| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |