(9) Blogging Through Prof Martin Heidegger’s Interpretations of Greek Philosophy (Transition from Anaximander to Parmenides Part 2/2)

I noted previously Anaximander is talking about beings, ta onta, the neuter plural of to on – being, which implies beings in their unity and not just a multiplicity.  Heidegger notes we see this too in Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, the use of the neuter plural form for “beings” or similar concepts can indeed convey a sense of unity rather than just multiplicity. The neuter gender in Sanskrit often signifies concepts or things in their abstract or collective forms rather than as individual entities. This gender can transcend the binary of masculine and feminine, suggesting something universal or essential.

Generally, the plural form would imply many distinct entities, but in philosophical or spiritual contexts, the neuter plural can denote a holistic view where individual distinctions dissolve into a greater, unified whole. This reflects a key aspect of Indian philosophy, particularly in Vedanta or the Upanishads, where the multiplicity of the world is seen as an expression of one underlying reality.

Bhūtāni– Beings.  The term bhūtāni translates to “beings” in plural. In texts like the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads, when bhūtāni is used, it often implies all beings as a collective, rather than just a collection of separate entities. For instance: Bhagavad Gita 10.20:  (ahaṃ ātmā guḍākeśa sarvabhūtāśayasthitaḥ) – “I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings.” Here, sarvabhūtāni (all beings) is understood to mean all life forms in their unity, not merely as numerous individual beings.  Sattvāni  – Existences or Beings: Similarly, when discussing the nature of existence or consciousness, sattvāni can be used to describe all that exists, emphasizing the oneness of existence.

Advaita Vedanta: This school of thought posits that all distinctions are ultimately illusory (Maya), and there’s only one reality (Brahman). The use of neuter plural in this context would stress that all beings are part of this singular, undivided reality.  The language here serves to illustrate that while there are many forms in the world, they are all part of a singular essence or truth. This aligns with the idea in many Indian philosophies where the multiplicity of the world is seen as an expression of one underlying unity.  Thus, the neuter plural in Sanskrit, particularly in philosophical contexts, not only acknowledges the many but also emphasizes their collective, unified essence, reflecting a deep metaphysical understanding of unity in diversity.

Here are some concrete examples from Sanskrit texts where the neuter plural is used to denote unity amidst multiplicity:

Example 1: Bhagavad Gita 7.6

Sanskrit Text: (etad yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya)

English Translation: “Understand that all these beings have their source in me.”

Here, bhūtāni (beings) is in the neuter plural. Krishna is not just talking about many individual beings; he’s discussing all beings as a collective unity, all having a common origin or essence in him. This usage underscores the philosophical idea that all distinctions are superficial; fundamentally, all beings share a single, divine source.

Example 2: Isha Upanishad, Verse 1

Sanskrit Text:  (īśāvāsyamidaṃ sarvaṃ yatkiñca jagatyāṃ jagat)

English Translation: “All this—whatever exists in this changing universe—is pervaded by the Supreme Being.”

In this verse, jagat (the world or universe) isn’t explicitly in the plural, but when coupled with sarvaṃ (all), it suggests an inclusive, unified view of everything in existence. Here, the unity of all that exists is emphasized, with the plural implied in the context of “all” rather than explicitly stated.

Example 3: Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.1

Sanskrit Text:  (dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā samānaṃ vṛkṣaṃ pariṣasvajāte | tayoranyaḥ pippalaṃ svādvattyanaśnannanyo’bhicākaśīti)

English Translation: “Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other looks on without eating.”

While this isn’t strictly a neuter plural example, the concept of dvā suparṇā (two birds) symbolizes the individual self and the universal Self (Atman and Brahman in Vedanta), illustrating unity in duality. The tree represents the body or the world where all beings (plural implied) share this common experience, highlighting the underlying unity.

These examples from ancient texts show how Sanskrit uses the neuter plural not just to count many but to emphasize the oneness that underlies apparent plurality. This linguistic feature reflects deep philosophical insights into the nature of existence, where multiplicity is seen as an aspect of an indivisible whole.

