We can have a look at some special features of Indian Aesthetics based on the foregoing discussions. The good and bad of the following ideas are self-accounted, for they are products of the present author’s humble intellect.
Similar to the unified theory of matter and energy, which modern science concerns itself with, we have a unified theory of rasa. A mathematical way of expressing it is attempted here:
R = (V×D)au OR R = V × an ʃ au D
(R = Rasa, V = Vakrokti, D = dhvani, au = aucitya, and an = anaucitya)
This is equally applicable to all visual, plastic, performing, and literary arts irrespective of their nature – folk, classical, and modern.
Unlike literary theories found elsewhere, Indian Aesthetics bridges the worlds of matter and spirit through its unique way of looking at art and its experience: the reality of the world and the spiritual reality of the Self are brought closer by means of the reality of embellishment (i.e. āhāryasattā or ākalpasattā) of art. In the same way, material enjoyment and spiritual enjoyment are bridged through transcendental enjoyment (brahmāsvāda-sahodara) of art.
People interested in these topics can go through the works of masters – Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, Kuntaka, Mahima, Dhanika, Dhanañjaya, Bhoja, Guṇacandra, and Rāmacandra. Each one of them is a realist in his own right. The group of idealists includes but is not restricted to luminaries such as Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Mammaṭa, Madhusūdanasarasvatī, Rūpagosvāmi, Vopadeva, Hemādri, Kavikarṇapūra, Bhānudatta, Viśvanātha, and Jagannātha. It is in Jagannātha and Madhusūdanasarasvatī, however, we see the zenith of idealism. The form and content / expression and experience / structure and substance of art is brilliantly expounded by these writers.
Apart from propounding lofty theories on expression and experience of art that give an insight into the process of cognition, Indian Aesthetics has also spoken at length on a few peripheral issues: poetic virtues and blemishes (guṇa-doṣa-prakaraṇa), training in creative writing (kaviśikṣā-prakaraṇa), and augmenting the resourcefulness of a poet (vyutpatti-prakaraṇa). This is very natural to the classical Indian approach to life, for even the most idealistic school of philosophy, the Advaita as propounded Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda, does not ignore practical considerations such as adhikāribheda (hierarchy in the mind-set of seekers) and sādhanopāya-vaividhya (variety of approaches in equipping oneself in the path of self-realization). Thus we see a wonderful combination of philosophical profundity and worldly proficiency.
At no time did Indian Aesthetics ignore the so-called ‘folk’ arts. Creating a rift between the classical and the folk is unwarranted; it is ill-intentioned to say the least. Every work on Indian art—including music, dance, theatre, painting, and sculpture—written in Sanskrit is inclusive and has taken great pains to explain and analyse the numerous varieties of folk and classical art forms. In literary art forms, the works of masters such as Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Kṣemendra, Rājaśekhara, Bhoja, Hemacandra, Mammaṭa, Ruyyaka, and Śāradātanaya, set a great lot of emphasis on prākṛtagāthās and uparūpakas, ṛtucaryās, and geyaprabandhas. The same is also true of Prosody. Indian Aesthetics, with its singular emphasis on rasa, also effectively theorises the interconnectedness of all art forms.
Vyañjanāvyāpāra is essentially non-materialistic and hence it has a great bearing on the drive against communism, rank consumerism, capitalism, individualism and utilitarianism. No other theory of art, apart from rasa-dhvani, has had a better objective say on these issues. The inbuilt śamabhāva in every rasa that leads to the enjoyment of art is a befitting answer to all enquires that focus on the aforesaid issues. Rasānanda is nothing but detached action or nirlepa-karma or karma-yoga; for this to happen, śama is the only way. While the world of religions is constrained by faith and pseudo-equality, that of science takes a neutral stand with regard to values. In such a scenario of the modern world, rasa-dhvani proposes a condition of dynamic equilibrium. It should hence be valued.
Kavisamaya (poetic convention that doubles up as a meta-language) is a great concept that merits a deep study along with alaṅkāras, especially arthālaṅkāras. This naturally involves the study of semantics and linguistic psychology. If figures of speech are analysed as per the dicta of Ānandavardhana and Kuntaka, we can glean numerous oblique ways of expression that are charged with idiomatic vigour. Doubtless, this will be a great resource to the art fraternity. Modern poetry, in the name of reaching out to the masses, has operated at two extreme ends – baldness of form (vārtāprāya) and absurdity of content (prahelikāprāya). Indian Aesthetics, understood in the light of rasādidhvani, guṇībhūtavyaṅgya, and vakrokti, is the only way out of this mess.
