The One
In Neoplatonism, the One (τὸ ἕν) is the ineffable source beyond Being from which all reality emanates — distinct from Parmenides' One, which is Being itself, single and indivisible.
The One (to hen) is the supreme first principle of Neoplatonism, given its definitive form by Plotinus in 3rd-century-CE Rome. It is an absolutely simple, undivided source beyond being and knowledge, from which all reality 'emanates,' or overflows: first Intellect (Nous), then Soul, then the material world. Plotinus built the idea from Parmenides' unity and from Plato's 'Parmenides' and 'Republic,' where the Good is said to lie 'beyond being.' The doctrine became the master template for mystical and negative theology across Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions, in which God is described not by what He is but by what He is not.
A note on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4): readers sometimes hear in its declaration — "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one (echad)" — an early statement of the Neoplatonic One, the supreme metaphysical principle. The resemblance is verbal, and it does not survive a look at what the verse is actually saying.
In its own setting, echad asserts that the LORD alone is Israel's God — the single, unique deity to whom this people owes its undivided loyalty, against the many gods of the surrounding nations. The claim is at once about God's oneness and about covenant: "you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart" follows immediately (Deuteronomy 6:5). This God speaks, commands, remembers, and acts in history; the surrounding verses are about teaching children, binding words upon the hand, writing them on the doorposts (Deuteronomy 6:7-9). "One" here means there is no other beside Him (compare Deuteronomy 4:35, "the LORD is God; there is none else besides Him"). It is the oneness of a personal sovereign, not a description of His metaphysical rank.
Plotinus's One is a different kind of claim entirely. It is not a person who chooses or commands, but a supra-essential source "beyond being" — so utterly simple that it transcends even existence and knowledge, ineffable because every predicate would introduce multiplicity into it. From it all reality necessarily overflows by emanation, descending through a graded hierarchy of hypostases (Intellect, then Soul, then the sensible world). The One does not love a people or enter a covenant; it does not act by will at all. Its "oneness" is the absence of all plurality at the summit of a metaphysical ladder — a very different thing from the numerical and exclusive oneness the Shema proclaims of a God who redeems and commands.
These are genuinely distinct ideas: the covenantal uniqueness of a personal God is not the supra-essential One beyond being. Neoplatonic emanation entered Jewish thought only later — decisively in the medieval period, when philosophers working in the wake of the falasifa drew on emanationist language to interpret Scripture. Reading the One back into Deuteronomy is therefore anachronistic, and that is why the Shema is kept separate from this concept.
How it traveled
- ParmenidesAthens · -370explains
- MetaphysicsChalcis · -322explains
- EnneadesRome · 270explains
- Duties of the HeartZaragoza (Saragossa) · 1080
- Guide for the PerplexedCairo · 1190
- Sha'arei OrahGuadalajara · 1260
- Sha'arei TzedekCastile · 1265
- ZoharGuadalajara · 1280
- Tikkunei ZoharGuadalajara · 1280
- Zohar ChadashGuadalajara · 1290
- Sefer HaKanahCastile · 1380
- Sefer HaIkkarimSoria · 1425
- Akeidat YitzchakTarragona · 1490exposition
- Abarbanel on TorahNaples · 1505
- Avodat HaKodesh (Ibn Gabbai)Cairo · 1523
- Pardes RimmonimTzfat · 1548
- Ketem Paz on ZoharTzfat · 1561
- Sha'ar HaKavanotTzfat · 1570
- Sha'ar HaGilgulimTzfat · 1570
- Sha'ar Ma'amarei RashbiTzfat · 1570
