Can anybody please tell me why there is always a pitcher in representations of Kukai seated on his chair? The shoes I understand; he took them off and left them beneath the chair. But the pitcher? Why is it there, and what is or was in it? Did he take it there? Or does somebody else put it there for him?
The pedigree of this representation is evidently very old. If anybody can tell me just where and when it began, that would also be interesting.
Greetings from the emerging spring in Kyoto.
Michael Pye Professor of the Study of Religions University of Marburg, Germany (retired) Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Someone else may be able to comment on Kûkai's posthumous portraits, I
have not studied them, but in terms of the artistic/representational
prototypes for representing him with the ewer, see the five portrait
paintings Kûkai brought back from China (by the Tang-dynasty painter
Li Zhen and his studio) and the two Japanese works added to the set in
821 (all owned by Kyôôkokuji/Tôji, Kyoto).
The works are illustrated in many publications but some of the best
reproductions are in
弘法大師の書 : 御筆七祖影 special exhibition /
Kobō Daishi no sho : Onhitsu 7-soei special exhibition
by Tōji Hōmotsukan.
(available for purchase in the Tôji bookshop, since you are in Kyoto).
The set of five are listed in Kûkai's Catalogue of Imported Objects
Shôraimokuroku, section (4) on Icons, KZ 1:94-95
The works represent Kongôchi (Vajrabodhi), Fukû (Amoghavajra), Zenmui
(S’ubhâkarasimha), Ichigyô (Yixing), and Keika (Huiguo)
I don't have the images in front of me but my memory is that the
portraits of Yiching and Nagabodhi do not have ewers; in the other 3
paintings they are difficult to discern due to abrasions to the
surface. The vessel is probably best referred to as a ewer or kundika.
It references initiations (abhiseka [abhis'eka] ) in the historical
transmission of Mikkyô. The Indian kundika (kun[.bel]d[.bel]ikâ ) was
originally used for the royal accession ceremony for water from the
four or five oceans poured on the head of the recipient; in Tantric
traditions five ewers are often used. (Ennin received abhisekha from
the master Yuanzheng 元政 with the Diamond World mandala then received
the initiation of the Five Pitchers).
In the badly damaged Tang portrait of Kûkai's teacher Huiguo, the
kundika placed near him may function as a double visual metaphor of
the dharma transmission initiation (where it serves as a libation
vessel) and the transmission of the Esoteric teachings—which Kûkai
said he received from Huiguo like pouring water into a vessel. (The
young assistant depicted next to Huiguo may represent the acolyte who
had achieved spiritual attainment and so was able to respond on behalf
of the master about Esotericism when question by Emperor Daizong in
770.)
For a discussion in Japanese of the Kyôôgokokuji Tang 5/+2 Japanese
paintings see:
Hamada Takashi, "Kôbô Daishi to Mikkyô bijutsu," in Kôbô daishi
kenkyû, ed. Nakano Gishô (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kôbunkan, 1978).
In English please see a chapter I recently published titled "Situating
Moving Objects: A Sino-Japanese Catalogue of Imported Items, 800 CE to
the Present," in What's the Use of Art? Asian Visual and Material
Culture in Context, ed. Morgan Pitelka and Jan Mrazek (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 2007), Chapter 6.
See also Tôji no rekishi to bijutsu, 444-446, and the bibliography for
the set found on p. 530.
You should also look at the Shingon Hasso, the eight patriarchs, a
grouping that includes Kûkai. The oldest extant representation of the
eight is inside the pagoda at Daigoji, dated 951.
(There is another set of eight that includes Kukai, Saicho, Ennin,
Enchin and others).
With some time I'd be happy to look into the portraits of Kukai —and
ought to do so in any case.
Cynthea Bogel
University of Washington
On Mar 18, 11:09 pm, Michael Pye <p...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> Can anybody please tell me why there is always a pitcher in
> representations of Kukai seated on his chair? The shoes I understand;
> he took them off and left them beneath the chair. But the pitcher? Why
> is it there, and what is or was in it? Did he take it there? Or does
> somebody else put it there for him?
> The pedigree of this representation is evidently very old. If anybody
> can tell me just where and when it began, that would also be
> interesting.
> Greetings from the emerging spring in Kyoto.
> Michael Pye
> Professor of the Study of Religions
> University of Marburg, Germany (retired)
> Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Thanks very much for this splendidly valuable response. It will keep me busy for a while. I'm wondering about the difference between a ewer and a pitcher, if any. It's easier to say "a pitcher" than "a ewer" ("a" plus initital "e" is rare; I suppose people may have said "an ewer" at some point). Moreover "pitcher" is a word which has been in normal use in my lifetime, while "ewer" sounds a bit more, well esoteric! My interest was/is in the specific representation of Kukai by himself with one ewer as in the materials used for/by pilgrims up to the present day (commemorative scrolls, nokyocho etc). If it " references initiations (abhiseka [abhis'eka] ) in the historical transmission of Mikkyô", is it in such pictures because it shows that Kukai has RECEIVED the initiation, or does it mean that he has it standing nearby in case he is called upon to initiate somebody else, i.e. symbolising his qualification to do that? This spring I'll try and ask a few pilgrims around here if they have any idea what it's for, I suspect not...
Best wishes,
Michael Pye Professor of the Study of Religions University of Marburg, Germany (retired) Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
> Someone else may be able to comment on Kûkai's posthumous portraits, I > have not studied them, but in terms of the artistic/representational > prototypes for representing him with the ewer, see the five portrait > paintings Kûkai brought back from China (by the Tang-dynasty painter > Li Zhen and his studio) and the two Japanese works added to the set in > 821 (all owned by Kyôôkokuji/Tôji, Kyoto).
> The works are illustrated in many publications but some of the best > reproductions are in > 弘法大師の書 : 御筆七祖影 special exhibition / > Kobō Daishi no sho : Onhitsu 7-soei special exhibition > by Tōji Hōmotsukan. > (available for purchase in the Tôji bookshop, since you are in Kyoto).
