INDIAN AESTHETICS

(SWAMI VIKRANT S.D.B.)

There are two approaches to reality: Historical and Conceptual. Historically speaking,
the Western approach has been successive and exclusive while the Indian approach has been
simultaneous and complementary. In the west, Philosophy grew by rejecting the earlier
systems while in India all the earlier views have been assimilated. Conceptually speaking,
philosophy embraces three branches: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. In India, these
three facts of philosophy are called tattva vicara, pramana vicara and prayojana vicara.

The ancient Hindu philosophers did not treat aesthetics separately like the ancient
Greeks and modern European thinkers. Hindu aesthetics was intimately linked to
metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Indian aesthetics is part of Indian axiology, which
embraces three values: ethics, aesthetics and philosophy of religion. They respectively treat
of goodness, beauty and Liberation. Since aesthetics is a value, we must study the nature of
value. Value is that quality by which a thing is desired. E.g., money is considered a value
because it has the power to purchase things. A value is quite different from a fact. A fact is
taken without consideration of our like or dislike of it. That there is peace or war in a place is
a fact. But peace is a value and war is a disvalue.

METAPHYSICS OF VALUE

Philosophy of value is intimately linked to metaphysics. Plato’s metaphysics led him

to accept three values only: truth, goodness and beauty. The Medieval scholastics added one
more value to Plato’s list, viz., and liberation/salvation.

The Hindus also had originally only three values, as the trivargas, viz., wealth,
pleasure and virtue – artha, kama and dharma. Mokaha was added to the list later on
probably under Buddhist influence. The Charvakas believed only two values: artha and
kama, wealth and pleasure. The Mimamsakas originally believed only in three values: artha,
kama and dharma. But for all the other schools of Indian philosophy, moksha (liberation) is
the highest value, or parama purushartha, all the others being instrumental values. Buddhist
influence. The Charvakas believed in only two values.

DEFINITION OF PURUSHARTHAS

“Value” in Sanskirit is artha from root artha, meaning, “ to desire”. Another is ishta from root
ish, meaning, “to wish”. Every animal has an end or artha food, shelter, etc. So to distinguish
human ends from animal ends we use the term purushathas meaning “man’s goal”. The
classical definition of purushartha is purushaih arthyate iti purusharthah. Values are dived
into lower values and higher values: adharma and uttama. Kama (pleasure) is an end value
while wealth (artha) is a means to attain pleasure. While artha and kama are lower values,
dharma and moksha are higher values. Indian philosophers arranged values according to a
hierarchy based on their potentiality to eliminate pain. While artha and kama do not release
humans from pain, dharma and moksha liberate us from pain in various degrees. The lower
values are self-gratifying while the higher values are unselfish. In moksha our individuality
has to be totally eliminated. Dharma also eliminates individualism as one strives after the
social good: the welfare of others. The lower values are called “material values” while the
higher values are called “spiritual values”. The former area called “preyas” in the
Upanishads, meaning “pleasing”, while the latter two are called “sreyas”, meaning,
“worthwhile”. However, there is no opposition or dualism between the two. The transition is
natural and gradual. In fact, for the practice of dharma and moksha a quantum of wealth and
pleasure are necessary. As artha and kama gradually recede to the background, dharma and
moksha assert themselves.

