Indian Aesthetics Introduction Indian aesthetics is a vast field.

Any attempt to discuss it in such a brief space as this can only be sketchy and deal with the broad tendencies. Hence, here I have only attempted to give its brief overview with reference to major trends. I begin with a few queries about the term Indian Aesthetics in the light of our Western orientation. Next I attempt to look at the grand text of Indian aestheticsNtya Sstraand briefly discuss its contribution to an understanding of various art forms. From that point onwards, the focus is on Indian aesthetics with special focus on poetics, its important concepts and commentators since many of the aesthetic issues dealt with in poetics are significant to dance, music, painting and sculpture. I manage only to touch upon a few points about other art forms; and neglect dance in the process. This is partly due to my orientation in poetics and partly due to my ignorance. But I hope that this brief discussion will encourage others to rectify this shortcoming and extend the discussion of Indian aesthetics in a more balanced and integrated manner. Defining Indian Aesthetics Aesthetics or the branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste has a rich tradition in the West, with many major philosophers exploring the concept of beauty and its relation to good. But each culture has its own configurations, ways of categorizing objects and concepts; and ways of doing things. As Professor M. Hiriyanna points out: It is usual for every prominent philosopher in the West to regard the question of beauty as a part of the problem he is attempting to solve. Hence aesthetics has come to be recognized as a regular part of philosophy. The intrinsic relation implied in this between aesthetics and philosophy is not denied in India; but the former of these studies is carried on by a distinct class of thinkers alamkrikas, as they are called or literary critics who are not, generally speaking, professional philosophers. (Hiriyanna 48) Besides, when we use the English word Aesthetics, we hardly mean alamkrasstras per se. Our way of traditionally categorizing things is distinctively different and all I wish to say is that this difference has to be kept in mind when one wishes to explore theorizations about the Indian concept of beauty and taste. I shall try to illustrate this point with a slightly more concrete word art. What I wish to say is that what art covers in the context of the English language may not be covered by kal in the Indian context. The Saivatantras and later the Kmasutra list 64 kals which include the following: 1. Singing (Gitam), 2. Playing on musical instruments (Vdyam), 3. Dancing (Nrutyam), 4. The union of the three (Ntya), 5. Writing and drawing (Alekhyam), 6. Playing on musical glasses filled with water (Udakavdyam), 7. Picture making, trimming and decorating, 8. Culinary skills, 9. Making birds and other shapes out of yarn or thread, 10. Mimicry or imitating, 11.Reading including chanting and intoning, 12. Architecture, 13. Colouring jewels, 14. Composing poems, 15. Making clay figures.1 I take these fifteen categories out of the 64 for discussion since they have a distinct relation to kal or art (since we often use them interchangeably) the way we use it today in India. Coming to the categories, an interesting element is the distinction between playing musical

instruments and playing on musical glasses which is not considered as a subset of the category musical instruments. Architecture is considered an art form, modelling is included as a category, but there is no mention of sculpture in the Kmasutra. On the other hand, what we consider craft (and not art) today folk traditions (pallikal, lokokal) like colouring jewels, making shapes out of hemp or rope, making clay figures etc is included. It is thus with aesthetics. In any modern exploration of Indian tradition in the light of aesthetics, we are inadvertently using a western way of classifying things which we have incorporated during our colonization upon material Indian. This is all the more so since what we understand by literature today does not necessarily fit the Indian way of classifying shitya. For instance, is Mahbhrata a dharmasstra or a literary composition? till nandavardhana (9th century) it does not figure in any discussion of poetics. Is Vishnudharmottara Purna a work of aesthetics since it includes a significant portion on various art forms? The other point I would like to emphasize is that the most detailed and finely constructed theories about beauty and taste (aesthetics) centre on literature one often finds that most 19th and 20th century English works in the field use the terms Indian Poetics and Indian Aesthetics interchangeably. Often, it is assumed that what is discussed in the context of poetics, in general, applies to aesthetics. We find this tendency in Ananda Coomaraswamy, M. Hiriyanna and K. C. Pandey, to name a few. This emphasis by modern scholars is only a reflection of what has happened in our tradition, since most philosophical exploration of the concept of beauty, taste, author and perceiver in our tradition is in the field of poetics or by alamkrikas. However, such a view is not entirely true. There are two sides to the coin and the reader must decide how to resolve them. On the one hand most of the theorists in our tradition have written about a number of things music, painting, performance, along with poetics. The first extant example is Ntya Sstra. And we know of at least four significant commentators of Bharatas Ntya Sstra Sankuka, Lollota, Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta. Only Abhinavabhrti survives while the other works are lost. Similarly, many of the other writers on poetics also wrote on other art forms unfortunately these works are lost. Finally, even in the works of poetics, in our tradition, there is discussion (in passing or as illustrations) of fine art, music, dance and performance. The interrelationship among the various art forms is also illustrated in Vishnudharmottara where it is pointed out that fine art comes from dance and dance from music 2: Mrkandeya said: Lord of men, he who does not know properly the rules of chitra can, by no means, be able to discern the characteristics of image. . . . Without a knowledge of the art of dancing, the rules of painting are very difficult to be understood. . . . The practice of dancing is difficult to be understood by one who is not acquainted with music. . . . without singing music cannot be understood.3 Professor Bharat Gupt also specifically mentions this point in his paper Indian Aesthetics and its Present Day Problems. But one must also look at the other side of the coin. Looking from a distance, across centuries, a power hierarchy is discernable. Although high respect was given to the various kals, one finds strict social divisions as well as unequal power relation. Sankara referes to silpa in Saundaryalahari as pujabidhna or the path to worship4. But such comments are more in the way of exceptions than the general rule. And this, in spite of Bharatas emphasis in the Ntya Sstra (Chapter 1) that ntya takes into consideration dharma and can lead to moksha, as well as his calling it the fifth Veda. A possible reason for this can be located in the persons who practiced these kals as professionals. Distinguished silpis were given special place in courts, shown respect, rewards, etc., but