> The set of five are listed in Kûkai's Catalogue of Imported Objects > Shôraimokuroku, section (4) on Icons, KZ 1:94-95
> The works represent Kongôchi (Vajrabodhi), Fukû (Amoghavajra), Zenmui > (S’ubhâkarasimha), Ichigyô (Yixing), and Keika (Huiguo)
> I don't have the images in front of me but my memory is that the > portraits of Yiching and Nagabodhi do not have ewers; in the other 3 > paintings they are difficult to discern due to abrasions to the > surface. The vessel is probably best referred to as a ewer or kundika. > It references initiations (abhiseka [abhis'eka] ) in the historical > transmission of Mikkyô. The Indian kundika (kun[.bel]d[.bel]ikâ ) was > originally used for the royal accession ceremony for water from the > four or five oceans poured on the head of the recipient; in Tantric > traditions five ewers are often used. (Ennin received abhisekha from > the master Yuanzheng 元政 with the Diamond World mandala then received > the initiation of the Five Pitchers).
> In the badly damaged Tang portrait of Kûkai's teacher Huiguo, the > kundika placed near him may function as a double visual metaphor of > the dharma transmission initiation (where it serves as a libation > vessel) and the transmission of the Esoteric teachings—which Kûkai > said he received from Huiguo like pouring water into a vessel. (The > young assistant depicted next to Huiguo may represent the acolyte who > had achieved spiritual attainment and so was able to respond on behalf > of the master about Esotericism when question by Emperor Daizong in > 770.)
> For a discussion in Japanese of the Kyôôgokokuji Tang 5/+2 Japanese > paintings see: > Hamada Takashi, "Kôbô Daishi to Mikkyô bijutsu," in Kôbô daishi > kenkyû, ed. Nakano Gishô (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kôbunkan, 1978).
> In English please see a chapter I recently published titled "Situating > Moving Objects: A Sino-Japanese Catalogue of Imported Items, 800 CE to > the Present," in What's the Use of Art? Asian Visual and Material > Culture in Context, ed. Morgan Pitelka and Jan Mrazek (Honolulu: > University of Hawaii Press, 2007), Chapter 6.
> See also Tôji no rekishi to bijutsu, 444-446, and the bibliography for > the set found on p. 530.
> You should also look at the Shingon Hasso, the eight patriarchs, a > grouping that includes Kûkai. The oldest extant representation of the > eight is inside the pagoda at Daigoji, dated 951. > (There is another set of eight that includes Kukai, Saicho, Ennin, > Enchin and others).
> With some time I'd be happy to look into the portraits of Kukai —and > ought to do so in any case.
> Cynthea Bogel > University of Washington
> On Mar 18, 11:09 pm, Michael Pye <p...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote: >> Dear Colleagues,
>> Can anybody please tell me why there is always a pitcher in >> representations of Kukai seated on his chair? The shoes I understand; >> he took them off and left them beneath the chair. But the pitcher? Why >> is it there, and what is or was in it? Did he take it there? Or does >> somebody else put it there for him?
>> The pedigree of this representation is evidently very old. If anybody >> can tell me just where and when it began, that would also be >> interesting.
>> Greetings from the emerging spring in Kyoto.
>> Michael Pye >> Professor of the Study of Religions >> University of Marburg, Germany (retired) >> Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
There may be variations in the pronunciation of "ewer" that compel some speakers to say "an ewer". But most would say and write "a ewer" -- as they would say and write "a young person" or "a Jungian perspective".
The people who represented the vessel in question in drawings of Kukai (among others) probably did not say either ewer or pitcher, since apparently they did not speak English. Nor would they have called it a keg, amphora, or bucket. Calling it a urinal would be a crock, though dubbing it a carafe or decanter would rock. A pitcher could be full of lemonade, cream, or curve balls and sliders, while a ewer, though it may sound sheepy, is truly a water vessel.
Kundika, from Sanskrit, is transliterated into Sino-Japanese as 君持 (kunji) or 軍持 (kunji, gunji) and translated into Sino-Japanese as 水瓶 (suibin). Today it might be called a water bottle (Got Evian?), or even a canteen. No self-respecting laptop lugging, iPod plugged Kwannon, monk or nun would be without one in a digital portrait.
In reference to Kukai and his contemporaries, however, perhaps kundika should be rendered in a way that lends it a bit of temporal, if not exactly esoteric, distance. If Aquarius were to be reborn as an English-speaking Buddhist, s/he might well call it ewer, if not a water jar or jug.
Just a short report back after after a visit to Toji this morning. Indeed the paintings of the patriarchs almost all show the kind of vessel in question, as a symbol of the transmission. However, I think Cynthea Bogel must have meant a different catalogue than the one mentioned, in similar format, which shows all these things in excellent detail. But anyway it was all there, so thanks again.
As William Wetherall wrote (among other entertaining things!) it's referred to as a ??, but pronounced suibyoo, not suibin, by a monk who explained it to me. That's also in Kojien.
I looked up "ewer" and "pitcher" in a big Kenkyusha ei-wa this morning (not having English dictionaries to hand) and both are explained/translated as suisashi. This isn't relevant for the Shingon item itself, but it does just suggest to me that "ewer" and "pitcher" are not much different from each other. Funnily enough these entries also have a picture. The vessel is practically the same in each case, just a big jug really, with a broad pouring mouth, as pointed out specifically in the entry for "ewer". This latter is also shown standing in a bowl, like a Victorian water jug for the bedroom. With this in mind, I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer.
It's interesting that the Shingon ones are much more elegant, usually having a double bulge and a very fine spout for pouring the water on the recipient's head in a thin stream, visible but not messy, I presume. Of course, "decanter" would be elegant (= William Wetherall's "canteen"?) but in England at least it ususally implies shifting wine, sherry or port from a bottle to an intermediate glass vessel for serving (shades of WW's orange juice etc..?).
I can't see much point in referring to it as a kundika or a kunji, even though it's the Indian derivation. The normal expression in both written and spoken Japanese is now apparently suibyo, so why not use a straightforward English equivalent?
Once again, thanks for helping me think this out a bit more. Asashoryu just lost today.
