CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Neither one nor many

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 20, 2024
Entity authorityQ17052648
Source-derived summary

Neither one nor many is a spiritual and philosophical argument that truly existing entities are not merely singular (since they always comprise multiple parts), nor are they plural (since a plural is simply an abstract grouping of already-debunked singular entities); therefore reality or existence is neither singular nor plural in its composition. The argument is employed by different philosophers and spiritual traditions for various reasons. Its formulation, permutations, and antecedents, particularly the "problem of the One and the Many" as charted by philologist Thomas McEvilley (2002: pp. 23–66), has an ancient pedigree in the lineages of both Indian philosophy (namely, Buddhist philosophy) and Greek philosophy. McEvilley (2002) also provides arguments inferring the mutual influence and mutual iteration of the ancient Indian and Greek philosophical traditions.

In its Buddhist usage, the argument is one of a suite of arguments within the purview of Pramana and Indian logic to demonstrate and test various doctrines. The argument is a factor in the algorithmic function of the Buddhist logical system of Catuskoti. Different authorities and sources provide different enumerations of these said arguments. One exploration of the Madhyamākalaṃkāra of Śāntarakṣita in Buddhist literature conveys its uniqueness in its focused, dedicated, and protracted usage 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.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Neither one nor many” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Neither, many and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2002—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Neither, many and Open-knowledge is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 20, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q17052648. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2002.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Neither one nor many”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Neither one nor many primary sources, Neither one nor many archive and Neither research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Neither one nor many”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Neither one nor many” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.