COOMARASWAMY AND THE TRADITION OF

INDIAN AESTHETICS

Dr (Mrs.) DHARMA THIRUNAVUKARASU, BA. (Hons.), Ph.D.

Lecturer in Philosophy

University of Sri Lanka (Colombo)

Aldous Huxley in his introduction to The Perennial Philosophy effectually defines the phrase Philosophia Perennis as the “metaphysic that recognises a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with divine Reality. The ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendental ground of all being–the thing is immemorial and universal.” A version of this can be traced Coomaraswamy’s philosophy of art and aesthetics.

Coomaraswamy’s reassertions of some of the more important ideas of traditional Indian aesthetics are particularly convincing in fulfilling the necessary conditions of spiritual knowledge. On the assumption that ultimate Reality is not immediately apprehended by non-spiritual minds, the perennial philosophy teaches that it is all important to understand the spiritual ground of things as being present not only within the soul but also outside. Coomaraswamy, upholding the tenets of the perennial philosophy, has, through an aesthetic approach, established an ontological status to this philosophy as inevitably immanent in all culture. No wonder his contribution to the world of art and thought “flickers” at every step he takes with the “light” of tradition recalling the universal doctrine of the philosophia perennis.

To understand Coomaraswamy’s aestheticism the entailment of certain presuppositions in the philosophia perennis has to be known; thereafter we can discover his aesthetic facts and attitudes in apposition and in a relational logic to the traditional Indian aestheties. In A. L. Herman’s article on “A. K. C. and the Pertinence of Philosophy,” the author has worked out Coomaraswamy’s admission of four assumptions entailed in the Perennial Philosophy. In them one can apprehend the main features of Coomaraswamy’s insights into traditional Indian aesthetics. They are:

(i) The Existence of one ultimate Reality; the Unitary Force or power, the Cosmic Energy in the universe; Vedantins call this Brahman.

(ii) The immanence of the same Cosmic power (Brahman) in man. (This accounts for the eternal strife of man to reach its source. Basically the aesthetic urge can be traced to this immanent Reality.) Naturally the logical relation between the transcendence in man and the immanence of Reality in him is found veritable. It can be argued then, that man as man is ultimately real and hence invaluable; besides his transcendence is con-natural to his being.

(iii) The same transcendence makes it possible for man to recognize the identity between the Universal powers (Brahman) within him and “That” which is outside him (Tat tvam asi). Coomaraswamy cannot avoid the admission of a rationalistic mental mode, which he seems to have introduced, for the purpose of analysing the immanent Reality in man–perhaps towards a reconciliation between science and metaphysics. However, he is definite in saying that it is through “some” intellect or “grace” the Principle of Identity is recognized. This is a contributory assumption especially for idealists who seek meaning for art.

(iv) An agreement, evident among exponents of the perennial philosophy that the Universal power or Intelligence reveals its power to mankind from time to time.

Undoubtedly Coomaraswamy’s passion for Indian and Oriental tradition and culture, besides his praise for mediaeval Christian art has shown visible signs of a “retreat” to the depths of Indian aesthetic “moods”, “attitudes” and doctrines. This is revealed in his interpretation of Indian and Buddhist iconography. Speaking on the traditional concept of portraiture, he distinctively admits that art as a part of tradition reveals a “transparent” fact, viz., its spirituality. No wonder Coomaraswamy is a ruthless critic of modernistic art beginning with the Renaissance as “moving away from spirituality and meaning.”

Coomaraswamy’s “return to Reality” is evident in his interpretation of Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina art. This fact is very explicitly stated in his article on “Aesthetics and Relationships of Jaina Paintings.” Coomaraswamy is rather critical in his assessment of Jaina paintings insofar as they are aesthetically not valuable. Too much accomplishments in art in Dr. Coomaraswamy’s aesthetic judgment converts art more towards a “workshop character” rather than in a production of an aesthetic significance that can be “deeply felt.” Too much of details he seems to think transforms a work of art to a “statement of fact” instead of an expression of emotion. He contrasts “factual types of art” with the “Great Renunciation of Buddha”, “Arjuna’s Penance”, etc., wherein “we are made to feel that the going forth of the hero saint is an event of cosmic and more than temporal significance.” Coomaraswamy is quite consistent in his aesthetic interpretation of artistic facts. In the chapter on “Elements of Sinhalese Design and Ornament” (Mediaeval Sinhalese Art) the Sun and Moon for instance are made symbolic of (i) the Cosmic Energy or “the great beings that control the physical world” and (ii) significant as symbols of eternity.