Michael Pye Professor of the Study of Religions University of Marburg, Germany (retired) Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Michael Pye is absolutely right. My apologies for the error and thanks for the correction.
The Wu reading of 水瓶 is indeed "suibyou" -- which makes better sense in a Buddhist context.
Apparently when read "suibin" -- using the Tang (Song and later) reading of 瓶 -- 水瓶 refers to a narrow-necked water vessel, possibly more like a pitcher. The Yamato reading is "mizugame" -- and appears to mean a vessel used for storing water, perhaps a larger jug or jar -- and the Aquarius constellation is called 水瓶座 or "mizugame-za".
Of course, a kundika could be called anything in English so long as readers understand what its purpose is. And if there is no need to give a language lesson, then by all means refer to the object in terms that a reader would immediately understand as a water vessel, as opposed to a water-going vessel.
Finding ewer equated with 水差し (mizusahi) in an Ei-Wa jiten may simply betray an attempt in such dictionaries to interpret a common variety of "English" ewer, such as the Victorian ewer used with a wash basin -- rather than specify the possibly broader semantic range of the word as used by art historians. Not that they should have the final say, but it might help to get an opinion on distinctions made in descriptions of classical and more recent objects that store or dispense water. The more general Japanese term for a vessel that holds water, and could be a source of water, is 水入れ (mizuire).
Canteen, at first passing, does come across as less than elegant. But who knows what a poet could do with it in a pinch. It shares the same pitfalls as pitcher, in that you can't be sure what you will get from one -- a hot dog and pitcher a beer, hold the relish and foam.
But, yes, I am personally in favor of simplicity and precision. I would certainly play ball with an editor who insisted on pitcher. At the same time I would avoid talking about a "picture of Kukai with a pitcher" -- as this might cause some readers to consult their ophthalmologist or neurologist or both, then their lawyer.
I also saw a picture of a ewer of the Victorian kind. It bore a striking resemblance to the Phoenix on the reverse of the 10,000 Yukichi Fukuzawa banknote, from a drawing in the Hall of the Phoenix at Byodoin. It's a bird, it's a ewer, it's . . . a flask, font, flagon, aspersory?
In your most recent e-mail I've seen on this thread, you say:
I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer.
As a poet and translator who has worked in archeology a bit, I would
strongly urge in favor of "ewer". The word in my experience always
refers to a fairly large vessel, perhaps a foot or more high, with a
broad lip, as others have noted, indeed similar to the pitcher that
accompanies a wash-basin (long before and including "Victorian").
While "pitcher" encompasses "ewer", the reverse is not true at all. My
wife and mother in law have many pitchers, ranging from an inch to half
a foot tall. None of them is even shaped like a ewer, much less the
size that I associate with the word.
The structure of a lip versus a spout is distinctive, for one thing.
Pitchers come both ways; ewers seem always to have a lip.
In terms of its form, a teapot is a "pitcher". But I doubt anyone would
suggest that the word pitcher could be substituted for the word teapot
in a translation without doing a disservice to the reader. Similarly
with gravy boat versus gravy pitcher; the former has a distinctive
shape and is used almost exclusively for one purpose, the latter could
be any handy pitcher used for gravy. For me, the same with ewer vs.
pitcher.
On the various Kenkyusha and other ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries, as I
have noted in my work in connection with haikai seasonal topics and the
like, frequently such dictionaries err on the side of either too
generic a "meaning" for a more specific word, as in this instance, or
on the side of a common metaphorical meaning rather than the actual.
(Two cases in point: kasumi is not, technically, "haze"--it's
"mist", nor is arare "hail"--it's graupel, or, often, "snow
pellets".)
> Cynthea Bogel must have meant a different catalogue than the one
> mentioned, in similar format, which shows all these things in
> excellent detail. But anyway it was all there, so thanks again."
Art historican Bogel points out that the book you found at Tôji is
indeed the one that I meant you to find.I said that it was difficult
to discern the ewers in the damaged paintings, not in the
illustrations. Buyer beware! Illustration does does not equal reality.
I can certainly recommend other sources off line that show the muddy
details as they are.... When you see the paintings one day you will
agree. The details were originally legible, of course, so in that
sense the Tôji book is, er, reality.
Cynthea Bogel
On Mar 21, 2:46 am, Michael Pye <p...@Staff.Uni-Marburg.DE> wrote:
> Just a short report back after after a visit to Toji this morning.
> Indeed the paintings of the patriarchs almost all show the kind of
> vessel in question, as a symbol of the transmission. However, I think
> Cynthea Bogel must have meant a different catalogue than the one
> mentioned, in similar format, which shows all these things in
> excellent detail. But anyway it was all there, so thanks again.
> As William Wetherall wrote (among other entertaining things!) it's
> referred to as a ??, but pronounced suibyoo, not suibin, by a monk who
> explained it to me. That's also in Kojien.
> I looked up "ewer" and "pitcher" in a big Kenkyusha ei-wa this morning
> (not having English dictionaries to hand) and both are
> explained/translated as suisashi. This isn't relevant for the Shingon
> item itself, but it does just suggest to me that "ewer" and "pitcher"
> are not much different from each other. Funnily enough these entries
> also have a picture. The vessel is practically the same in each case,
> just a big jug really, with a broad pouring mouth, as pointed out
> specifically in the entry for "ewer". This latter is also shown
> standing in a bowl, like a Victorian water jug for the bedroom. With
> this in
> mind, I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer.
> It's interesting that the Shingon ones are much more elegant, usually
> having a double bulge and a very fine spout for pouring the water on
> the recipient's head in a thin stream, visible but not messy, I
> presume. Of course, "decanter" would be elegant (= William Wetherall's
> "canteen"?) but in England at least it ususally implies shifting wine,
> sherry or port from a bottle to an intermediate glass vessel for
> serving (shades of WW's orange juice etc..?).
> I can't see much point in referring to it as a kundika or a kunji,
> even though it's the Indian derivation. The normal expression in both
> written and spoken Japanese is now apparently suibyo, so why not use a
> straightforward English equivalent?
> Once again, thanks for helping me think this out a bit more.
> Asashoryu just lost today.
