Michizane's Chinese
Noel Pinnington
Is this view current? I seem to remember getting a rather different impression of Michizane’s Chinese from Robert Borgen’s book.
Would there have been much loss of face, anyway? He could certainly write without difficulty.
Noel Pinnington
Robert Borgen
Brian Steininger
a scholar of kanji "on'yomi" phonology, concludes (based on how
pronunciation was studied at the Court University) that though his
pronunciation and vocabulary would have been quite archaic and literary,
Michizane could still have managed a sort of "pidgin Chinese" were he to
attempt it.
Brian Steininger
Richard Bowring
looking at Wikipedia for information. Or has a student quoted it and
he is just checking up?
Seriously though, this comment of Ivan Morris quoted by whoever wrote
the entry is obviously just flailing around in the dark for a random
answer. A more obvious answer is that Michizane had seen the long-
range weather forecast and decided to stay at home rather than risk
his neck at sea.
Richard Bowring
Robert Borgen
regarding how Chinese pronunciation was taught at the court
university, at least in Michizane's day. In his poetry, he does refer
to a teacher whose name certainly appears to be Chinese, hinting that
the university retained the earlier practice of having someone from an
immigrant family teach Chinese pronunciation. Accordingly, he might
well have had some idea of how the things he wrote would have sounded
in Chinese and so might also have been able to speak a little. How
well his Chinese hosts would have understood him is another matter.
Although I like to think of the Heian court as being less "closed"
than some have suggested, the number of Japanese from that period who
travelled overseas--and left traces of their journey for us--is
small. Some clearly indicated that they communicated in writing. I
haven't come across mention of any who were embarrassed by their poor
command of the spoken language. As Richard Bowring has noted, Ivan
Morris was probably using his imagination and inadvertently
demonstrates that a short lively piece is more likely to become a
source for wikipedia authors than a long boring one.
Robert Borgen
edward moreno
Some of us would find that the "short lively piece," (65 pages long) in The Deity of Failures-is quite clear. The young Michizane with his brilliant knowledge of Chinese composition, prosody, and calligraphy was in his element, says Ivan Morris, who, BTW has never written a single “long boring piece.” So it looks like Michizane was able to rhapsodize and even prosodize in Chinese. The remark about his fears of possible ridicule at the Chinese Court, due to his linguistic (in)ability is followed by the more revealing sentence: Besides, Michizane may have had a perfectly human fear of the practical dangers of the journey. Under the conditions ruling at that time, ANYBODY with just a little common sense might have shaken in his tabi or whatever he wore, moe than a little at the idea of having to go to China, neh?
Wikipedia sometimes manages to simplify things a little bit too much… If you don’t believe it, ask Charles Keally.
Ed Moreno (from the galleries, as usual)
Robert Borgen
Some of us would find that the "short lively piece," (65 pages long) in The Deity of Failures-is quite clear. The young Michizane with his brilliant knowledge of Chinese composition, prosody, and calligraphy was in his element, says Ivan Morris, who, BTW has never written a single “long boring piece.” So it looks like Michizane was able to rhapsodize and evenprosodize in Chinese. The remark about his fears of possible ridicule at the Chinese Court, due to his linguistic (in)ability is followed by the more revealing sentence: Besides, Michizane may have had a perfectly human fear of the practical dangers of the journey. Under the conditions ruling at that time, ANYBODY with just a little common sense might have shaken in his tabi or whatever he wore, moe than a little at the idea of having to go to China, neh?
Michelle Li
| I greatly appreciate your wonderful and engaging book on Michizane: Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court. Michelle --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Robert Borgen <rbo...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
ING...@aol.com
"I greatly appreciate your wonderful and engaging book on Michizane: Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court."
James Guthrie
V/R
James Guthrie
James Guthrie
JG
From: rcg...@hotmail.com
Michael Pye
This may be a variety of an unease I expressed once before, but
(regardless of Wiki etc.) I don't quite understand what methodology is
available for the consideration of the motivation of persons who lived
hundreds of years ago with respect to things which they didn't do. -
Unless their own thoughts on the matter are recorded, that is.
Michael Pye
Professor of the Study of Religions
University of Marburg, Germany (retired)
Numata Visiting Professor (2009), SOAS
(Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan)
Zitat von James Guthrie <rcg...@hotmail.com>:
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/
> >
>
robin d. gill
天満天神 砂糖よりあまみつ神のいますこそ 山蜂多く有馬なるらめ 行風
satô yori amamitsu kami no imasu koso yamabachi ôku arima naru rame kôfû
sugar-more-than sweet-water/honey=heaven-filling gods’ are esp. hornet many have=arima is
Tenman Tenjin (Sugawara no Michizane) Shrine
Sweeter than sugar our Heaven-filling Honey-God must be why
deep in the Arima hills we see so many hornets in the sky.
