Difference between revisions of "Neither one nor many (gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs)"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Budha-300.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Budha-300.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
| − | [[Neither one nor many]] argument (Wylie: [[gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs]]) is an argument employed by different [[philosophers]] and [[spiritual]] [[traditions]] for various [[reasons]]. The [[Neither one nor many]] argument and its permutations and antecedents, particularly the "problem of the One and the Many" as charted by McEvilley (2002: pp. 23–66) in his magnum opus, has an ancient pedigree in the [[lineages]] of both {{Wiki|Indian Philosophy}} and {{Wiki|Greek Philosophy}}. McEvilley (2002) also provides strongly {{Wiki|persuasive}} arguments inferring the mutual [[influence]] and mutual iteration of the ancient [[Indian]] and {{Wiki|Greek}} [[philosophical]] [[traditions]] but proffers patently inconclusive and undemonstrable evidence, the [[perennial]] bugbear of historical inquiry. The argument is a factor in the algorithmic [[function]] of the {{Wiki|Catuskoti}}. In its [[Buddhist]] employ, the argument is one of a suite of arguments within the purview of [[Pramana]] and {{Wiki|Indian logic}} to demonstrate and test various [[doctrines]]. Different authorities and sources provide different enumerations of these said arguments, [[Khenpo Yonten Gyamtso]] lists them thus: | + | [[Neither one nor many]] argument (Wylie: [[gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs]]) is an argument employed by different [[philosophers]] and [[spiritual]] [[traditions]] for various [[reasons]]. The [[Neither one nor many]] argument and its permutations and antecedents, particularly the "problem of the One and the Many" as charted by McEvilley (2002: pp. 23–66) in his [[Wikipedia:Masterpiece|magnum opus]], has an {{Wiki|ancient}} pedigree in the [[lineages]] of both {{Wiki|Indian Philosophy}} and {{Wiki|Greek Philosophy}}. McEvilley (2002) also provides strongly {{Wiki|persuasive}} arguments inferring the mutual [[influence]] and mutual iteration of the {{Wiki|ancient}} [[Indian]] and {{Wiki|Greek}} [[philosophical]] [[traditions]] but proffers patently inconclusive and undemonstrable {{Wiki|evidence}}, the [[perennial]] bugbear of historical inquiry. The argument is a factor in the algorithmic [[function]] of the {{Wiki|Catuskoti}}. In its [[Buddhist]] employ, the argument is one of a suite of arguments within the purview of [[Pramana]] and {{Wiki|Indian logic}} to demonstrate and test various [[doctrines]]. Different authorities and sources provide different enumerations of these said arguments, [[Khenpo Yonten Gyamtso]] lists them thus: |
* '[[diamond splinters' argument]] (Wylie: [[rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs]]) | * '[[diamond splinters' argument]] (Wylie: [[rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs]]) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* argument of '[[neither one nor many]]' (Wylie: [[gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs]]) | * argument of '[[neither one nor many]]' (Wylie: [[gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs]]) | ||
| − | The {{Wiki|Padmakara Translation Group}} (2005: p. 39) convey the uniqueness of the [[Madhyamākalaṃkāra]] of [[Śāntarakṣita]] in [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|literature}} in its focused, dedicated and protracted employ of the "[[neither one nor many]]" argument: | + | The {{Wiki|Padmakara Translation Group}} (2005: p. 39) convey the [[uniqueness]] of the [[Madhyamākalaṃkāra]] of [[Śāntarakṣita]] in [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|literature}} in its focused, dedicated and protracted employ of the "[[neither one nor many]]" argument: |
: The [[Madhyamakalankara]] invokes the argument of "[[neither one nor many]]" more intensively (throughout sixty-two of its ninety-seven [[stanzas]]) than any other text in [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|literature}}. This argument is one of a series of proofs used to demonstrate that [[phenomena]] are without real [[existence]]. | : The [[Madhyamakalankara]] invokes the argument of "[[neither one nor many]]" more intensively (throughout sixty-two of its ninety-seven [[stanzas]]) than any other text in [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|literature}}. This argument is one of a series of proofs used to demonstrate that [[phenomena]] are without real [[existence]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:46, 28 December 2013
Neither one nor many argument (Wylie: gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs) is an argument employed by different philosophers and spiritual traditions for various reasons. The Neither one nor many argument and its permutations and antecedents, particularly the "problem of the One and the Many" as charted by McEvilley (2002: pp. 23–66) in his magnum opus, has an ancient pedigree in the lineages of both Indian Philosophy and Greek Philosophy. McEvilley (2002) also provides strongly persuasive arguments inferring the mutual influence and mutual iteration of the ancient Indian and Greek philosophical traditions but proffers patently inconclusive and undemonstrable evidence, the perennial bugbear of historical inquiry. The argument is a factor in the algorithmic function of the Catuskoti. In its Buddhist employ, the argument is one of a suite of arguments within the purview of Pramana and Indian logic to demonstrate and test various doctrines. Different authorities and sources provide different enumerations of these said arguments, Khenpo Yonten Gyamtso lists them thus:
- 'diamond splinters' argument (Wylie: rdo rje gzegs ma'i gtan tshigs)
- 'refutation of production of existent and nonexistent effects' (Wylie: yod med skye 'gog gi gtan tshigs)
- 'refutation of production related to four possible alternatives' (Wylie: mu bzhi skye ba'i gtan tshigs)
- 'dependent arising' argument (Wylie: rten 'brel gyi gtan tshigs)
- argument of 'neither one nor many' (Wylie: gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs)
The Padmakara Translation Group (2005: p. 39) convey the uniqueness of the Madhyamākalaṃkāra of Śāntarakṣita in Buddhist literature in its focused, dedicated and protracted employ of the "neither one nor many" argument:
- The Madhyamakalankara invokes the argument of "neither one nor many" more intensively (throughout sixty-two of its ninety-seven stanzas) than any other text in Buddhist literature. This argument is one of a series of proofs used to demonstrate that phenomena are without real existence.
Source
Wikipedia:Neither one nor many (gcig du 'bral ba'i gtan tshigs)