> Michael Pye
> Professor of the Study of Religions
> University of Marburg, Germany (retired)
> Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Thanks for these careful comments. Obviously I need to reconsider my statement "I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer." - but perhaps not for the reasons you adduce.
I would like to say "ewer", following Cynthea Bogel's introduction of it (after I had asked about the "pitcher") and also your guidance. Indeed it's a very nice word and I'll probably start using it at home now (though of course I did know it as such).
About pronunciation (c.f. William Weatherall's comments), I can also pronounce "a ewer" with a hidden "y-" all right, so that's not an obstacle in itself; I had just been wondering why the word wasn't in normal use in my older family, back to my grandmothers, i.e. throughout the whole of the twentieth century in England. That's where I grew up and was educated. There was a lot of translation going on in those times and not a little poetry, so plenty of reason for liking words.
Well, in my original post I'd been asking about the function or symbolic meaning of the vessel in the depictions of Kukai. That was solved easily enough. Allow me to recall that my purpose is to refer to this vessel, very briefly, in some writing on pilgrimage because there is a standard representation of Kukai which appears in many contexts familiar to pilgrims (and of course ordinary temple visitors too). In other words, I will be referring to a specific, more or less stable iconographic element.
That's where "ewer" gets difficult again, after the your new reflections. You emphasise that a ewer has a wide mouth, or "a broad lip". But in the pictures I'm talking about, which must be familiar to most pmjs persons, the vessel in question doesn't have a broad lip. It definitely has a narrow spout. Thus, looking at the object itself (and Toji also has at least one very fine object in three dimensions), the word "ewer" seems to commend itself less.
This brings me back to the use of the word "pitcher" in your own family. It sounds to me as though your wife and mother-in-law possess a large number of jugs. In my own extended family the word pitcher was also rarely used, because none of our jugs were big enough to count as pitchers, in our usage. Pitchers were things one might expect to see occasionally, in a large farmhouse, an old rectory, etc.. and would be used for holding and dispensing any liquids drunk in quantity by a large group (who didn't live at the level of port decanters!). The word "ewer" was never used in normal speech, being the sort of thing which people used for water and wine in the ancient near east (i.e. in our minds).
Against this background, I wonder if you/your family are well established in North America, and whether there the word pitcher has come into very wide use there for all kinds of pouring vessels. For us these were mostly jugs, big ones, little ones, some as big as your head (like the coconuts). You seem to regard it as a generic term which could even include a teapot and a gravy boat! But we didn't. And is the word pitcher also being regarded as slightly vulgar (c.f. also the jocular comments by W.Weatherall)? Is this the effect of baseball culture. For me, "pitcher" symbolises rugged honesty, simplicity, or something like that.
A teapot is not a jug because it has a spout and is used for tea. Of course you can make tea in a jug, but you wouldn't, or shouldn't use a teapot for anything else. (Don't remind of the person who tried to put the cat in the teapot.)
Coffee can be made in all kinds of things, but the traditional, elegant coffee pot with a bulge at the bottom and a long spout is the closest vessel in form to Kukai's. But evidently I can't call it Kukai's coffee pot...(though that might have been a better name for this thread)
Now my problem is that the writing about pilgrimage has lots of technical terms and special words in it which will be quite enough for the reader, the audience is intended to be academic-plus-general. I won't really be discussing Kukai's coffee-pot as such, and certainly not as on this thread (!) but I do just need to refer to it in the course of two-three sentences. In this context it will be neither a bit of archeaology nor a literary flourish. It will be a reference to an iconographically depicted ritual object with a long history.
Ewer is a great word for poetry, so is pitcher, and so is jug. Teapots and coffee pots, well, that's more Betjeman and the like, I think. But the broad lip versus the spout means I can't use "ewer" for my purpose, doesn 't it? The matter is not central enough to use the Japanese term in my writing (but perhaps in brackets), let alone the older Sanskrit word or its transliterations. But now I think I can't use "pitcher", because of course we Brits always have to think of the North American readership...
So for suibyo, I'm now thinking of saying "water jug".
By the way, I do agree that the ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries are only of very limited value for those of us on the ei-side of the language divide. Here's a new Japanese word: ei-saido. Use it to baffle your friends.
best wishes
Michael Pye Professor of the Study of Religions University of Marburg, Germany (retired) Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Zitat von "W. J. Higginson" <wordfi...@gmail.com>:
> In your most recent e-mail I've seen on this thread, you say:
> As a poet and translator who has worked in archeology a bit, I would > strongly urge in favor of "ewer". The word in my experience always > refers to a fairly large vessel, perhaps a foot or more high, with a > broad lip, as others have noted, indeed similar to the pitcher that > accompanies a wash-basin (long before and including "Victorian").
> While "pitcher" encompasses "ewer", the reverse is not true at all. > My wife and mother in law have many pitchers, ranging from an inch to > half a foot tall. None of them is even shaped like a ewer, much less > the size that I associate with the word.
> The structure of a lip versus a spout is distinctive, for one thing. > Pitchers come both ways; ewers seem always to have a lip.
> In terms of its form, a teapot is a "pitcher". But I doubt anyone > would suggest that the word pitcher could be substituted for the word > teapot in a translation without doing a disservice to the reader. > Similarly with gravy boat versus gravy pitcher; the former has a > distinctive shape and is used almost exclusively for one purpose, the > latter could be any handy pitcher used for gravy. For me, the same > with ewer vs. pitcher.
> On the various Kenkyusha and other ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries, as I > have noted in my work in connection with haikai seasonal topics and > the like, frequently such dictionaries err on the side of either too > generic a "meaning" for a more specific word, as in this instance, or > on the side of a common metaphorical meaning rather than the actual. > (Two cases in point: /kasumi/ is not, technically, "haze"--it's > "mist", nor is /arare/ "hail"--it's graupel, or, often, "snow > pellets".)
> Thanks for these careful comments. Obviously I need to reconsider my > statement "I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer." - > but perhaps not for the reasons you adduce.
> I would like to say "ewer", following Cynthea Bogel's introduction of > it (after I had asked about the "pitcher") and also your guidance. > Indeed it's a very nice word and I'll probably start using it at home > now (though of course I did know it as such).
