The science of psychology has been much more successful on the negative side than on the positive side... It has revealed to us a lot about man's defects, his illness, about his sins but little about his potential, his virtues, his achievable aspirations or his psychological health. (Maslow 354) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Whereas Abraham Maslow criticizes the science of psychology, because it tends to insist on the pejorative aspects of the human psyche; long before this, Sigmund Freud intended to tread the uncharted path of the psyche to explore the strangeness and mystery associated with it.1 By virtue of being a doctor, Freud could come to terms with the various psychological aberrations at his disposal and developed gradually interests in the cryptic functioning of the psyche. In 1919, Freud published his groundbreaking essay – “The Uncanny” which reveals Freud's view on the problematic dimensions of the “uncanny”. The idea of ​​“uncanny” was considered by Freud to be so startling and startling that he tended to make the enigmatic mechanisms of the unconscious mind uncanny. While Keats in “Hymn to Psyche” unleashes his aesthetic cravings to be the 'priest' of his mind and a fanatic “In some unexplored region of my mind” (Keats qtd. in Weekes 63); At the beginning of “The Uncanny”, Freud emphasizes the compatibility between psychoanalysis and aesthetics by making this significantly significant observation: “Only rarely does the psychoanalyst feel impelled to engage in aesthetic investigations, even when aesthetics is not limited to theory of beauty, but described in relation to the qualities of our feeling” (Freud 123). This observation can be interpreted in two ways: either the psychoanalyst may have an inhibition in resorting to aesthetics or he is required to take it into account, since the concept of the "uncanny" can be better explored and explained from an interdisciplinary point of view. The second interpretation seems plausible to me as “uncanny” is imbued with aesthetic suggestions. This article therefore intends to delve deeper into the concept of the Freudian “uncanny” to understand why this problematic term has incessantly offered aesthetic pleasure to connoisseurs by resorting to Indian aesthetic perspectives. What is “uncanny”? Where is the "uncanny"? How does the connection between psychoanalysis and aesthetics work? Simply put, the notion of “uncanny” is at times both disconcerting and intriguing, as it cannot be understood in rational terms nor can it be left out of our critical conjectures and apprehensions regarding these two paradigms. Some people assume that it "belongs to the realm of the frightening, of that which evokes fear and terror" and others consider it to be an amalgamation of terror, fear, mystery, strangeness, eeriness, uneasiness, to name but a few. Etymologically, the word uncanny smacks of a sense of strangeness and is thought to be a working English translation of its German origin “Unheimlich”. Since this German phrase is difficult to translate into English, it gives rise to a number of possible connotations, thus leaving common men in total confusion regarding its real meaning. Sometimes, we tend to locate the “uncanny” in liminal space simply because a feeling of the “uncanny” is triggered when the subtle discrepancy between reality and fantasy becomes blurred. A feeling of “eerie” can be generated by any horrendous and macabre site. Sometimes the idea of ​​“uncanny” is supposed to remain quiescent in unfamiliar things. When familiarity regarding a known object dissolves into the air, as a resultthe unfamiliarity of this emerges, and therefore makes us understand the "uncanny". Simply put, it is an elusive notion and therefore its experience can hardly be told in words. “Uncanny” can plausibly be considered a channel, as such they were, between paradigms, and thus leads connoisseurs to approach it from the interdisciplinary perspective. Freud conceptually divides the human mind into three different layers: unconscious, preconscious and conscious2. While the id produces instinctive impulses, the superego imposes some restrictions on them and it is the ego that finds a balance between them. What is noteworthy is that according to Freud the unconscious mind sometimes seems unfathomable and therefore completely unknown. He claims that the workings of the unconscious mind feel mysterious to him and therefore he must devise a way to enter the mysterious realm of the human mind by chasing a dream. The enigmatic nature of the unconscious mind ignites in him a sense of the "uncanny" and forces him to arrive at that unfamiliarity tinged with fear that generates a sense of the uncanny, although he reminded us that "not everything that is new and unfamiliar is scary…” (Freud 125). Since the publication of this essay, psychoanalysts around the world have attempted to decipher the true nature of the "uncanny". At this point one could reasonably ask: why do psychoanalysts all over the world still find interest in delving deeper into this topic? Jentsch believes that “intellectual uncertainty” may be the reason that explains the awakening of a feeling of the uncanny in the minds of connoisseurs while Freud opposes this and implicitly argues that the cryptic nature of “uncanny” places its meaning in an incessant postponement, so to speak, which explains why; connoisseurs the world over find it to be a constant source of aesthetic pleasure and engage in it time and again. Bharatamuni in his Natyasastra has established eight areas along with the corresponding