The preface’s Tenmantenjin天満天神Heaven-Filling-Heaven-God is the 心霊divine-spirit of Sugawara no Michizane, a 9c poet-scholar and minister of state and short for his shrine, one of many found throughout Japan. One must like a poet who liked Taoism (his name, Michizane 道真 is literally “road-truth,” and one poem begins “To avoid noisy places is my nature, / yet I love the gurgling of a stream” (Carter trans.) and regret his death “from a broken heart” at age 53. His legendary reputation as an ill-used but loyal minister and fear of his vengeful spirit because many who conspired to get him banished had tragedies after his death gained him extraordinary posthumous honors and numerous shrines out of proportion to anything he accomplished. His spirit and shrine name was pronounced in the Chinese manner, Tenjin, but Kôfû, the editor of the first really great kyôka anthology and the section of a huge kyôka baedecker that treated the aristocrats’ favorite vacation place, the spas of Arima, chose a Japanese pronunciation, Amamitsu, to gain the pun on sky-filling=amamitsu=sweet-honey to explain the hornets, apt for his vengeful spirit, too! (i see i have no date above: maybe 1678 or 82)
With apologies for not a word about his in/ability in Chinese, and to anyone whose computer cannot read japanese, 敬愚
--
"Rise, Ye Sea Slugs!"
Noel Pinnington
Michizane not do something, but why he did - that is, why did he write the
proposal to abandon the mission to China.
The reasons Michizane gave in that proposal seem to me perfectly adequate
and appropriate. Danger from the journey had always been there, but now the
civil chaos in China meant that even members of the mission who arrived were
not likely to be taken care of; the emperor was not in his court in any
case; and no other missions were being received.
There are indeed questions to be asked why a mission should have been
planned in the first place and why Michizane was named for it. We can
speculate on the politics of that, but I see no reason at all to doubt the
motives for his proposal as he clearly states them.
My guess is that Ivan Morris found it amusing to belittle Michizane with
that slightly orientalist dig about losing face. I think it is a pity that
Wikipedia ends up presenting Michizane as a trivial figure rather than a
fine scholar who fell foul of court politics.
NJP
Ross Bender
However, since we have the distinguished author of the biography online, I would like to inquire as to the basis for interpreting Michizane's name as a "Daoist" name. I don't have my copy of the book handy, but I seem to recall that although Michizane is said to like Daoist themes and to occasionally write "Daoist" poetry, there is not all that much hard evidence for things Daoist in early Heian.
"To avoid noisy places is my nature, and yet I love the gurgling of a stream" seems to me as much a "Shinto" poem as a "Daoist" one, unless there is textual evidence of quotation or other reference to specifically Daoist Chinese poetry.
I was looking at a very interesting map (p.93) of Chang'an in Mark Edward Lewis' recent "China's Cosmopolitan Empire: The Tang Dynasty" and it is striking how full the city was of Daoist temples. Compare Nara or Heian-kyo and there's absolutely no comparison -- Daoism simply never established the sort of institutional presence it had in China.
There is a lamentable faddish tendency, which I've complained of before, to find Daoism everywhere in ancient Japan, whereas the evidence is so thin as to be almost imaginary. At the same time it is absolutely taboo to use the word "Shinto". Fie!
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org
Richard Bowring
something that has been worrying me for some time. Part of the
problem is the all-inclusive use of the term, which in fact covers a
multitude of sins. I have read recent books by Bialock and Ooms with
great admiration and excitement since they both fill in a set of
obvious lacunae in my own 'Religious traditions', but we have to be
careful as to how we use the term. By the Tang there was something we
can call an organised Daoist religion in China with a priesthood, but
this kind of thing was never accepted in Japan and, as we all know,
Shinto replaced Daoism in the common 'Confucianism+Buddhism+X'
triad. There can be no doubt that many Daoist elements to do with
geomancy, superstition, and other esoteric levers of power were used
at court but to call this Daoism given entirely the wrong impression
of what was going on. No Daoist temples in Heiankyo indeed. I feel we
need another word for this.
Richard Bowring
Mark Schumacher
Taoism is alive and well in modern Japan, but it has been dressed in
Buddhist
garb for many many centuries, and people forget. Star worship, Zodiac
worship, Big Dipper worship, all the many Star mandala associated with
celestial worship, Koushin (Monkey) worship, epitomized by Sannou at Mt.
Hie
(the stronghold of Tendai in Japan), etc. etc. There are many many many
examples of Taoism in modern Japan that are dressed in Buddhist garb.
