[Buddha-l] FW: beauty--or art-- (?) and the restraint of thesenses

[jkirk]

On Mon, 11/5/09, jkirk wrote:

> These terms (Bodhi) are: "desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, 
> sensually, enticing, tantalizing." Were any of these kusala and 
> bhaddaka? SN, Bhikkhu Boddi, 118(5), Sakka's Question, p. 1192

The terms are in this sentence (CSCD ed.): "Santi kho, devānaminda, cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā, iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā."  

There are, Devānaminda, forms to be recognised (viññeyyā) by the eye which are:

*iṭṭha - pleasing, welcome, agreeable (from iṣ - to desire, want, wish etc) *kanta - pleasant, lovely, enjoyable (pp of kāmeti - c.f. kāma) *manāpa - pleasing, pleasant, charming *piyarūpā - delightfully formed (taking it to be a bahuvrīhi) *kāmūpasaṃhita - endowed (upasaṃhita) with kāma (see kanta) (karmadharya?) *rajanīya - of the nature of rajas (gerund of rajati "to shine, to be
  coloured or light") meaning: arousing, exciting, enticing

It should be noted that none of these are seen as wholesome. I think this sutta really gets to the heart of the existential problem the Buddha identified: our relationship with pleasant sensations - we seek delight in them, we welcome them, and try to hold on to them, we try to cling to them, and when (as experiences must) they prove to be impermanent we are disappointed. 

I still have a long way to go on researching this, but this seems to be the arena in which dependent arising is intended to apply. Reading so far I haven't found anything which is strongly against this idea (in Pāli texts anyway).

Regards
Jayarava
===============

Thanks for these. Looking at rajaniiya immediately made me think of the term glamorous. Here's one dictionary def. of it: "An air of compelling charm, romance, and excitement, especially when delusively alluring." "Alluring" is also used in other definitions. 
You wrote: "we try to cling to them, and when (as experiences must) they prove to be impermanent we are disappointed."  Yes, too true.

Wondering though if there are not sublime beauty experiences that don't necessarily arouse clinging, that support cognitive and emotional transcendence--like a sense of wonder and humility before some aspects of nature, such as some landscapes, or some minutiae of plants or animals, even, or even by observing some human action. This mental "state" would be close to the concept of appreciation--valuing a sight without desiring to own it, without worrying that it won't last, without needing to dissect or "deconstruct" it by engaging in thoughts of breaking something down into components, moving to a shift from appreciation (nonverbal experience) to science (verbal, analytical, discursive thinking). 

It's been too long since I took a philosophy course--but I seem to recall European (or American?) philosophers who made a similar distinction, and perhaps suggested that cultivation of such experience was necessary to attain non-clinging appreciation. Someone must have spoken about the idea of merging with the sublime, losing one's sense of separation, as a noble philosophical practice? (As I understand it, this was the goal of the true _rasika_ in Indian esthetics.) Erik's idea of the experience of beauty as close to enlightenment goes to this idea. Wasn't the poet Wordsworth (and other poets of that ilk) into something of this sort in the presence of nature?

But we don't find _rasikas_ in the suttas, except where the creation and appreciation of good monks is concerned. Somewhere in the SN (sorry I can't look it up right now but I read it couple of days ago) the Buddha said words to the effect of, If you want to see beauty, see the fine character of a good monk.
  
But this gets off the point--because character had nothing to do with appreciating the sublime in "western" thought (unless someone said practicing it would lead to improved character). So in this one aspect of western thought, in the presence as it were of something sublimely beautiful, lovely, pleasing, colorful or not, shining or not shining, loud or soft, (neither nor, both and, etc)--certainly not glamorous, charming, amusing, or sexy-- can one say that a way to avoid attachment in the presence of sublime beauty a la the "western" esthetic is possible? Or maybe it's another delusion, as if the exerience--which we know does not last--would devolve into desire for ownership or constant presence, or disappointment because not ownable or always available?

After all this papanca, your move~~~~~~~~

Cheers, Joanna




 




      

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