PLATONIC AND INDIAN VALUES

Plato had three-fold scheme of values: truth, beauty and goodness (thinking, feeling
and willing). While dharma corresponds to Plato’s goodness, we do not find truth and beauty
in the Indian list of purusharthas, man’s goal. But it does not mean that the ancient Hindus
neglected truth or beauty: they studied them under metaphysics. Western critics had
wondered why the Hindus did not treat beauty as a separate discipline. Alamkara sastra or
poetics, which though treats mainly about poetics and dramaturgy, yet it is applicable to fine
arts in general. But i.e. we search for an exact equivalent of the term “beauty” in Sanskrit
language, we cannot find one. The reason seems to be that the term ‘beauty’ has an objective
as well as a subjective connotation. Objectively, it is a quality in the object that attracts us.
The Sanskrit equivalents to the objective quality are: saundarya, ramaniyata, carutva, etc.
but this quality in the objective being somewhat elusive, it has to be understood with
reference to its effect on our mind. “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”, goes the proverb.
This subjective aspect of the value has been described as ananda, asvada, rasa, etc. but
neither set of terms could convey the full sense of both the subjective and the objective
elements of beauty. Probably for this reason the Indian philosopher refused to name the ideal
which Plato called “Beauty”. Hence, the trinity of values, viz., truth, beauty and goodness are
common to Western and Indian philosophies.

MOKSHA

For Indian axiology, the highest value is not truth or beauty or goodness, but moksha
(liberation). The reason is that truth; beauty and goodness cannot separately or collectively
eliminate pain and misery. Moksha alone can do it. In the west it was curiosity that set man
on the path of metaphysics, while in Indian metaphysics was pursued as a means to end
misery. But in reality, metaphysics does not remove pain since here our knowledge is indirect
(paroksha) while the knowledge of misery is direct (aparoksha). Hence, only an immediate
and direct experience of feality (aparokshanubhuti) or moksha will remove all misery. It is
also called sakshatkara or the immediate vision of reality (from aksha = eye), i.e. God-
experience.

Beauty also cannot be the ultimate aloe since it also cannot eliminate all pain; it gives
us only temporary relief. Good conduct does give us some joy, but it also does not remofe
misery totally, since there is struggle to be good.
 CHAPTER 2: INDIAN APPROACH TO AESTHETICS

Baumgarten, Kant’s immediate predecessor, coined the German term ‘aesthetic’ from
the Greek root ‘aesthesis’ meaning sense-perception. For Baumgarten, beauty belonged to the
realm of sense perception. The term ‘beauty’ belongs to the object rather than to the subject
who appreciates it. By beauty we mean that quality in the object that attracts us. But beauty is
not limited to one characteristic of an object but to the sum total of its features.

It is not because of a particular colour or shape that we call a thing beautiful (there are
other objects with the same colour, size, etc.,). E.g., that parrot is beautiful not because of its
green colour (grass too is green). Beauty arises when all the qualities of an object enter into
perfect union, called samyoga. For Aristotle, excellent harmony of parts is beauty. The
ancient Greeks and the classical Hindus are in perfect agreement on this point. But the
harmony of parts, i.e., beauty defies description. We cannot say how the parts fit in with one
another. When one part does not fit in well the rest, we can describe it: e.g., long neck in a
person. The adjustment of the parts is there, but we cannot describe it in terms. Hence, the
only to describe beauty is to see its effects on our mind, viz., the delight it produces in our
mind. That is why we describe the beautiful object as something “pleasing”. Hence,
“pleasing” is often used as the equivalent of the beautiful. But they are used from two points
of view: objective and subjective. The former stands for harmony of the parts while the latter
stands for the pleasure it produces in our mind. But pleasure cannot be equated with the
beautiful. Good food, sleep, service to others, etc., are all pleasing. Bt we do not call them
beautiful. We do not speak of any “beautiful food”, or “beautiful sleep”. The condition for
pleasure is the absence of ego-consciousness. We are happy in proportion to our capacity to
forget the finite self, ahamkara. So long as we are aware of ourselves as distinct individual,
there arises the desire for objects that satisfy this craving for individuality. Such desires lead
to efforts to fulfill it. That is, kama leads to karma and any effort involves pain. And effort for
personal ends involves also conflict with others pursuing the same goal. Altruistic service and
pursuit of truth bring in pure pleasure (unlike sensual pleasure which is always mixed with
pain) but it involves struggle. But this type of joy and pleasure is short-lived. So, long-lasting
pure joy is possibly only when self-forgetfulness is secured without involving any struggle.
This is possible only in dreamless sleep and through contemplation of beauty. But sleep
experience and aesthetic experience differ. Sleep experience is purely negative. There is no
pain; it is true since the senses and the mind are dormant but sleep has no Positive content.
Hence, mere absence of ego-consciousness is not enough far pure joy. In aesthetic
experience, the mind is active in addition to the experience being effortless.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE

1. The experience of effortless

2. The mind is active
3. The mind is weaned away from ego.
Aesthetic pleasure is not only unmixed with pain (due to total absence of ego-
consciousness) but it is also uninterrupted since no struggle is involved, unlike the pure
joy of service to others and the pursuit of truth, in both of which the ego could suddenly
break in. Hence, the aesthetic bliss is the highest bliss though short-lived.
 There is no doubt, beauty resides in the object; it is the object that, we describe as
beautiful. But the nature of beauty can be known only from the subjective aesthetic
experience. Plato and Aristotle had very little to say about the aesthetic experience of the
art and the whole of Nature, reaches the climax in Brahman. How exactly Brahman is
Bliss or Beauty, is debated by the schools of Vedantine. For Advaita Vedanta, bliss is
Brahman’s very essence (svarupa lakshana). St. Thomas Aquinas will not have any
objection to this view. For the Theists like Ramanuja, Bliss is Brahman’s essential
attribute (Visesha lakshana). For Advaita, Brahman is Beauty (saundarya); for the theists,
Brahman is Beautiful – Sundara. Bhuvanasundara is a term used for God in the
Bhagavata Purana and by Visishtadvaita, meaning, “ He, whose beauty is the order of the
universe”. But at the level of manifestation, Brahman, i.e. Isvara, has beauty. Here beauty
is one of the manifestations of God and it has great potentiality for Brahmanubhava
(God-realisation) by means of meditation and cult. Thus the great Advaitin Madhusudana
Sarasvati describes Isvara as, “ananta saundarya-sara-sarvasva” (the sole essence of all
that is beautiful). (Gudharthdpika on Gita VII, 14). And again: sakala-saundarya-sara-
nidhana (seat of the essence of all beauty). Brahman’s beauty is manifested at two levels:
at the abstract level, it is the whole universe. But ordinary men’s mind cannot grasp it. So,
poets and artists have created the gods to symbolize God’s beauty, especially Siva,
Vishnu, etc. Beauty at the empirical level, both natural and artistic, are the manifestations
of God’s beauty.

CHAPTER 6: DIVISION IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF BEAUTY

Indian aesthetics can be broadly divided into empirical aesthetics and metaphysical
aesthetics. The former deals with beauty in parts of Nature and beauty in art. The later deals
with beauty in Nature as a whole, cosmic beauty. Art criticism makes judgments on
individual works of art on the merit of their conformity to certain standard. Judgments of
these very standards are known as aesthetics of art or philosophy of art. Ancient Indian art
criticism was limited to poetry and drama. Alamkara sastra was the term given to both art
criticism and aesthetics of art, and the art critics were known as Alamkarikas. In India, beauty
in Nature was treated by the professional philosopher (darsanika) while beauty in art was
treated by the art critic (alamkarika). The former dealt with the real world while the later
dealt with the imaginary world. Ancient Indian philosophers did not treat art under
metaphysics since art does not belong to the realm of reality; it belongs to the realm of
imagination. On it diversity of views are possible. But metaphysics does apply to the realm of
Nature, since Nature is part of reality. So we have aesthetics of Nature. Hence, a diversity of
views are possible regarding the aesthetics of Nature, depending upon the ideology of the
school, especially Monism versus Pluralism. The West applied metaphysics both to art and
to Nature, in the realm of aesthetics. Hence in India, the study of art has been entrusted not to
philosophers, but to literary critics called the Alamkarikas, who had no commitments to
metaphysics, but who were equally interested in art. But Indian art critics do hold different
views, but not based on metaphysics, but on art itself, and this has its parallel in the West
also; this separation of art criticism from metaphysics was a happy one since it gave rise to a
unique discipline that is peculiar to India, viz., Alamkara sastra (aesthetics of art). Its
freedom from metaphysics gave it a high degree of originality.
 DHVANT

One such original discovery is vynyartha or dhavani, a theory of meaning evolved by

the Alamkarikas, which metaphysics could not have discovered. Philosophers, on their part,
discovered metaphysical aesthetics by studying the philosophy of art, drawing upon the
conclusions of the Alamkarikas. Alamkara and darsana, though distinctly are yet
interconnected. While alamdara studies the structure of art, darsana studies the significance
or meaning of art. Often, an alamkarika was unconsciously led to the study of the
significance of art and thus he became a Darsanika or a philosopher. Fro principles and
interpretations, they looked to various schools of philosophy. Sankuka followed Nyaya while
Bhatta Nayaka followed Samkhya. Anandavardhana took Pratyabhijna as his guide while
Jagannatha followed Vedanta. Some of the philosophers took interest in the structure of art
and these darsanikas became alamkarikas (art critics).

CHAPTER 7: ART CREATION

Why do humans create or appreciate art? For the West, creation of art is part of the
play instinct in us by which the effusion of the surplus energy in us is expended and it is an
unconscious activity. For Indian art critics it is a conscious activity, prompted by
dissatisfaction with beauty in parts of nature. Art begins with a delectable, spontaneous and
self-forgetful experience, which he expresses in his work. What is the content of this
experience? For Vedanta, it is the oneness at he heart of Nature as a whole in spite of the
conflict at the surface. Its expression is art. Says Tagore: “All that is harsh and dissonant in
my life melts into one sweet harmony” (Gitanjali). Again Tagore says: “The same stream of
life that runs through my veins night and day, runs through the world and dances in rhythmic
measure” (song 69).

When the artist is under the inspiration of a finer situation, his imagination (pratibha)
is aglow with a vision or intuition of the inner beauty of the universe. Kalidasa depicts the
cosmic involvement at the departure of Sakuntalla (Act IV). Indian tradition holds the artist
as a mystic, a saint. According to Bhavabhuti and the Gita, the term ‘kavi’ means a seer or
sage, “one who knows all” (Gita, X, 37). According to Gita VII, 9, kavi also stands for the
Supreme Being; the Gita says the poet also sees ahead (X, 37). The kavi is a kranta darsin
(omniscient), as Sankara says in his Gitabhashya. But the comparison between the seer and
the artist must not be stretched too far. The seer is a permanently liberated person, possessing
vidya (spiritual knowledge). He has achieved complete inner transformation. The artist lives
in avidya but gets occasional glimpses of the cosmic beauty, more as a gift than as an
achievement. So the seer is superior to the artist. But the content of the experience of the seer
and the artist is the same. In India, most of the mystics were also artists, poets and bards of
high artistic quality. The artist’s vision falls short of that of the seer, but far higher than that
of ordinary men. According to Huxley, since the artist and the poet are incapable of knowing
the divine beauty in its fullness as it is in itself (Perennial philosophy, p.159). Says Browning:
“God has a few of us whom He whispers in the ear”. During these glimpses, artist loses
himself in pure joy, rising above his private self, ego.
The Act of Creation:

The artist’s act of creation is the expression of this self-forgetful joyous experience of
cosmic beauty. Says Tagore: “At the immortal touch of thy hands, my little heart loses its
limits in joy and gives birth to utterance ineffable” (Gitanjali, 1). Great artists take no credit
to their works: they consider themselves mere tools in God’s hands. At the act of creation
they had no self-consciousness. Tagore considered himself the instrument of a Higher Power.
Mathew Arnold said that Wordsworth’s poems were written by Nature for him.