Taosim should not be so easily dismissed. The Mitsui Museum in Tokyo
recently held a wonderful exhibition, with over 400+ Taoist pieces, with
170
devoted to the gods and goddesses of Taoism (in Japan), star worship, and
numerous star mandala. Regretably, their web site advertising the exhibition
is no longer online. The exhibit's catalog was wonderful (I bought a copy),
but I don't know if it can be purchased online or offline. I will make
inquiries.
http://www.mitsui-museum.jp/english.html
mark in kamakura
Mark Schumacher
A-to-Z Dictionary of Japanese Buddhist Statuary
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/buddhism.shtml
Buddhist Statuary Store http://www.buddhist-artwork.com
Matthew Stavros
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Matthew Stavros
www.mstavros.com
www.pmjs.org
[The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 legalizes warrantless
wiretaps on US citizens. Messages sent to or from this
account (mstavros) may be under surveillance.]
JL Badgley
Well, does the yin-yang divination (Onmyodo) fit the bill here at all?
It seems to include most of the various religio-scientific ideas that
were combined in the Han syncreticism and were blended with the native
kami worship.
I think the issue with considering it Taoism is the question of
whether it was coming across as such. I'd rather say that Taoism
co-opted the same concepts that came across and influenced Shinto. I
think later on you could say that Taoism came across, especially with
later sects of Buddhism (perhaps most famously with Zen Buddhism), but
did you originally have the idea of Dokyo coming over?
-Josh
Mark Schumacher
I would say so, yes, as do many other elements
of modern buddhism in japan.
yin-yang
five elements
12 zodiac signs
28 lunar mansions
monkey worship
three worms, nine parasites
ten kings of hell
koshin worship
myoken bosatsu (big dipper)
the list is endless.........
Did it come across as Taoism, or was it co-opted
with similar concepts in Shinto (as you ask), or Shugendo,
or whatever......that I cannot say.
mark
Nobumi Iyanaga
On Sep 25, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Mark Schumacher wrote:
> Taosim should not be so easily dismissed. The Mitsui Museum in Tokyo
> recently held a wonderful exhibition, with over 400+ Taoist pieces,
> with
> 170
> devoted to the gods and goddesses of Taoism (in Japan), star
> worship, and
> numerous star mandala. Regretably, their web site advertising the
> exhibition
> is no longer online. The exhibit's catalog was wonderful (I bought
> a copy),
> but I don't know if it can be purchased online or offline. I will make
> inquiries.
>
> http://www.mitsui-museum.jp/english.html
That exhibition is now being held at Osaka Metropolitan Museum
(大阪市立美術館), from September 15th to October 15th. And then
it will go to Nagasaki in January 2010 (from January 23rd to March
22nd, at Nagasaki rekishi bunka hakubutsukan). The exhibition in
Osaka is the biggest, because of the space. See:
<http://taoism-art.main.jp/concept.html>
The exhibition catalogue, 2500 yens, can be purchased from 東方
書店 in Kanda. You can buy it online too:
<http://www.toho-shoten.co.jp/toho-web/search/detail?
id=9900008321&bookType=jp>
This is really an epoch-making exhibition.
Best regard,
Nobumi Iyanaga
Tokyo Center of EFEO
David Pollack
> I feel we need another word for this.
I'd somehow imagined that onmyōdō was the appropriate word? The
office of Onmyō-ryō was established under the Taihō Code within the
Naka-no-tsukasa-shō, with duties separate from those of the Kami-
tsukasa, etc etc. But how these and perhaps other offices developed
and were mixed with other systems of practice and organization in
subsequent centuries is clearly a complex issue. And how this
systematizing cuts across and/or organizes the prerogatives and
practices of early families such as the Inbe, Nakatomi and Urabe must
add greatly to the complexity.
David Pollack
bdl...@princeton.edu
Dear All,
A few thoughts on the Daoism issue:
First, I think we need to be cautious with statements such as "(Daoism) has been dressed in Buddhist garb." Obviously, there is something much more complex going on here. Daoism itself, as it came into being in medieval China, drew on traditional Chinese symbols and practices including many of the one's in Mark's list. Things like big dipper worship or five elements may have been important to medieval Chinese Daoists, but should not necessarily be considered inherently Daoist. Moreover, as Christine Mollier's work has recently shown Buddhists and Daoists appropriated and plagiarized from one another so heavily that it is difficult to identify broadly shared practices as uniquely Buddhist or Daoist. Although some things (like taking refuge in the three jewels) may be considered inherently Buddhist, we should be very cautious to assume that all practices and cultic beliefs can smoothly fall into one camp or the other. By the time Buddhism entered Japan, it already had incorporated so many continental (and "Daoist") elements that it does not make much sense to use normative Indian definitions of Buddhism to assess whether Japanese practices are "Buddhist" or not.
