The Aesthetics of Authority: Emotions, Devotion and Power in the Sinhala Buddhist Literature of Medieval Sri Lanka
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE AESTHETICS OF AUTHORITY: EMOTIONS, DEVOTION AND POWER IN THE SINHALA BUDDHIST LITERATURE OF MEDIEVAL SRI LANKA A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Justin Wesley Henry January 2009 ABSTRACT The project examines the continuities and divergences in aesthetic philosophy from Pali Buddhist and Sanskrit literature to that of medieval Sri Lanka. Special attention is given to the association of moral authority with the capacity for literary and artistic production, and the means by which persons are so entitled. The project concludes with reflections on the political significance in medieval Sri Lanka of the contiguity of these themes, as well as that of the conflation the personage of king with the Buddha. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Justin W. Henry received his B.A. with honors in Philosophy from Colgate University in 2005. His research interests include South Asian Buddhist literature, South Asian intellectual history and comparative religion. He enjoys film making, antiquing, and puzzles. He is currently working on an English translation of Gurulugomi’s Amavatura with W.S. Karunatillake and Michael Inman. iii This thesis is dedicated to India Jones – the Phoenix. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would especially like to acknowledge the assistance of Prof. Anne Blackburn for her consultation throughout the duration of this project. I thank Professors Daniel Gold and Larry McCrae for their valuable comments. I am also indebted to Dr. Wasantha A. Liyanage for his assistance with reading a number of primary source documents, and to Prof. W.S. Karunatillake for opening the door to South Asian languages and literature for me. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Biographical sketch…………………………………………………………………iii Dedication…………………………………………………………………………..iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………v Introduction 1 Chapter1:TheoriesofemotionalityinIndianintellectual thoughtandSriLankanBuddhistliterature 3 Chapter2:Aestheticresponsivenessand moralconsciousness:anhistoricalsurvey 15 Chapter 3: Literature, cosmopolitanism and kingship in medievalSriLanka 28 Chapter 4: Elite and popular aesthetics and morality 44 Chapter5:Conclusions 56 Bibliography 64 vi IntroductionIntroduction BoththeEuropeanandSouthAsianintellectualtraditionshavehistorically viewedtheappreciationandcreationofart(oratleastacertainspeciesof“highart”) astheprovenance oftheupperechelonsofsociety.IntheIndiancontext,the perceivedbasisfortheappreciationofartandliteraturegrewoutofsophisticated theoriesconcerningthefoundationsofaestheticexperience,withthetraditiontending toregardelitemembersofsocietyaspossessingadisproportionatelygreatercapacity foraestheticappreciationandartistic-literaryproduction.Thoseofnoblestation wereatthesametimeseenasmorallyentitledintheirrolesasadjudicators, governors,andmoregenerallyinpossessingafreedomfromthestandardsof proprietyincumbentupontheirsocialsubordinates. Onemightbesurprisedtofindthesetendenciesrepresentedintheliterature ofBuddhistSriLanka,beingpartofatraditionassociatedbymanywith egalitarianism,andatthesametimedissociatedfrom thesensuousandemotionally evocative.ThefollowingisanexaminationoftheaestheticsandethicsofSriLankan Buddhistliteraturefromapproximatelythe12 th to15 th centuriesCE.Consideredare thecontinuitiesfromthecontinentalIndianliteraryworld:presuppositionsregarding theaptitudeforaestheticappreciationoftheaudiencesoftheseworks,their discernable(thoughbynomeansnecessarilyexplicit)ethicallyeducativefunction,as wellasthedistributionofmoralauthoritywithinthesocietyinwhichtheywere written,andtheintersectionsofthesethemes. Iincludecross-referenceswiththecanonicalPāliBuddhistscriptures (presumedtohavetakentheirinheritedformatleast1000yearspriortotheperiod underreview),consideringpossiblehistoricalreasonsforvariationsfromlate medievalSinhalaliterature.ComparisonbetweenBuddhistliteratureofthetwoeras furnishesacomparativeframeworkyieldinganumberofemergentquestions.While 1 theaudienceofthePāliscriptures(andpre-medievalSriLankanBuddhistworksfor thatmatter)wasessentiallyexclusivelymonastic,medievalSriLankanauthorsmade anunprecedentedattempttoreachlayaudiences,resultingintheemergenceofanew literarygenre:the baᐵapota or“preachingtext.” WhileostensiblyrecapitulationsofstoriesoftheBuddhainhisformerlives, thesetextsofferaglimpseintothesocialstratigraphyoftheworldinwhichtheywere composed,permittingspeculationregardingauthorialintentionandthewaysinwhich textsmayhaveconfiguredaspoliticalinstruments.Amongthequestionstobe considered:Dothesetextsaffirmorattempttoforgeclasshierarchies?Howwere mythologicalelementsofthePāliscriptures(suchasthe cakravartin or“Universal Monarch”)transposedontothereal-worldpoliticalaffairsinmedievalSriLanka?Do ostensiblysoteriologicalexhortationsandthemeshavepoliticalsignificanceincontext ofcompositionandreception? Modernsocialscientistshavesuggestedthatthewaywerespondemotionally togivensituationsorstimuliistheproductofsocialconditioning,asopposedtobeing moreorlessuniformlydetermined.Iwillexplorerecentefforts(influencedbythis trend)toreadSinhalaBuddhisttextsashavingbeenauthoredwiththeintentionof emotionallyconditioningtheiraudiencesinmind,consideringthevalidityofthis paradigmforthetwogenresofBuddhistscripturesdetailedabove.Ifinfactaselect groupofindividualswereseenasbetterdisposedormoreentitledtoemotionally conditionothers,whileperhapsbeingadeparturefromthemedievalIndian presuppositionsthatemotionalresponsepatternsareinnateandintractable,this wouldbeaconfirmationoftheperceivedefficacyoftextstomorallyeducate,to establishpoliticalallegiance,ortodobothatonce. Itisaroundthenexusofaesthetic production,elicitationofemotionsandmoralauthoritythattheprojectwillrevolve. 2 Chapter1:TheoriesofemotionalityinIndianintellectualthoughtandSriLankan BuddhistliteratureBuddhistliterature ClassicalIndiantheoriesofemotionalityandaestheticsetics Thenotionofrasa,whichliterallymeans“taste”or“flavor,”hassinceatleast asearlyasthecommonerabeenemployedbyIndianaestheticiansbothasan evaluativecriterionforart,andasanexplanationastowhyviewersareimpactedas theyarebyvariousmodesofpresentationofvisualart,poetryanddrama.The “theoryof rasa ”positseightbasicemotionscalled sthāyi-bhāvas ,literally“permanent fixtures”or“permanentmoods”–love,mirth,grief,anger,exertion,terror,disgust andwonder–whicharesupposedtoresideinthesoulofeachperson.The sthāyi - bhāvas areexperiencedasoneoftheireightrespectivemoodsor rasas oftheerotic, comic,compassionate,cruel,valorous,terrible,abhorrentandmiraculous. 1Certain conditionsdeterminingtheactivationofthe sthāyi -bhāvas aresupposedtoaffecteach beholderinauniformandpredictableway,presumingthatoneisequippedwith normalreceptivecapacity–thatoneisa rasika .2Itisthesedeterminantswhichthe artist,poetorcomposermustbeintimatelyfamiliarwithandbeabletorenderintohis respectivemediuminordertobeconsideredproficient. 3Inart,theseemotionsare evokedby(i)determinates( vibhāvas ),whichenablethepermanentmoodstobe experiencedinthefirstplace,(ii)consequents( anubhāvas ),thespecific 1śᑉᐳgāra,hāsya,karuᐵa,raudra,vīra,bhayānaka,bībhatsa and adbhuta aretherasascorrespondingto the sthāyi-bhāvas (or sthāyins )of rati (love), hāsa (laughter), śoka (sorrow), krodha (anger), utsāha (heroism), bhaya (fear), jugupsā (disgust), and vismaya (wonder),towhichlaterwereaddedthe rasa of śānta with śama (serenity)asits sthāyin . 2Theexperienceofarasadoesnotaffordadifferenceofdegree,andlikewiseagreaterlevelofskillof anartistdoesnotensurea“moreintense”experienceofarasa.Furthermore,theexperienceofarasa isoneindependentofanydiscursiveevaluationoftheartbeingperceived,orofanymoralevaluationof thesituationbeingdepicted.Seemyfurtherdiscussionbelow,alsoseeCooper,194. 3Bharatawrites“thechiefgoalofdramaistoproducerasa,theaestheticemotion…emotionre- presented,distilledbyart.”QuotationfromtheNāᑛyāśāstratranslatedbyChandraRajan(Kalidasa andChandraRajan,29).CitedinCooper,193. 3 manifestations(physicaleffects)ofemotiononacharacter,and(iii)accompanying mentalstates( vyabhicāribhāvas ),thosetransitoryandspecificsentimentswhich “accompanyandhelptointensifythedominantemotion,” 4suchastheportrayalof weakness( glāni ),apprehension( śaᐳkā)andindolence( ālasya ). 5 Thenotionthatallformsofartcontainamechanismofemotionalstimulation, wherebybasicpropensitiesforemotionalexperience( sthāyi-bhāvas )areactivatedto thepointatwhichoneexperiencesaestheticrelishwasfirstintroducedinthe Nāᑛyāśāstra ofBharata,datedvariouslybetweenthecommoneraandthe2 nd century CE. 6Thetheoryproposedinthe Nāᑛyāśāstra washoweversothoroughlydeveloped thatitiswidelyspeculatedthattheworkmayrepresenttheconsumationofatradition (oraseriesoftraditionsorlooselycirculatingconcepts)whichhadexistedforsome timeprior. 7Bharatatheorizedthataliteraryworkisanobject(or“body”– kāvyaśarīra )tobeaugmentedwithornaments( alaᐱkāras ),suchassimiles( upamā ), illustrationsbyfigurativelanguage( rūpaka ),andtherepetitioninthesamestanzaof wordsorsyllablessimilarinsoundbutdifferentinmeaning( yamaka ). 8 Alaᐱkārain thegeneralsenseof“ornament”aswellasanumberoftechnicalfiguresusedto classifyliteraryexpressionswereincurrencypriortothewritingsofPāᐵini(5 th century BCE),9andheldadominantplaceinIndianaesthetictheoryforcenturiesfollowing the Nāᑛyāśāstra (thoughundergoingsometransitioninmeaning).Itwasprimarilythe 4 Wijayawardhana(1970),82 5De(1960)offersanexample:“InthecaseofLoveasapermanentmood,thestock-examplesgivenof avibhāvaarewomenandtheseasons;ofanubhāva,glanceandembrace;ofvyabhicārin,thetransient subordinatefeelingsofjoyandanxiety.”((1960);vol.II,22)