> About pronunciation (c.f. William Weatherall's comments), I can also > pronounce "a ewer" with a hidden "y-" all right, so that's not an > obstacle in itself; I had just been wondering why the word wasn't in > normal use in my older family, back to my grandmothers, i.e. > throughout the whole of the twentieth century in England. That's where > I grew up and was educated. There was a lot of translation going on in > those times and not a little poetry, so plenty of reason for liking > words.
> Well, in my original post I'd been asking about the function or > symbolic meaning of the vessel in the depictions of Kukai. That was > solved easily enough. Allow me to recall that my purpose is to refer > to this vessel, very briefly, in some writing on pilgrimage because > there is a standard representation of Kukai which appears in many > contexts familiar to pilgrims (and of course ordinary temple visitors > too). In other words, I will be referring to a specific, more or less > stable iconographic element.
> That's where "ewer" gets difficult again, after the your new > reflections. You emphasise that a ewer has a wide mouth, or "a broad > lip". But in the pictures I'm talking about, which must be familiar to > most pmjs persons, the vessel in question doesn't have a broad lip. It > definitely has a narrow spout. Thus, looking at the object itself (and > Toji also has at least one very fine object in three dimensions), the > word "ewer" seems to commend itself less.
> This brings me back to the use of the word "pitcher" in your own > family. It sounds to me as though your wife and mother-in-law possess > a large number of jugs. In my own extended family the word pitcher was > also rarely used, because none of our jugs were big enough to count as > pitchers, in our usage. Pitchers were things one might expect to see > occasionally, in a large farmhouse, an old rectory, etc.. and would be > used for holding and dispensing any liquids drunk in quantity by a > large group (who didn't live at the level of port decanters!). The > word "ewer" was never used in normal speech, being the sort of thing > which people used for water and wine in the ancient near east (i.e. in > our minds).
> Against this background, I wonder if you/your family are well > established in North America, and whether there the word pitcher has > come into very wide use there for all kinds of pouring vessels. For us > these were mostly jugs, big ones, little ones, some as big as your > head (like the coconuts). You seem to regard it as a generic term > which could even include a teapot and a gravy boat! But we didn't. And > is the word pitcher also being regarded as slightly vulgar (c.f. also > the jocular comments by W.Weatherall)? Is this the effect of baseball > culture. For me, "pitcher" symbolises rugged honesty, simplicity, or > something like that.
> A teapot is not a jug because it has a spout and is used for tea. Of > course you can make tea in a jug, but you wouldn't, or shouldn't use a > teapot for anything else. (Don't remind of the person who tried to put > the cat in the teapot.)
> Coffee can be made in all kinds of things, but the traditional, > elegant coffee pot with a bulge at the bottom and a long spout is the > closest vessel in form to Kukai's. But evidently I can't call it > Kukai's coffee pot...(though that might have been a better name for > this thread)
> Now my problem is that the writing about pilgrimage has lots of > technical terms and special words in it which will be quite enough for > the reader, the audience is intended to be academic-plus-general. I > won't really be discussing Kukai's coffee-pot as such, and certainly > not as on this thread (!) but I do just need to refer to it in the > course of two-three sentences. In this context it will be neither a > bit of archeaology nor a literary flourish. It will be a reference to > an iconographically depicted ritual object with a long history.
> Ewer is a great word for poetry, so is pitcher, and so is jug. Teapots > and coffee pots, well, that's more Betjeman and the like, I think. But > the broad lip versus the spout means I can't use "ewer" for my > purpose, doesn 't it? > The matter is not central enough to use the Japanese term in my > writing (but perhaps in brackets), let alone the older Sanskrit word > or its transliterations. But now I think I can't use "pitcher", > because of course we Brits always have to think of the North American > readership...
> So for suibyo, I'm now thinking of saying "water jug".
> By the way, I do agree that the ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries are only > of very limited value for those of us on the ei-side of the language > divide. Here's a new Japanese word: ei-saido. Use it to baffle your > friends.
> best wishes
> Michael Pye > Professor of the Study of Religions > University of Marburg, Germany (retired) > Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
> Zitat von "W. J. Higginson" <wordfi...@gmail.com>:
> > Dear Michael Pye,
> > In your most recent e-mail I've seen on this thread, you say:
> > As a poet and translator who has worked in archeology a bit, I would > > strongly urge in favor of "ewer". The word in my experience always > > refers to a fairly large vessel, perhaps a foot or more high, with a > > broad lip, as others have noted, indeed similar to the pitcher that > > accompanies a wash-basin (long before and including "Victorian").
> > While "pitcher" encompasses "ewer", the reverse is not true at all. > > My wife and mother in law have many pitchers, ranging from an inch to > > half a foot tall. None of them is even shaped like a ewer, much less > > the size that I associate with the word.
> > The structure of a lip versus a spout is distinctive, for one thing. > > Pitchers come both ways; ewers seem always to have a lip.
> > In terms of its form, a teapot is a "pitcher". But I doubt anyone > > would suggest that the word pitcher could be substituted for the word > > teapot in a translation without doing a disservice to the reader. > > Similarly with gravy boat versus gravy pitcher; the former has a > > distinctive shape and is used almost exclusively for one purpose, the > > latter could be any handy pitcher used for gravy. For me, the same > > with ewer vs. pitcher.
> > On the various Kenkyusha and other ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries, as I > > have noted in my work in connection with haikai seasonal topics and > > the like, frequently such dictionaries err on the side of either too > > generic a "meaning" for a more specific word, as in this instance, or > > on the side of a common metaphorical meaning rather than the actual. > > (Two cases in point: /kasumi/ is not, technically, "haze"--it's > > "mist", nor is /arare/ "hail"--it's graupel, or, often, "snow > > pellets".)
As a line of Hindu esotericism seems to inform Kukai's Shingon, is it possible that the staff and water pot derive from Indian sadhu traditions?
In Japan one frequently see things said to be Buddhist which seem more connected with Hinduism that Buddhism. I once saw a photo of a Shingon priest meditating with the letters: om sri ram jay ram jay jay ram, in some form of deva nagari on a plaque above his head.