their social position was not high although their art was appreciated at the highest level5. They belonged to guilds, and often, their work was directed not so much by an individual pursuit of beauty or truth as by custom and directives6. In spite of what the Kmasutra might say, Manu forbids the householder to dance or sing or play on musical instruments. He considers architects, actors and singers as unworthy men who are not to be invited to ceremony of offerings to the dead. Chnakya groups musicians and actors with courtesans while tolerating them.7 In spite of the fact that according to Kmasutra, paints, brushes and drawing board were essential accessories of a citizen, in reality there existed two kinds of painters the professional and the non-professional. The same goes for the other art forms as well, with one exception. Literature, kvya, along with literary theory and darshna, and other written forms, belonged to the higher strata and were practiced by the upper class chiefly King Harsavardhana, the royal Viskhadatta, King Mahendravikrama, King Bhoja, as well as many Brahmins8. This is also illustrated by the fact that according to legends, Klidsa married a princess. To sum up, although some reflection is available in Indian tradition on all the fields covered by aesthetics, it is primarily poetics that dominates, not so much as texts (we have abundant texts on each art form) but they are neglected by the power structure that has persisted to this day. Secondly, most literary theorists discuss the other art forms as well especially music, painting and dance. Thirdly, theories applied to poetics especially the rasa theory later finds application to other fields of art as well. The ground is prepared by Ntya Sstra and its focus on communicating aesthetic emotion (rasa). Fourthly, a point that is of significance in looking at Indian aesthetics is that in many cases, the distinction between the spiritual and the secular is very thin. This point is highlighted by Dr. Ranjan Ghosh in his paper Indian Art: Some Philosophical Musings. If Abhinavgupta uses concepts from Shaiva-Tantra to aesthetics, Rupa Goswmi uses aesthetic concepts when looking at Bhakti. Finally, Indian aesthetics as we know it today is primarily Hindu Aesthetics and even here, dominantly Sanskrit aesthetics. It is true that classical music after the 15th century has strong Muslim influence; so also is the case with fine arts and architecture. But these elements are sadly under-explored in aesthetic studies; and it is only recently that the Tamil Tolkappiyam is getting critical attention. Jain tradition talks of six blind men who went to perceive an elephant. They touched different parts of the animal and came up with different definitions of the elephant viewpoints. When we look at our tradition across time, and across culture, we can never experience what each author on poetics experienced in his milieu. In fact each one of them was bound to the perspective of his time and wrote and interpreted within it. We are chained by ours. But even here, one will come across different viewpoints, diverse critical awareness. The purpose of this discussion is to develop a critical attitude towards all that we read in the field of Indian aesthetics. Without doubt, the categories created by Indologists and modern theorists are useful, but one must be careful of too much dependence on Western paradigms and simplistic one-to-one equations. This is a point that comes up both in Professor Gupts paper on problems facing Indian aesthetics and in Dr. Binda Paranjapes paper on Colonial Context and Aesthetic Identity Formation. Modern texts on Indian aesthetics are many, by Western scholars and by Indians, and even among Indians there are scholars who are trained in tradition or in Western philosophy and literature. Professor Radhavallabh Tripathis paper Indian Aesthetics on Crossroads beautifully reviews the different phases in the study of Indian aesthetics in modern times. But diverse approaches, attitudes, translations (even transformations) can make the field confusing. So, while there is no one standard way of looking at Indian aesthetics, a critical and cautious reading is always to be appreciated. The rest is left to the readers good judgement.

The Ntya Sstra and its Grand Tradition An exploration of the concept of aesthetics can be done in two different ways, as Coomoraswamy points out in The Dance of Shiva. One can look at the internal evidence of art (in which case one can explore beautiful passages in Rig Veda and the various Upanishads to begin with); one can also search for explicit theorization about what is the purpose of art, its implications and methods. The first extant work of that kind which has come down to us is Bharatas Ntya Sstra. Here, for the first time and perhaps the last time, one is exposed to almost all the elements of theorization one has about aesthetics. This exhaustive encyclopaedic work, which is meant to be a manual for the actors and directors in a performance, covers almost all there is in the field. In discussing vcikbhinaya (where enactment is through words) Bharata discusses different aspects of literary writing. He mentions that good diction must fulfill ten conditions of good writing (gunas), abstain from ten faults (dosas) and maintain certain literary characters (laksanas). He lists thirty-six of these characters. He also discusses the use of literary figures (alamkras), which separate literary from other kinds of writing. But over and above all, he says that the central purpose of dramatic performance, as a work of art, is rasa (aesthetic emotion), which is its soul. But it doesnt stop at that. This text also discusses music, dance, different styles of enactment the whole gamut of aesthetic experience which can be perceived by the eye and the ear. In this sense, it is the only grand text on aesthetics in the Indian tradition. All else flow from it and can be considered its bhsyas or commentaries. Ntya Sstra discusses many things but the focus in on performance. Among them it discusses how stages are to be constructed, moral precepts to be kept in mind while writing a play and in enacting it, the very nature of enactment, the different styles of acting (which include speech, voluntary and involuntary gestures, costumes to be used), and accompaniments to the enactment like songs, dance, musical instruments and drums. It talks of the different styles of verbal communication, plot construction and division of a play into different subsections, of what they should constitute and how they should develop. It also looks at the aesthetic and moral purpose of such enactments and tells us that a performance should teach, but through entertainment and delight. In trying to answer the question, what is the essence of a successful performance, it suggests the communication of aesthetic emotions or rasa; and then goes on to look at the mechanism of communication of aesthetic emotion briefly. Which component can be considered aesthetics here? In a narrow sense, if one is searching for answers to questions like What is the nature of beauty? What is the essence of a work of art? one might say the answer lies in the rasasutra of Ntya Sstra (Chapter VI). But in a broad context, it pervades the entire work as it touches upon a range of fields like music, dance, enactment, literary speech, poetry, plot and story and gives us precepts in terms of aptness of use with only one purpose in mind successful and aesthetically satisfying work of art. From this point onwards, the arts branch off. Aesthetics is never again explored in its totality in a single work, unless of course it is a commentary on Ntya Sstra. Poetics develops its long array of texts and commentaries (and some believe has already developed in its own way by the time of Ntya Sstra). Music has its own seminal texts. Dance develops its own pedagogy and critical codes. So does painting where it is linked closely to vastu or architecture. Hierarchies also develop. Not all these elements of aesthetics are treated at par. Poetry belongs to the court and to the intellectuals. Music comes next in the

