BY DEWAN BAHADUR T. BHUJANGA RAO

Does Art lead to God? An answer to this question may be given with reference to the theory of perception according to Indian psychology.

When we perceive an external object, say a painting or a statue, it is usually supposed that rays of light from the object strike the retina of the eye; that from the eye a message goes through the nerves to the mind; and that there an image is formed and communicated to the ego or self-consciousness.

Indian psychologists, like, say, Dharmaraja-dhvarindra, put this in a slightly different form. They say that, as soon as the eye catches the object, the mind simultaneously flashes forth like a search-light and envelopes the object and forms a mould for it; and that, after forming the mould, the mind reports the fact to the ego or self-consciousness. Now, there is God’s consciousness (Prameya-chaitanya) in the external object; and the mind brings that consciousness in relation with the self-consciousness of man. Man again is a fragment of divinity; and his self-consciousness is also a part of God’s consciousness (paramatr-chaitanya). The mind too is a material vehicle, and there is in it a part of the divine consciousness (pramana-chaitanya). It is when these three kinds of consciousness are brought in relation to one another that perception of the object as an external object arises; and further, it is because the three have a common ground. viz. consciousness (chaitanya), that they can thus be brought in relation to one another.

The point worthy of note in the above view of perception is the function of the mind. The mind, (as in the Kantian philosophy), forms a mould for the object; and it is through this mould that the ego can ‘perceive’ the object. So, the ego can see just as much as the mind will allow it to see. If the mind be pure and transparent, the vision is clear; but if otherwise, the vision is blurred. This is why the mind is called ‘pramana-chaitanya’ or the ‘measure’ of consciousness. Whether the perception be full or partial depends on the mind, just as, when one goes down a mine of diamonds with a measure, one can bring back just as many diamonds as the measure can hold.

This perhaps may be put in non-technical language by saying that the mind is a kind of window for the soul or ego. The soul looks at external objects through this window and grasps as much God’s consciousness embedded in external objects as the window will allow it to see. If the window be enlarged, if the mind be purified, the soul has a greater glimpse of God’s consciousness in the outside objects.

This has an important bearing on the question of the sense of beauty in man. On each beautiful object there is God’s thought or consciousness of its beauty super-imposed; and the man with an aesthetic sense, looking through the window of his mind and emotions, has a glimpse of that beauty of God. The glimpse is greater when the artist’s mind and emotions are purified. When they are fully purified, there comes over the artist the vision of the entire beauty of God, of which the beauty of the external object is a symbol.

Thus does Art lead to God. As Mr. Jinarajadasa once said, if an object be beautiful, it is not only because God’s thought of that particular beauty is conveyed to the ego but also because God flashes through the ego and imposes the idea of loveliness on the object. Rightly did Omar Khayyam sing:

The idol said to the idolater, "O my servant,

Knowest thou for what reason thou hast become mine adorer?

On me hath shone in His beauty that One

Who looketh forth from thee, O my beholder."

BACK