在「樂」和「舞」之間：一個中國和印度美學的比較研究

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：106

、訪客IP：3.147.73.110

姓名

白宇光(Brahma Prakash) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

哲學研究所

論文名稱

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)

相關論文

★ 《道德經》「無為而治」意蘊之探析	★ 《莊子》苦樂觀的現代詮釋
★ 安心之道探究--以《大乘起信論》為依據的哲學詮釋	★ 論《維摩詰經》之入世精神－以現代「人間佛教」思想為說明
★ 韓非法思想研究	★ 從羅蘭．巴特符號學觀點論普普藝術︰以安迪．沃荷作品為例
★ 儒學文化精神溯原以《論語》之「孝道」、「學	★ 牟宗三對「美善衝突」的解決
★ 從《精神現象學》主奴之爭一節中看欲望詮釋的可能性	★ 《莊子》主體觀探究— — 「復性」與「氣化」為核心的存有論詮釋
★ 對非人類物種的倫理反思：從價值理論探討人類應有的態度	★ 探究Hans Küng之「全球倫理」的「可普遍性」與「可實踐性」
★ 論海德格對技術本質之反思 ——對技術本質之派生關係與其本源現象之溯源作一種詮釋之嘗試	★ 對當代西方倫理學中代理孕母爭議的一個「性別倫理」之省思
★ 鄰避現象之環境倫理涵義：以效益主義環境正義考察為例示	★ 動物的道德地位：Singer的效益主義進路動物的道德地位考察

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

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

摘要(英)

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.

關鍵字(中)

★ ｢舞｣(Natya)
★ 比較美學
★ 大愛
★ 大美
★ 境界
★ Rasa
★ ｢樂｣

關鍵字(英)

★ Comparative aesthetics
★ Natya
★ Yue
★ Rasa
★ Bhakti(Grand Love)
★ jing-jie
★ Grand Beauty

論文目次

ABSTRACT (English)……………………………………………………I
ABSTRACT (Chinese) ………………………………………………. III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................IV
Table of Contents.............................VI
CHAPTER -I 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research Outline 7
1.2.1 Research Motive and Aims 7
1.2.2 Research Methodology & Approaches 7
1.2.2.1 Methodology 7
1.2.2.2 Approaches 8
1.2.3 Definitions of Terms 9
1.3 Limitations of the Study 9
1.4 Survey of the Existing Literature 10
1-4-1 Books on Indian Natya and Aesthetics 10
1.5 Chapterization 14
CHAPTER-2 16
The God of Dance to Dancing gods: Indian Aesthetics Traditions in Context of Natya 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Indian Aesthetics: A Critical Overview 18
2.3 Debates in Indian Aesthetics 25
2.3.1 Natya（舞）in Indian Aesthetic Tradition 26
2.3.2 Rasa (Aesthetic Experience) as the Soul of India Aesthetics 30
2.3.3 Aesthetic Delight, Ananda, Sahajiya, Sahaja 36
2.3.4 Suggestiveness, Sphota, Dhvani, Proksha, Sahridya 39
2.3.5 The Concept of Play (Lila) in Indian aesthetics 44
2.3.6 The Grand Love, Aesthetic Union, Bhakti-Sufi 46
2.4 Conclusion 48
CHAPTER-3 50
Ethics of Music to Aesthetics of Music: Chinese Aesthetics Traditions in context of Yue（樂） 50
3.1 Introduction 50
3.2. Chinese Aesthetics: A Critical Overview 53
3.3. Debates in Chinese Aesthetics 64
3.3.1 Yue;樂 as a comprehensive idea of Chinese Aesthetics 66
3.3.2 The concept of Grand/Great Beauty, damei; 大美 72
3.3.3 The concept of Play: You; 游 (Play) 78
3.3.4 Aesthetics Union, Harmony Yin-yang, 天地，天根和 81
3.3.5 Suggestiveness (anshi;暗示)in Chinese Aesthetics 84
3.3.6 Aesthetic Experience: jing-jie; 境界, yijing; 音節, 86
3.4 Conclusion 90
CHAPTER- 4 91
Between Natya; 舞and Yue; 樂: Towards a Comparative Aesthetics 91
4.1 Introduction 91
4.2. A Comparative Study between Indian and Chinese Aesthetic 98
4.2.1 On the Nature (characteristics) of Aesthetics 99
4.2.2 On Concept of Art and Beauty 104
4.2.3 Aesthetic Experience, Aesthetic delight, Aesthetic appreciation 112
Rasa, bhava, jingjie, yingjie 112
4.2.4 The Concept of Play, Lila and You 117
4.2.5 On Brahman and Dao 120
4.3 Conclusion 126
CHAPTER -5 128
CONCLUSION 128
REFERENCES 133