hierarchy. Dance prevails in the realms of the courtesans and temple devdsis and visual arts belong to the artisans. After the grand text comes the grand divide9. Some Important Aesthetic Concepts As I have already discussed earlier, my task is a difficult one. If one looks at most books on aesthetic theories of India, poetic theories dominate. True, many of these theorists discuss other art forms, either in the same text or elsewhere, but there primary focus is literature. Important aesthetic concepts do figure in treatises that deal with music, fine arts or dance, but they are not applied to literature. On the other hand, theories discussed in relation to literature are sometimes extended to these art forms. We shall try to keep this in mind as we proceed and look at important concepts. It is true that art theory has its significance especially much of the symbolism involved in religious art (and the processes involved in achieving them) have great aesthetic relevance. Dr. Ranjan Ghosh discusses some of them in his paper Indian Aesthetics: Some Philosophical Musings. But the unfortunate trend has been, as I pointed out earlier, not to look at them in an integrated manner (especially by modern critics of poetics). A detailed discussion of these is both beyond this brief sketch and my competence, but I sincerely hope that more such work flow which look at the relation between poetics and other aesthetic writings and attempt to integrate them no doubt a difficult task, as it would require mastering treatises on music, painting, dance and architecture, but well worth the effort. Rasa theory Among the various aesthetic concepts propounded, rasa appears to be both the most popular and most pervasive. When Bharta summarily states in his Ntya Sstra that without rasa there can be no work of art (performance), it becomes evident that this concept not only applies to literature, but to the totality of performance with all its elements. Rasa can be roughly translated as aesthetic emotion or relish which is contained in a work of art and which gets communicated to the competent reader or viewer. This view assumes that the ultimate aim of any work of art is to provide aesthetic delight to the perceiver, a delight which is communicated through the aesthetic emotions presented in a work. Aesthetic emotions are distinctively different from ordinary emotions since they do not have a cause in our world (why does one feel delighted at the heros happiness or sad at the heros suffering?) and are pleasurable (else why do we relish tragedy which we shun in our real life?). This experience is neither illusion nor a part of reality. And in order to take delight, we must, for sometime, forget ourselves and our worlds (achieving aesthetic distance) and get totally involved in the experience of aesthetic emotion (aesthetic identification with the work of art). Finally, such an experience, even if short lived, comes close to spiritual delight (nanda) and has neither a beginning nor an end. Rasas are considered to be nine in number sringra (erotic), hsya (comic), karuna (tragic), vira (heroic), raudra (furious), bibhatsa (disgusting), bhaynaka (terrifying), adbhuta (wondorous) and snta (quietitude) which was added later. According to Bharata, it is from a combination of bibhvas (antecedents or causes within the work of art), anubhvas (consequents or the effect of those causes in the work) and sancaribhvas (diverse emotions that are indirectly communicated through various physical manifestations) that some single emotion persists (sthyibhva) in the work and gets communicated to the perceiver. This aesthetic emotion is called rasa. The theory is fairly complex and long debates have continued about its subtle nuances does it reside in the work or in the perceiver, is sthyibhva the rasa, and so on. Space does not permit discussions about them.

What needs to be briefly mentioned here is that rasa theory pervades almost all the arts. To begin with, though it did not form a part of poetics till the 9 th century (nandavardhana), from then on it became the most important theory. It also formed a significant part of dance theories (especially with their focus on the evocation of nava-rasas), and of music where it was felt (even by Bharata and later by Srangadeva) that different notes have relation to different rasas and can help evoke them. More important, according to Sranga, words form a vital component of music (in music, it is vocal music with lyrics that is considered the highest form) and without them rasa evocation was considered incomplete. Nritya (dance where meaning is conveyed as opposed to Nritta where gestures convey no comprehensive meaning) with its angikvinaya (communication through stylized gestures) overcame this problem of communicating meaning comprehensively. While not being applied to the fine arts and spatial arts per se, it is felt to have potentials there as well, the supreme aim of all arts being the communication of delight. Dhvani Strongly influenced by the sphota theory of the grammarians, developed systematically by nandavardhana, it holds that different elements of a composition, in combination, reveal a deeper meaning unexpressed by the original parts. Thus, it has much in common with modern Gestalt. Its central thesis is that words or combination of words perform three functions in conveying senses the denotative function (abidh), the indicative function (laksn) and the suggestive function (vyanjan). These points are elaborated in Professor Tandra Patnaiks paper, The Logic of Emotion. Here, I would like to briefly mention that nanda linked dhvani to rasa and pointed out that as meaning is suggested, emotions can be suggested (in fact, emotions can only be suggested and cannot be communicated directly, being mental qualities and hence invisible). This was taken further by Abhinava who developed it further in terms of the concept of rasa-dhvani. The significance of this theory for all art forms lies in the fact that visual arts (including gestural arts like theatrics and dance) also communicate through suggestion and can suggest both meanings and emotions. Alamkra Theory Alamkras or poetic embellishments figure first in the Ntya Sstra. Later, in the hands of Bhmaha, they attain great importance and are considered the essence of poetry. It is important to note that rasa theory does not figure in early poetics in any significant way and the focus of these theorists is on differentiating ordinary language from poetic language. The object of literary art is beauty, and it can be best expressed through adornment alamkras. Poetry is thought of as having a body that requires adornment. The exploration is remarkable extending to hundreds of figures of speech ( sabdalamkra) and figures of sense (arthalamkra). A notable theory, primarily in the context of poetry, later it gets extended to certain other art forms as well. Adornment or embellishment forms an important part of music and its rendition. In fine arts ( chitrakal), sculpture (silpa) and architecture (vstu), the form needs adornment. Thus, the essence of alamkra can be said to pervade most art forms. In a still wider sense a building is adorned by painting and sculpture. Dosas and Gunas In literary theory dosas (flaws to be avoided) and gunas (qualities of good writing) figure since the time of Bharata. Later aestheticians also discuss them. What is significant here is

