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

[jkirk]

 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.
JK(indented):               I agree with this historical estimate. It was doubtlessly all entertainment.

By contrast art seems to have become an important medium by about our era. Stupas start to 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.
		Probably because literature was dominated by court life, and so too carnal.

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. 
		My referring to papanca was meant more as the proliferation of critical thinking or thought, 		rather than the running on of personal narratives serving less than beneficial purposes. By 			thinking critically about representation, sometimes the contemplation of say, a painting, leads 
		to deeper insights than merely taking it in visually. This is the process I find lacking in
		the suttas, where all reflection is oriented toward specific goals... is routinely pedagogical?

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.
		Yes to Bach, always. Once I played some of it, too...even better than just listening. 
		Playing Bach is a kind of yoga.

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.
		What "we" call "art" is of course problematic, along with the old adage about beauty being 		in the eye of the beholder. I tried to avoid using any definition of art, or describing 				what I personally find to be beautiful, or inspirational and worth contemplating. If some people 
		somehow find they share responses to certain artists--such as, say, Turner, or Cezanne, or
		Velasquez, or???--- the list can be almost endless for good conversation about esthetic 			reflection and its benefits. Otherwise, I find the critical dialectic regarding most contemporary 		art to be part of the program of that art--shock and awe--nothing enlightening there.
		There seems to be another conundrum: those who make art are not the same as those who view 		it.




      

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l