Art and Morality

HIS HIGHNESS JAYACHAMARAJA WADIYAR
Maharaja of Mysore

Indian thinkers have always paid particular attention to the ethical aspect of aesthetics and the relation of art to morality. The greatness of a country or a nation is not to be measured merely by its material achievements. It is really a moral and spiritual quality to be appreciated through a study of the national literature, arts, philosophy and religion. These represent the nation’s most developed consciousness and most delicate sensibility. The art of a country derives its inspiration from the people’s life and in turn it quickens and enriches that life. Historically Indian art appears about the third millennium B. C. spreading over a vast sub-continent and across several centuries. It has different aspects to it: Music, Drama, Sculpture, Painting and Literature. Yet if we try to see it steadily and see it whole, as Mathew Arnold would want us to view life, it possesses not only an unbroken continuity but also a certain unity in its diverse manifestations.

The art of a people is inspired by certain fundamental motifs. It springs from certain basic ideals. Thus the Egyptians in their Pyramids and Sphinxes tried to reach out to the mysterious and the unknown. Ancient Greece was moved by a naturalism that drew its inspiration from life. The Greek gods and goddesses were idealized men and women, a crystallized perfection of what they aspired to be. Renaissance Art with all its religious themes was an inspiration of the spirit, other-worldly and Godward. All these in a sense represent the race-memory, the race-experience and the race-consciousness. The artist gives a concrete expression to the ideals that move him and the people around him. The designs, the patterns, the symbols, the movements, are the visible forms of the inner urge that demands refined representation.

What then are the Ideals of Indian Art? In a word Indian Art is idealistic, seeking and interpreting the mysteries of natural phenomena. It is not content with copying external features. It does not hesitate to adopt unusual forms to express transcendental ideas. It goes far beyond imitation of nature. In the West, to use Alexander Pope’s revealing expression, “Art is only nature to advantage dressed.” It keeps close to nature. But Indian art believes that all that is visible is not necessarily real and tries to penetrate the outer surface and reach the true inner reality of things.

To realize the Infinite, to grasp the reality which is behind all natural phenomena, to read the meaning of what is transitory and elusive has been the aim of the Indian artist through the centuries. Whether he worked in stone, in colour, in musical sounds, or literary symbols he sought always a glimpse of reality, of the essential unity of all existence. To him the universe was merely a manifestation of the Divine Essence.

Reality and Unity are the two motifs of Indian art that give it its distinctive note of idealism, mysticism, symbolism and transcendentalism. Indian art is a search for reality and the ultimate unity of existence. These motifs are worked into the ‘Collective consciousness’ and issue in the nation’s sculpture, music, painting, dance and poetry. Art may even be described as the unique expression of a historic process.

The soil out of which Indian art springs and flourishes is largely religious. It is an endeavour to seek God through a process of self-culture and self-realisation. The Buddha raised the question, what is the solution for the ills that flesh is heir to. Life is futile, suffering is inevitable. We have to break through the bonds of Karma and emerge into Nirvana, a state of ceasing to be through renunciation, contemplation, service and charity to all living beings, the goal can be reached. The heroic figure of the master who himself suffered, so as to know the nature of suffering, and to discover a way out of it, inspired Buddhist art, one of the glories of Indian culture. The Buddha, in the form of a Yogi, meditating under the Bodhi Tree, seeking to be in tune with the Infinite, became a great symbol of Indian art in its various manifestations. The Buddha sits calm, peaceful, unruffled, freed from all worldly passions and desires, raised above all earthly strife and vexation, with eyes that look but within, in perfect union with the Universal Soul. Another familiar theme of the Indian artists is that of creation, to exemplify which they conceived the image of the Dancing Siva,–who executes the dance of creation sending waves of life through inert matter, waves of awakening sound and life-giving breath.

The Indian conception of beauty differs from that which inspired the Apollo Belvedere, Venus de Milo, the Winged Victory, the Madonnas of Botticelli and Raphael, the master-pieces of Michael Angelo and Rembrandt. These are beautiful things, no doubt, pleasing to the eye by the rhythm of line, colour, form, perspective and proportion. Nevertheless, it is a beauty of earthly things, ‘beauty clipped’ as E. B. Havel puts it. Indian art, on the contrary, takes wings, as it were, and flies into the Empyrean, into the regions of sublime thought and realms of spirituality. Indian art is obviously attempting, to quote Havel again, ‘to bring down to earth something of the beauty of things above.’
The essence of Art is Rasa which may be translated as Relish or Flavour. A work of art is Rasavat, embodying beauty, joy and a feeling of elevation, mystic experience and spiritual satisfaction. Religion and art come close together. They deal with the same kind of activity or experience–an intuition of reality, an intimation of the identity of the individual with the Universe. The spirit of man breaks through the crust of the material environment, and mortal existence. Rasa is Truth. Rasa is Reality.