Second, we need more clarity in the definitions that we use when we speak of Daoism in Japan. As Michael Como describes in detail in his most recent work (the relevant passage on xiv-xv can be downloaded at http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/books/comoWeavingIntro.pdf; I also must confess that I have only read the introduction at this point), Japanese scholars and Western Sinologists employ rather different definitions of Daoism. For the former, Daoism is a catch-all category that includes just about any "popular" (another frustratingly problematic term) continental practice. For scholars such as Strickmann, Seidel,and others, however, Daoism is social institution based on ritual lineage that trace their roots back to the Celestial Master. Using this more rigorous definition it is hard to see how Daoism existed in early Japan independent of such institutions. Sinologists have struggled with this issue of the relationship between Buddhism, Daoism, and popular religions for some time and scholars of Japan would do well to pay attention to these recent debates. For some of the more important recent studies, see the works of Bokenkamp, Mollier, Nickerson and Verellen, as well as the classic studies by Zurcher, Seidel, Sivin, Stein, and Strickmann (I can give more detailed bibliographical information to anyone who is interested).
Finally, I would suggest that the question should not be whether Daoism existed in Japan or not, but rather what do we have to gain by using the term Daoist. For me, I see very little pragmatic reasons to use the term, as it seems to imply a coherent religious system that surely did not exist in Japan and also masks the activities of more important actors on the religious stage (such as the immigrant lineage groups that Michael Como studies and the Buddhist clergy who also employed many "popular" Chinese practices). I find that using more precise terms such as diviners/divination, astrologers/astrology, exorcists/exorcism, etc. to be more useful than imposing the umbrella term Daoist/Daosim over a broad set of practices that were held in common by several traditions and by ritual specialists functioning independent of any tradition.
I would be equally suspicious of the term Onmyodo and this was discussed in detail at the recent Onmyodo conference at Columbia, but that is a whole other issue that I will leave to other more competent scholars.
Those are just my scattered thoughts on the issue, but I would be particularly curious to hear what others have to say about what the benefits are of using the term Daoism versus the more narrow terms suggested above and how the use of the term Daoism helps our understanding of early Japan.
Best,
Bryan
On Fri 25/09/09 7:17 AM , Mark Schumacher m...@onmarkproductions.com sent:
JL Badgley-san
I would say so, yes, as do many other elements
of modern buddhism in japan.
yin-yang
five elements
12 zodiac signs
28 lunar mansions
monkey worship
three worms, nine parasites
ten kings of hell
koshin worship
myoken bosatsu (big dipper)
the list is endless.........
Did it come across as Taoism, or was it co-opted
with similar concepts in Shinto (as you ask), or Shugendo,
or whatever......that I cannot say.
mark
Ross Bender is concerned about Daoism in early Japan. This is something that has been worrying me for some time. Part of the problem is the all-inclusive use of the term, which in fact covers a multitude of sins. I have read recent books by Bialock and Ooms with great admiration and excitement since they both fill in a set of obvious lacunae in my own 'Religious traditions', but we have to be careful as to how we use the term. By the Tang there was something we can call an organised Daoist religion in China with a priesthood, but this kind of thing was never accepted in Japan and, as we all know, Shinto replaced Daoism in the common 'Confucianism+Buddhism+X' triad. There can be no doubt that many Daoist elements to do with geomancy, superstition, and other esoteric levers of power were used at court but to call this Daoism given entirely the wrong impression of what was going on. No Daoist temples in Heiankyo indeed. I feel we need another word for this. Richard Bowring
Well, does the yin-yang divination (Onmyodo) fit the bill here at all? It seems to include most of the various religio-scientific ideas that were combined in the Han syncreticism and were blended with the native kami worship. I think the issue with considering it Taoism is the question of whether it was coming across as such. I'd rather say that Taoism co-opted the same concepts that came across and influenced Shinto. I think later on you could say that Taoism came across, especially with later sects of Buddhism (perhaps most famously with Zen Buddhism), but did you originally have the idea of Dokyo coming over? -Josh
Kristina Buhrman
On Sep 25, 2009, at 6:48 AM, David Pollack wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:51 AM, Richard Bowring wrote:
>
>> I feel we need another word for this.
>
> I'd somehow imagined that onmyōdō was the appropriate word? The
> office of Onmyō-ryō was established under the Taihō Code within the
> Naka-no-tsukasa-shō, with duties separate from those of the Kami-
> tsukasa, etc etc. But how these and perhaps other offices developed
> and were mixed with other systems of practice and organization in
> subsequent centuries is clearly a complex issue.
I'd like to voice some hesitation before we make the onmyōdō =
Japanese Daoism argument. And "onmyōdō" (at least as found in mid-
Heian onward) is not necessarily what the Onmyō-ryō was tasked with.