that dosas and gunas are relative to contexts and different ages and are rephrased differently by different theorists. While primarily discussed in the context of literature, they stand on solid foundations for applicability of all art forms. A work of art, in order to be successful must avoid certain defects and display certain positive qualities. This applies to fine arts as well as to the other art forms. Riti Riti or style (not necessarily in the modern sense) is first discussed implicitly in Ntya Sstra when different kinds of vcikbhinay are discussed and can be linked to the theory of dosa-guna. It depends on the way different gunas are combined in a composition. Different aesthetic emotions require different treatments some soothing, while some bold or harsh. While elaborated in the context of poetry by Vmana, it logically extends itself to use in all forms of arts. For instance, the very enactment of nava-rasas in dance would require different styles of presentation for each rasa. Appropriateness of style to theme is its essential point, (its relative nature recognized by Dndin), and thus it pervades all art forms, consciously or unconsciously. Vakrokti According to Bhmaha, all poetic speech is marked by round about turn of expression or vakrokti as opposed to straightforward expression of everyday language. It seems, these theorists were obsessed with the problem of differentiating poetic language from ordinary language. In the hands of Kuntaka, the term become enlarged in import. Aucitya Aucitya or appropriateness is another such concept which needs a brief mention here. Bharata recognizes it in the context of performance (say, aptness of acting to the context, social stature of the hero, etc). nanda discusses it and so does Kuntaka. But it gets central focus in the hands of Ksemendra who highlights the fit among the elements, the subject, and the contexts and so on. Again, here is a concept that can extend without much modification to the various art forms. In simple words, there must be a fit between theme and form and this is so in all aesthetic fields. The Artist The artist and his or her genius (pratibh) is given a high place in Indian aesthetics. Yet, this alone is not sufficient. One must have training and skill. At its highest level, the artist is expected to achieve a certain degree of purity and to aim at spiritual transcendence. This aspect, interestingly, is highlighted more in the traditions of music, fine art, sculpture and architecture than in literature. Meditation and visualization through meditation play a very important role for the visual artist as well as the musician. This is a point which is highlighted in Dr. Ranjan Ghoshs paper and need not be elaborated here. But it is both interesting and relevant in the context of the nature of work done by these artists which is very often of a religious nature. The Ideal Perceiver The concept of the ideal perceiver is another very important concept in Indian aesthetics. Bharata talks of stylization (ntyadharmi) and it is important that the rasika (connoisseur), sumana or the sahridaya (the empathetic perceiver) should understand the artistic conventions, have sufficient detachment and a balanced state of mind; as well as deep

inclination to share what is being communicated. A work must be competently executed and hence the artists genius comes into the picture. But it cannot be appreciated by the novice. Training and inclination are very necessary. In fact Abhinava makes a list of obstructions that can disturb the perceivers apt appreciation of art. In his hands, the ideal perceivers role becomes very significant and she comes to be attributed with the potentials of achieving supreme bliss or nanda through her deep relish of a work of art which takes her to a higher plane. It is also important to note that in chitrakal (fine art), dance (nritya) and music (sangita), the role of the perceiver is considered very important. A common expectation runs through all the art forms the necessary competence and inclination in the perceiver. The Arts and their Interrelationship Professor Pandey points out that in Indian tradition only three art forms were considered independent poetry, music and architecture (Pandey 603). The other forms depend upon them or are derived from them. Thus panting and sculpture are for adornment of the building. Even so his work, Comparative Aesthetics, devotes only two very short sections to music and architecture and discusses poetics in the rest. While it is felt that the three forms hold the potential for achieving sublime experience (nanda) through a realization of rasabrahman, nda-brahman and vstu-brahman respectively, it is pointed out that a hierarchy exists. In poetic experience, all things are internalized and external mediums are eliminated; in music the materiality of sound persists and in vstu, the materiality of tangible objects is at the base hence the hierarchy with poetry at the top. While we suspect that hierarchy and segregation existed among the art forms, it is also true that much of it is contemporary construct. In tradition the scope for integration existed as well, as is illustrated with an example from Vishnudharmottara quoted earlier. A number of rich theories and constructs exist namely nda-brahma-vda in music, the concept of vstu purusa and vstu-brahman in architecture, to name a few. This is true of fine arts, sculpture and dance as well, with their rich repertoire of methodologies and techniques. It is perhaps time to look not only at rasa-vda or other such poetic theories (through which attempts to cognize the whole field of Indian aesthetics can be made) but also at theories from the other fields of aesthetics which can throw new light and help us develop rare insights into this rich and vast field. This task lies ahead of us in the future, though some attempts are already being made. Some Major Works / Critics and their Contributions Works on Indian aesthetics, especially poetics, are many and one who is interested to find out more about them from a historical perspective can start by exploring the writings of K. C. Pandey, P. V. Kane and S. K. De. One can also look at Ntya Sstra and Vishnudharmottara in translation. It is important to note that scholars are divided as to how to classify the systems, what to highlight and what not to and this is discussed in detail Professor Tripathis paper. The earlier practice among many modern scholars of aesthetics/poetics was to divide the tradition into schools of thoughts. This is especially true of S. K. De. But we must also realize that most of these writers talked about the major theories prevalent in their timesonly that they highlighted or favoured one concept over the other. While keeping these things in mind, I have, non-the-less prepared a table based on V. K. Charis classification10 of major literary theorists and works which might help someone who is new to the field get her bearings. As Professor Pandey has pointed out, literary art is held in the highest esteem and music and architecture are treated as the other two independent art forms11. Besides, a comprehensive aesthetic theory that includes all art forms really doesnt exist (though rasa-vda is very influential in diverse fields). So I have

prepared a list of some important works and authors in the field of music, architecture and fine art with reference to the works of K. C. Pandey, Swami Prajnananda, Sivaramurti, S.K. De, Chari and some other critics. While the lists are incomplete, I hope they will serve as useful guidelines to interested readers. Literary Critics or Writers on Aesthetics (with focus on Poetics) Discussion on all art forms present in 5th century B.C. theatre and on the purpose and essence 3rd century A. D. of art A. D. 9th century Commentator of Bharata 9th century 9th 10th century 10th 11th century Commentator of Bharata Commentator of Bharata Commentaries on Ntya Sstra and Dhvanyloka. Most influential commentary on almost all art forms with special focus on rasa and dhvani

Bharata Ntya Sstra Commentators on Bharata Lollata Sankuka Bhattanayaka Abhinavagupta Abhinvabhratai Locana The Alamkras Theory Bhmaha Kvyalankra

First comprehensive work on poetics, on 7th 8th century alamkras s, also the concept of vakrokti 8th century Highlights guna-riti. Alamkras theory articulated more cogently; shows some influence of Ntya Shstra.

Dndin Kvydarsa Udbhata Kvylankrasarasangrahah Rudrata Kyvlankra The Riti Theory Vmana The Dhvani Theory Anandavardhana Dhvanyloka Abhinavagputa Locana Mammata Kvyapraksa Miscellaneous Writers on Poetics Rjasekhara Kvyamimams Dhanamjaya

Along with focus on alamkras s, he 8th 9th century also discusses rasa and doesnt seem convinced about dhvani 9th century Again focus on alamkras as well as brief discussion of rasa The first to ask questions about the soul of poetry and focuses on riti or style Focuses on the role of suggestion dhvani in poetic language. Also links rasa to dhvani. Comments on Dhvanyloka. Establishes rasa-dhvani as a very powerful concept. Extends the dhvani theory further

8th 9th century

9th century 10th 11th century 11th century

10th century 10th century

Different aspects of poetics discussed Different aspects of poetics discussed

Kuntaka Vakroktijivita Ksemendra Aucutyavichracharc Sringra Praksa Samarangana-sutradhara Mahimbhatta Hemacandra Kvyanussanam RuyyakaAlankrasarvasva Visvantha Shityapardna Appayy Diksita Kuvalyanandah

