The traditions of the East: the typology of mental codes of the artistic thinking and artistic pictures of the world

Abstract

In the course of this study, the systems of truth and artistic thinking were examined that ignored the Aristotelian law of the excluded middle: these are nondualistic and pantheistic-monistic systems. These systems had a significant impact on the medieval art of the East, forming a particular picture of the world of art. The formulas of a nondualistic system are: “A is not identical to A, therefore A is A “, “A is A, therefore A is not A”. In the meantime, “ there is neither A, nor not -A”. These absurd and paradoxical formulas permeate the entire Far Eastern thinking and can be found in the Taoist, Ch’an and Zen texts, as well as in Nagarjuna and appear in the method of the Far Eastern Art (“Draw a bamboo, become a bamboo, and then forget all about bamboos”) [18, p.806-811]. The masterpieces such as “The Patriarch chops a bamboo” (a medieval master) and “The Patriarch and a tiger” use an exclusive logic of psychic automatism. Some of “Sumi-e” pictures, especially the works of Toyo Sassu can be generally regarded an abstract expressionism. The pantheistic monism pervades the entire medieval Islamic art. It manifested itself in architecture, book miniature and decorative arts Pantheism-monism, which is a monistic system of truth, stands out in this research work, as the non-duality of the Far East does not prove to be a strict monism (Teachers of Zen would say: “Neither two nor One!”). “Vudjudism” deals with the Unity of Living, while the non-dualism of Mahayana and Zen looks into the emptiness of “Shunyata”.
As insists, Dr. Sc. Prof. A.A.Salamzade, [16, pp. 93, 94] the lauguage of the pure monism doesn’t know “Nothing” or Zero. By A.G.Dugin this ignorance was typical to the Premordial Tradition [6]. But the most distinct expression Monism has got in conception of the “only Being” by Ibn al – Arabi (“vahdat al-vujud”) and then, just, in the princip of Islamic Monotheism. Muslim Monism is not only identity of “1” itself (“1=1”), but also the conscious rejection from the dialogue with Unbeing (“1-0=1”), as the rejection of Zero, which can be ignored as a resalt of its unexist.