參考文獻

I. Books in English and Indian Languages:
1. Aristotle, 1998, Aristotle’s Poetics. Commentary and trans.Stephen Halliwell, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. M. Beardsley, 1982, The Aesthetic Point of View, New York: Cornell University Press.
3. Bharata-Muni, 2000,Hindi Natyashashtra, translation and critical commentary by Babulal Shukla Shashtri, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Publication.
4. Bharata-Muni, 1996, The Natyasastra. English translation and critical notes by Adya Rangacharya, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
5. Brecht, 1965, Brecht on Theatre: the Development of an Aesthetic, translated by John Willett, London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
6. Bertolt Brecht, 1965, The Messingkauf Dialogues, translated by John Willett, London: Methuen Drama.
7. Cassirer, Ernst, 2006, An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture, New Introduction by Maureen Lukay, Hamburg: Meiner Verlag.
8. Chan, W. , 1963, The Source book in Chinese Philosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
9. Charvaka, “The First Chapter of the The Seva Darshana Sangraha of Madhavacharya,” Website on Charvaka, URL =http:// www. humanistictexts. Org/Carvaka.htm.
10. Coomaraswamy, Anand K., 1971, The Dance of Shiva: Fourteen Indian Essays, New York: The Noonday Press.
11. Coomaraswamy, Anand K., 1956, The Transformation of Nature in Art, New York: Dover Publication.
12. Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., “Lila” in Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. 61, No.2,(June 1941,)pp.98-101
13. Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., “Play and Seriousness” in Journal of Philosophy, Vol.39, No.20 (Sep 24, 1942,) pp.550-52.
14. Deutsch, Eliot, “Studies in Comparative Aesthetics” in Monograph of the Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy, No.2, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
15. Dhananjaya, Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya, 2004, with “Avaloka” Sanskrit commentary of Dhanika, edited with “Pradip”, Hindi commentary by K. Musalgaonkara and Introduction by R.S.Musalgaonkara, Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Bhavan.
16. Dumont, Louis, 1980, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, translated by Basia M.Gulati, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Eagleton, Terry, 1990, “Free Particulars” in The Ideology of Aesthetics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
18. Fang, Thome H., 1981, Chinese Philosophy: Its Spirit and Its Development, Taipei: Linking Publishing Co. Ltd.
19. Gadamer, Hans-George, 2004, Truth and Methods, translation revised by Joel Weisheimer and Donald G. Marshall, London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
20. Ghosh, Manmohan, 1962 .Natyashastra, Vol.1, Calcutta (Kolkata): Manisha.
21. Hussain, Mazhar and Robert Wilkinson (eds.), 2006, The Pursuit of Comparative Aesthetics: An Interface Between East and West, Burligton, VT: Ashgate.
22. Jain, Nemichnadra, 2003, Asides: Themes in Contemporary Indian Theatre, New Delhi: NSD.
23. Jha, Sitaram, 2000, Naatak aur Rangmanch, Patna: Bihar Rashtrabhasa Prasad.
24. Jhanjhi, Rekha, 1989, The Sensuous in Art: Reflections on Indian Aesthetics, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
25. Kemal, 1997, Salim, Kant’s Aesthetic Theory, New York: St. Martin Press.
26. Levinson, Jerrold (edit.), 2003, The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Maharishi, Anjali, 2000,A contemporary Study of Brechtian and Classical Indian Theatre, Delhi: National School of Drama.
28. Masson, J.L., and M. V. Patwardhan, Aesthetic Rapture: The Rasadhyaya of the Natyashastra, Vol. I , Poona: Deccan College.
29. Mathur, Dinesh C.,“Abhinavgupta and Dewey on Art and its Relation to Morality: Comparisons and Evaluations,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol.42.no.2 (Dec., 1981), pp. 224-235.