Indian Aesthetics concerns itself with the contemporaneity of emotions as against its western counterpart, which bases itself on the contemporaneity of events. This makes Indian Aesthetics material-independent, and it is in this manner that the eco-friendly and bio-sustainable nature of it should be understood. This can also be contemplated upon from the point of view of entropy, the measure of disorder.
The works of M. Hiriyanna, Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, V. Raghavan, and K. Krishnamoorthy—writers on Indian Aesthetics and pioneers of the Indian renaissance movement—are great sources to dispel confusions with regard to Aesthetics. A brief sketch of their contributions to the field is given below.
M. Hiriyanna was the first person to draw the attention of the scholarly world to the fundamental difference between the poetry of the Vedas and that of the epics. Commenting on why Rāmāyaṇa came to be known as the ādikāvya, he said that it is here, for the first time, the focus shifted from the divine (deva) to the human (jīva). When the whole world was blindly following Max Mueller’s statement that “there is nothing like the concept of beautiful in the Hindu mind,” Hiriyanna raised his voice against this in the most constructive way. He propounded the nature of beauty as a value, and continued his study on the subject for over fifty years. The need of the hour, then, was a logically sound, philosophically rooted explanation of the Indian conception of beauty, worded in the modern idiom. Hiriyanna did just that. No such work was either thought of or attempted previously. Hiriyanna, unlike his contemporaries such as Ganganath Jha, P. V. Kane, S. K. De, Kuppuswami Sastri, and S. N. Dasgupta, focussed only on the substance of Indian Aesthetics—by explicating the concepts of rasa and dhvani—and did not dwell at length on peripheral issues. His exposition on realistic and idealistic schools of aesthetics is simply superb. Regarding art and morality, he conclusively stated that art essentially has a moral view but not a moral goal. Writing on the nature of form and content in art, especially the literary type, he emphasised the importance of including sublime themes that sustain and enrich the experience of art. He defined art as ‘layman’s yoga’ that bypasses logic and facilitates self-realization. This indeed is the hallmark of Indian Aesthetics. It is because of such a strong conviction about the nature of art that he proposed art as an alternative for religion in our age of reason and equality. All these ideas of Hiriyanna are products of an insightful understanding of the basic concepts of Indian Aesthetics.
Ananda Coomaraswamy, in an astounding manner, drew parallels from the primary sources of world wisdom to support his views on Indian Aesthetics. His tracing the idea of suggestion to the Vedas—parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ pratyakṣadviṣaḥ—is most original. Likewise, his enumeration of basic concepts of art, with emphasis on sculpture and painting, are truly illuminating. Concepts such as sādṛśya, ābhāsa, rūpa, svarūpa, prakṛti, anukṛti, anukīrtana, and kṛti are noteworthy in this regard. Apart from painting and sculpture, Coomaraswamy synthesised music, dance, and literature using the tenets of Indian Aesthetics and this reminds us of the integrating wisdom of Abhinavagupta. Interestingly, however, Coomaraswamy has nowhere referred to or cited him. Coomaraswamy’s view of Hinduism and Buddhism as a single, undivided tradition is unique; it necessitates accepting the Vedic heritage as the fount of all Indian learning. His efforts in developing a theory of spiritual symbolism—as exhibited in the skambha in the pillar and vidṛti or brahmarandhra in the eye of the dome—are laudable. He played a significant role in developing conceptual clarity for the movement of art and svadeśi, thus ushering in a healthy social dimension to art. This he did with a focus on the four-folded values of life, the puruṣārthas. However, just like Abhinavagupta, Coomaraswamy, at times, in his overwhelming passion for mysticism and urge to draw parallels between oriental and occidental schools of thought, gets confused and confuses too. But this can be easily corrected by all serious students of Indian Aesthetics who are well-rooted in kevalādvaita, which in turn finds its validation from nirviśeṣa-sārvatrikānubhava, non-qualified, universal experience.