10th 11th century 11th century 11th century 11th century 1088-1172 12th century 14th century 16th 17th century

Elaborates the theory of vakrokti or poetic language of indirection Elaborates the concept of appropriateness or aucutya Rasa theory, different types of plays, performanceMusic, art and architecture Important commentator on earlier theories Handbook of poetics discussing earlier theories Important commentator on earlier theories Handbook of poetics discussing earlier theories. In addition, it deals with performance as well Important commentator on earlier theories This too deals with the entire field of poetics

Jaganntha Rasagangdharah 17th century Other Major Works/Critics on Aesthetics Bruhatsmhita Barhamihira Ntya Sstra Vstusutra Upanisad Abhinaya Darpana Nandikeswara Vishnudharmottara Purna Nradasilpa Prajpati Silpa Abhinavabhrati SamaranganasutradharaBhoja 11th century Sangitaratnkara Srangadeva Simha Bhopala and Klinath Rgatarangini Locanakavi Rmamatya Silpasstra Mandana 3rd century (?) AD 7th century -

Chapters on iconography and silpa Significant contribution to dance Part of Paiplada samhita, a very important treatise that deals with the philosophy of architecture and discusses rasa in this context Most significant treatise on dance after Ntya Sstra A purna with chapters on architecture, painting, music, dance, poets, etc. attributed to the late Gupta period. On architecture and art On architecture and art Discussion on music, painting, sculpture and architecture

13th century14th Encyclopedic treatise on & 15th century musicCommentators 15th century 15th century Treatise on musicCommentator

Saraswati Silpa Silparatna Modern Revival

16th century

On architecture and art On architecture and art

In the context of our colonization and in the post-colonial era, revival has two distinctive connotations. One, that the aesthetic tradition had become dormant and had to be salvaged English translations, critical focus and interpretation, comparison to western critical theories, applied criticism, and so on. The other implication is the revival of internal practices in the modes of producing art writing poems using traditional canons or painting and sculpting using traditional material, forms and principles. Here, a lot of confusion exists. When one looks at poetics, the climate is complex. Productions in Sanskrit have come down and are less read. Regional languages have incorporated various traditions and are also trying to invigorate themselves with western influences in their creative writings. In poetics or literary theory, as pointed out by Professor Radhavallabh Tripathi, a lot of interest is being taken by both European and Indian scholars and translations of seminal texts are taking place. But in the process a kind of feeling is generated that there is hardly any work on poetics after the 17th century (after Rasagangdhara). This is a contested point, and Professor Tripathy points out that many contemporary scholars are working at dispelling this misunderstanding. From this viewpoint, writings on Indian poetics have continued almost without any break. But it is a different story for the Indian who is English-educated and brought up in the colonial and post-colonial tradition. For her, without her knowledge of Sanskrit, this is a revival and a new insight into her own culture. In the context of music and dance, there is hardly any break in tradition. The gharnas and parampars have continued and the guru-sishya traditionis still strong. In the context of sculpture and painting, there is a divide the traditional artists (artisans!) who often live in guilds and practice silpa within tradition and the modern artists influenced by the West. And in architecture there has undoubtedly been a break and a revival, for modern Indian architects are now again looking with renewed interest at Vstu. Application The concept of application is treated differently in different fields. For instance, when one looks at poetics, one finds that critics have applied criticism or application of the traditional canons to contemporary works of literature Indian and Western. Such activities are currently being done by many scholars. Western and Indian theories are being compared, and Indian theories are being applied to modern and contemporary works. Professor P. G. Rama Raos paper which applies Rasa Dhvani to Keats and Shelly is a case to the point. In architecture, Vstu Sstra is becoming a strong force both scientific and superstitious. In fine arts, modern artists since Jamini Roy have been delving into tradition for stylistic and thematic inspiration. In music, while popular film and non-film music draw a lot from the rga form for their compositions, the classical traditions proceed uninterrupted. Classical dance tradition, while experimenting with new themes, does so from within the continuity of its tradition. Modern dance or filmi dance, on the other hand, borrows from all and acknowledges none Summing Up

Indian aesthetics is a vast and complex field and I strongly feel that this short overview is incomplete. The subtle nuances involved in the discussion of fine arts, music, dance and architecture have not been covered here. This is both because of shortage of space and because of my feeling that I will not be able to do them justice. But it is true that many of the concepts discussed in poetics are of great importance for aesthetics per se, and for the various other art forms. If I am asked to give my opinion about the current status of research in the field, I will only submit that now, perhaps, the focus should be more strongly upon showing the interrelationship of art forms and the way aesthetic canons pervade them a theme that runs strong in the Ntya Sstra and is found again and again in the practice of art in our tradition. For instance Rgaml tradition in painting draws a lot from music, the concept of dhynaslokas (which are supposed to create a tangible physical personified form of the raga in the mind of the person meditating on them); and here is no separation of Hindu and Muslim tradition. Similarly, Jayadevas Gita-Govinda is a seminal text that is at the centre of three distinctive kinds of developments spiritual or bhakti tradition, at least two different musical traditions and the tradition of miniature painting depicting Radha and Krishna12. I sincerely hope such insights are presented in a more systematic way and literary theorists participate in a more involved way in such activities. Finally, I would like to briefly mention about the papers brought together in this special section on Indian Aesthetics. The papers compiled here, though small in number, do justice to the theme; and I must thank the contributors for writing them for this journal. Professor Ranjan Ghoshs paper on fine arts and aesthetic experience highlights the spiritual element that runs through all Indian art forms. Mr. Ujjwal Jana emphasizes rasa theory and the interrelation of rasas, something which is equally relevant to poetics and other art forms. Professor Tandra Patnaik focuses on the philosophy of language and the language of aesthetics in speaking of dhvani theory in the light of Bhartrharis sphota theory, while Dr. Joy Sen looks at harmony and unity on the spiritual plane in his discussion of Vstu. Professor P. G. Rama Rao applies rasa theory to the poetry of Keats and Shelly, thus giving a demonstration of how Indian aesthetic theories can be applied. These papers, thus, cover a range of fields and discuss their different dimensions. On the other hand the papers by Dr. Binda Paranjape, Professor Radhavallabh Tripathi and Professor Bharat Gupt deal with colonial influence on aesthetic studies, trends in aesthetic studies in modern times and the problems facing Indian aesthetic theories respectively. In these papers, one comes across diverse opinions and even ideologies. But as discussed earlier, it is the nature of Indian aesthetics to welcomeall to look at things from varied contexts and perspectives and finally to assimilate them. I hope the readers find these contributions thought-provoking and useful and make use of the short bibliography of books on aesthetics that has been hurriedly put together and presented in this issue at the end. References Boner, Alice, Sadasiva Rath Sarma and Bettina Baumer (Trans). Vastu-Sutra Upanishad.New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, India; 3Rev Edition, Dec 2000. Chari, V. K. Sanskrit Criticism. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993. Chopra, P. N. (Ed). India: Art and Architecture in Ancient and Medieval Period. Caluctta: Publication Division, 1981. Coomaraswamy. A. The Dance of Shiva. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1997. De, S. K. Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1959. De, S. K. History of Sanskrit Poetics. Second revised edition. 2 vols. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1960. Ghosh, Manmohan. ed. and transl., The NatyaSastra. A Treatise on Hindu Dramaturgy and

