Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||在「樂」和「舞」之間：一個中國和印度美學的比較研究;Between Natya and Yue [Natya-Yue, God-Nature, Saudarya-Mei, Rasa-Jingjie, Lila-You, Bhakti and Prema-Damei and other Indian and Chinese aesthetics elements in comparison]: A comparative study of Indian and Chinese Aesthetics|
|Authors: ||白宇光;Brahma Prakash|
|Keywords: ||｢舞｣(Natya);比較美學;大愛;大美;境界;Rasa;｢樂｣;Comparative aesthetics;Natya;Yue;Rasa;Bhakti(Grand Love);jing-jie;Grand Beauty|
|Issue Date: ||2009-09-22 09:21:42 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract: ||這篇論文的一個基本的主張是：美學是人類基本能力狀態的研究—感官意識的非異化狀態。在這個主張下，這篇論文將逐步展示比較印度和中國美學的研究成果，主要關注於印度的｢舞｣(Natya)和中國的｢樂｣。在印度和中國的脈絡中，｢舞｣和｢樂｣皆代表藝術、美學和哲學一個更為寬廣的意義，並且提供藝術生活的構想。如Natyashastra所宣稱的，若不在｢舞｣之中，我們找不到任何藝術、知識、瑜伽 (yoga) 並且採取行動；而在《樂論》中，樂是因應各種變化的調和方式。 我基本的預設是：不同文化所展演出的表面差異並不能代表其美學基礎的歧異。因而，任何比較美學的嘗試都不是要指出美學或美本身的差異，而是要指出展演美學的元素，透過這些元素展現美學的永恆價值。在比較美學中，我們比較的並非美學的本質本身，而是美學元素以及其與哲學元素：倫理學、合理性、形上學、信仰之間的關係。 我的論文從美學與藝術、哲學之間的困境開始，探討美學附屬於藝術與哲學的原因，在印度和中國的不同美學與哲學學派脈絡中，它們既互相關聯也有所差異。我認為印度與中國美學不能以十分確切的哲學美學概念來理解，即使如此，有一個面向是值得我們關切的，即美學本身隱示為一種方法論。為此我採取了二個出發點：美學被視為哲學的一部分，作為「哲學美學」；其次「美學作為藝術生活之哲學的基礎」。後者並非要提倡一種｢純美學｣的觀念，而是在美學研究中給予美學元素主要的地位。因此印度與中國美學的比較並不同於東方與西方的區別比較，除了巨觀的視角，充斥於兩者間的大量相似特徵也促使我們不得不展開審視其內在的微觀視角。 論文的第一章說明我的研究大綱、研究方法等等。第二章則是論文要點的整理以及印度美學的重要論述，包括Natya(藝術的概念)、Rasa (審美經驗)、Leela (遊的概念)、Ananda (審美的歡愉)、sphota/dhvani (暗示)的概念、Bhakti/Prema (大愛) 等等。第三章概述中國美學並探討其美學元素，如樂、境界、遊、大美、陰陽/太極以及暗示等等。第四章中，我從印度及中國美學中各選取五個重要特徵並且加以比較。包括｢舞｣和｢樂｣、Rasa和境界、 Lila和遊、婆羅門和道的比較，以及其唯心論和自然主義的探討。這些研究成果顯示出二者許多相似性和差異，作為彼此區別以及包含、吸納的基礎，進一步形成發展當代世界美學的論述 With a basic postulation that aesthetics is a study of the state of fundamental human capacity; a state of non-alienated condition of the senses, the thesis provides an outcome of a comparative study of Indian and Chinese aesthetics with special reference to their inter-generic art and aesthetic concept of the Natya and the Yue. Both Natya and Yue, in Indian and Chinese context, stand for a broader meaning of art, aesthetics and philosophy and envision the idea of artistic life. For instance, the Natyashastra claims that there is no art, no knowledge, no yoga, no action that is not found in Natya; in Yuelun (樂論) it is said that Yue is the harmonious way to deal with all changes. My basic hypothesis is that the differences on superficial aspect of cultural performativity may not signify the differences on fundamental of aesthetic conception. Thus any attempt to draw a comparison between aesthetics primarily does not stand for the differences on aesthetic or beauty as such but on performativity of aesthetic elements, where aesthetic represents an invariable value. In a comparative aesthetics we don’t compare the essence of aesthetics as such rather elements of aesthetic and also their relation with other elements of philosophy; ethics, rationality, metaphysics, religion etc. The thesis begins with the dilemma of aesthetics, art and philosophy; reason behind dependency of aesthetic on art and philosophy; their interconnections and diversions mainly in context of divergent schools of Indian and Chinese aesthetics and philosophy. I argue that Indian and Chinese aesthetics can not be apprehended with very established notion of philosophical aesthetics, but we also need to see the other aspect where aesthetic also implied as a methodology. For this I have taken two points of departures: aesthetics as a part of philosophy where aesthetics has been conferred as a “philosophical aesthetics”, and second “aesthetic as an emanatory of philosophy of artistic life.” But the later does not advocates the idea of “pure aesthetic”, but only entails primacy of aesthetic elements in study of aesthetics. It also argues that Comparative study between Indian and Chinese aesthetics, unlike East- West compartmental comparisons , need not only aims to macro perspectives rather its pervasiveness of similar macro characteristics inclined us to see its intrinsic micro aspects too. First chapter of my thesis provides a general outline of my study, methodology etc. The second chapter provides a critical outline as well as significant debates concerning Indian aesthetics which includes debates on Natya (concept of art), Rasa (aesthetic experience), Leela (concept of play), ananda/ sahaja/ sahajia (aesthetic delight), concept of sphota/dhvani (suggestiveness), Bhakti/Prema (Grand Love) etc. In a similar way third chapter outlines Chinese aesthetic and critically discusses their elements like; Yue (concept of art), Jing-jie (aesthetic experience), You (wandering/play), Damei (concept of grand beauty), Yin-yang/Tian-di (concept of harmony) and anshi (suggestiveness) etc. In Fourth chapter, I have selected and compared five important characteristics of Indian and Chinese aesthetics which do not only imbibes the traditional as such but also invites contemporary debates towards making of world aesthetics. This comparative category includes Natya and Yue, Rasa and Jing-jie, Lila and You, Brahman and Dao, and their spiritualistic and naturalistic meaning. The result shows a lot of similarities and differences: making of encompassing, embodying and differentiating matrix.|
|Appears in Collections:||[哲學研究所] 博碩士論文|
All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.