the trivial observation that both traditions "use mystical language." The resemblance is a shared method: both claim that sacred reality is hidden beneath the surface of sacred form, and that the religious task is to read through the surface without destroying it. And lest this seem like a modern projection, recall that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia quoted this very garment-body-soul hermeneutic in the same breath as the Upanishads. The pairing suggested itself to careful readers more than a century ago.

V. The Upanishadic Turn

The Upanishads do not begin from nothing. They arise out of the Vedic world of hymn, sacrifice, priestly speech, ritual action, and sacred order. But then they ask a more dangerous question: what is the underlying reality behind all of this? That question shifts the axis of religion — from outer ritual to inner knowledge, from many sacred forms to a hidden principle, from performing the rite to knowing the Self.

Two formulas mark the turn. The first is the great apophatic refrain attributed to the sage Yājñavalkya in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad: neti, neti — "not this, not this" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.3.6; cf. 3.9.26). The ultimate cannot be captured by any predicate; every name you reach for must be withdrawn, because "there is nothing higher than this 'not this.'" The second is the great affirmation from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the climax of Uddālaka's instruction of his son Śvetaketu: tat tvam asi — "that thou art" (Chāndogya 6.8.7). The subtlest essence of all that is, the Real, the Self — that is what you are.

Hold those two together, because their tension is the whole of it: the absolute is utterly beyond every name (neti neti), and it is the deepest truth of the human interior (tat tvam asi). That is the same double pressure the Zohar applies to the Torah — not what does the story literally say? but what hidden reality is concealed beneath the story, and how is the reader's own depth implicated in it?

VI. The Named God and the Unnameable Depth

The pressure point in both traditions is the difference between the named God and the unnameable depth.

In the Torah, God appears under names and offices: God creates, speaks, commands, promises, remembers, judges, liberates, blesses, and enters covenant. This is God as scriptural actor, God as encountered by a people inside history. But the mystic asks: what is God before God is speakable — before role, before wrath, before mercy, before even the sacred Name? This is where the Kabbalistic term Ein Sof ("the Infinite," literally "without end") does its work. Ein Sof is not a second god standing above YHWH, and not a foreign deity smuggled into Judaism. It is the attempt to gesture at the unbounded divine before divinity becomes nameable, addressable, narratable — the abyss behind the interface.

Indian metaphysics draws a strikingly parallel line. Advaita Vedānta, the nondualist school systematized by Śaṅkara, distinguishes nirguṇa Brahman — Brahman without attributes, the absolute "as it really is" — from saguṇa Brahman, Brahman with attributes, which is to say Īśvara, the personal Lord who can be worshipped and addressed (see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Śaṅkara and on concepts of God). The worshipped Lord belongs to the conditioned order; the attributeless absolute is what stands behind it.

So the architecture rhymes, and the rhyme can be stated as a proportion:

Ein Sof is to the named God of the Torah roughly what nirguṇa Brahman is to the worshipped Lord.

Both traditions hold a two-level intuition at once: the divine can be named and addressed, and the divine exceeds every name and address. The Zohar exposes that two-level structure inside the Torah; the Upanishads exposed it earlier inside the Vedic world. But a proportion is not an equation, and if we stop here we will have written exactly the kind of essay this brand exists not to write. The rhyme has a limit, and the limit is the most important sentence in the comparison.

VII. Where the Rhyme Breaks

Here is the disanalogy, and it is decisive. Tat tvam asi is, in its Advaitic reading, a statement of identity: the inmost Self of the person (Ātman) simply is the absolute (Brahman); the apparent gap between them is, at the highest level, ignorance to be dissolved. The mystical telos is the recognition that there was never finally two.

Jewish mysticism, on the whole, refuses that last step. As Scholem stressed repeatedly, the dominant strand of Kabbalah preserves the gulf between Creator and creature. Its highest union, devekut — "cleaving" to God — is an intimacy so close it can scarcely be spoken, and yet it characteristically stops short of absorption; the creature draws near without ceasing to be a creature. The garment comes off; the abyss opens; and a distinction nonetheless remains.

This is not a small footnote. It is the place where the two traditions, having run parallel for a long way, point in genuinely different directions at the end. The Upanishadic depth is your own deepest identity; the Zoharic depth is a concealed God you approach but do not become. A comparison that hid this difference in order to keep the rhyme clean would be worthless. The rhyme is real up to here. After here, the traditions diverge, and the divergence is exactly the kind of thing the next objection accuses this whole enterprise of erasing.

VIII. Is This Just Perennialism?

The obvious objection is that all of this is simply perennialism in better tailoring — the old claim, associated with Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy (1945) and Frithjof Schuon's The Transcendent Unity of Religions, that the world's faiths are local dialects of one universal Truth. That charge would be fatal if it stuck, and it is right to press it. Academic religious studies has spent two generations dismantling perennialism, for two good reasons: it tends to flatten real differences into a vague common essence, and it tends to be covertly normative — Huxley, for instance, quietly resolves the head-on contradiction between the Hindu eternal Self and the Buddhist no-self by siding with Advaita Vedānta and universalizing it, which is not neutrality but a preference dressed as a discovery.

My claim is not perennialism, and the cleanest way to show it is to concede the strongest anti-perennialist argument and keep standing. In his 1978 essay "Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism," Steven Katz built the constructivist case on a single premise: there are no pure, unmediated experiences. A mystic's tradition does not merely clothe a generic experience after the fact; it helps constitute the experience. On that view the Zoharist and the Upanishadic sage are not two people having the same experience in two vocabularies — their traditions shape what is even available to be experienced.