The main duties of the Onmyō-ryō were timekeeping (water-clock and
calendar), and interpretative (divination, "official onmyōji" and the
reading of signs in heaven and earth, the "tenmon" specialty). The
major divination for the onmyōryō by mid-Heian was the Riu Jin
divination (Six Elder Water), which as far as I know in China, was not
exclusively associated with Daoism. The major "observational
astrology" texts were the Weft Texts, which again: I have a feeling
that forcing these into the Daoist category is a bit of violence to
them.
As a side note on the ritualist aspect that is a major part of
"onmyōdō" (or "religious onmyōdō") from Heian into Kamakura: some
of the rituals look like they might come from Dong Zhongshu (the 火祭
for example)--and in that particular ritual's case, the first instance
I've yet found was performed by the Jingikan under order of the court.
And the Kamakura Bakufu sometimes ordered star worship, with rituals
with the same name performed in tandem by onmyōji and monks.
As Bryan Lowe (apologize if I have the name wrong) wrote, the use of
the term "Daoism" in Western Sinology has become rather circumscribed.
It is also my impression that "Confucianism" is likewise being called
into question.
I do wonder about what abandoning the "major religions of Japan" label
do to our studies, in both benefit and harm.
Apologies for muddying the water further.
Kristina Buhrman buh...@usc.edu
Ph.D candidate, Japanese history
Department of History
University of Southern California
Joseph Elacqua
this." Like Strickmann, Seidel, and many others, I feel that the term
"Daoism" should indicate practices that originated from Zhang Daoling.
Before that, Daoism (as far as we can tell) was never an organized
"religion" (or "ism" for that matter), per se. I would even go as far
to use terms such as "Laoist" of "Zhuangzist" to indicate the previous
textual tradition, just for the sake of clarity if nothing else.
But then, if this is the case, what do we call elements that existed
(c.f. Mark Schumacher's list) prior to Zhang Daoling's "Daoism"?
Well, it seems obvious to me that these various elements were
*originally* no more a part of Buddhism than they were of Zhang's
Daoism. Many of them began (at least with some evidence) as
independent ideas, but were amalgamated into the *entire* Chinese
religious system, both Buddhist and Daoist. These elements arguably
were derived from neither (Zhang's) Daoism or Buddhism, and should
therefore be treated as such when dealt with by scholars.
Moving towards Japan, I feel the same sentiment as has been expressed
prior. We have no evidence of the Daoist religion (e.g. Zhang Daoling
or any later religious movements) in ancient/early Japan. We do have
evidence of several Schumacher's elements as utilized in Japan, but
INDEPENDENTLY of the Daoist religious tradition. This is where
Onmyōdō comes in, applying various uses of yin-yang/wuxing theory as
an organized body unaffiliated with mainland Daoist traditions.
It is fairly clear for many reasons (lack of religious organization,
lack of evidence of textual tradition......) that Onmyōdō does *not*
equal Japanese Daoism, nor was it ever trying to. It merely signifies
the most visible appearance in Japan of elements that Western scholars
mis-labeled as "Daoist." This seems to me as even more crucial
evidence for the fact that elements such as the ones listed by Mark
Schumacher should certainly be treated independently from "Daoism" as
many of them indeed predate Zhang Daoling's religion. I haven't gone
much beyond yin-yang and wuxing in my studies, but I would certainly
classify their traditions as wholly separate from Buddhism and
"Daoism," regardless of whether we're talking about China or Japan.
Thoughts, comments, criticisms?
-- Joseph P. Elacqua
Columbia University
David Pollack
Japan - as noted, it isn't even clear what it might have been in Tang
China, in the old contrast with "confucianism" (itself really only
conceivable in the later "neo-confucian" synthesis), various
buddhisms, and folk practices and "superstitions" at all levels, not
to mention the role of "daoism" in the almanac, astrology, divination,
local belief, alchemy, diet, sex, art, poetry, military tactics and
strategy, etc etc.
I was only thinking that however various strands of these contemporary
ideas entered Japan, they must have been quickly appropriated and re-
appropriated, sythesized, organized and re-organized, distributed and
redistributed, and put to various uses. Little wonder that various
bits and pieces of it should end up scattered around in different
offices and places.
It's a bit like our attempt to imagine the state of Michizane's
"Chinese" - studied and memorized, "read" (silently? aloud? in what
readings?), spoken (in what vernacular?) and chanted (how?), written
(on which calligraphic models?), and extemporized on formal and less
formal occasions - which can be understood from different points of
view: his contemporary and family status and reputation in its
institutionalized study and use, and whatever he and others might have
imagined the Chinese reaction to it would have been, or perhaps even
known on the basis of how continental personages with whom he might
have come into contact did react. The perils of civil society and
government in 894 China was a plausible enough reason to cancel a
mission (a trip I was to make to China several years ago was canceled
because of SARS), not to mention the horrors reported by Ennin nearly
half a century earlier. And it seems likely that the pursuit of
kangaku had become sufficiently Japanized by Michizane's time to have
replaced any actual "China," rendering it moot and making the arduous
journey there an unprofitable notion, especially for someone with such
high stakes in the Great Game.