More significant is the symbolic use of hamsa, the sacred swan, significantly standing for discrimination (this bird has the sense to discriminate and drink only the milk from a vessel of milk mixed with water) and aesthetically for grace and gait, auspiciousness and beauty. It is obvious that Coomaraswamy is in search of a “deeper reality” than the phenomenal appearance of art. Even in a “climbing vine tree” this great exponent of the perennial philosophy is face to face with the Cosmic Energy–the growth of energy, rhythm and discipline in nature he explains in terms of an “eternal striving” towards an end not yet attained. Or in his interpretation of the “Dance of Shiva”–a masterly revelation of aesthetic magnificence of beauty, this “rupa state” of the Cosmic Principle, has made him a perfect aesthete of the traditional type. Very much like a traditional aesthetic master he is all praise for “rishi-artists” who in “affording an image of Reality” he says have provided a “key to the complex tissue of life, a theory of nature” not merely satisfactory to a single clique or race, nor acceptable to the thinkers of one century only, but universal in its appeal to the philosopher, lover and the artist of all ages and all countries.” (Dance of Shiva, p. 94) This trend towards traditional Indian aestheticism is amply visible when he speaks spontaneously out of the abundance of his heart full of passion for the traditional, of the “power” and “grace” of the dancing image as an expression of the intuition of life. The traditional aesthetic formula for art-creation being in a combination of certain constituents like Unity, Vitality, Infinity and Repose, Coomaraswamy perceives them as immanent in the masterly execution of the Image of the Cosmic Dancer symbolical of the panca krityas, it embodies. Here Coomaraswamy emerges not merely as an interpreter of art but rather as an upholder of the traditional aesthetic philosophers of India.

In his determination to go back to traditions of culture, Coomaraswamy seems to have stumbled on to the threshold of a Consciousness and recognized certain “virtuous and moving”, indeed an “essential quality” often spoken of as the “aesthetic moment” essentially characteristic of qualities like freedom, power, life, infinity, love, beauty and unity.

Like all aestheticians Coomaraswamy too accepts the senses as the vehicles through which objects around and beyond form the structure of artistic experience. Through audition and intuition or vision, the artist creates and expresses artistic forms–their arrangements, composition, lines, sound and pattern. But the question arises: “Is there no other meaning to art apart from its visual and auditory arrangements? What is then the meaning of art? What does it convey and what is its significant form? Coomaraswamy finds his answers in a metaphysics that recognizes a single Reality. Starting here Coomaraswamy argues on various aspects of art which takes him to the depths or traditional Indian aesthetics, and to a recognition of a divine Reality functioning as the Single Principle underlying the manifold world of objects, lives and minds. This Single Reality is veritably declared as “That” which cannot be “seen” or “known” by pratyaksha means of knowledge but only by paroksha means. Arguing in retrogression this Reality cannot be apprehended through an immediacy of the perception of only the sense-organs though admitting that this level is the “first step” towards the understanding of the aesthetic meaning of art. But the actual meaning is revealed through the transformations of the internal organs like intellect, intuition, etc., in a realisation of “something” resembling or identical with the Reality. Coomaraswamy argues if as a matter of fact we ask for a reason for our everyday experience in supposing that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, yet when water is subject to certain drastic tests, we find the constituent elements of water are manifest; if this is so, why ask the question: why. True meaning of aesthetics is found in the traditions of Indian culture and philosophy? Coomaraswamy argues, if in the case of a scientific instance, there is no reason for supposing that water constitutes of two elements, there is no reason for supposing that the same human mind has as its constituents “something resembling or identical with the Reality, substantial to the manifold world.” This same mind when similarly (as in the case of water) subjected to a drastic discipline its potentiality manifests the divine. Here, Coomaraswamy does not merely establish the basis for building up his own aesthetic theory; he vindicates the entire system of Indian aesthetics from Bharata down to Jagannatha Pandita.

