In classical China, the guqin was understood as a cultural form with a dual nature: It was both a musical instrument and a vessel of the Dao. Photo: IC PHOTO

The study of beauty in ancient China did not take the form of a systematically formulated body of knowledge consciously designated as “aesthetics” (aesthetica) in the modern disciplinary sense. This does not mean, however, that ancient Chinese thinkers lacked profound reflections on beauty, aesthetic experience, art, the realm of existence, and the meaning of life. On the contrary, discussions of these topics were widely dispersed throughout the cornerstone classification system that organized Chinese knowledge—Classics, Histories, Philosophical Masters, and Collected Literary Works; treatises on poetry, painting, and calligraphy; and the intellectual traditions of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. They simply did not emerge as independent disciplines in the compartmentalized, subject-based manner characteristic of modern scholarship. What is today called “classical Chinese aesthetics” is not the continuation of a pre-existing field of study from antiquity, but rather a re-extraction, renaming, and reorganization of traditional aesthetic experiences within the framework of modern academic discourse.

Intertwined with philosophy, ethics, religion, and self-cultivation

For the above reason, although it bears the name “classical,” classical Chinese aesthetics is first and foremost a distinctly modern construct. It is not a mechanical reiteration of ancient materials, but a creative interpretation, guided by the concerns of modern people, of traditional intellectual resources pertaining to aesthetic experience, art, and the embodied understanding of life. This modern construct does not undermine the legitimacy of classical Chinese aesthetics. Quite the opposite: It demonstrates that the fundamental question concerning classical Chinese aesthetics is not whether the field existed in antiquity, but whether Chinese civilization contains distinctive forms of experience and modes of thought capable of grounding aesthetic inquiry.

In this light, the core of classical Chinese aesthetics cannot be simply reduced to discussions of artistic form, sensory experience, or aesthetic objects. What ancient Chinese aesthetics truly concerns itself with is not “beauty” as an object of contemplation in itself, but the path—through artistic experience and sensory engagement—toward a higher-order understanding of existence and an embodied recognition of life. Aesthetic activity does not consist merely of the sensory pleasure experienced by a subject confronting external objects; it also involves the transformation of one’s mental state, the elevation of one’s spiritual realm, and a renewed opening-up of the relationship between the self and the world.

The fundamental reason why classical Chinese aesthetics has always been intertwined with philosophy, ethics, religion, and theories of self-cultivation is precisely that it does not treat the aesthetic as a peripheral adjunct to life. Instead, it understands aesthetic experience as a vital means by which human beings approach the benti (nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality) and find a settled place for life. Poetry, calligraphy, painting, and music possess a spiritual significance in Chinese culture that transcends the merely technical—not simply because they produce beautiful objects for contemplation, but because they carry within them deep inquiries into “what constitutes the Dao,” “what constitutes truth/authenticity,” and “how one may find a settled place for life.”

The conception of the “Dao of the Guqin [a seven-stringed Chinese zither]” is a paradigmatic instantiation of this aesthetic ontology within a specific art form. In classical China, the guqin was understood as a cultural form with a dual nature: It was both a musical instrument and a vessel of the Dao. How the guqin entered the life of the literati, the ritual-musical order, and practices of spiritual cultivation constitutes the fundamental unfolding of the “Dao of the Guqin.”

The importance of the “Dao of the Guqin” lies not in adding a mysterious veneer to the instrument, but in demonstrating that classical Chinese art was never a purely technical object; it was a practical form that embodied personal ideals, the ritual-musical order, and the cultivation of life. The guqin is related both to governance through ritual and music and to the inner spiritual life of the scholar-literati. This means that, from the very beginning, art in the Chinese tradition was never understood in isolation—it was always bound up with the ways one cultivates the self, nourishes one’s nature, rectifies the mind, and brings order to the world. The reason the “Dao of the Guqin” can enter the ontological lineage of classical Chinese aesthetics is precisely that the guqin transforms the substantive body of the Dao into an experiential form that can be heard, felt, and cultivated through practice.

Primordial life activity

Therefore, the benti in classical Chinese aesthetics is not the substance-oriented ontological entity found in modern Western philosophy. Instead, it is more akin to a primordial ground of existence—something upon which the settlement of life depends and from which meaning itself arises. In the Chinese intellectual tradition, this primordial dimension is typically expressed through categories such as the Dao, principle, nature, mind, and emptiness. These are not merely conceptual propositions; they are the ultimate foundations upon which human life is established, the spirit elevates itself, and the myriad beings flourish.