David Pollack
Martha McClintock
museum exhibition catalogues in Japan. He supplies most of the major
overseas museums/universities with catalogues and easily ships within
Japan and worldwide.
contact Joe for this catalogue and others as needed!
grins
Martha McClintock (disclaimer, I also translate for the Mitsui Museum
on occasion, though not for this exhibition).
Joe Seubert, Geibundo:
geibundo...@yahoo.co.jp
Mark Schumacher
After reading all your comments (thanks), my head is spinning.
Are you saying that Daoism (Taosim) is a useless term, one
without teeth, one we must throw out and instead
use phrases like yin-yang divination? That seems like
throwing out the baby with the bath water.
JL Badgley
>
> Dear PMJS Colleagues
>
> After reading all your comments (thanks), my head is spinning.
> Are you saying that Daoism (Taosim) is a useless term, one
> without teeth, one we must throw out and instead
> use phrases like yin-yang divination? That seems like
> throwing out the baby with the bath water.
>
identify "What is Taoism?" and then "What is everything else?"
"Taoism" would, to me, at least require the concepts of Laozi, and
then you have institutional Taoism which would indicate the actual
organization(s) that sprang up much later. On the other hand, we have
all of these separate beliefs (5 elements, 12 zodiac signs, etc.) that
had been brought together into a single concept in China, forming the
basis of much of the scientific theory, but I'm not sure what to call
them all as a group.
I think it may also behoove us to remember that the concept of "Tao"
("Dou") does not, in and of itself, define Taoism, since Confucius
often discusses "the Tao", as do many other philosophers. Thus, we
really need to define how "Taoism" is separate in its focus on the
nameless Way from other philosophies and religions.
-Josh
Michael Pye
I have been appreciating the increasingly discerning comments on this
subject. It might interest professional Japanologists to know that one
or two things, even if they (now) seem obvious, have gradually
crystallised as common-place in "history of religions" quarters:
i) One should beware of "reifications" and "essentialism". These are
deadly sins.
ii) There are many pitfalls in "category formation" in the history of
religions.
iii) But. It's OK to refer to "philosophical Daoism" (Lao Tse and
Zhuang Tse), as being somewhat distinct from other early Chinese
classics.
iv) It's OK to speak of "organised Daoism", since Zhang and Co, which
involved setting up centres of operations (temples).
v) Organised Daoism has had a long and visible, if chequered history
in China and among overseas Chinese.
vi) The relations between organised Daoism and other religious
traditions has always been a bit complicated (some might say chaotic).
vii) Even while avoiding "essentialism", it's not appropriate just to
refer to all or any elements of Chinese thought, dominant or popular,
as "Daoism". Such elements (fengshui etc.) don't have to be called
anything, even if you can get a fengshui compass at a shop near a
temple...
So when it comes to Japan the main point is that there has been and is
little if any organised Daoism there in the sense in which the term
can be used for China. On the other hand there are many elements of
Chinese culture, yin-yang thought, five elements, feng-shui thinking,
astrology etc.. which Japanese evidently could not do without and
therefore readily adopted and adapted in the context of both
"Buddhism" and "Shinto" - which have indeed both been organised in
various ways since early times in Japanese history. Hence the
widespread and not inappropriate perception that Shinto effectively
takes the place of Daoism in "three teachings" theory for Japan.
Or something like that....
Michael Pye
Professor of the Study of Religions
University of Marburg, Germany (retired)
Zitat von JL Badgley <tats...@gmail.com>:
Robert Borgen
started and an interesting conference was being held at Berkeley. As
a result, I haven't been following discussion as attentively as I
might have. Here are some belated (and rather vague) comments:
1. Ross Bender suggested that, despite claims to finding Daoist
themes in Michizane's poetry, there is little evidence of Daoism in
early Japan. Actually, there is plenty of evidence right in
Michizane's poetry. He often alluded to Zhuangzi and perhaps Laozi
too, although my recollection of the latter is uncertain. I suspect
one would find such allusions in other Heian kanbun literature,
although I haven't read widely enough to say that with confidence.
Daoism in early Japan deserves more attention. On the other hand:
2. Michael Pye's comments are right on the mark. A few years ago, at
a conference in Tokyo, a scholar from Taiwan gave a paper on Daoist
influences in The Tale of Genji. The word used for "Daoism" was, as I
recall, "Doukyou" (道教, or Daojiao). Afterwards a Japanese scholar
objected to the term. Apparently a Japanese academic organization had
banned the term on the grounds that it was meaningless. One was
required to use more specific terms such as "Lao-Zhuang
thought" (RouSou shisou 老荘思想--do we have a word for that in
English?), "immortals thought" (shinsen shisou 神仙思想--another
word that's hard to put into English), or one of several other more
precise terms. His comments seemed a bit absurd--telling a Chinese
scholar that a Chinese word she had used was unacceptable?--but his
point was well taken, for reasons Michael Pye has explained.
