Dear Origen,
This concept appears in Greek philosophy, in Eastern philosophy, and
in general (Western) theological discussions. This has to do with the
concept of the divine, and seems to be not allocated to one specific
source.
Several sources:
As mentioned before, this concept and exact quote appears in Sri
Aurobindo's "The Life Divine", which is also available online:
"BOOK II, Part II
Ch. XV Reality and The Integral Knowledge
For ages man tried to reach the One as the yogic ultimate, not knowing
the Many are equally the One. To Him neither the One, nor the Many is
the Reality but THAT ? Absolute ? which includes both. Here he breaks
new ground in thought as well as spiritual experience." (SOURCE: Sri
Aurobindo, The Life Divine,
<http://www.motherservice.org/Essays/LDIntro.html>).
However, as mentioned in the beginning of this answer, this concept is
not unique to Sri Aurobindo.
In his e-book "Indecent Practices and Erotic Trance: Making Sense of
Tantra" (1999), John Ryan Haule writes that :
"Since Nagarjuna, however, Buddhism has declared the One and the Many
to be neither in existence nor not in existence, but empty. Thus,
although a Buddhist Tantrika may well be capable of a vision
resembling Muktananda's and would perhaps be inclined to identify the
"light of consciousness" as an imaginal impression of dependent
co-origination, neither the One nor the Many is fixed in "ultimacy."
To attribute ultimacy to the cosmic light of chiti would amount to
asserting the existence of the invisible world we "think up" as lying
behind and lending reality to the extended environment of the Many. It
would be just another thing to "grasp" -- albeit a large and numinous
thing. It would maintain our illusory security in the citadel of the
self, and block our access to the world of primary fact."
(SOURCE: John Ryan Haule , "Indecent Practices and Erotic Trance:
Making Sense of Tantra" , Ch. 11: Emptying Indra's Heaven,
<http://www.jrhaule.net/ipet11.html>).
If this is not enough, I found also a Plato quote, where this appears:
"It is not necessary to look for more clearness in me. For in
proposing that 'that which is not' participates in neither the one nor
the many, just now I spoke of it as one, and still am, for I say "that
which is not." Do you understand therefore?"
(SOURCE: THE SOPHIST, Dialogue by PLATO, Translated by Leslie B.
Vaughan, as published in the Schiller Institute's website,
<http://www.schillerinstitute.org/transl/trans_pl_sophist2.html> - it
should be noted that the quote was not found anywhere else, and that
the Schiller Institute is associated with Lyndon LaRouche and extreme
right wing ideology).
Other "Western" sources found online include a Baptist site and a
theology book published by Cambridge University Press.
I hope this answered your question. Please contact me if you need any
clarification on this answer before you rate it.
Search terms:
"neither the one nor the many" |