From here Coomaraswamy proceeds to say that in the Srutis and Smritis of Indian scriptures is present the fundamental unity of experience. In his own recognition of this Unity, Coomaraswamy has emerged as the greatest contemporary exponent of the truths of traditional Indian aesthetics and in the recognition of the truths of traditional culture: that the forms and experience of finite life are ‘revelations of the Infinite.” (Vide Introduction to Indian Art) He speaks of the finite in art in terms of the six limbs of painting, viz., Rupa-bheda (distinction of forms), Pramanam (proportion), Bhava (mood), Lavanya-yajanan (infusion of saltness, i.e. beauty as the “essence”–salt being essential to food). Coomaraswamy’s usage of this term can be equated with Soundarya or ramanya. Madbusudana Saraswati is supposed to have described Sri Krishna’s Universal Form thus: Soundarya Sara Sarvasva. (Supreme treasure of quint essential beauty) and Varnika-bhanga (distribution of pigments–knowledge of colours to each subject). It is indeed indicative, that Coomaraswamy’s aesthetics has its beginning and end in traditional thoughts and hence in traditional aesthetics too.

Abinavagupta, the pioneer Indian aesthetician, has given an apt definition to aesthetics in its triple involvements–as Rasa Brahma Vada, Nada Brahma Vada and Vastu Brahma Vada, corresponding respectively to the fine arts of painting, music and architecture (including sculpture). Coomaraswamy too speaks of the “absolutes” of beauty, truth and love. Technically speaking a triple combination that goes into the scope and subject matter of aesthetics, viz., art founded on an intricate theology.

Indirectly speaking Coomaraswamy’s criticism of modern tendencies in art, religion and philosophy directed against the “loss of the delight in arts” is an argument in favour of the traditional arts strikingly revealing their sense of repose, a kind of rest (Visranti), often referred to by Abhinavagupta and later Indian aestheticians.

The Dance of Shiva; The Transformation of Nature in Art; Rajput Paintings; The History of Mediaeval Sinhalese Art, etc., are remarkable works in which Coomaraswamy portrays himself as a lover of traditional culture. His aesthetic “taste” seems a natural outcome of his consciousness of the transcendence of man. With extra-ordinary profundity of thought and persuasiveness of language he has brought out traditional aesthetic significance through metaphysics and iconography. One can grasp a kind of a revitalization of traditional Indian thought and an aesthetic feeling in the form of a “felt harmony” all being messages of wisdom, reflection and unity of a Single Reality.

It is remarkably noticeable in the comparison Coomaraswamy draws between Rajput and Moghul paintings, that his leanings are towards traditional aesthetics. He enhances the themes of the Rajput paintings with contrast-study of the themes of Moghul paintings. The latter he points out centre around persons and events and he designates them as, “art of portraiture and chronicle,” very academic, and objective and eclectic; the former he evaluates as aristocratic folk-art which “appeals to all class, static and lyrical (History of Indian and Indonesian Art. Vide, Part IV). Critically reflecting on the Moghul paintings to the extent of their inconceivability apart from the life they reflect, he regrets that they are devoid of poetical background and the “old songs” seem to weary his heart….” the love story of Farhad and Shiria......old and “savour” less. It can be obviously concluded here that what Coomaraswamy is looking for in art is not singularity or novelty; nor sophistication or details; rather he is in search of the simplicity of ancient themes which have their sources in Indian scriptures, the Srutis and Smritis the epics and the Puranas. The Ragamala series, the Gitagovinda, Hour of the Cowdust, Ras-Lila paintings have their aesthetic value for Coomaraswamy purely because of their themes found originating from traditional culture. He is conscious here of an evocation, con-natural with aesthetic taste. The traditional constituent factors necessary for aesthetic realisations or experiences in the form of the traditional concept of Rasa is entailed in Coomaraswamy’s aesthetics approximating to an intelligent understanding of human lives and feelings, explicitly presented in the Rajput paintings and the iconography of the Hindu and Buddhist art. Their involvement of the themes of the innate daily life, or prayers and states of meditation as of the movements of the Ragas and Raginis, their “slender and moving grace of irresistible beauty” intentionally accentuated by their long, flowing lines of drapery.” (History of Indian and Indonesian Art. Vide, fig. 271) His traditional aesthetic taste is further evidenced in the evaluation he ascribes to Rajput paintings, being a kind of “pure melody” in contrast to late Persian and late Rajasthan art, these being calligraphic and “boldly allusive.” Traditional aesthetics of Abhinavagupta and the rest of the commentators on Bharata’s dictum: vibhaavaanubhaa vyabhichaarisam yogathirasannipatih is reflected in a subtle form in Coomaraswamy’s theory of beauty as a kind of “tasting” of the essence (Rasa) of art. The Indian aesthetician’s concept of pleasure as a kind of a joy referred to as paranirvritti–or “higher pleasure”–can also be inferred from the ‘absolute” qualities, Coomaraswamy speaks of. Sri Aurobindo describes it as a kind of delight of the “Soul of existence and beauty”, an intense impression of the concentrated form of joy. This thought can be traced to the sons in the Sama Veda