Likewise, in ancient Greek philosophy, starting with thinkers like Anaximander as the first “true” Greek philosopher, we see the use of the neuter plural “ta onta” (τὰ ὄντα) to signify “beings” or “entities that are.” This usage is profound because it doesn’t just denote a collection of separate entities but emphasizes a unified concept of existence or being. As I said, the neuter in Greek, like in Sanskrit, can be used to indicate abstract or general concepts rather than specific, gendered entities. “To on” (τὸ ὄν) in the singular is “that which is” or “being,” and “ta onta” in the plural means “beings” or “things that are.”  Normally, a plural would suggest many distinct things, but in philosophical discourse, particularly in pre-Socratic thought, the plural can imply an underlying unity or a shared essence among these “beings.”

As we saw previously, Anaximander proposed the concept of the apeiron (ἄπειρον), the boundless or infinite, from which all things come and to which they return. When he speaks of “ta onta,” he refers to all beings as thought out of this one: “ta onta” would represent all beings in their collective unity, stemming from and returning to the apeiron.

This unity in multiplicity is baked into the Greek outlook.  Although Homer doesn’t use “ta onta” in the philosophical sense, his portrayal of the gods and the cosmos often reflects a unity amidst diversity. For instance: Iliad, Book 1: When Zeus speaks of fate and the will of the gods, he implies a unity in the divine order that governs all events: “So spoke the son of Kronos, and he nodded with his dark brows, and the ambrosial locks waved from the lord’s immortal head; and he made great Olympus quake.” Here, the actions of the gods (beings) are seen under the overarching will of Zeus, suggesting a unity in purpose or essence.  Hesiod’s “Theogony” presents a genealogy of the gods where all things (beings) ultimately derive from Chaos, Gaia, and other primordial deities, suggesting a unified origin for all existence: “From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus.” Here, all beings, though diverse, share a common lineage, reflecting a unity in origin.  Pindar speaks of the unity of the divine and human realms, where all beings are part of a cosmic order:  Olympian Ode 1: “One is the race of men, one is the race of gods; both have breath from a single mother.” This expresses a unity between humans and gods, where all are children of the same divine source, akin to the philosophical notion of beings in unity. Oresteia Trilogy: Aeschylus explores themes of justice, fate, and the moral order (Dike) that binds all beings together: Agamemnon: The chorus speaks of the chain of events where “the gods arrange all things to work out justly in the end.” This reflects a philosophical unity where all actions and beings are interconnected in a moral cosmos.  Antigone: In this play, the conflict between divine law and human law brings out the idea of a universal order that transcends individual wills or laws:  Antigone’s Speech: “I was not born to join in hatred, but in love.” Here, Antigone expresses a view where all beings, despite their conflicts, are part of a larger, unified ethical and natural order.  “Bacchae”: Euripides often delves into the tension between the individual and the collective, showing both in unity through Dionysian worship: Chorus: “Blessed is he who knows the mysteries of the gods.” The Bacchic rites symbolize a dissolution of individual identity into a collective unity, a theme that resonates with the philosophical idea of “ta onta.”

These instances in poetry and drama do not directly use “ta onta” but reflect the underlying philosophical idea where the multiplicity of beings or events is seen as an expression of a singular, unified principle or order. This is more implicit, woven into the narrative and thematic structure rather than stated outright as in philosophical texts.  Lets consider this.