Histrionics. Calcutta: The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1950. Hiriyanna, M. Art Experience. New Delhi: IGNCA & Manohar, 1997. (1954). Massom, J. L and Patwardhan, M. V. Aesthetic Rapture: The Rasadhyaya of the Natyasastra. (Deccan College. Building Centenary and Silver Jubilee Series. 69.) 2 vols. Poona : Deccan College, Postgraduate and Research Institute, 1970. Massom, J. L and Patwardhan, M. V. Santarasa and Abhinavaguptas Philosophy of Aesthetics. (Bhandarkar Oriental Series. 9.) Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1969. Pande, Anupa. Natyasastra Tradition and Ancient Indian Society . India: South Asia Books, 1993. Pandey, K.C. Comparative Aesthetics. (2 Vols) by K. C. Pandey. Varanasi: Tara Printing Works, 1959. Sivaramamurti, C. Indian Painting. Delhi: National Book Trust, 1970. Sthapati, V. Ganapati. Indian Sculpture and Iconography. Trans. Sashikala Ananth. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Society and Ahmedabad:Mapin Publishing, 2002. Tomory, Edit. A History of Fine Arts in India and the West. Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1989. Vatsyayana. K. Gita-Govinda and its Influence on Indian Art. Chhavi-2. Ed. Anand Krishna. Varanasi: Bharatiya Kala Bhavan, 1981. pp 252-258. Vijayavardhana, G. Outlines of Sanskrit Poetics. Varanasi: The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series office, 1970. -----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Kmasutra of Vatsyayana, Richard Burton and F. F. Arbuthonot, Jaico, 1974, pp. 12-14. 2. The Vishnudharmottara, Stella Kramrisch, Calcutta University Press, 1928, pp. 31-32. 3. Ibid, Part 3, cpt 2, Verse 1-9, pp 31-32 4. Indian Painting, p. 17 5. Ibid, p.14-15 6. The Dance of Shiva, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1997, p. 48 7. Ibid, p.42 8. India: Art and Architecture, pp.57-68. 9. Many critics may argue against this view and highlight the essential unity or interrelationship of the various art forms. I accept that. But I wish to point out that in spite of what theory says practice suggests that while sharing and taking from one another, these art forms also moved within a very rigid caste system. My artist friend at Puri had to leave his house and settle elsewhere in order to peruse art since he was a Badaanda (belonging to the family of the chief priests of Lord Jagannath) and his community could not accept him painting like a Chitrakara. 10. Sanskrit Criticism, p. xi. 11. Comparative Aesthetics, Vol 1, p. 603. 12. Kapila Vatsyayanas paper in Chhavi-2.

History and Evolution of Indian Aesthetics Indian aesthetics begins with Bharata who wrote the book Natyasasthra in 2nd century BC. Natyasasthra discusses the writing, performances and enjoyment of drama at length. The foundation stone of Indian aesthetics is the maxim Vibhava,anubhava, vyabhicari samyogad rasanishpathi. After Bharata there was no growth or development in aethetics till the 6th cen

AD. In 6th cen two prominent aestheticians contributed two different books belonging to the same school of thought. Their contribution was collected and published by the name Kavyalamkara. The contributers Bhamaha and Bhatta Lollata and their school of thought is known as Alamkarams. They believed that literature and art are beautiful and please the minds of people The 7th cen AD Sankuka, Dandin produced the book Kavyadaras. Dandin and Sankuka believed that literature is good and enjoyed because it is useful. Literature teaches and refines according to them. They also believed that literature should have certain properties(gunas) therefore their school of thought is known as the Guna School. In the 8th cen a prominent theoritician called Vamana came out with a book Kvayalankarasuthravrti. Vamana proposed the theory that peotry is a skillfl expression. He also believed that it is the particular way of expression that makes a piece of utterence a piece of literature. The theories of Vaman regarding the structure of literature can be equated with the modern literary theory proposed by Russian structuralist school in the 19th cent. In Indian aesthetics the theory of Vamana is known as theory of Riti. Anandavardhana came out with a theory called Dhvani in his book Dhvanyaloka, the world of sounds. This book published in 9th cen chased to the Indian perspective of poetry completely. Dhvani theory is a modern psychological theory as its focus of enjoyment turns from the poem to the mind of the reader. He says that, the beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. The enjoyment of the poem takes place in the mind of capable reader who can interact properly with the words, symblos, metaphors and ideas of the poem. In the 11th cen Indian aesthetics reached its culmination of growth and development. Abinavagupta gave a new interpretation and explanation to Rasa theory in his book Abhinavabharati. He also wrote another book called Locana. Abhinavagupta dominated the scene of Indian aesthetics for a long time and revived the Rasa theory originally proposed by Bharata. His psychological approach to Rasa theory and explanations based on Bhavas where easily understood by other scholars. Kshemendra who wrote the book Aucityavicaracarca was the other prominent aesthetician of 11th cen. He proposed the theory of Aucitya or sense of proprity which is mainly considered with the literary conventions, social conventions and the vastu or structure of the poem. The most modern among the theories was the theory was the theory of Vakrokti proposed by Kuntaka. Theory of Vakrokti can be equated with the stylistics of late 20th cen western criticism. Vakrokti deals with the literary work in its competeness beginning with sounds and syllables and ending with narrative techniques. In the 12th cen Mammada wrote the book Kavyaprakasam. The book does not postulate any theory; it merely summarises the history and development of Indian aesthetics. Viswanatha published the book Sahityadarpana in the 14th cen and Jagannatha Pandit wrote the book Rasagangadhara in the 17th cen. Political instability led to the Mughal invasion as well as the western colonization put an end to further development of Indian aesthetic