“O Soul, enjoy pleasure, drive forward, manifest

thyself; Hero! Controller of the Horse-like

organs enjoy happiness than greatest.”

(S. V, Ch. I. Bk. III. XXII)

In Coomaraswamy’s aesthetics, there is constant reference to “aesthetic purity,” which he logically relates to the original sources. His attachments to tradition stands irrevocable here.

Or, the concept, of the beautiful say of the resplendent beauty of the Cosmic Dancer, or the serenity of the Buddha in dhyana pose…are reminiscent of the divine entities described in the scriptures. For instance, Ushas (Dawn) is described as, “purity attached to beauty as resplendent–splendid and purifying.”

Again:

“Blesed were these Dawns of old……

true with the truth that springs from holy water.”

(R. V. Vol. I, Bk. IV. DV. 7)

Coomaraswamy’s deeper messages of aesthetics are nothing but an enlightenment of the traditional Indian aesthetician which Jacques Marquette aptly comments has “brought to light the ancient wisdom” which is of a “ profound spiritual nature,” and a “step” towards the realisation of the “oneness” of Reality latent in the multiplicity of world-objects and events. In agreement with the early Indian aestheticians, Coomaraswamy speaks of a consciousness–elevation of the mind; Abhinavagupta analyses the imaginative level (alaukika) of Valmiki’s poetic outburst of the Balakaanda section of Ramayana, in terms of a transportation of the mind-the same “conscious elevation” wherein is revealed to the artist and the aesthete the inner principle through the paroksha vision of art. Coomaraswamy says this is recognizable in a state of consummation “thought and feelings” through a temporary Daivam Mithunam of man’s lower and higher natures relatively an “imageless, non-differentiating” experience of the oneness of Reality–“a stage” he says (similar to the sentiment of the traditional aesthetician) in the process of attaining Release or Moksha.

While acknowledging the Hindu view of Aesthetics, Coomaraswamy does not ignore the functional aspect of art which is significant in its nature of intelligibility involving a mind-process but finally resulting in the consummation of an experience which is both intelligible and enjoyable. This is an argument in favour of Coomaraswamy’s attempt to develop Indian traditional aesthetics from a kind of total mysticism of aesthetic experience back to a “down to earth” intelligibility con-natural with the functional aspect of art. The distinctive feature of Coomaraswamy’s traditional-bound aesthetics is its involvement of

(i) the activity of the mind in apprehending its realities underlying the directness or immediacy of perception (pratyaksha–vision of art)

(ii) the apprehension of the contents of art-forms resulting from a process of internal transformations of the mind (Antahkarnavrittis)

(i) and (ii) Coomaraswamy would agree are the “light” of aesthetic experience “illuminating” the objects and evoking at the same time the innermost states (bhavas) towards new directions and realisations. At this level of aesthetic consciousness one distinguishes the kind of perception involved as that of “things known” rather than that of “things perceived”. No doubt Abhinavagupta used the mental mode–intuition or Prathibha–which according to the Indian aesthetician’s point of view is definable as the power of visualisation of the aesthetic image in all its fulness. In relation to the functional aspect of the icons and the symbolicism, Pratibha can also be understood as “the power of the mind to know the subtle.” Coomaraswamy’s functional aspect which necessitates the presence of intelligibility in art-experience can be further analysed in relation to Bhatta Nayaka’s theory of Rasa, which involves a new cognizing activity called Bhoga. However, this, new distinct function, ascribed to Bhatta Nayaka’s importation of this special power, can be reckoned as a principle devised to free aesthetic pleasure from all relativities, besides its use as an auxiliary in the process of Rasa realisation; furthermore, eliminating all dualities in the final state of aesthetic enjoyment.