The Sources of the Creative Power: Imagination (Pratibha) is the source of the artist’s/poet’s
creative power. It is called kavitva-bija ore the source of inexhaustible ideas. Art critic
Anandavardhana compares the imagination of the artist to Prakriti (Nature), the source of all
the objects of creation (cf. Dhvanyaloka). According to him, the artists like the Creator god
Prajapati (Apare kavya-samsarekavir eva prajapatih = in the boundless ocean of poetry, the
poet himself is Prajapati). “Kavitva-bijam pratibhanam”, says Vamana in his Kavyalankara
Suta, I, 3,16).

ART IN SAMKHYA

For Samkhya, art is not a means to kokha (liberation) but an end in itself. The
jivanmukta, according to Samkhya, comes into contact with un-evolved Nature (Prakriti)
through buddhi (intellect), which is dominated by sattva guna (goodness). So, there is no
experience of cosmic beauty since there is no variety in the un-evolved Nature. As for the
videhamukta, since the self is totally separated from buddhi, he goes to a state of complete
isolation from Nature. So, he has no chance of knowing cosmic beauty. The self meets
evolved Nature (Vyakta) in the state of bondage, where Nature is in parts only beautiful,
joined to the ugly. Samkhya sees no link between liberation (moksha) and art experience. For
Samkhya, moksha is mere absence of pain. There is no bliss or any experience in moksha.
But art experience is positive bliss. Hence, for Samkhya, there is no link between moksha and
art. In bondage, there is art experience, though it is mixed with pain; it is an experience,
bhoga. The aim of both Natural beauty and artistic beauty is to give relief from pain in the
common life. So art has an intrinsic value.

VEDANTIC VIEW OF ART: A MEANS TO MOKSHA:

Rejecting the Samkhya view, Vedanta holds that art is a means to moksha, liberation.
But the Vedantin is not fully satisfied with art dur its limitations. Perfect beauty of the
universe can be experienced only in Brahman-realization, in moksha. Natural beauty is mixed
with the ugly and it is also impermanent. On the other hand, artistic beauty is permanent and
it is also holistic, i.e., everything in art is beautiful. Cosmic beauty is also holistic and
permanent. The only demerit of artistic beauty is that it is not real; it is only imaginative
beauty. While we are impatiently waiting for Brahman-realization, cosmic beauty and artistic
beauty help us as an intimation of the inner beauty of the universe. So, while we have direct
contact with Brahman in moksha, we have only an indirect with Him in cosmic beauty and in
artistic beauty.
ART EXPERIENCE:

The art experience is a pointer to moksha experience. But the joy of art experience is
not permanent, since it was produced by an external stimulus and not through any inner
transformation. Hence dissatisfaction is felt at art experience. But since both are self-less
experience, our artistic joy is a symbol of pure moksha experience. Since art experience is
within the reach of all, it can serve as an inducement to strive for moksha. It is also a proof of
the reality of moksha experience.
Art also shows the condition for the realization of moksha, viz., dissociation with the body.

ART AS PREPARATION FOR MOKSHA:

According to Vedanta, art contemplation is a preparation for moksha. Moksha is had

by the effacement of pure ego (ahamkara) by dharma, virtue. It is achieved by means of
upasana, i.e., by directing a steady and even current of thought on the whole of Reality by
means of dharana or yogic concentration. For this concentration, art contemplation is an
excellent means. By upasana and dharana, one becomes completely oblivious of one’s ego
(ahamkara) and becomes one with the object of thought, i.e., Brahman. Art experience is
compared to samadhi, the last stage in the partanjala yoga / Ashtanga yoga. But samadhi in
yoga a laborious process while art-contemplation is easy and effortless. So art is called the
layman’s yoga by M. Hiriyanna, (cf. Quest After Perfection, p. 3). A mind that is constantly
nurtured by art finds concentration very easy.

CHAPTER 10: THE CONTENT OF LITERARY ART

In Sanskrit, literature is known as kavya or sahitya, and there are three types of
Sanskrit literature: poetry, prose and mixed literature (padya kavya, gadya kavya, and
misrakavya). But kaya is also used for poetry alone in a restricted sense. Indian aestheticians
have not taken up all arts for critical study: they restricted their research to poetry and drama
only because of their special potentiality for aesthetic scrutiny.