It may be asked whether ‘reality’ exists as an absolute entity apart form the artist, and as something inherent in the divine order of things. The answer is that it is not personal to him and that he can only catch a glimpse and put it in concrete form for the edification of himself and others. The artist is privileged to reveal God to us, to reveal the life within the life, the Noumenon within the phenomenon, the soul that lives encased in matter for the time being. The Indian artist does not strive after merely physical or earthly beauty. He hitches his waggon to a star. He is after spiritual excellence. He wants to portray, whatever may be his medium, the inner, informing, inspiring, impulse. He calls to his aid, Yoga, an intense concentration on the object to be realized, and an identification with it. Thus Valmiki wrote the famous epic of the Ramayana. By means of concentration, he relived in his imagination the story of Sri Rama, caught the spirit of it, and enshrined it in imperishable verse.

Indian aestheties is known by the name of Alankara Sastra; and since this branch of the study of aesthetics takes up poetics as its main subject, I am dealing somewhat in detail with the theme of beauty in poetry. The subject matter of Alankara Sastra is patterned closely after the subject matter of the Science of Reality (Brahmavidya). Indian artistic studies institute a quest after the ‘Soul of the Arts.’ The term Kavyam denotes a poetic composition. In its higher significance it means the soul of the Arts. Take for example the statement of Vamana that ‘style is the soul of poetry’. (Riti ratma Kavyasya: Kavyalankara sutravritti). Style (Riti) may be briefly defined thus: In the sphere of the poetic work, the lightness (lalitya) of the words produced by their intermingling with one another, by conjunctions (Samasa), by the alternation of long and short (Dirgha and Hrasva) - the commingling of these diverse elements, is called riti. It is this which is called the Atma or soul of a work of poetry. In other words a composition not having this commingling of words and ideas is not a poetic work. Anandavardhana declared that the soul of poetry is suggestion (Dhvani). Word (Sabda), meaning (Artha), excellence (Guna) decoration or embellishment (Alankara), style (Riti), absence of defect–all these increase the beauty of a poetic composition. The implied poetic meaning is the heart of the poetic composition. Jagannatha opines that as the conveyor of a beautiful meaning, the word is the soul of a poetic composition.

According to the Indian view, the purpose of Art is to teach delightfully and to lead one to supreme bliss. Therefore the aim of aesthetics is considered to be the same as the aim of the Vedas.

The ease with which even the uninitiated in the Vedas can achieve the four purusharthas (or objects of man’s life) Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. (merit, wealth, enjoyment and liberation) by a knowledge, and appreciation of poetry is aptly and truly brought out by Visvanatha in his Sahityadarpana. ‘As the four kinds or fruit (vis. merit, wealth, enjoyment and liberation) can be attained in a delightful manner through poetry even by ordinary men, the shape of that poetry will now be unfolded.’ Visvanatha delights to portray the glory of words. He quotes from Patanjali’s Mahabhashya which says: He who knows the grammatical use of a word, having understood its full meaning, is capable of realizing his desires in the heavens.

The variety and richness of aesthetic experience is so vast that it is capable of strengthening the spirit of man, of reaffirming his faith in himself. Kalidasa enumerated four important aims of art: (a) Art causes delight to the Gods, and the sages have considered drama to be an attractive offering to them. (b) Art deals with the conduct of man, displays the joys and sorrows of life, which are engendered chiefly by the three Gunas–Sattva, Rajas and Tamas–or the qualities of goodness, restlessness and inertia. By displaying the interaction of these forces a great drama could be created. (c) Art brings home to the devotee many types of transcendental pleasure because it displays many Rasas. (d) Finally, art is the giver of universal delight. There is nothing else which can delight all types of people–young and old, the joyful, the grief-stricken, the sick and ailing, the hale and hearty–as art does.