Coomaraswamy’s traditional aesthetic tendency is more marked Anandavardhana, the advocate of Dhvani theory. The “suggestivity” Anandavardhana speaks of in terms of Rasa experience is more akin to the “idea” of reality underlying art objects. Coomaraswamy’s functional aspects involving the intelligibility of art objects suggests of a “flash” into the “Implied Meaning” (Dhvani) which again seems very similar to intuition which visions reality. In Coomaraswamy’s interpretation of the icons no doubt the Indian aestheticians’ aesthetic principles have their involvements.

Coomaraswamy’s aesthetics stands defined for the apprehending mind. The Rasa-anubhava for him is an outcome of the preliminary processes in the technique of Rasa realisation. His reference to the “inner perception” brings to light his trend of approach towards the understanding of the content and meaning of art about which he is concerned as a kind of “a piercing through” of the objects as a clear view of the “essence” of art.

Considering the theory of beauty implied in Coomaraswamy’s philosophy of art, one sees an obvious link with India’s past culture and philosophy, Foremost in his mind is the metaphysical significance he gives to the concept of beauty. In tone with traditionalism he elevates this absolute quality to the “highest height of being” (Ramaswamy Sastri, Concept of the Beautiful, p. 4) Coomaraswamy’s traditional leanings are also evident in his views on the disciplines that go with worthy art. Saadhana, Mantram and Dhyanam he argues are the disciplinary steps for artistic creations and their experiences. It is also mentioned in the Agnipurana that the Indian architects pray to the deities to teach them in dreams how to execute the work which he has in mind. In the Rama Tapanya Upanishad this idea is prevalent specially referred to in the Dhyanasloka. It is evident that this kind of disciplinary involvement which has the potentiality to produce the kind of “slow relish” of art experience distinguishes it from a momentary mood of enjoyment. In aesthetic language it is the “flavour” that is tasted (aasvaadyate) as “sweet juice.” If Coomaraswamy speaks of the “vibrant inner life”, it is no doubt significantly symbolised in the images. The expressions of calmness, infinite repose and vibrant energy of the icons, even the infinite suffering, for instance, in the crucification of Christ and the compassion on Buddha’s face, are all symbolic representation of the ideals latent in artist’s mind–an expression of the “vibrant inner life” capable of generating the aesthetic joy of Rasanubhava.

Furthermore the form and content Coomaraswamy speaks about designates him as the messenger of traditional Indian aesthetics and its cultural, spiritual background. He has in this capacity revitalised the thought of man with the significant quality of the functional unity in the “many faced” icons lying deeprooted in them. The New Approach to the Vedas is an admission of the anncient aesthetic principles which were badly in need of an intelligible interpretation. With a sentiment of masterly laconism Coomaraswamy remarks that

a) a work of art is reality interpreted and expressed in significant form, and

b) there is form and content in art not limited to the percept vision of the eye alone but fundamentally related to the idealisation of thought which can adequately communicate artistic truths.

In a more modernistic fashion this is reaffirmed by Theodore M. Green speaking on “Art as an Expressive Vehicle”: that it is a “distinctive expression, in a distinctive medium, and by means of a distinctive type of formal organisation of a distinctive type of interpretation of man’s experience and of the real world this experience is oriented.”

As a theorist of beauty too, Coomaraswamy makes his “retreat” to the early Indian aesthetician’s content or subject matter of art, viz., Rasa, which Coomaraswamy admits serves as the vehicle of the “well-spring of delight (anandanishyanda). At this moment he reaffirms Pandita Visvanatha’s view on art: that it is expressively “informed by ideal beauty” (vakyam rasatmakam kavyam).

The last of the better known Indian aestheticians, Jagannatha Pandita, the author of Rasagangadhara, seems to have also had a profound influence on the aesthetic sensibility of Coomaraswamy. The awakening of the dominant states (Sthayibhavas) revealed in the form of a beautitude according the aesthete an unfathomable joy, very similar to the yogin’s experience of the bliss aspect of Reality is evidenced in the interpretation Coomaraswamy gives to the Hindu and Buddhist iconography. Both Coomaraswamy and the author of Rasagangadhara seem to have gone into the depth of aesthetic consciousness and there discovered that Rasa is the inner-reality, its non-remoteness to the essential bliss nature of self (Atman) giving it the “flavour” which is the enjoyment of the beauty of the Divine. Jagannatha brings the Sahridaya (aesthete) on a par with the Vedanta when he observes that the aesthetic pleasure is envisaged as a “peculiar mental vision.” Coomaraswamy seems to have accepted this conclusion on the basis of its inference from the two passages from Taittriyopanishad: Raso vai sah; Rasam hyevayam labdhvarandi bhavah.

Writing on “The Traditional Conception of Ideal Portraiture” (Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art) Coomaraswamy sounds both traditional and Indian, interpreting Indian and Buddhist iconography with praise for the “makers of divine images” who followed the Indian Sukranitisara (IV, 4. 76) according to the canonical prescription; on the other hand he condemns the portrayal of human likenesses as, “not heavenward leading.” Evidently Coomaraswamy distinguishes in Indian art and iconography two different kinds of portraiture–” the appearance of the man on the one hand and on the other the interior image of the very man invisible to the physical eye, but accessible to the age of contemplation”–an analogy to the “Looking glass image” and the veritable spiritual essence; a distinction drawn in the Chandogya Upanishad (VIII 8.5) which Coomaraswamy relates to that “spiritual essence” of the very Self (Atman). He also cites reference from the Uttaratantra of Maitreya (88-91) illustrating the significance of the realisation of the “whole transcendence person of the Buddha by means of a transformative constitution of all its parts.” What Coomaraswamy is interested here is to clarify the sharp distinction (similar to that of the Chandogya Upanishad) between the spiritually essential person and the empirical ego. From a logical point of view, this distinction, Coomaraswamy hopes, would help the artist and the lover of art to visualise the content of art and the significance of the spiritual principle underlying all art. From a philosophical sense and as an aesthetic valuation, this principle is bound to “conquer” as he says “the figure of art.” One is inclined to conclude here that aesthetics is linked with a technique of pursuit in the sense it assures the personal participation in that particular type of pursuit. As implied in the traditional Indian aesthetics a moral standard is involved in Coomaraswamy’s aesthetics as well. Aesthetics becomes a human value–not as mere kama (pleasure) or artha (wealth) but more akin to dharma (moral value) and perhaps a directing towards moksha (spiritual value). Herman Goetz and Jacques De Marquette have rightly said that Coomaraswamy’s aesthetics is “enhancing” in many ways; he has no doubt broken “the new ground” and has given a new impulse and a “rebirth” to aesthetics. Bound up with traditional thought Coomaraswamy would argue that to relegate aesthetics to an inferior status is “sub-human.” He would say it is an “exclusion of the pursuit of pleasure,” thought of as a “diversion” and “apart from life.” It is rather “life itself” in “proper operation”; and an “attractive power of perfection.”

The traditional trend is visible in very many aspects of Coomaraswamy’s aesthestics. Speaking of the “attracting power of perfection,” it is no doubt attainable in a state of contemplation. The traditionalist spoke of it in terms of a state of immersion or rest (visranti). In fact Coomaraswamy remarks that a man “incapable of contemplation cannot be an artist.” What he means by contemplation is “to raise our level of reference from the empirical to the ideal, from the observation to vision, from an auditory sensation to audition.” This is the state where the aesthete is “immersed” says Coomaraswamy, to create and enjoy the “inner realities” (Koiseit pramatrubhih) exhaltation of pure consciousness (Satvodrat), self-luminous (Svaprakaasa): in a mode at once of ecstasy and intellect...” (anandachinmaya). (Transformation of Nature in Art, p. 48; the author also quotes Pandita Viswanadha’s Sahitya Darpana, III. 2-3.)

More prominently evident is Coomaraswamy’s emphasis of the intelligibility of the ideal in art, which according to his theory is recognizable as the vital principle. This reminds us of the “cognizing activity” called bhoga which Bhattanayaka had introduced into his aesthetic theory to overcome the defect in his predecessor, Sri Sankara’s Inference Theory. A non-dualistic nature of aesthetic experience is maintained here to do away with the diverse extraneous factors that go to make up art. The applicability of the principle of vital force is appropriately illustrated in The Dance of Shiva–a synthesis in form and content of all constituent factors that go to convey the “Beautiful” in art. Beauty is significant insofar as it serves the purpose of the communicability of its experience, besides stimulating the aesthetic sensibility. In a remote way one might argue in favour of intelligibility as the basis for creating aesthetic states, and their enjoyment; beauty then becomes an aesthetic quality. The Dance of Shiva contains innumerable questions for which answers are traceable to traditional aesthetics. “What is it” for instance, “that entitles us to speak of diverse works as beautiful or rasavant?” (“That Beauty is a state”) or, “What is this sole quality which the most dissimilar works of art possess in common?” Take, for instance, the technique of Rasa realisation of our traditional aestheticians. Coomaraswamy recalls that,

(i) is an aesthetic intuition on the part of the original artist;

(ii) the internal expression of this intuition–the true creation or vision of beauty;

(iii) there is the indication of this by external signs for the purpose of communications;

(iv) there is the resulting stimulation of the critic (rasika) to reproduce original intuition or some approximation to it. (The Dance of Shiva)

In entirety a moment of uninterrupted joy results in a state of ecstasy similar to the unbounded beautitude which Abhinavagupta describes in relation to the yogin in whose eyes “transforms Samsara into nirvana.” (Vide Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta, Gnoli Raneio, Introduction, p. xxiv) Coomaraswamy describes it “state of grace that cannot be achieved by deliberate effort...for there are many witnesses that the secret of all art is to be found in self-forgetfulness.” (Dance of Shiva, “That Beauty is a State, p. 66-67)

It is remarkably noticeable that Coomaraswamy’s presentation of moods in works of art provide a universal standard for judging excellence of art. In the fashion of an Indian aesthetician he recalls the “tasting of flavour” of the disinterested type. Commenting on “Madhu-Madhavi Ragini” (History of Indian and Indonesian Art, Fig. 261) with superscribed Hindi verse which allures to the storm clouds and the “sweet, sweet rumbling of thunder” and their effect on the peacock and on the lady’s heart and desires; and the “Ragamaala” pictures he is conscious of the musical modes, like love, wonder, repose, etc., reminding one of the nine sentiments (Rasas) Bharata introduced in his treatise, The Natya Sastra. Coomaraswamy’s “aesthetic taste” is typified in the Rajput paintings to evoke “appropriate inevitable reactions....” creating “pure melody” of aesthetic purity. Coomaraswamy no doubt upholds the traditional Indian view of the “indefinable flavour in which the inner Self, rather than the outer man delights–it seems like the transcendentalism describable as at once beautific...con-natural with the “tasting of God.” This view has a definite origin in the Perennial Philosophy...wherein is found ideals capable of elevating the mind to transcend ordinary experience of art to the transcendental. This is not acquired according to Coomaraswamy’s view, but a reward for merit from past experience. This is a definite “retreat” of Coomaraswamy to the vasanas which the traditional Indian aestheticians spoke of.

Coomaraswamy completes his task of reviving the ancient Indian aesthetics on a firmer ground; without “breaking of a new ground” revitalises the old, synthesising many divergent ideas in literary, philosophical and spiritual traditions to forge into a unified single principle. “The Dance of Shiva” representing His five activities (Pancakritya) is a transcreation manifesting in the finite, the Infinite in a three-fold “Essential significance” of Shivs’s dance as the

(i) Symbol in image of the Rhythmic source of all Movement within the Cosmos, represented by the Arch;

(ii) The purpose of the Dance itself is significant of the Release to the countless souls of men from the “Snare of illusion”;

(iii) The place of the Dance, Chidambaram, the Centre of the Universe, which is within the Heart. (“The Dance of Shiva”)

Thus in the traditions of Indian culture and philosophy, Coomaraswamy rediscovered the rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy and a version of this portrayed in his aethestics brought into accord the eternal rhythm of the Cosmic Dance from Time to Eternity–its Splendour, Vision and Sound–the Infinite Taste of Aesthetic Joy.

Back