In any case, the standard gear for a wandering Indian ascetic, a sadhu, is a staff, in trident shape if particularly connected with the deity Shiva, and a water pot, usually metal, but based in shape on a gourd, that is with a double bulge. These pieces are common in old depictions and statues of the Shiva, in his role as naked ascetic. I have sometimes wondered, seeing yamabushi and other ascetics in Japan, whether they might not be recipients of this tradition.
In the sadhu lifestyle, the water pot fulfils a number of practical purposes related to the normal uses of water in human life. Of course, these have become ritualized; when collecting water from a river, sadhus generally intone mantra to purify it. Like any piece of traditional equipment, these water pots have also collected symbolic interpretations.
An example of sadhu gear can be seen at this site:
Descriptions of sadhu possessions (and also Shivaite images) usually refer to two or three of the following: water pots, staffs, mantra beads, begging bowls. The striking shape of the water pot is also often mentioned.
Noel Pinnington
On 3/21/08 3:51 PM, "Michael Pye" <p...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> Thanks for these careful comments. Obviously I need to reconsider my > statement "I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer." - > but perhaps not for the reasons you adduce.
> I would like to say "ewer", following Cynthea Bogel's introduction of > it (after I had asked about the "pitcher") and also your guidance. > Indeed it's a very nice word and I'll probably start using it at home > now (though of course I did know it as such).
> About pronunciation (c.f. William Weatherall's comments), I can also > pronounce "a ewer" with a hidden "y-" all right, so that's not an > obstacle in itself; I had just been wondering why the word wasn't in > normal use in my older family, back to my grandmothers, i.e. > throughout the whole of the twentieth century in England. That's where > I grew up and was educated. There was a lot of translation going on in > those times and not a little poetry, so plenty of reason for liking > words.
> Well, in my original post I'd been asking about the function or > symbolic meaning of the vessel in the depictions of Kukai. That was > solved easily enough. Allow me to recall that my purpose is to refer > to this vessel, very briefly, in some writing on pilgrimage because > there is a standard representation of Kukai which appears in many > contexts familiar to pilgrims (and of course ordinary temple visitors > too). In other words, I will be referring to a specific, more or less > stable iconographic element.
> That's where "ewer" gets difficult again, after the your new > reflections. You emphasise that a ewer has a wide mouth, or "a broad > lip". But in the pictures I'm talking about, which must be familiar to > most pmjs persons, the vessel in question doesn't have a broad lip. It > definitely has a narrow spout. Thus, looking at the object itself (and > Toji also has at least one very fine object in three dimensions), the > word "ewer" seems to commend itself less.
> This brings me back to the use of the word "pitcher" in your own > family. It sounds to me as though your wife and mother-in-law possess > a large number of jugs. In my own extended family the word pitcher was > also rarely used, because none of our jugs were big enough to count as > pitchers, in our usage. Pitchers were things one might expect to see > occasionally, in a large farmhouse, an old rectory, etc.. and would be > used for holding and dispensing any liquids drunk in quantity by a > large group (who didn't live at the level of port decanters!). The > word "ewer" was never used in normal speech, being the sort of thing > which people used for water and wine in the ancient near east (i.e. in > our minds).
> Against this background, I wonder if you/your family are well > established in North America, and whether there the word pitcher has > come into very wide use there for all kinds of pouring vessels. For us > these were mostly jugs, big ones, little ones, some as big as your > head (like the coconuts). You seem to regard it as a generic term > which could even include a teapot and a gravy boat! But we didn't. And > is the word pitcher also being regarded as slightly vulgar (c.f. also > the jocular comments by W.Weatherall)? Is this the effect of baseball > culture. For me, "pitcher" symbolises rugged honesty, simplicity, or > something like that.
> A teapot is not a jug because it has a spout and is used for tea. Of > course you can make tea in a jug, but you wouldn't, or shouldn't use a > teapot for anything else. (Don't remind of the person who tried to put > the cat in the teapot.)
> Coffee can be made in all kinds of things, but the traditional, > elegant coffee pot with a bulge at the bottom and a long spout is the > closest vessel in form to Kukai's. But evidently I can't call it > Kukai's coffee pot...(though that might have been a better name for > this thread)
> Now my problem is that the writing about pilgrimage has lots of > technical terms and special words in it which will be quite enough for > the reader, the audience is intended to be academic-plus-general. I > won't really be discussing Kukai's coffee-pot as such, and certainly > not as on this thread (!) but I do just need to refer to it in the > course of two-three sentences. In this context it will be neither a > bit of archeaology nor a literary flourish. It will be a reference to > an iconographically depicted ritual object with a long history.
> Ewer is a great word for poetry, so is pitcher, and so is jug. Teapots > and coffee pots, well, that's more Betjeman and the like, I think. But > the broad lip versus the spout means I can't use "ewer" for my > purpose, doesn 't it? > The matter is not central enough to use the Japanese term in my > writing (but perhaps in brackets), let alone the older Sanskrit word > or its transliterations. But now I think I can't use "pitcher", > because of course we Brits always have to think of the North American > readership...
> So for suibyo, I'm now thinking of saying "water jug".
> By the way, I do agree that the ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries are only > of very limited value for those of us on the ei-side of the language > divide. Here's a new Japanese word: ei-saido. Use it to baffle your > friends.
> best wishes
> Michael Pye > Professor of the Study of Religions > University of Marburg, Germany (retired) > Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
> Zitat von "W. J. Higginson" <wordfi...@gmail.com>:
>> Dear Michael Pye,
>> In your most recent e-mail I've seen on this thread, you say:
>> As a poet and translator who has worked in archeology a bit, I would >> strongly urge in favor of "ewer". The word in my experience always >> refers to a fairly large vessel, perhaps a foot or more high, with a >> broad lip, as others have noted, indeed similar to the pitcher that >> accompanies a wash-basin (long before and including "Victorian").
>> While "pitcher" encompasses "ewer", the reverse is not true at all. >> My wife and mother in law have many pitchers, ranging from an inch to >> half a foot tall. None of them is even shaped like a ewer, much less >> the size that I associate with the word.