30. Meyer-Dinkgrafe, Daniel, 2005, Theatre and Consciousness, Bristol: Intellect Books.
31. Mishra, Vijay, 1998, Devotional Poetics and the Indian Sublime, New York: SUNY Press.
32. Mohanty, J.N., 1992, Reason and Tradition in Indian Thought, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
33. Mukherjee, Radhakamal, “‘Rasa’ as Springs of Art in Indian Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.24, No.1, Oriental Aesthetics (Autumn, 1965) pp.91-96.
34. Newcomb, James W., “Eisenstein’s Aesthetics”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.32, No.4 (Summer, 1974) pp. 471-476.
35. Pandey, K.C. “A Bird’s-Eye View of Indian Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24, Vol.24, no.2, (Autumn, 1965) pp.59-73
36. Pranjpe, A.C., 1998, Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought, New York: Kluber Academic Publishers.
37. Pohl, Karl-Heinz, 1999, Chinese Thought in Global Context: A dialogue between Chinese and Western Philosophical Approaches, Leidan, Boston and Koln: Brill.
38. Radhakrishnan, S., 1997, Indian Philosophy, Vol.1, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
39. Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Vol.2, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
40. Rangacharya, Adya, 1997, Introduction to The Natyashastra, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
41. Plato, 1993, “Poetry and Unreality” in The Republic, translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Prakash, H.S, 2005, “Impact of Bhakti Movement on Theatre,” in Theatre India, No.12.pp.21-34.
43. Pohl, Karl Heinz, 2006, “Chinese Aesthetics and Kant” in The Pursuit of Comparative Aesthetics: An Interface Between East and West, edited by Mazhar Hussein and Robert Wilkinson, Burlington VT: Ashgate, pp. 127-137.
44. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Website on Philosophy, URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/
45. Spivac, Gayatri Chakravorty, 1988, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Marxism and Interpretation of Culture, edited by C.Nelson and L.Grossberg, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, pp.271-313.
46. Sudhi, Padma, 1988, Aesthetic Theories of India, Vol.2, New Delhi: Intellectual Publishing House.
47. Thapar, Romila, 1995, Recent Perspective of Early Indian History, New Delhi: Popular Prakashan.
48. Tarlekar, G.H., 1975, Studies in the Natyashastra, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.
49. The Upanishad, 1879, translated by Max Muller, Part-1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
50. Wang, Keping, 2002, “Wang guowei: Philosophy of Aesthetics Criticism” in Contemporary Chinese Philosophy, edited by Zhongying Cheng and Nicholas Bunnin, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.37-56.
51. Yu-Lan, Fung, 1983, A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol.1, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
52. Zehou, Li, 1998, The Path of Beauty: A study of Chinese Aesthetics, translated by Gong Lizeng, Beijing: Morning Glory Publishers, 1998.
53. Zehou, Li, 1995, "Zhuangzi and Chan Buddhism", in Contemporary Chinese Aesthetics, edited by Zhu Liyuan and Gene Blocker, Paris: Peter Lang.
54. Zehou, Li, 2006, Four Essays on Aesthetics: Towards a Global View, Lehman, MD: Lexington Books.
II. Books in Chinese Language
55. 陳鼓應，2003，《老子今注今譯》，北京:商務。
56. 姜一涵，1992，〈中國文學美學〉，刊於《中國美學》第五章，台北:國立空中大學，初版，, 頁169-256。
57. 孫詒讓，1995，《墨子閒詁》，台北：華正書局，初版。
58. 曹礎基，2002，《莊子譯注》，台北：中華書局，初版。
59. 王國維，1970，《人間詞話》，台北：中華書局，初版。
60. 徐復觀，2007，《中國藝術精神》，一桂林：廣西師範大學出版社
61. 荀子，《樂論》，http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=12245&if=en
62. 蕭振邦, 1998.6，《道家美學思想基型——《莊子》的美學觀》,刊於《鵝湖學誌(第二十期)》(台北，鵝湖雜誌社)。
63. 蕭振邦，民80，〈老莊美學思想析論〉，刊於《文學與美學（第二）》（台北：文史哲出版社，初版），頁37-90。

指導教授

蕭振邦(Prof. Jenn-Bang Shiau)

審核日期

2008-7-10

推文