We must remember that the purpose of art is to elevate, to uplift. This exaltation, however short and temporary it may be, is but the means to induce in us some moment of delight, which will be an encouragement to discover more deeply what real and lasting pleasure is. Towards that end the appreciation of art is a strong incentive.

The realization of delight from the arts is supposed to be a preliminary stage to the realization of the delight of Brahman or the Supreme Being. The relationship of these two kinds of delight is like that of the relationship between the image and its reflection. “In teaching something new to young pupils, it is necessary to make learning attractive to them; one useful device would be to start with something known to them, which, though fictitious, is as near as possible to the truth, and then from there to lead them to truth.” Similarly Kavyananda is something more easily appreciated and realized than Brahmananda; through it we can advance to the realization of Brahman, and thus proceed from the known to the unknown.

Kavyananda and Brahmananda have this in common–they are both transcendental in nature. They are both unalloyed bliss. Their main difference is, that in Kavyananda, the realization of bliss is temporary, lasting only until the passing away of the major causes of artistic delight, whereas in Brahmananda, the bliss is permanent.

Similarly a close resemblance is suggested between the creative artist and the creator of the universe. Both are artists who create something fresh, interesting, varied and pulsating with life. As the Kavyaprakasa puts it: “The creation of the poet is un-checked; it gives unalloyed joy, is not bound by anything, and is replete with the entire emotional gamut by the employment of the sentiments.” Therefore it is complete in itself like the creation of the Lord, though we may not go to the length of declaring like Mammata that artistic creation excels the creation of Brahman.

It is said that the gifts of the poet and those of the realized soul are the same; both are gifted with Pratibha or imagination and cultivate it.

Pratibha or poetic imagination is the real source of artistic creation. It has been stressed by Indian rhetoricians from very early times. However, ideas about imagination were nebulous at first; and the credit of fixing its status goes to Bhamaha. Bhamaha declares that a work of art can be composed only by a man gifted with imagination.

Dandin, his successor, also spoke of Pratibha or imagination as the cause of poetic composition in addition to learning and assiduous practice.

But he thought learning and assiduity were enough for poetic creation, a view which represents a retrogression, for many Indian Alankarikas do not share it. He makes two important points in regard to Pratibha. Firstly that it is the cause of ‘Rich Poetry’. Secondly, that this intuitive faculty of imagination called Pratibha flows from earlier latent impressions.

Vamana, the next great rhetorician, restores to Pratibha its prestige and argues that it is the ‘germ of poetry’. He emphasizes the importance and necessity of imagination in poetic creation when he declared that “without imagination a composition cannot be produced and even if produced it would look ridiculous.” Rudrata also sees the necessity of imagination in artistic creation. Instead of calling it Pratibha he calls it Sakti. His contribution in this respect is in dividing Sakti or imagination into the ‘natural’ and the’ acquired’. He is partial to the natural variety and treats the acquired only as next to it.

Mammata also calls imagination by the name Sakti. Heholds that literary composition is due to three causes: imagination or Pratibha worldly experience and practice, but he emphasizes Pratibha. Besides, Mammata declares, like Vamana, that without imagination a composition will not be produced at all; and even if produced, it becomes a prey to ridicule.

Of the later critics, Vagbhata talks of imagination in appreciative terms. So does Rajasekhara. The credit of declaring unambiguously that imagination alone counts in the creation of a literary composition goes to Jagannatha. (Tasya cha karanam kavigata kevala pratibha.)

Earlier, Anandavardhana had declared that if a poet had imagination, there would be no limits to his productions of art.

His commentator Abhinavagupta, talks of imagination in the very opening verse of his commentary called Lochana. Kshemendra thinks that imagination is the ornament of poetry.

How important is the role and concept of imagination can thus be seen. Naturally, ancient aestheticians decided to fix its meaning by offering definitions of the term. The most telling of the definitions is that of Bhattatauta. He said: Pratibha is intuitive intellect which visualises and creates things ever anew. (The other definitions offered were but amplifications of this definition of Bhattatauta. Thus Rudrata says that ‘it is the flash of ideas in effortless words in a meditative mind.’)

Abhinavagupta calls it an intuitive vision, a vision by which the poet sees the truth of the world. In his Abhinavabharati he says that “it is the wonderful faculty of creation.” In another place he defines it as the ability to form new ideas in regard to the subject of description. Mahimabhatta talks of it as “the sudden flash of intuitive intellect which sees the truth of things.” Mammata defines it as “the prenatal impulse which is the cause of poetic creation.” Jagannatha thinks of it as “the mastery over words and sense necessary for creating poetry” Kshemendra contents himself with quoting Bhattatauta’s definition.