Parmenides’ philosophy is centered around the concept of “being” or “what-is” (to on in singular). When he addresses the multiplicity of the world, he argues all these things are manifestations of one true being: “as”, which is indivisible and unchangeable. For Parmenides: From “On Nature”: Although we don’t have direct quotes where he uses “ta onta” clearly in this context, his philosophy implies that “ta onta” would be all the apparent multiplicity, which, in truth, is one continuous, unchanging being.  This has a parallel theme with Parmenides idea that thinking and Being are the same, which we see appear when it breaks down (adikia) such as “taking” movement “as” fractional.  For example, if I am going to cross a distance, I must first make it halfway.  But, in order to get to that middle I must first get half way to the middle, and so on to infinity.  Our basic stance toward beings is taking-as.  I might hear a living thing at my feet in the forest only to look down to see I “took” rustling dead leaves in the wind “as” a living thing.  To put it in the language of Anaximander of the apeiron out of which beings become outlined or conspicuous: Such mis-taking where the taking process breaks down (adikia) outlines or makes conspicuous our normal stance toward the world is “taking as” and so “taking as” is the same as Being (we’ll look at this below): e.g., “The teacher took the students she was teaching as/to be bored because few were watching her.”  The breaking down that outlines and makes conspicuous is of course the ancient principle of dis-closing like un-covering or making conspicuous what the different parts of the brain do by them getting injured and so you see what function has been lost.

Parmenides declared Being and thought are the same, meaning the “as” mediates between the person and the entity.  As I said previously, Aristotle pinpoints this as a logos apophantikos, something as something: something as something else: the dog as brown/hungry/in itself/furry/not me, etc.  There is never just the dog but always “the dog as…”

Syntax: “Taking as” and “taking to be” are the Same

(i) “The teacher took the students she was teaching as bored”: Here, “as” functions as a preposition introducing a predicate complement or an adverbial of manner. It suggests that the teacher perceived or interpreted the students in the state of being bored. “Bored” acts as an adjective describing the condition of the students at the time of the observation. 

(ii) “The teacher took the students she was teaching to be bored”: In this construction, “to be” introduces an infinitive phrase which serves as an object complement or an adverbial of result. This implies the teacher’s conclusion or perception that the students were in a state of boredom based on the observed behavior (few were watching her).  Both constructions essentially convey that the teacher believed or interpreted the students to be bored.

The English “as” for comparison or manner can be traced back to Ancient Greek particles like hōs (ὡς) or hōsper (ὥσπερ), which were used to denote manner, condition, or comparison. In Greek, these particles would introduce clauses describing how something is done or the state in which something is. This usage has influenced English in terms of describing roles, conditions, or comparisons.  The Greek infinitive einai (εἶναι) for “to be” is fundamental in expressing existence, state, or condition. The use of the infinitive in English, particularly with verbs of perception or judgment like “took” or “understood,” echoes Greek constructions where the infinitive could be used to express the result or purpose of an action or to describe someone’s state or character. For instance, Greek might use the infinitive after verbs of perception or opinion to specify how someone or something is regarded or perceived.

Both “as” and “to be” serve to describe or categorize someone’s state or condition based on observation or inference. The overlap comes from the historical use of similar structures in Greek and Latin where different methods could be used to describe the same observed state or condition.  English has inherited a versatile syntax from languages like Greek and Latin, where different grammatical constructions could convey similar meanings, especially regarding perception or judgment of states. The use of “as” for manner or condition and “to be” for purpose, result, or inference shows this syntactic flexibility, allowing English to express nuanced perceptions in various ways.  The sentence thus showcases how English can employ different syntactic structures to describe the same underlying observation or conclusion, influenced by millennia of linguistic evolution from languages like Ancient Greek.  Being, thereby doesn’t just refer to what something is (bookness) but also manner (the stretching out of time in reading the boring book) of appearing.

 Heraclitus speaks of a unity in opposites, and although he doesn’t use “ta onta” directly in this context, his philosophy aligns with the idea that the multiplicity of things (beings) is an expression of one underlying Logos or principle:  Fragment 50: “Listening not to me but to the Logos it is wise to agree that all things are one.” While not using “ta onta,” Heraclitus points to the unity of all things (which would be “ta onta” in a broader philosophical context).

In Platonic dialogues, while not always explicitly using “ta onta” for this concept, Plato discusses how the world of becoming (sensible world) relates to the world of being (the world of Forms). When he talks about the many things in the physical world, he often does so in a way that suggests these are participations in or reflections of eternal Forms: In “The Republic”, Book VI: Plato discusses how “ta onta” (the beings or things that are) in the visible world are but imitations or manifestations of the immutable Forms, suggesting a unity underlying the multiplicity.

