[Buddha-l] beauty--or art-- (?) and the restraint of the senses,

[jkirk]

This is from a discussion by Conze, on the restraint of the
senses, here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html#ch
2.2
based on the Vishudhimagga.

The entire discourse would seem to be an instruction to avoid
such concepts, and dharmas (experiences, as Jayarava would call
them), as beauty, what is beautiful, noticing the details, and so
on.  In enjoying the beauty of some kinds of art--paintings,
decorative applications, their social situatedness and other
aspects, one's mind is easily led to proliferation. In fact, it
seems to me that poliferation--papanca--is embedded in any
appreciation of beauty and arts--not only is it embedded, maybe
it's the base of artistic enterprise. 

Notably, Abhinavagupta tried to reconcile Indian rasa theory with
Buddhist restraint. He seems to have been the only one.

Uusally, the idea is expressed that the mindful person--let's say
a monk-- sees beauty clearly but also sees it's perilous
attractions that lead to clinging and moha. In the case of female
beauty, which I'm not interested in equating with art at this
point, such experiences also imperil sila. The texts always seem
to insist on including female beauty; they also note that all
five senses imperil, thus nixing music--the other most important
expression of creative art in culture (western or
otherwise)--perils of the eye and the ear.

I've tried bringing up this issue before, hoping to attract
comment from knowledgeable list folk, with meager results. Some
mentioned the Japanese attitude to beauty, mono aware--awareness
of impermanence; I posted about texts that expressed a positive
awareness of landscape by forest-dwelling monks, whose
appreciation was limited to the conduciveness of such settings
for practice.

So why am I bringing this up again? It seems to me, maybe
mistakenly, that canonical text discourses on beauty (ergo art)
tend always to be fixated on the practice of monks, that whatever
is said about the practice of non-monks (householders) ignores
the issue, or it was taken for granted as one of the samsaric
features of householder life. The old art for art's sake slogan
doesn't exist in this cultural configuration. The practice of art
observation and comment (today known as art criticism), is just
one aspect of cultural criticism, right? These are pastimes for
those who enjoy thinking. But Buddhism tends to tell us, stop
thinking! 

Can one go on thinking about art/arts (not necessarily the
essence category "beauty")
without succumbing to greed, aversion, and delusion? The texts,
based as most of them are on monkly practice, don't think so. Is
this perhaps a reason why so much of Buddhist art--in the
decoration of temples or shrines--has become rigidified in
repetition--ostinato as the reigning figure? From Gandhara
(lively variation and some humanism) to Gupta (rigidity and
abstraction), to suggest one example.

Yes yes, I'm aware of the various texts that prescribe all such
architectural features--were these perhaps controlled by the old
idea that one mistake (variation--uncontrolled papanca) and the
ritual produces its opposite--disorder instead of order? 

Comment anyone? pleeeeeeeeeeeze??  

Here is a text example: 
"And one should become like Cittagutta, the Elder, who lived in
the great Kurandaka Cave. In that cave there was a delightful
painting which showed the seven Buddhas leaving for the homeless
life. One day numerous monks were wandering about in the cave,
going from lodging to lodging. They noticed the painting and
said: "What a delightful painting, Venerable Bhikkhu!" The Elder
replied: "For more than sixty years, brethren, I have lived in
this cave, and I have never known whether there is a painting
here or whether there is not. Today only I have learned it from
you people, who use your eyes." For all that time during which
the Elder had lived there, he had never lifted up his eyes and
looked more closely at the cave. At the entrance to the cave
there was a large ironwood tree. To that also the Elder had never
looked up; but he knew that it was in flower when each year he
saw the filaments which had fallen down on the ground.

All the sons of good family who have their own welfare at heart
should, therefore, remember:

"Let not the eye wander like forest ape,
Or trembling wood deer, or affrighted child.
The eyes should be cast downwards; they should look
The distance of a yoke; he shall not serve
His thought's dominion, like a restless ape."

Joanna