I shall next briefly indicate the relationship which exists between imagination Pratibha and sentiment Rasa, and to describe the role of imagination in the delineation of sentiment. It is the sage Bharata who first proclaims that delineation of sentiment is the end and aim of all artistic creation.

A similar view is held by Apandavardhana. In his support he quotes an earlier view to the effect that “delineation of sentiment is a worthy subject for the consideration of poets. They must ever be alert in the portrayal of sentiments.” His commentator Abhinavagupta entirely agrees with him in this respect, for he declares roundly that a “work of art lives because of the sentiment it portrays.” Jagannatha Pandita explicitly says that a Kavya rich in Rasadhvani is the best of literary productions. Abhinavagupta also talks about the excellences of Rasadhvani. He says that Rasa is suggested by the association of the major, minor and accessory causes which arouse the latent impressions in the reader or the spectator.

Now it is here that imagination steps in. This innate faculty of the poet helps, in the proper delineation and association of the major causes (Vibhavas), minor causes (Anubhavas) and accessories or auxiliaries (Vyabhicharibhavas) which alone can produce Rasa. It is this aspect of imagination which is contemplated by Abhinavagupta in his opening verse of the Lochana where he says: “All hail to literary principles of the poet-critic combination, a principle which manifests an unseen thing without requiring its causes; which enlivens even the dead world by injecting sentiment into it and attracts by the visions of beauty it conjures and the powers of description it displays.

Imagination thus is the ‘suggestive cause’ of sentiment. Imagination makes attractive even the dull things of the world by imparting life to them.

From this we can infer that what makes imagination important is the fact that it forms part of the world of suggestion; and it always plays the role of ‘the suggestor’ to bring about the free play of Rasa (sentiment) which is the suggested.

Rasa or aesthetic delight is brought about by artistic creation. Now, for this creation, it is imagination which is solely responsible, as Jagannatha puts it.

This is illustrated by the imaginative powers of the first Indian poet Valmiki. The poet saw one of a pair of herons being shot down by a hunter. Valmiki saw the surviving herons piteously. This was his perceptional experience. Later, he had the experience transferred to his imagination. This in its turn stirred up within him his instinct of pathos; and in such a moment of intense feeling, he burst out into spontaneous verse. Later he used this poetic urge to write Ramayana in which he depicted the sentiment of pathos. All this intended to be conveyed by Anandavardhana in his ‘Pathos-verse’ or Soka-sloka equation.

Pratibha is a faculty which exists both in the poet and also in the man of taste. This is indicated by the term Sahridaya applied to the latter. The expression denotes one ‘who has a like heart.’ Thus imagination which is common to the poet and the reader makes it possible for the latter to relish a composition created by the imagination of the poet. Imagination, thus, forms a bridge between the poet and his reader.

Again, the delineation of sentiment depends mainly upon three things–subject, figures and style. Imagination helps a poet in the creation of subject matter. Thus Malati-Madhavam is a pure creation of the imaginative mind of Bhavabhuti. As for figures of speech Anandavardhana shows that a poet of imagination need not struggle for suitable figures of speech at all, but that they come to him in a flood, in his imaginative mood.

It has already been pointed out that Jagannatha defines imagination as the ability to use word and sense to make up a composition. Now it is clear from Anandavardhana that a great poet uses words which are suggestive and hence the production of a composition of great delectation. He makes this point very clear in one of his famous pronouncements. “The expressions of great poets streaming with delightful content reveal their extraordinary imagination which is both bright and transcendental.”

In this connection we must also take into consideration the concepts of realism and Idealism developed by the sage Bharata.

It all comes to this, that the function of a poet is not to represent merely things as they are in the world. This would become more Lohadharmi or realism. But when a poet by means of his imaginative powers creates a new world, he makes his writings more interesting. This would be turning the world of realism into that of idealism; and this transformation is done by poetic imagination. Such transformation is the exclusive privilege of the poet. Anandavardhana in this connection draws our attention to a prevailing view that “in the unlimited world of poesy the poet alone is the creator, and the world revolves in the manner he desireth.”