Robert Borgen
Joseph Elacqua
> After reading all your comments (thanks), my head is spinning.
> Are you saying that Daoism (Taosim) is a useless term, one
> without teeth, one we must throw out and instead
> use phrases like yin-yang divination? That seems like
> throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I'm not saying the term Daoism is useless. I'm asking what use a
label is if it only serves to confuse rather than clarify, as labels
are meant to do. I think we all need to establish when exactly
"Daoism" became an (organized) "ism" and then simply re-label
everything that came before that (e.g. yin-yang thought, five elements
thought, Huang-Lao thought, Lao-Zhuang thought......) in an attempt to
reorganize the confusion that clearly exists on the subject. Only
then can we figure out whether there is any true presence of "Daoism"
in early Japan.
One of the problems with coming up with a universal definition for the
term Daoism is that it already means (occasionally vastly) different
things for different people. I guess that since asking at least the
entire Western scholarship community to agree on a single definition
is out of the question (coincidentally, there are very similar debates
on the definition of Shintō), perhaps the only way around this is for
us all to shoehorn our own definitions of Daoism into whatever mediums
we use to distribute our ideas. Though not an ideal solution, at
least it will keep confusion to a minimum.
-- Joseph P. Elacqua
Columbia University
P.S. -- Professor Pye, could you please explain what you mean by
"reifications" and "essentialism"? As a master's student, I'm still
somewhat of a newbie to this field.
Michael Pye
> P.S. -- Professor Pye, could you please explain what you mean by
> "reifications" and "essentialism"?
reification: inventing a clearly defined object out of a slippery
pattern of cultural elements, unjustifiably turning it into a
"tradition" or a system of some kind, beyond what the current
realities will really warrant.
essentialism: investing a religious tradition with a presumed
"essence", which can then be pursued and perused down the pages of
history, while all the time the said tradition is developing and
shifting among the vagaries of social and cultural change.
But others may have more subtle definitions or references, which I
can't look into just now.
I might add that I personally resist these critiques just a little
bit, because those who are themselves involved in the transmission of
a religious tradition do tend to presuppose that it has a coherent and
identifiable character, so that this is itself part of the factuality.
Moreover, such persons do often have some reasons for their
understanding of their own tradition, which should not be altogether
scorned. So it's easy to overshoot with these critiques, as has been
happening just a bit in recent studies of Shinto, it seems to me.
Concerning Daoism in Japan on the other hand, the points evidently
need to be taken to heart rather more.
best wishes, Michael Pye
Michael Pye
Professor of the Study of Religions
University of Marburg, Germany (retired)
Mark Schumacher
Thanks again for all your comments. But there is something still gnawing away
inside my head about Daoism (Taoism) and its treatment by scholars of
Japan's religious experience.
>From my perspective as an amateur art historian (one who has spent over
fifteen years cataloging Japanese statuary and artwork), I must express my
growing astonishment at the numerous examples in Japan of Taoist-influenced statuary,
mandala, lacquered boxes, etc., many featuring Taoist themes like the immortals or the
island of the immortals or the gods of Taoism like General Kanu (Guan Yu), the
inclusion of Fukurokuju and Jurojin (Taoist gods) among the seven lucky deities of Japan,
the association of the ten kings of hell with Taoist concepts, etc. etc. (Again, I heartily
recommend the ongoing exhibition at the Osaka Metropolitan Museum entitled
Taoist Art. http://taoism-art.main.jp/compose.html)
BUT what astonishes me more is the preceived lack of attention given to Taoist influences
in Japan by scholars of Japanese religion. Yes, I agree, Taoism was never an institutional
force in Japan nor were its concepts systematically imported by the Japanese -- but yet,
there are many indiciations that Taoism did in fact filter into the Japanese religious orbit,
that it did in fact color and influence various Buddhist/Shinto practices. So I've got some
questions that I hope someone at PMJS can answer -- and help clear up this gnawing in my head.
- What are considered the best English (or Japanese) resources on
the topic
of Daoism in Japan? There are many monographs, like the wonderful papers
of Livia Kohn, and the Daosim Handbook (edited by Livia) with a chapter
by Masuo Shinichiro entitled "Daoism in Japan." There is also "The Worship
of Stars in Japanese Religious Practice (ed. Lucia Dolce), but this latter work
only talks about Daoism in passing, and attributes star worship mostly to the
traditions of Esoteric Buddhism. In any case, is anyone doing seminal work
on Daoism in Japan these days? Is there any systematic study available that
focuses on Daoism in Japan?
