clay

[Guest guest]

Subbu-ji writes:

This crucial passage of Shankara is overlooked by his critics. Here

Shankara says: the lump of clay is itself an effect; it is made of the

material clay. So, first one has to know that the lump itself is having

the clay as its material cause. This clay-lump is the cause of the pot,

saucer, etc. Once this knowledge is there, one can extend it to anything

made of clay and determine that ‘all products of clay are only clay

substantially.

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Subbu-ji and advaitins all,

Clay as the material cause of a lump of clay. In what form does this

'clay' appear because it must appear in some form or other. Are you

saying that the concept of 'clay' is the material cause of the lump of

clay? That does not make sense. A concept in someone's mind does not

cause anything. My conclusion is that Shankara certainly was not saying

anything of the kind. All he was saying, and it is blindingly simple, is

that different clay objects have in common the material cause of clay.

That is not the same as saying that there then must exist some sort of

undifferentiated 'clay' as the cause of all those objects.

Undifferentiated clay does not exist except in the sense that it might

just be an amorphous lump. But even as a lump it has a presence as a

something.

 

Take for instance Au (Gold) on the periodic table. We can check against

this abstract collection of properties to find if the lump in our hand is

in fact gold. Those properties do not cause the lump to be gold, they are

what gold is.

If we take that gold and fashion it into something then we can say that

the material cause of that ring or whatever is gold. We must not confuse

the material cause with the efficient cause which Shankara is careful to

distinguish.

 

Analogies work by being narrowly focused. Clay is the material cause of

vessels made of clay. Brahman is the material cause of creation.

Because Brahman is separate from creation in the sense that creation is

not necessary, that does not mean that clay can exist outside of any

objects made of clay or indeed clay in any manifest form. To think like

this is to overextend the narrow focus of the analogy. Clay as a

substance always presents itself in some form or other

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Subbu-ji writes:

> This crucial passage of Shankara is overlooked by his critics. Here

> Shankara says: the lump of clay is itself an effect; it is made of the

> material clay. So, first one has to know that the lump itself is having

> the clay as its material cause. This clay-lump is the cause of the pot,

> saucer, etc. Once this knowledge is there, one can extend it to anything

> made of clay and determine that ‘all products of clay are only clay

> substantially.

>

> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

>

> Namaste Subbu-ji and advaitins all,

> Clay as the material cause of a lump of clay. In what form does this 'clay'

appear because it must appear in some form or other.

 

Namaste Michael ji,

 

[ I am saying exactly this: 'clay' cannot appear without any form.]

 

 

Are you saying that the concept of 'clay' is the material cause of the lump

of clay? That does not make sense.

 

[No. I am not saying that. I am not meaning that too.]

 

A concept in someone's mind does not cause anything.

 

[This statement is contentious!! All of Advaita Vedanta is about this. A concept

that one is the body-mind produces all the samsara. And that concept also is

caused by the concept 'I do not know'.]

 

My conclusion is that Shankara certainly was not saying

> anything of the kind. All he was saying, and it is blindingly simple, is that

different clay objects have in common the material cause of clay.

 

[There is no doubt about this.]

 

But even as a lump it has a presence as a something.

 

[This is the sat-kaarya vAda. The cause is also existent; the effect too is

existent.]

 

Take for instance Au (Gold) on the periodic table. We can check against this

abstract collection of properties to find if the lump in our hand is in fact

gold. Those properties do not cause the lump to be gold, they are what gold

is.If we take that gold and fashion it into something then we can say that the

material cause of that ring or whatever is gold.

 

[All this is acceptable to Shankara]

 

We must not confuse the material cause with the efficient cause which Shankara

is careful to distinguish.

 

[in Advaita, the material and efficient cause is one and the same entity

Brahman, in the ultimate analysis.]

 

Clay as a substance always presents itself in some form or other

 

[This is exactly what I have said.]

 

Best regards,

subbu