Yet another case may be made out to show the close relationship which exists between imagination and sentiment. It was Kshemendra who argued in his Auchityavichara-charcha that imagination shines only when it is touched by propriety. But Anandavardhana shows that, when a poet displays great imagination, then, even if he does not observe propriety, the composition shines at its best. He cites here the instance of Kumarasambhaua of Kalidasa. The poet depicts here the Sambhoga Sringara, the love scenes of God and Goddess–a highly improper thing to do. The imagination displayed by Kalidasa in the Kumarasambhava has made the text otherwise objectionable, one of relish.

It is argued by the Indian rhetoricians that imagination always creates the beautiful. And sentiment falls under the category of the beautiful. Rudrata says that by imagination, learning and practice, a poet can avoid the ugly and depict the beautiful. Pratibha as responsible for creating a beautiful composition is also referred to by Abhinavagupta in his Lochana. He opines here that Imagination is the gifted faculty with which a poet creates rare things of beauty.

In conclusion, it may be stated that imagination is the most important cause for poetic composition: which in its turn produces aesthetic delight. We may also state that the relationship which exists between imagination and sentiment is that of cause and effect.

The Indian treatment of sentiment culminates in the view that love is the best of all moods. This sentiment is said to reach the pinnacle of aesthetic experience. In the epics like the Bhagavata or in compositions like the Dravida Prabandha, the hero-heroine relationship is based on love. This is so developed as to be applicable to God and the devotee. Many of the moods are of the feminine approach and feeling.

In moods of love, God is looked upon as the hero and the devotee as the heroine. Their identity and inseparableness give the essence of that self-surrender and devotion and love that exists between man and woman as husband and wife. According to Rupagoswami, Bhakti or devotion itself is a mood greater even than that of Sringara. Krishna is called by his devotee, ‘the blazing blue sapphire.’ The mere thought of Krishna’s blue body brings forth love for Krishna. Here let us note that God is the supporting excitant, and his devotees the exciting major causes. Tears of joy are the ensuants. Bhakti rasa or devotion fills the mind with such joy that even the mood of love cannot match it.

In the traditional Indian view, art can only fulfil itself when it represents God for the godly; otherwise it fails to justify itself. Good men should heed the poetic injunction given in Vikramorvasiya that readers should not merely admire metre and rhyme but also honour the good characters and the noble subjects depicted in a drama. Works of art bereft of morality should be rejected.

Again, the establishment of the concept of Dhvani (suggestion) leads to the conclusion that all real art is an oblique reference to God, as the repository of beauty, and his activities.

Kalidasa’s famous opening verse of the Raghuvamsa gives in a nutshell the close connection between word and sound. Kalidasa writes that the relationship between sound and sense is a holy one and is like that which exists between Parvati and Paramesvara.

The Samskrit language consists of 51 bijaksharas (seed letters). Bija means seed. And the infinitesimal seed is capable of producing a tree. Thus bija by itself properly intoned or by a combination with other bijas is capable of giving results undreamt of before. According to Hindu occultscience Dhvani or nada produced by the letters is an outer manifestation of the Supreme Being. By a judicious use and by proper understanding of the results produced by bijas a glimpse of the all-highest truth is possible. Truth and beauty are intertwined and intermixed, and so are word and meaning. The understanding of the one leads to the other. Hence the importance attached to dhvani or suggestive utterance of words and its role in art.

God is the objective of all Indian art. Take the example of iconography. All those who are devout or interested in art know that in all the temples of India the vast majority of images relate to the depiction of facets of the Godhead and His deeds. It is one of the principal aims of Indian sculpture. In painting it is the same. Ravi Varma, the celebrated painter, felt that painting was the best when it depicted God and His deeds. In the field of Indian music, Thyagaraja, Dikshitar and Purandaradasa–all sang of God and His glories and His mighty deeds. The best of our temples again reflect the glory of God. Dance and drama besides are chiefly to please the gods. So too the best of literary classics deal with Dharma. The celebrated drama of Prabodhachandrodaya deals with Vedantic doctrines.

The whole principle of Indian aesthetics can be summed up in one sentence: The worship of beauty is primarily of interest as a worship of God, because beauty is nothing but God; only secondarily is beauty an attribute of the things of the world. As the Gita says: “Whatever is vast, good, auspicious, mighty understand thou that it exists as a spark of my splendour.”

To realise all that is beautiful, all that is wonderful, all that is holy, all that constitutes the vital life as part of God, is to be beautiful, truthful and joyous as Brahman.

Reprinted from Triveni, July, 1966