V. Raghavan combined in him the values embodied by M. Hiriyanna and Kuppuswami Sastri, his mentor. He was adept in the theoretical aspects of music, dance, and theater, and was a fine rasika. He forged an alliance between theory and practice, marshalling forth his impeccable erudition in the fields of textual criticism, manuscriptology, and comparative studies. His research on some concepts of Indian Aesthetics such as aucitya, svabhāvokti, bhāvika, lakṣaṇa, guṇa, rīti, and vakratā, carried out mainly from the historical perspective, are truly path-breaking. So are his monographs The Number of Rasas, The Comic Element in Sanskrit Literature, Ṛtu in Sanskrit Literature, The Concept of the Beautiful in Sanskrit Literature. Studies on Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa is his magnum opus. Raghavan’s study of festivals, sports, and pastimes of classical India with special reference to Sanskrit sources has a great bearing on the understanding and application of Indian Aesthetics. In the research articles he wrote on various aspects of traditional Indian theater inspired by Bharata, he analysed fundamental concepts such as vṛtti, pravṛtti, lāsyāṅga, rūpaka, and uparūpaka, exhibiting originality of thought and depth of scholarship. He had a sustained interest in classical music and wrote extensively on the subject, which amounts to more than three volumes. This is a fine contribution to the studies on the aesthetics of music. Another topic that occupied his mind for a good number of years was Rāmāyaṇa, writing on which he has not only tapped literary sources but has also correlated them with music, dance, sculpture, painting, and theater. In Ragahvan we find academic learning that is refined by a keen artistic sensitivity and cultural connectivity. His writings, though not filled with brilliant flashes of insight on every page, are a veritable source of Indic wisdom. He is a dependable proponent of Indian Aesthetics, following the footsteps of Bharata, Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, and Kuntaka.
K. Krishnamoorthy was the youngest among these torchbearers of tradition. He was both a thorough scholar and a great visionary. He was the first person to explain the exact nature and significance of the terms śabda and artha. According to him, they signify not just word and meaning as popularly explained, but constitute the Form and Content in any work of art. He was opposed to the views of his predecessors and some contemporaries in the field of Indian Aesthetics such as P. V. Kane, S. K. De, K. C. Pande, V. Raghavan, T. N. Srikanthayya, Nagendra, G. C. Pande, and R. C. Dvivedi with regard to the treatment of vakratā-alaṅkāra, guṇa-rīti, rasa-dhvani etc. as absolutely exclusive concepts. He traced the germs of dhvani in figures of speech such as paryāyokti, aprastutapraśaṃsā, samāsokti, and dīpaka, thus bridging the gap between Bhāmaha and Ānandavardhana. Likewise, his defence of guṇībhūtavyaṅgya (suggestion that is subordinated to beautiful expression), emphasis on the importance of pramāṇas as revealed by Nāṭyaśāstra, are insightful. Especially his study of pramāṇas makes Indian Aesthetics fool-proof even in the age of artificial intelligence. We are at a loss for words in praising his authoritative critical editions of works of masters – Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Kuntaka. His annotated Kannada translations of almost all seminal works of Alaṅkāra-śāstra, complete with critical text, footnotes, detailed introductions, and metrical translations of illustrative verses, are unparalleled. In spite of similar works in regional languages authored by scholars such as R. P. Dvivedi and P. Sriramachandrudu, Krishnamoorthy’s works are a great deal better. The same is true of his Kannada translations of Sanskrit classics.
Nagendra, Kapila Vatsyayana, P. Sriramachandrudu, Arjun Wadekar, R. P. Dvivedi, Radhavallabha Tripathi, Rajendra Mishra, C. Rajendran and a host of other scholars have been working in the field of Indian Aesthetics with special reference to literature and theater. Scholars such as Premlata Sharma, R. Satyanarayana, and Ramanathan have taken similar responsibility in the lore of music, while in the field of dance stalwarts such as Padma Subrahmanyam and Sundari Santanam are doing practical research concerning mārgakaraṇas and deśīkaranas.
The study of Indian Aesthetics is a journey of joy that is rewarding to all true seekers of art, irrespective of their pratibhā.
सोऽयं कल्पतरूपमानमहिमा भोग्योऽस्तु भव्यात्मनाम्