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

[Jayarava]

My impression of the Pāli texts is that 'art' in those days (whichever days they were) was not fine art as we would understand it. 'Art' was for amusement not edification, and certainly not uplift. Actors were destined for hell, and music and singing were banned for monks. Distraction seems to have been the main purpose - much as popular culture is today.

By contrast art seems to have become an important medium by about our era. Stupas start be richly decorated with stories from the life of the Buddha for instance. Caves are dug and decorated. Later Aśvaghoṣa writes the Buddhacarita as a Sanskrit epic poem. The interest in literature doesn't seem to be general however as most sūtras qua literature are abominable.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between art in the sense of something which can represent the values and virtues of Buddhism in a non-verbal form, from art which merely stimulates the senses and therefore papanca (which represents the vices which Buddhism rejects). A bit like the two trends of conditionality - one leads round and round, one leads up and up. 

What would the Buddha have made of Bach for instance? Can there be any doubt that listening to Bach, or even better playing the music oneself, is consistent with the values of Buddhism? To the extent that art can raise our level of consciousness, instil a sense of positive values, or motivate us to pursue practice, then it fits broadly into the Buddhist program.

There are instances where seeing what is truely subha as subha rather than asubha is important. Perhaps the problem is that most of what we call "art" is in fact asubha and therefore paying attention to it is ayoniso-manasikara.

Cheers
Jayarava