What gives classical Chinese aesthetics its unique philosophical depth is precisely that it does not confine “beauty” to the attributes of an object. Instead, it situates beauty within the holistic relationship between the humanity and the benti. Beauty is not a passive reception of external forms, but a way for life, through sensory experience, to suddenly touch upon a higher reality. Consequently, aesthetic activity ceases to be merely an appreciation of the given world and becomes a form of experience that leads into the depths of the mind.

Classical Chinese aesthetics does not understand the benti as an abstract existence completely detached from the sensible world. Rather, it consistently strives to allow that benti to manifest itself within experience and to find its validation within life. The Dao as expounded by Laozi and Zhuangzi is indeed ineffable and beyond description, yet its significance lies not in establishing a transcendent entity divorced from reality, but in enabling human beings, through the experience of the Dao, to transform their relationship with the world and to attain spiritual freedom by perceiving the genesis and flourishing of the myriad beings.

Classical Chinese art places such high value on notions such as yijing (artistic conception), qiyun (rhythmic vitality), and shencai (spiritual brilliance) because art never stops at the mere representation of objects. Rather, it seeks, within finite forms, to suggest infinite meaning, and within the sensible, to reveal a supersensible spiritual reality.

This also clarifies the significance of “ontological activity” or the study of classical Chinese aesthetics. Aesthetic activity cannot be understood simply as a derivative of ontological concepts or as an accumulation of purely empirical activities. It is a primordial life activity in which the metaphysical and the physical interpenetrate. It encompasses sensibility without stopping there; it relies on experience while also transcending experience; and although it possesses an object-directed dimension, it ultimately points toward the transformation of the very structure of the subject’s own life. “Ontological activity” thus emphasizes aesthetic activity not as a static judgment, but as the dynamic unfolding of the whole of life toward value, meaning, and ultimate foudations.

In the formation of the profound and complex spiritual configuration of classical Chinese aesthetics, the establishment of Chan Buddhism played an indispensable role. After Buddhism was introduced to China, its early Indian orientation toward the elimination of suffering, non-self, and nirvana gradually gave way, through continuous interaction with indigenous Chinese thought, to a new center of emphasis. Among these developments, the evolution of Tathāgatagarbha thought was particularly crucial.

As a key thread in the adaptation of Buddhism to the Chinese context, the concept of Tathāgatagarbha was not merely a religious doctrinal notion. In the development of Chinese Buddhist philosophy—particularly Chan Buddhism—it gradually acquired increasingly pronounced characteristics of internalization, orientation toward mind-nature, and a tendency to recast doctrine in terms of the spiritual realm. Ideas such as “all sentient beings inherently possess the Buddha nature,” “the mind itself is Buddha,” and “enlightenment can be attained in this very moment” shifted the ultimate concern of Buddhism away from a transcendent state oriented toward “the other shore,” transforming it instead into a spiritual reality that can be experienced, validated, and manifested within this present life. This transformation provided an extraordinarily important intellectual resource for deepening the ontology of classical Chinese aesthetics.

Practical significance

Therefore, the modern transformation of classical Chinese aesthetics cannot be understood merely as the establishment of a modern narrative framework for ancient aesthetic thought. More importantly, it entails the rediscovery of its inner ontological spirit and the provision of new forms of expression under the conditions of modern scholarship. In the context of contemporary thought, this issue carries considerable practical significance.

Modern life is increasingly governed by the principles of efficiency, technological rationality, and utilitarian order. Human perceptual capacity tends toward increasing superficiality, object-consciousness grows ever stronger, and the relationship between life and the world is progressively compressed into relationships that are calculable, usable, and manageable. Under such conditions, if aesthetics remains merely a body of knowledge about aesthetic objects and artistic types, it will be insufficient to respond to the spiritual predicaments of modern people.

The ontological concern preserved in classical Chinese aesthetics suggests another possibility: Aesthetic experience is not merely ornamental or incidental to life, but an important way for human beings to recover spiritual freedom beyond the utilitarian order, to reexperience the wholeness of the world, and to reaffirm the intrinsic value of life. The modern transformation of classical Chinese aesthetics ultimately points not merely to the construction of a discipline, but to the contemporary concern of reconstructing cultural spirituality.

Qu Jingwei is from the Department of Philosophy at Tsinghua University.