permanent feelings. Bharata believes that the harmonious union between determinants, consequents and transitory feelings serves to produce rasa thus leading the connoisseurs to its realization. The Rasa Terrible is one of these among the eight races. The permanent sensation that results is "horror". When “horror” mixes with other transitory feelings such as trepidation, fear, wonder, to name but a few, it produces a terrible rasa. He argues that every aesthetic exploration ends with an understanding of one of the eight races. It may be important to note that an object of fear may well satisfy the aesthetic pleasure of connoisseurs since aesthetics is not limited exclusively to the vicinity of Beauty. Much later in Bharata, the eminent rhetorician Anandavardhana in his astonishing work Dhvanyaloka argues that the object rasadhvani understanding at the end of an aesthetic exploration gives immaculate aesthetic pleasure4. In other words, connoisseurs undertake aesthetic journeys to reach the 'hint' and in the course of it; they demand and extract aesthetic pleasure. When the function of suggestion comes into action, connoisseurs slowly but surely slide into the world of pure aesthetic pleasure through their constant search for aesthetic implications. Since familiarity and unfamiliarity are complementary to each other, Anandavardhana insists that connoisseurs rely on the familiar understanding of something for the time being by asking them to evaluate its denotative and connotative meanings. It ultimately causes them to keep moving towards the suggested meaning of something until it is grasped in an understandable way. Kuntaka in his Vakroktijibitam argues that "vakrokti" is the significant hallmark of an aesthetically charged word, which explains the aesthetic pleasure that connoisseurs feel indulging in while pursuing it.In other words, 'vakrokti' is the aesthetic force that attracts connoisseurs towards 'meaning'. The idea is that if the meaning of something had been expressed in obvious terms, what is vakrokti would not have been as pleasant and rewarding. Thus the oblique meaning of something induces connoisseurs to undertake aesthetic journeys until they grasp the suggested meaning. Kuntaka is thus this view that understanding "vakrokti" is the crux of any aesthetic exploration. Human emotional responses around the world hardly differ and it pushes me to think about making inroads into the problematic and aesthetic, i.e. "disturbing" construct, using the Indian language of aesthetic perspectives. Denis Dutton in “Aesthetic Universals” foregrounds: “In the twentieth century, research into the existence of universal aesthetic values ​​came primarily from psychology…” (Dutton qtd. in Gaut 206). Dutton underlines that empirical psychology requires the perceptive capacity of the psychoanalyst who must also be equipped with aesthetic power. In the field of psychoanalytic research, aesthetic skill is a requirement for critical investigations and interventions. Even Freud, long before, had argued that “…Yet it happens from time to time that he must be interested in a particular area of ​​aesthetics…” (Freud 123). Freud implies that because familiarity and unfamiliarity cannot be separated, aesthetic searches culminate in the unfathomable depth of the unknown, thus triggering a sense of the uncanny in the minds of connoisseurs. Using Rasa theory, one could appropriately argue that the Freudian uncanny is imbued with a terrible rasa. A place of horror composed of determinants, consequents and transitory sensations arouses fear, the corresponding permanent feeling of horror and ultimately leads connoisseurs to revel in a terrible rasa. For example, when one experiences something “disturbing” on stage while watching a performance, one is immediately taken aback by fright and is gradually confronted with a terrible rasa due to the union between the trio – determining, consequential and transitory feelings. After Anandavardhana one can explore the problematic aspects of the “uncanny”. Denotes unfamiliar feelings or strangeness. Apparently, connoisseurs are quite accustomed to this sensation and have some kind of familiarity with it. But the word uncanny cannot be properly interpreted in terms of strangeness because it does not always have the exact meaning in a given context. Therefore, it raises the need for connotative meaning to come into play. In specific contexts, “creepy” sometimes refers to something horrendous and arouses fear in us. Even in this case it will not be enough for connoisseurs who intend to get to the bottom of the "uncanny", because for the moment its proposal is postponed. Here one can reasonably ask: does something disturbing always equate to a feeling of “uncanny”? This question can be answered by direct reference to Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle's pertinent observation in An Introduction to Literature, Criticism, and Theory: “The uncanny is not just a matter of the strange or disturbing, but has to do more specifically with a disturbance of the familiar... Since the adjective 'familiar' means 'well known or intimate... but as a noun it carries with it the most disturbing implications...' (34) for connoisseurs. The aesthetic infiltration into the virtual familiarity of something gradually discovers the multifaceted strangeness that lies latent there. Therefore, connoisseurs are forced to resort to his suggestion. Repeated attempts at “uncanny” over the years prove that it is elusive in nature and no one has been able to decipher its true meaning until now. But the connoisseurs.