- Sha'ar Ma'amarei RazalTzfat · 1570
- Pri Etz ChaimTzfat · 1572
- Reshit ChokhmahTzfat · 1575
- Sha'ar HaHakdamotTzfat · 1610
- Sha'ar Ruach HaKodeshDamascus · 1610
- Ohr HaChammah on ZoharTzfat · 1620
- Mikdash Melekh, RaMaZ Commentary on ZoharTzfat · 1680
- Kalach Pitchei ChokhmahPadua · 1730
- Da'at TevunotPadua · 1735
- Mikdash Melekh on ZoharTzfat · 1750
- Yahel Ohr on ZoharVilna (Vilnius) · 1790
- TanyaLiadi · 1797
- Maor VaShemeshKrakow (Cracow) · 1817
- Sha'arei HaYichud VeEmunahStrashelye · 1820
- Sha'arei AvodahStrashelye · 1820
- Likutei HalakhotBreslov (Ukraine) · 1840
- BePardes HaChasidut VeHakabbalahWarsaw · 1910
- Talmud Eser HaSefirotJerusalem · 1939
- Sulam on ZoharJerusalem · 1945
- Ohr Penimi on Talmud Eser HaSefirotJerusalem · 1948
Key passages(20)
City of God · Augustine of Hippo
Chapter 11.—How Plato Has Been Able to Approach So Nearly to Christian Knowledge. Certain partakers with us in the grace of Christ, wonder when they hear and read that Plato had conceptions concernin
Tap to expand
Ceph. The others are, then, not like nor unlike nor both. For if they were like or unlike, they would partake of one of the two elements, and if they were both, of the two opposites and that was shown
Tap to expand
Guide for the Perplexed · Moses ben Maimon (Rambam) · 1190 CE
ואילו מחויב המציאות, הפשוט באמת, שאין חלה בו מורכבות כלל – הרי כפי שמקרה הריבוי בלתי אפשרי בו כך מקרה האחדות בלתי אפשרי בו; כוונתי שאין האחדות עניין נוסף על עצמותו, אלא הוא אחד ולא על ידי אחדות.
Tap to expand
Recanati on the Torah · Menachem Recanati · 1250 CE
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ. לפי דעת רז"ל ומה שנראה מכוונתם בספר הזוהר כי מלת ראשית רומזת לחכמה העליונה הנקראת חכמת אלהים ונקראת בספר הזוהר נקודה חדא סתימא עילאה היא הספירה השנייה הנאצלת מן הספ
Tap to expand
We must inquire, with regard to the substance and nature of unity, in which sense it exists. This is the same question which we approached in our discussion of difficulties: what unity is, and what vi
Tap to expand
These would be Being and Unity; for these, if any, might best be supposed to embrace all existing things, and to be most of the nature of first principles, because they are by nature primary; for if t
Tap to expand
Doxographic testimonia: Damascius is credited with originating gr-the-one.
Tap to expand
Hymn to King Helios Dedicated to Sallust · Julian, Emperor of Rome
Ceph. And yet I feel very much like the horse in the poem of Ibycus —an old race-horse who was entered for a chariot race and was trembling with fear of what was before him, because he knew it by expe
Tap to expand
Ceph. Then it does not change its place by going anywhere or into anything, nor does it revolve in a circle, nor change. Apparently not. Then the one is without any kind of motion. It is motionless. F
Tap to expand
Ceph. And again it will not be like or unlike anything, either itself or another. Why not? Because the like is that which is affected in the same way. Yes. But we saw that the same was of a nature dis
Tap to expand
Ceph.Then it has no being even so as to be one, for if it were one, it would be and would partake of being; but apparently one neither is nor is one, if this argument is to be trusted. That seems to b
Tap to expand
Ceph. And again each of the parts possesses unity and being, and the smallest of parts is composed of these two parts, and thus by the same argument any part whatsoever has always these two parts; for
Tap to expand
Ceph. And because the parts are parts of a whole, the one would be limited by the whole; or are not the parts included by the whole? They must be so. But surely that which includes is a limit. Of cour
Tap to expand
Ceph. It is at rest, no doubt, if it is in itself; for being in one, and not passing out from this, it is in the same, namely in itself. It is. But that which is always in the same, must always be at
Tap to expand