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

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

jkirk schreef:
 > 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.
 >
 >
 > 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.
 >
 > 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??  
 >   
Who can resist such a heartfelt plea?
First of all, if you look at the developments in Western art of the last
century, the monks may have a point. Much art has been made just to
shock the public or as a new attempt to give a new defintion of what art
should be. But there still is quite a lot of art around that is purely
esthetic. The monks have never heard of Kant and are so busy with
learning texts by heart, that we shouldn't expect them to have much
comprehension of art and certainly not Western art. Kant made the
difference between presentations of desirable things, which evoke
desires (e.g. the pictures of dishes in a Chinese restaurant) and art
which doesn't evoke desires, but merely appeals to good taste (e.g.
still lives). You don't buy a painting with apples because you're
thirsty. Kant and Plotinos saw art as pure representation, and as such it
doesn't evoke upadana. In fact I wonder if the esthetic view of the
world isn't close to the enlightened view. The Buddha once made a remark
about the beauty of a city (was it Kapilavastu?), so the enlightened
gaze is sensitive to esthetics. Art is just free visualisation, but if
the only thing you're supposed to visualise is the stages of
decomposition of the body, it might seem just a superfluous distraction.
The monks would however endorse Plato's evaluation of art: an illusion
of an illusion. Perhaps they were afraid to get to close for comfort to
the rasa theory, which has some affiliation with esthetic extasy or
rapture. Whether pure art is a familiar concept in India is an
interesting question.
Speaking for myself I cannot imagine that one would slow down ones
development by listening to Bach or looking at the Taj Mahal and
meditation is easier in a park than in a junkyard. And about Buddhist
art: the best Buddhist paintings are probably the Chinese ones, because
of their love of nature. Creativity and good taste are not monkish
qualities. A monk wants to obey rules and repeat again and again.

erik