>> The structure of a lip versus a spout is distinctive, for one thing. >> Pitchers come both ways; ewers seem always to have a lip.
>> In terms of its form, a teapot is a "pitcher". But I doubt anyone >> would suggest that the word pitcher could be substituted for the word >> teapot in a translation without doing a disservice to the reader. >> Similarly with gravy boat versus gravy pitcher; the former has a >> distinctive shape and is used almost exclusively for one purpose, the >> latter could be any handy pitcher used for gravy. For me, the same >> with ewer vs. pitcher.
>> On the various Kenkyusha and other ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries, as I >> have noted in my work in connection with haikai seasonal topics and >> the like, frequently such dictionaries err on the side of either too >> generic a "meaning" for a more specific word, as in this instance, or >> on the side of a common metaphorical meaning rather than the actual. >> (Two cases in point: /kasumi/ is not, technically, "haze"--it's >> "mist", nor is /arare/ "hail"--it's graupel, or, often, "snow >> pellets".)
I'm touched by people's participation in my verbal sufferings.
Thank you Gabi, but I won't call it a kendi for two reasons.
Ad rem (a): kendi is not an English word. Ad rem (b): the pictures of "kendi" shown in the link you kindly provided are quite diverse and sometimes are glossed with various expressions such as "teapot". Ad hominem: "kendi" doesn't appear at all in the alphabetical index of words in your own "Dharma Museum" (your other link). Why's that I wonder. Perhaps because people have never heard of it and therefore wouldn't look it up?
Thank you Noel Pinnington. The original Indian background of Shingon is undisputed, though partly rather distant. I very much like your expression "water pot". It's so neutral! Wonderful. But the pictures of the sadhu paraphernia blow it away again. They are indeed pots. No spouts.
Oh dear, if I'm not careful I'll end up with "ritual vessel", so useful in many museum glass cases.
But no: my hierarchy currently stands at:
a) water jug (close to suibyo, but - unlike water pot - indicating the pouring facility, for the initiation function)
b) pitcher
c) ewer
d) coffee pot
e) teapot
f) ritual vessel
I'm also thinking about "water dispenser", but people might think it implies some kind of mechanism.
In the meantime I think I'll pop outside and take a look at the Kamogawa waterfalls in the sunshine.
Michael Pye Professor of the Study of Religions University of Marburg, Germany (retired) Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Zitat von Greve Gabi <gokurakuatworldk...@gmail.com>:
>> Thanks for these careful comments. Obviously I need to reconsider my >> statement "I tend to think I can say pitcher just as well as ewer." - >> but perhaps not for the reasons you adduce.
>> I would like to say "ewer", following Cynthea Bogel's introduction of >> it (after I had asked about the "pitcher") and also your guidance. >> Indeed it's a very nice word and I'll probably start using it at home >> now (though of course I did know it as such).
>> About pronunciation (c.f. William Weatherall's comments), I can also >> pronounce "a ewer" with a hidden "y-" all right, so that's not an >> obstacle in itself; I had just been wondering why the word wasn't in >> normal use in my older family, back to my grandmothers, i.e. >> throughout the whole of the twentieth century in England. That's where >> I grew up and was educated. There was a lot of translation going on in >> those times and not a little poetry, so plenty of reason for liking >> words.
>> Well, in my original post I'd been asking about the function or >> symbolic meaning of the vessel in the depictions of Kukai. That was >> solved easily enough. Allow me to recall that my purpose is to refer >> to this vessel, very briefly, in some writing on pilgrimage because >> there is a standard representation of Kukai which appears in many >> contexts familiar to pilgrims (and of course ordinary temple visitors >> too). In other words, I will be referring to a specific, more or less >> stable iconographic element.
>> That's where "ewer" gets difficult again, after the your new >> reflections. You emphasise that a ewer has a wide mouth, or "a broad >> lip". But in the pictures I'm talking about, which must be familiar to >> most pmjs persons, the vessel in question doesn't have a broad lip. It >> definitely has a narrow spout. Thus, looking at the object itself (and >> Toji also has at least one very fine object in three dimensions), the >> word "ewer" seems to commend itself less.
>> This brings me back to the use of the word "pitcher" in your own >> family. It sounds to me as though your wife and mother-in-law possess >> a large number of jugs. In my own extended family the word pitcher was >> also rarely used, because none of our jugs were big enough to count as >> pitchers, in our usage. Pitchers were things one might expect to see >> occasionally, in a large farmhouse, an old rectory, etc.. and would be >> used for holding and dispensing any liquids drunk in quantity by a >> large group (who didn't live at the level of port decanters!). The >> word "ewer" was never used in normal speech, being the sort of thing >> which people used for water and wine in the ancient near east (i.e. in >> our minds).
>> Against this background, I wonder if you/your family are well >> established in North America, and whether there the word pitcher has >> come into very wide use there for all kinds of pouring vessels. For us >> these were mostly jugs, big ones, little ones, some as big as your >> head (like the coconuts). You seem to regard it as a generic term >> which could even include a teapot and a gravy boat! But we didn't. And >> is the word pitcher also being regarded as slightly vulgar (c.f. also >> the jocular comments by W.Weatherall)? Is this the effect of baseball >> culture. For me, "pitcher" symbolises rugged honesty, simplicity, or >> something like that.
>> A teapot is not a jug because it has a spout and is used for tea. Of >> course you can make tea in a jug, but you wouldn't, or shouldn't use a >> teapot for anything else. (Don't remind of the person who tried to put >> the cat in the teapot.)
>> Coffee can be made in all kinds of things, but the traditional, >> elegant coffee pot with a bulge at the bottom and a long spout is the >> closest vessel in form to Kukai's. But evidently I can't call it >> Kukai's coffee pot...(though that might have been a better name for >> this thread)
>> Now my problem is that the writing about pilgrimage has lots of >> technical terms and special words in it which will be quite enough for >> the reader, the audience is intended to be academic-plus-general. I >> won't really be discussing Kukai's coffee-pot as such, and certainly >> not as on this thread (!) but I do just need to refer to it in the >> course of two-three sentences. In this context it will be neither a >> bit of archeaology nor a literary flourish. It will be a reference to >> an iconographically depicted ritual object with a long history.
