story, and the representational art as described by Plotinus, suggests that
the identities assigned to each group may refer to the sources for the
parable–the Rum write about images; Chinese, about polished mirrors.
Although the king functions as judge or spectator, he is not the para-
digmatic recipient of inward perception. Rather, it is the Chinese artists–
those who polish the wall of their soul–who enable the resonance of the
real as it already exists within them. The king thus does not see his own
reflection even when standing between the competing images. The mirror
appears to reflect that which is opposite to it, the painting/reason of the
artists of Rum. However, it is a representation of the real, not as it exists in
the artwork, but as it already exists in the purified soul. In realizing this, the
king effectively joins the consciousness personified by the‘Chinese’artists.
Unlike mundane mirrors, this internal mirror is not one of self-reflec-
tion: the king does not see himself set against the world of the image, or in
the space of the Real beyond the mirror. The absence of the king’sreflec-
tion resonates with ibn Sina’s understanding of the mirror as an unreal
space. In his consideration of meteorology in hisBook of Healing(Kitab al-
Shifa; Suffincientiain Latin ) he describes phenomena such as halos, rain-
bows, and shooting stars as“imaginary phenomena”in which“our senses
come across the visual image of a thing together with the form of some
other thing, as we come across the form of a man together with the form of
the mirror.”^21 He explains that the reflected form is not really imprinted in
the matter of the form that transmits it,“just as the form of a human person
is not truly imprinted and does not subsist in the mirror.”^22 Al-Ghazali’s
parable uses the mirror to express the revelation of reality in the mirror of
the polished soul against the impression manifest in the painting. Its refusal
to entertain illusions, whether in paintings or in mirrors, is reflected in
absence of the king’sreflection. This absence transforms the narrative into
a parable demonstrating how the human soul can reflect divine presence
without its being inherent in or united with the soul. The king peers into
the Real without the illusion of his own presence.^23
What can we learn about painting from al-Ghazali? Not much. One
might assume that this is because the cultural capital for art appreciation
did not exist in an aniconic culture. Yetekphrasiswas not uncommon in
Islamic literature. For example, the Abbasid poet Buhturi (820–897) vividly
described a mosaic at Khosrau II’s palace at Ctesiphon depicting his 540
victory against the Romans at Antioch.
(^21) Sinai, 2015 : 284. (^22) Sinai, 2015 : 284. (^23) Sinai, 2015 : 289n. 38.
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali between Plotinus and the Buddha 139