SITUATION AND EMOTION

Indian aestheticians have taken up for their study two aspects of aesthetic contents:
situation and emotion, (dasa and bhava). A poet may choose to describe a situation: a
landscape, a war, or social reform, etc. Thatis, the situation may be natural or social. The
situation is an external phenomenon. But the may also choose an internal content: man’s
emotions. This is known as bhava. The situation and emotion are highly interlinked. Most
situations evoke human emotions, and these emotions, on their part, influence the situation.
In some cases, the poet’s main attention is the situation: the motions run as undercurrents.
Thus, in Kalidasa’s Ritusmhara. Here, the poet gives graphic descriptions of the natural and
human situations during the different season of the year, while emotions like love run as an
undercurrent. In other case, the poet’s main concern is the emotion. His attention shifts from
the outer phenomenon (situation) to the inner phenomenon (emotion). Thus v.g. in Kalidasa’s
Meghasandesa, the poet describes the forlorn state and deep anguish of a Yaksha, deeply in
love for his consort, from whom he had been separated. Both situations and emotions are
involved in all poems, but their focus of attention differs. The situational poem’s main appeal
to the reader’s imagination, but the emotional poetry goes deeper than our imagination: it
sinks beneath the reader’s intellect and moves his heart. It creates an echo in his own feelings
and he reacts with empathy, inwardly laughing, weeping or trembling, as the situation
suggests. The situational type of poetry is more common and is conventional, while the
emotional type is special. No special name is assigned to the situational Poetry in Sanskrit
literature; the emotional type is classified by the various moods produced in the reader, called
rasas, Rasa means aesthetic delight in the subject. It is said that there had been a paradigm
shift from situational poetry to emotional poetry form the time of Valmiki, whose heart had
melted into piteous and mournful tunes at the sight of a bird shot down by a cruel fowler
while its mate was wailing in heart-rending sorrow. Valmiki’s soka gave rise to his sloka
(soka = grief; sloka = verse) (cf. Ramayana, I, 2, 40). This soka of Valmiki served as the
inspiration of the entire epic. Valmiki is called the first poet (Adi Kavi) in the sense that he
set the pattern for later poets to shift from situational poetry to emotional poetry, a shift from
the outer world to the inner world. After Valmiki we had to wait till the time of Kalidasa
(circa Ist century B.C.) for encountering top-notch emotional poetry. Kalidasa’s Meghaduta is
referred to as the ‘very acme of emotional poetry’ (cf. M. Hiriyanna, Sanskrit Studies, p. 7).
Sakuntala is another shining example of emotional poetry. Bhavabhuti’s poetry is also
equally sour-stirring because of its emotional appeal. Especially interesting is his Uttara-
Rama-carita (8th C. A.D.).

Tamil literature of the Sangam era also has this two-fold division into situational
(puram) and emotional (aham). Aham centers usually around the emotion of love while
puram usually describes human activities like war. In the case of English literature too, we
can this classification. Thus, Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner is a classic of situational poetry
while Thomas Gray’s Elegy is typically emotional.
Certain individual poets have also shown this paradigm shift from the situational to
the emotional. Thus, Kalidasa’s early poem Ritusamhara is typically situational while the
later Sakuntala and Meghasandesa are emotion-charged. Shakespeare’s earlier historical
plays are all situational while his later tragedies like Othello, Macbeth, etc., are emotion-
packed. Critics explain this transition as something natural; as a poet advances in age, he is
more given to mature introspection and reflection on human nature rather than on pure
nature.

The emotion referred to here is not the poet’s own personal emotion nor that of any
particular individual. He has to idealize the emotion, making it universal. Thus, Sita’s sorrow
is typical idealized. The reason is that when one is under the stress of an emotion one cannot
be objective in describing any emotion. Best artistic expression