What connected beings together for Plato, as I noted in previous posts, was the idea of the beautiful.  And so beauty was present incarnate (the mansion), merely present (the average house), or deficient/lacking (the dilapidated shack) as the way or manner (existentia) things appear.  Plato thus thought there was a system of harmonious beings (anaximander’s dike) that were the context/background through which appropriated/made our own whatever we encountered (encountered “as”) in life.  However, sometimes an encountered being can’t be absorbed and so causes a breakdown (Anaximander’s adikia) in that impotent part of the network.  Plato thus calls this the idea of the good which is Beyond Being (epekeina tes ousias).  It is “good” because it exposes a being in the network as an imposter.  For example, the traditional definition of marriage was not real/true (like “true friend”), but an imposter, so surgery needs to be done to remove the cancerous part of this being so it no longer does violence to LGBTQ+ rights.  In this we recollect, discover what marriage truly is and always was thought we initially unwittingly had it in a distorted form.  LGBTQ+ rights come from outside us/is beyond Being because the traditional network can’t incorporate it.  The background network has a criterion for beings to participate in it, which is Truth (genuineness in the sense of “True Friend”), and so the traditional definition of marriage is expelled from the network because it is an imposter, not “true marriage.”  Thus we have the allegory of the cave where what were once considered to be true beings turn out to be imposters/shadows.  For the Greeks and their emphasis on the collective, “To Be” meant to be in harmony with one’s network of beings.  Through the lens of hermeneutics, in the world of the farmer, a horse that can’t be tamed (adikia) is expelled from the world/system (dike) of the farm because it doesn’t fit what it means to be a horse in that context.

Aristotle uses the term “ta onta” (τὰ ὄντα) in “Metaphysics,” including in Book XII. Here’s how it appears in that context:

In “Metaphysics” Book XII (Λ):

Aristotle discusses the prime mover or the Unmoved Mover, which is his concept of God or the ultimate cause of all motion and change. In this context, “ta onta” refers to all things or beings that are:

Section 1072b: “And since there is something which moves while itself unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise than as it is. For motion is the first of the changes, and of this the primary mover is the first mover, and this is the substance of ta onta (τὰ ὄντα).” Here, “ta onta” refers to all beings or entities, which are unified by being governed by this source of movement.  As was said previously the primary characteristic of being a being is appearing, which is movement.

Section 1074b: “But if there is something which is capable of moving things or in which all ta onta (τὰ ὄντα) find their end, not in the order of motion but by purpose, such a thing is the object of desire and of thought.” Here, Aristotle is discussing how all beings are directed towards this ultimate end or purpose, which is the Unmoved Mover.

Aristotle uses “ta onta” to discuss the totality of beings or existents in relation to their causes, particularly the final cause or purpose, which he associates with the Unmoved Mover. His use of “ta onta” in these contexts underscores the idea that all things are part of an ordered unity with a single, ultimate causal principle or end, reflecting the unity within the multiplicity of beings.  Of course, this is thought in relation to appearing, and as I noted previously Homer said the gods don’t appear to everyone in their fullness (energeis).  And so, the house may appear incarnate in the mansion, be merely present in the average house, and deficiently in the dilapidated shack.  On the other hand, that mansion may appear gawdy to the next person, and the shack appear quaint.  The entity only fully steps forth “as” what it is in this appearing/movement.  When Aristotle says the ultimate cause is the prime mover, he means beings are outlined/conspicuous in this movement as an arche or governing principle.  Movement/appearing thus governs physical beings, anthropological beings, literary beings, etc.

These examples show that the notion of “ta onta” as a unified multiplicity is not only present in Anaximander but is a recurring theme in Eastern and Greek philosophical thought even when the specific term is absent, where the diversity of the entities is often seen as subject to a singular, fundamental reality or principle.