9058009411

204 ANUPA PANDĘ

its reprcsentation in consciousness are not fundamentally divided, provided it is understood that it is the inward creative rhythm of the object to which the rightly attuned mind of the artist responds. Visnudharmottara makes it elear that the rhythm pervading visual representation may be seen in its purer form in dance and musie.¹⁰ One might add that a similar rhythm has been noted in meditation. The pragmatieally construeted forms of the objects are not relevant here. Iron may be understood by the practieal man as a useful and mallcable hard objeet. The artist may, however, see it as a forbidding dark element. The Buddha may be seen by the historian or Devadatta as another tali man. The painter in Ajanta saw him as towering above Rahula and Rfihula-mata.

Where bhSva is concemed, its object is immanent in consciousness, not an extraneous accidcnt. It is imaginalively created in accordance with a rhythm which pervades the extemal world. also, but which is neither perceived by ałl, nor idcntifiable with unique physical proccsses. The quiddity of the extemal world js overlain by a physical form which is pragmatieally construeted , but it is also overlain by an imaginatively construeted form, which is as variable as the sparkling sea. As Vidyaranya Swami says, the mrnmayaand the manomaya are not the same. The artist lies in the manomaya. Insight at that level enables him to construct forms in a manner that they become expressive of bhSva and thereby of a hiddcn ioveliness or lavanyamaya. It is this essenlial subjectivity of Indian art which constitutes its Indianness. It cannot be described as naturalistic or convenlional. In fact, while Marshall decries the lack of naturalism in purcly Indian art, Stella Kramrisch praises it for its naturalism. It is obvious that ‘naturę* is understood dilTerenlly in the two cases. For Marshall naturalism is illusionism, for Kramrisch it is unpremeditate spontancity, the rhythm of life revealed as much in the organie, vegetative world as in the intensity of meditative vision.

Notes and References

r

1.    W.T. Slace, The Philosophy of Hegel Dover cd. 1955, pp. 451 ff.

2.    Stella Kramrisch, Indian Sculpture. first edilion, Oxford London 1933, Reprint 1981, p.7.

3.    Yaśodhara’s commentary, JayamahgaJi on Kimasutra.

4.    Stella Kramrisch, op. cit.₉ p. 133.

5.    Marshall in Cambridge Uistory of India, Vol. I, pp. 620-22.

6.    Stella Kramrisch, op. cit., p. 137.

7.    Abanindranath Tagore, Dharata Shi/per $adńga (Tr. in Sammdana Patriki, Kali - Viścsaj)ka).

8.    A. E. Taylor, Plato (1960), pp. 381-382.

9.    The freedom of imagination is joined to the feeling of pleasure and sense of purposivencsss. Kant, Critiquc of Judgement, (Tr. J.H. Bernard, 1931), pp. 27ff.

10.    Yisnudharmottara Purina (Tr. Priyabala Shah), Part ID.