The State of the Study of Indian Aesthetics: Then and Now

By Parul Dave Mukherji, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India Interest in Indian aesthetics has revived in recent times since its resurgence in the middle of 20th century. During mid 1950s, a space for dialogue between Indian and western aesthetics had opened at a time when the newly independent nations like India were expected to turn to their past to reinterpret it from an unshackled standpoint. It is to be noted that in 1965, a special issue of the Journal of Art and Art Criticism was devoted to Oriental aesthetics with contributions from leading Indian thinkers and scholars of the time ranging from K C Pandey, P J Chowdhury and Ramendra Kumar. Participating in this debate were Archie Bahm, Eliot Deutsche and Thomas Munro whose investment in this cross cultural study of aesthetics was remarkable. The euphoria for exploring new avenues and alternative models to Eurocentric understanding of aesthetics was short-lived and in more than a decade and a half, it was displaced by scholarly indifference. One of the reasons for this failure was the kind of framework of comparative aesthetics subscribed by the Indian scholars was still conditioned by colonial notions of aesthetics. So if one of the leading experts of Indian aesthetics, K C Pandey[1] asserted equivalence between classical Sanskrit notions of imitation (anukrti) and the Greek theory of mimesis, A K Coomaraswamy, following P Masson Oursel[2], underlined the difference between the two traditions. How else does one understand the alternation between feverish search for Sanskrit equivalents for every western terminology- catharsis, mimesis, and tragedy and so on, by K C Pandey and repudiation of such comparativism by Orientalists like Coomaraswamy and Masson P. Oursel ? More recently, the time seems ripe for an ascendency of comparative aesthetics and that has got to do with our era of

globalization when the media and the easier modes of travel have brought diverse cultures face to face. Aesthetics which had come under censure during the cultural studies turn in social sciences has also made a recent comeback in the west. [3]Meanwhile, the study of Indian aesthetics has received more serious attention outside India.[4]In a strange way, the 1950s moment is back again but with a difference. Perhaps in the wake of the cultural studies turn, the discipline of art history is again poised for a theoretical rethinking and experiencing exhaustion with Eurocentric art theories. For art historians and aestheticians in the west, there seems to be an urgent need to explore an alternative space that may yield to a different starting point for understanding aesthetic concepts. More Recent Works on India Aesthetics: At first, while exploring writings on Indian aesthetics, I had assumed that keeping a narrow focus on comparative aesthetics will allow me to grasp the specificity of theoretical concerns. But wading through tomes of recent writings on Indian aesthetics, I arrived at a startling conclusion that it was only under the rubric of comparative aesthetics that any kind of research on Indian aesthetics was carried out. The comparativist moment was not exclusive to 1950s following Indian Independence when a new post colonial space was offered to Indian scholars to revisit their past and throw light on pre-modern concepts of aesthetics in India. In other words, comparativism informed the very enterprise for studies in Indian aesthetics that has continued up to the present times even if the specific nature of the questions asked has changed over decades. Before I take up more recent writings on Indian aesthetics, let me consider two publications during 1970s in India and abroad. It is important to place two important books in comparison- Edwin Gerows A Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech[5] and G Hanumantha Raos Comparative Aesthetics: Eastern and Western[6]. Gerows entry into Indian aesthetics is through Sanskrit poetics and he raises salient questions about the interrelationship between poetics, aesthetics and dramaturgy. In place of simple comparison between eastern and western aesthetics, he identifies a problematic within comparativism- the persistence of a Crocean bias that has led the scholars of Indian aesthetics to ignore the school of rhetoric or Alamkara school which was driven by formalist concerns.

Almost re-scripting the title of K C Pandeys two volumes which had appeared in the 1950s, is G Hanumantha Raos work -Comparative Aesthetics: Eastern and Western. In the Introduction, Rao makes clear the continuation of the enterprise of comparative aesthetics: This comparative study of the concepts of aesthetics and art begins where previous studies like those of A K Coomaraswamys Transformation of Nature in Art and K C Pandeys Comparative Aesthetics leave off. [i] While this book offers interesting insight into comparativism, it tends to engage largely with western aesthetic theories and references to Indian aesthetics appear as an afterthought and almost relegated to footnotes. Rao makes it a self-conscious project to compare traditional Indian aesthetic theories with what he calls as the contemporary western philosophy of art-this by itself is a viable enterprise but it ends up in an asymmetrical comparison between Indian and western aesthetics where the main focus is on Hegel, Croce, Cassirer, Plato, Aristotle, I A Richards, Freud, Langer , Ruskin and other western aestheticians while discussions on Abhinavagupta, Bharata, Anandavardhana, Bhamaha, Bhavabhuti, Rajasekhara are restricted mainly to one chapter on Indian Philosophy of Art. On the other hand, Eliot Deutsches Comparative Aesthetics, charters a more nuanced terrain in the way he carefully steers the middle ground between cultural specificity and universalism without ascribing it to the eastern and western aesthetics respectively. Alert to the possibility of exoticizing Eastern aesthetics, he posits the culturally different formulation of the rasa aesthetics, for example, as enriching both the disciplines of aesthetics and philosophy. Unlike K C Pandey and Hanumatha Rao, his primary focus rests upon Indian discourse-particularly as formulated by Abhinavagupta even if the kind of questions he asks draws from the tradition of western aesthetics about subjectivity of emotions in aesthetic experiences. The decade of 1980s witnessed the publication of Padma Sudhis Aesthetic Theories of India, which revived comparative approach advocated by K C Pandey[7]. However, the sections on Indian and western aesthetic theories remain juxtaposed and do not speak to each other. Leaving large tracts of references from Sanskrit sources un-translated hampers her flow of her arguments and assumes a singular address to a native reader. It is in the 1990s with the publication of V K Charis Sanskrit Criticism that a coherent comparativism is carried out from the perspective of a literary critic. If Gerows concern was to highlight formalist dimension of literary poetics, Chari shifted his focus on semantics and in the process,

