The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c15.s1.26

c15.s1.26

In the domain of Indian art likewise Sorokin's *Social and Cultural Dynamics*⁸ finds "all the ideational traits" and has nothing to say about the presence or otherwise of sensatism. His analysis or rather observation is based on extracts from two authors. It is necessary to point out that the two authors do not make identical observations. One of Sorokin's authorities says that the "Hindu view of art is the Hindu view of life, life as interpreted by religion and philosophy." The lengthy quotation is but an elucidation of this statement. But Sorokin's other authority makes a distinction between the "epochs" of Hindu art and attaches different values to different epochs. He makes it clear that "European art is of two "very different kinds, one Christian and scholastic, the other post-Renaissance and personal." According to this authority "there was a time when Europe and Asia could and did actually understand each other very well." Whatever be the difference between these two authorities they are both believers in the idealistic or transcendental and mystical foundation of Indian art, and both apparently ignore the objective, secular and social inspirations of Hindu artists. In other words, both belong to the traditional indology. Sorokin's sociology of Hindu art, unsuspicious as it is of any other indology and unacquainted as it appears to be with any specimens of Indian sculptures and paintings through the centuries, declares itself in the manner of deductive and formal logic as follows: "The dominant mentality of the Hindu culture has been ideational. Logically, we must expect its art to have been ideational also."