>> Ewer is a great word for poetry, so is pitcher, and so is jug. Teapots >> and coffee pots, well, that's more Betjeman and the like, I think. But >> the broad lip versus the spout means I can't use "ewer" for my >> purpose, doesn 't it? >> The matter is not central enough to use the Japanese term in my >> writing (but perhaps in brackets), let alone the older Sanskrit word >> or its transliterations. But now I think I can't use "pitcher", >> because of course we Brits always have to think of the North American >> readership...
>> So for suibyo, I'm now thinking of saying "water jug".
>> By the way, I do agree that the ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries are only >> of very limited value for those of us on the ei-side of the language >> divide. Here's a new Japanese word: ei-saido. Use it to baffle your >> friends.
>> best wishes
>> Michael Pye >> Professor of the Study of Religions >> University of Marburg, Germany (retired) >> Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
>> Zitat von "W. J. Higginson" <wordfi...@gmail.com>:
>> > Dear Michael Pye,
>> > In your most recent e-mail I've seen on this thread, you say:
>> > As a poet and translator who has worked in archeology a bit, I would >> > strongly urge in favor of "ewer". The word in my experience always >> > refers to a fairly large vessel, perhaps a foot or more high, with a >> > broad lip, as others have noted, indeed similar to the pitcher that >> > accompanies a wash-basin (long before and including "Victorian").
>> > While "pitcher" encompasses "ewer", the reverse is not true at all. >> > My wife and mother in law have many pitchers, ranging from an inch to >> > half a foot tall. None of them is even shaped like a ewer, much less >> > the size that I associate with the word.
>> > The structure of a lip versus a spout is distinctive, for one thing. >> > Pitchers come both ways; ewers seem always to have a lip.
>> > In terms of its form, a teapot is a "pitcher". But I doubt anyone >> > would suggest that the word pitcher could be substituted for the word >> > teapot in a translation without doing a disservice to the reader. >> > Similarly with gravy boat versus gravy pitcher; the former has a >> > distinctive shape and is used almost exclusively for one purpose, the >> > latter could be any handy pitcher used for gravy. For me, the same >> > with ewer vs. pitcher.
>> > On the various Kenkyusha and other ei-wa and wa-ei dictionaries, as I >> > have noted in my work in connection with haikai seasonal topics and >> > the like, frequently such dictionaries err on the side of either too >> > generic a "meaning" for a more specific word, as in this instance, or >> > on the side of a common metaphorical meaning rather than the actual. >> > (Two cases in point: /kasumi/ is not, technically, "haze"--it's >> > "mist", nor is /arare/ "hail"--it's graupel, or, often, "snow >> > pellets".)
W. J. Higginson and others are making very interesting attempts to delimit and relate the semantic ranges of ewer and pitcher, among other candidates for what Michael Pye understandably wants to call something immediately transparent in English.
While it is extremely important to map how all contending words appear to differentiate or conflate elements like lips, spouts, mouths, necks, handles and the like -- or functions like storage, dispensing, drinking, or washing or sprinkling or dabbing for whatever purpose, including ritual -- isn't this focus on what to call the vessel drawing attention away from the real protagonist in the silent drama represented in Dr. Pye's pictures? Not the vessel we see, but what it holds? That wonderful community of molecules so essential to life that people press it into the service of purification as well as hydration, while neighbors, tribes, and nations are known to kill for it?
Presumably "water ewer" would be redundant, whereas "water pitcher" would clarify. If so, then why not dub the vessel in question a "ewer" in English, then also refer to it as a "water pitcher" or "pitcher of water"? Then save the more esoteric commentary, on what it might be called in other languages and why, for a footnote in a publication that would welcome and tolerate such detail?
Mr. Higginson's analysis, by the way, makes it possible to anthropomorphize ewers and pitchers characterologically and even behaviorally -- in terms of their thick necks, big mouths, lip service, and spouting off.
Just back from a pilgrim tour to Takahashi, Yakushi-In. Apart from the
most beautiful cherry blossoms, I found a statue of a "Koyasu
Daishi" , standing with a baby on his arm. Usually when standing,
Daishi sama wears his pilgrim sandals.
But on this statue, on a relief below the figure, we can see his
priest shoes and the "ritual water vessel" in stone. So I think this
is quite an amazing statue of a barefooted Daishi.
Before I noticed the shoes on the relief, I realized the kundika
vessel, because of the discussion here in this forum. Otherwise it
might have compeltely slipped my attention!
If anyone has a good cup of tea ready and about 20 minutes time for a
real Japanese hanami, start from here, maybe take the slide show!
Special Treat, best weather, all mankai in Western Japan, Takahashi
and Fukiya Bengara Mura !
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grevegabi4000/sets/72157604558224862/
Well, thanks for this interesting version. I suppose that if the wish is to show his usual accessories, then the shoes have to be off, whatever else he's doing... This is where you get to the rough edges of stylised iconography, perhaps. By the way, I have recently noticed that the (vessel) sometimes has a handle and sometimes doesn't. This is probably an example of a completely accidental iconographic detail (just sloppy painting or folksy pottery), or do I get any differing takers on that? :)=
best wishes,
Michael Pye Professor of the Study of Religions University of Marburg, Germany (retired) Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Zitat von Darumasan <gokurakuatworldk...@gmail.com>:
> Just back from a pilgrim tour to Takahashi, Yakushi-In. Apart from the > most beautiful cherry blossoms, I found a statue of a "Koyasu > Daishi" , standing with a baby on his arm. Usually when standing, > Daishi sama wears his pilgrim sandals. > But on this statue, on a relief below the figure, we can see his > priest shoes and the "ritual water vessel" in stone. So I think this > is quite an amazing statue of a barefooted Daishi. > Before I noticed the shoes on the relief, I realized the kundika > vessel, because of the discussion here in this forum. Otherwise it > might have compeltely slipped my attention!
|