underlined the bearing of philosophy, logic and linguistics on literary/aesthetic theories. Much more critical than his predecessors, Chari deployed comparativism that set up a conversation between western and Indian theories of aesthetics and brought out cultural specificity of both. It problematized the reception of Abhinavaguptas aesthetics which was largely assumed to be dictated by his transcendentalism. Contesting such easy appropriation of Indian aesthetics as theology, Chari extricated the aesthetic strands from Abhinavaguptas contribution and argued for its total autonomy from religious discourse. But, despite the transcendentalist vocabulary, neither Abhinavagupta nor the other exponents actually seek to subsume aesthetics under theology or illuminist metaphysics of one brand or another. Again, although these critics tend to describe rasa experience in mystical terms, they never fail to seek validation for their theories at the logical, phenomenological level and to secure for criticism an objective aesthetic basis.[8] While the critical retake on Abhinavagupta is commendable in the way certain stereotyping of Sanskrit aesthetics has been contested, he continual concentration on the rasa theory and its interpretation offered by the 11th century aesthete, Abhinavagupta has led to homogenization of Sanskrit aesthetics as Indian aesthetics; it has occluded wide ranging discourses within Sanskrit aesthetics such as anukrtivada or theory of mimesis, for instance and a highly sophisticated but under-researched discourse of Tamil aesthetics. Recently, the most dominant discourse that informs contemporary art theory is that of inter-culturalism that appears to be a direct response to globalization. World Art Studies is a new field that has emerged in the west which claims to correct traditional art historys euro centrism. Within World Art Studies, aesthetics emerges as a universalist component through which cross cultural comparisons again become possible in a postmodernist era of the celebration of cultural difference. It is against the valourization of cultural differences that the current ascendency of humanist universalism has to be situated.[9] Perhaps, as a reaction to the last decade of the dominance of culture studies approach that underlined plurality of cultural specificities, the new trend of global aesthetics foregrounds commonality of sense perception that cuts across cultural difference. At its extreme lies the stress on universalism that has led many practitioners towards the biological given of human brain and to explore the emerging field of neuro-aesthetics.[10] On one hand, the World Art Studies aims to contain the whole world in its global sweep and yet adopt pure empirical case study approach.

World Art Studies examines the phenomenon of art through a broader cultural, global and temporal perspective, bringing together a uniquely exhaustive range of perspectives on art and borrowing approaches from the study of neuroscience, evolutionary biology, anthropology and geography as models--alongside more conventional art historical perspectives. In that spirit, this volume goes beyond abstract models, using case studies to demonstrate and examine specific methods of investigation. [11] Indian aesthetics gets subsumed under world aesthetics and is grouped with African, Chinese and Japanese aesthetics. In this clubbing of Indian aesthetics with other world aesthetics, again it is via rasa theory and the canonized figures of Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana that Indian aesthetics gets represented- pushing other facets of Sanskrit aesthetics and particularly Tamil aesthetics into oblivion. Beyond the Logic of Binarism & Synthesis I am certainly not suggesting that finding differences between the east and west is more heroic than looking for homologies. Rather, collapsing differences located within the cultural specificities of any two given traditions in the name of grand universals like Beauty, Aesthetics and so on or erecting insuperable boundaries of differences between the two are equally problematic. It seems to be more productive to acknowledge that there is neither a simple transcendence possible, if that is even desirable, itself being a fraught concept nor a synthesis. The very fact that there is no one-to-one correspondence between terms like naturalism, imitation or mimesis and the Sanskrit terms, is itself an important conceptual pointer. Of course, the absence of a word does not imply that the concept does not exist. But it offers a significant clue as to rich problematic that needs to be articulated and developed. It will be too reductive to simply level a charge of ethnocentrism against Masson-Oursel for his denial of naturalism or conscious imitation of the visible world in Indian art but it has to be seen as an attempt of one culture to theorize another at a time when India was still a British colony. Or for that matter, Pandeys unproblematic acceptance of the terms of western aesthetics has to be seen against the history of Aesthetics around the middle of 20th century when comparative aesthetics constituted a powerful genre of this discipline. However, in the contemporary, post-colonial present, one cannot subscribe to the dated methods or assumptions structuring the comparative method. An alternative cannot be sought in postulating the east as a separate entity and searching for lost past and indigenous criteria, untouched by the western contact, for evaluating its art

traditions. That will amount to substituting the nationalist with the nativist discourse and result in methodological insularity and ahistoricality. The only way to break out of the double binds of the east/west polarization is to- a) critically historicize first the discipline of aesthetics as it emerged in the west and the terms central to western aesthetics rather than taking it as Aesthetics, a given and ahistorical, universalistic concept; b) in a double gesture, to not only problematized their application in a non-western context by foregrounding cultural differences and the rich, complicated terrain of translatability but to anticipate repercussions that this problematisation could have within western aesthetics.

Works Cited Ames, Van Meter. Aesthetic values in the East and West. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XIX, No.1, (1960): pp.3-16. Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1993. Bahn, Archie. J. Is a Universal Science of Aesthetics Possible?Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XXXI (1972): pp.3-7. Braembussche, Antoon van den (Editor), Kimmerle Heinz (Editor), Note Nicole (Editor). Intercultural Aesthetics: A Worldview Perspective Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society) Springer, 2009. Bryson, Norman. Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983. Chatterjee, Partha. Ed. Texts of Power: Emerging Disciplines in Colonial Bengal. Calcutta: Samya, 1996. Chaudhury, P. J. Catharsis in the light of Indian Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Supplement to the Oriental issue XXIV No. 1, Part 1 Fall (1965): pp.151-163.

Deutsch, Eliot. Studies in Comparative Aesthetics, University of Hawaii Press, 1975.

[1] K.C. Pandey, Comparative Aesthetics, Indian Aesthetics & Western Aesthetics. 2 vols. Varanasi: The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1950, 1956. [2], P. Masson-Oursel A Comparison between Indian Aesthetics and Philosophy. Trans. A.K.Coomaraswamy (from Review Des Arts Asiatique) Rupam 27/28 (1925): pp.91-94. [3] Michael Kelly, Aesthetics , 4 vols., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 [4] Ken-i-ichi Sasaki, ed. Asian Aesthetics, Japan, Kyoto University Press, 2010. [5] Gerow, Edwin. A Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. [6] G Hanumantha Rao, Comparative Aesthetics: Eastern and Western. Mysore: Mysore Printing and Publishing House, 1974. [7] Padma Sudhis Aesthetic Theories of India, Pune, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1983. [8] V K Chari, Sanskrit Criticism, New Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1993, p.11. [9] Note the very title of an essay by Ben-Ami Scharfstein is The Common Humanity Evident in European, African, Indian, Chinese and Japanese Aesthetic Theory in World Art Studies: Exploring Concepts and Approaches, eds Kitty Zijlmans and Wilfried Van Damme, Amsterdam: Valiz, 2008, p.343. [10] John Onians. Neuroarthistory: Making More Sense of Art in World Art Studies: Exploring Concepts and Approaches, eds Kitty Zijlmans and Wilfried Van Damme, Amsterdam: Valiz, 2008, p.265-286.