INTRODUCTION

This book explores the content of the citrasutras, examines the different ways in which they have been interpreted and used in the study of Indian painting and suggests a new approach to reading and understanding them. Today much of this research is possible, thanks to a number of scholars translating, commenting on and interpreting the texts. Their works represent a great contribution to the study of this field, but their views presents some limits and their preconceptions about the possible uses of a text do not permit us to wholly understand the real messages and spirit of the citrasutras. In this study the analysis and way of understanding the citrasutras will be presented in a different way. One of the aims of the thesis is in fact to draw together the various concepts expounded in a diverse range of texts. This methodology was first explored by Shukla (1957), but his analysis was somewhat superficial and involved a mere listing of concepts. This study tries to draw together, examine and compare the concepts of the citrasutras, and it will also include concepts formerly excluded from other works such as those of talamana and iconography. This is to overcome one of the main limits of current research, namely its assumption that theories from sculpture and other related arts are separated from the theory of Indian painting. This study not only demonstrates that it is difficult to strictly separate certain theories of painting from those of sculpture but also demonstrates that these two art forms are sometimes treated side by side without distinction in the texts. It is on the basis of this observation that the study argues for a reconceptualization of our understanding of the term citra. While it is generally translated as ‘painting’, it is proposed that the texts posit citra in a more abstract sense as a ‘mental image’ that can be differently interpreted and effectuated in practice in both painting and sculpture. The

ongoing tendency of scholars to separate the theory of painting as enunciated in the citrasutras from the theory of sculpture is thus considered here unhelpful and misleading. Indeed, the characteristically holistic outlook of Indian knowledge generally implies that the drawing of such strict boundaries between the sciences, whether art or non-art, is ‘unnatural’ if not a wholly foreign-imported idea. As this work does not seek to draw such boundaries, in some instances both sculpture and texts on sculpture will be examined in discussing the theory of painting, while parallels with, and examples from, other allied subjects such as poetics, drama and physiognomy will be discussed wherever appropriate.