I accept that premise, and Section VII is what acceptance looks like: I have not claimed the two sages touch the same Reality, and I have insisted on the precise point (identity versus preserved gulf) where their experiences and doctrines come apart. What survives is a comparison in the exact sense the great theorist of comparison, Jonathan Z. Smith, licensed: "comparison is never a matter of identity." Comparisons, Smith wrote, "are not given; they are the result of thought" — a scholar's deliberate juxtaposition of structures that remain historically and doctrinally distinct. The discipline even has the right pair of words for it: this is a morphological comparison (of shared form and pattern), not a genealogical one (of historical descent or influence). A homologous grammar, not a shared object; resemblance of structure, not derivation by descent.

That distinction is the whole license for the essay. Perennialism is a first-order claim about the things themselves — all mystics reach one Truth. This is a second-order claim about two textual systems — they make the same formal move from surface to depth while meaning, at the bottom, genuinely different things.

IX. What Can Be Proven, and What Cannot

A responsible thesis has to sort its claims by strength and say so out loud.

Tier one — structural resemblance: strong. The Zohar's garment hermeneutic and the Upanishadic inward turn both distinguish surface from depth, name from essence, ordinary perception from transformative knowledge; both treat sacred reality as hidden in plain sight; both make the human interior the site of the encounter; both move past mere ritualism without abolishing sacred action. This much can be argued with real confidence, and it is the claim this essay actually defends.

Tier two — a shared ancient mystical grammar by contact: plausible, unproven. It is plausible that across the ancient world — the Near East, Iran, India, the Mediterranean — overlapping metaphysical intuitions developed and migrated through trade, empire, translation, and exchange. Ideas do travel. But plausibility is not proof. To assert contact one would need transmission routes, intermediary texts, or shared technical vocabulary, and for the Zohar–Upanishad pairing specifically, those are not on the table. This tier stays flagged as speculation.

Tier three — direct borrowing: unproven, and rejected here. It is not established that the Torah descends from the Upanishads, that the Zohar copied Indian sources, or that Kabbalah is Vedānta in Hebrew. Scholem's whole reconstruction points the other way, toward inner-Jewish, Gnostic, and Neoplatonic roots. Those derivation claims overreach, and this essay does not make them.

The honest position lives entirely in tier one, with tier two named as a possibility and tier three set aside. That is less than the romantic version promises and far more durable than it, because it does not depend on a single piece of evidence ever being overturned.

X. Why It Matters

If the argument holds even at tier one, it changes what the word God is doing.

In ordinary religious speech, "God" is the final word — the end of the sentence. In the mystical reading shared, formally, by the Zohar and the Upanishads, "God" is closer to the first word of a longer inquiry. The name opens the door but is not the room. The scripture hands you a garment, and the garment points to a body, and the body points to a soul. The Upanishads ask: what is Brahman, what is Ātman, what is the imperishable behind the changing forms? The Zohar asks: what is the soul of the Torah, what hidden reality speaks through these stories, what is God before the Name becomes a name?

The answers, as Section VII insisted, are not the same. But the movement is the same, and naming the movement is worth something: religion begins by naming the sacred; mysticism begins when the name becomes transparent to the nameless. A tradition that only ever guards its names hardens into a costume. A tradition that throws its names away loses the body the costume was protecting. The garment doctrine is the refusal of both errors at once — keep the garment, and learn to read through it.

XI. The Clean Bridge

So, stated as plainly as I can:

The Upanishads and the Zohar are not historically equivalent texts. The Upanishads are ancient Indian metaphysical works; the Zohar is a medieval Jewish mystical commentary on the Torah. But the Zohar's central move — that the Torah's stories and commandments are a garment concealing a deeper divine soul — exposes inside the Torah a depth that morphologically resembles the older Upanishadic passage from outer sacred form toward Brahman, Ātman, and inner realization. This is structural resonance, not historical dependence. It does not make the Torah Indian; it does not make the Upanishads Jewish; it does not collapse Ein Sof into nirguṇa Brahman, because at the decisive point — identity versus a preserved gulf — the two traditions choose differently and mean it.

What the comparison yields is one precise thesis, defensible without overclaiming and without erasing difference:

The named God of scripture is the interface layer of an unnameable depth. In the Torah that interface appears as YHWH, Elohim, El, command, covenant, fire, and mercy. The Upanishads reached the same structural recognition early and resolved it into identity; the Zohar reached it late, inside the Torah, and resolved it while keeping the gulf. The garment is the same kind of garment. What each tradition finds when it looks beneath is not the same — and saying both of those things at once is the only honest way to make the comparison at all.

The Zohar is not evidence that the Torah came from India. It is evidence that when the Torah is read to its mystical depth, it begins to speak in a grammar the Upanishads had already made explicit a thousand years before: the world is a garment, the self is a doorway, the name is a veil, and the Absolute is deeper than the God we can name.

Sources

Primary texts

Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism

The comparison itself

Advaita Vedānta

On comparison and perennialism

Method note: every comparative claim above is held at the level of structural resemblance (tier one). Claims of historical contact (tier two) are flagged as plausible but unproven; claims of direct borrowing (tier three) are rejected. Where a source could not be checked against its print original in preparing this essay — notably the exact English wording of Matt's and Scholem's renderings of Zohar III:152a — the citation points to where the text may be verified rather than putting words in a translator's mouth.

<!-- related:auto -->

More from the sourced library: