I am just the wrong sort of person to take up philosophy. Instead of studying six interpretations of a problem and what is wrong with them and then proffering an acceptable compromise I stand stunned and thunderstruck i.e. stundered by the force of the problem like a duck in a heavy shower. The advaitins use of the term ‘real’ and what it might mean is an example of my stultification. Why is ‘clay’ more ‘real’ than the vessels made of clay. They have been given a name and a form and are thereby relegated to the region of the mutable. How does that work? The humble water pot has being, it exists, it is. This lump of clay though it has no name other than the generic ‘lump’, has a form. Is not ‘clay’ here taking the place approximately of Aristotelian prime matter. It is always associated with substantial form in the existing object even though we can rationally conceptualize it. ‘Clay’ can also be viewed as one of the causes of a vessel made of clay. It is a material cause and not more or less ‘real’ than the vessel itself.
What then is the particular point of ‘real’ clay? Is it an analogy that has run away from home and become a metaphor? Everything is Brahman or so to speak made of Brahman. Pure Being is manifesting as all this congeries of name and form. The ‘clay’ analogy is not an ontological doctrine. Has my wonder ceased?
No comments:
Post a Comment