- Is Daoism in Japan a dead topic among young new scholars in Japan
and
the West? If yes, why? If no, who/where are the people/places to contact?
- Is the ongoing exhibition of "Taoism Art" at the Osaka
Metropolitan
Museum
really an epoch-making event, as says Nobumi Iyanaga at the Tokyo Center of EFEO?
I think so, yes. Or, on the other hand, is it a clumbsy attempt at what Prof. Pye calls
the deadly sins of "reification" and "essentialism?" The gist of most comments
thus far on this PMJS Daoism thread (in my mind) suggest the latter. Am I mis-reading?
Are most of you saying: "No, we cannot classify things like this as Daosim. We don't even
have a clear definition of the term Daoism. More time and research is needed."
of Taoism in China and Japan. I am not up-to-date with recent work in this field, and
like many scholars of Japan's religious experience, I have focused on Buddhism. But
Daoism begins to gnaw away.
sincerely
mark
Taoism is alive and well in modern Japan, but it has been dressed in Buddhist garb for many many centuries, and people forget. Star worship, Zodiac worship, Big Dipper worship, all the many Star mandala associated with celestial worship, Koushin (Monkey) worship, epitomized by Sannou at Mt. Hie (the stronghold of Tendai in Japan), etc. etc. There are many many many examples of Taoism in modern Japan that are dressed in Buddhist garb. Taosim should not be so easily dismissed. The Mitsui Museum in Tokyo recently held a wonderful exhibition, with over 400+ Taoist pieces, with 170 devoted to the gods and goddesses of Taoism (in Japan), star worship, and numerous star mandala. Regretably, their web site advertising the exhibition is no longer online. The exhibit's catalog was wonderful (I bought a copy), but I don't know if it can be purchased online or offline. I will make inquiries. http://www.mitsui-museum.jp/english.html mark in kamakura
That exhibition is now being held at Osaka Metropolitan Museum (大阪市立美術館), from September 15th to October 15th. And then it will go to Nagasaki in January 2010 (from January 23rd to March 22nd, at Nagasaki rekishi bunka hakubutsukan). The exhibition in Osaka is the biggest, because of the space. See: <http://taoism-art.main.jp/concept.html> The exhibition catalogue, 2500 yens, can be purchased from 東方 書店 in Kanda. You can buy it online too: <http://www.toho-shoten.co.jp/toho-web/search/detail? id=9900008321&bookType=jp> This is really an epoch-making exhibition.
of modern buddhism in japan.
yin-yang
five elements
12 zodiac signs
28 lunar mansions
monkey worship
three worms, nine parasites
ten kings of hell
koshin worship
myoken bosatsu (big dipper)
the list is endless.........
Did it come across as Taoism, or was it co-opted
with similar concepts in Shinto (as you ask), or Shugendo,
or whatever......that I cannot say.
Joseph Elacqua
> of Daoism in Japan? There are many monographs, like the wonderful papers
> of Livia Kohn, and the Daosim Handbook (edited by Livia) with a chapter
> by Masuo Shinichiro entitled "Daoism in Japan." There is also "The Worship
> of Stars in Japanese Religious Practice (ed. Lucia Dolce), but this latter
> work
> only talks about Daoism in passing, and attributes star worship mostly to
> the
> traditions of Esoteric Buddhism. In any case, is anyone doing seminal work
> on Daoism in Japan these days? Is there any systematic study available that
> focuses on Daoism in Japan?
There seems to be a new movement in English-language research on
Japanese religion and history to uncover much about Daoist (and other,
e.g. yin-yang, wuxing, etc.) influence in Japan. Currently, the two
best books I could recommend on this topic have I believe already been
mentioned in this topic. They are David Bialock's "Eccentric Spaces,
Hidden Histories: Narrative, Ritual, and Royal Authority from The
Chronicles of Japan to The Tale of the Heike" and Herman Ooms's
"Imperial Politics and Symbolics in Ancient Japan: The Tenmu
Dynasty." Both of these studies have much to say on Daoist (etc.)
influence in early Japan and are highly recommended. I have both a
feeling and a hope that these are just the tip of the iceberg, paving
the way for future studies on Daoism (etc.) in Japan.
> Is Daoism in Japan a dead topic among young new scholars in Japan and
> the West? If yes, why? If no, who/where are the people/places to contact?
It probably depends on whom you talk to. There has been a boom in
studies of Onmyōdō (influenced by yin-yang/wuxing, etc,, but not
seemingly related to either philosophical or religious Daoism) in
Japan over the last two decades or so, and the publications that
doubtlessly resulted in part from this phenomena are far too many to
name----as is a list of their authors. As for young scholars on
Japanese Daoism in the west, I hope to join their ranks soon, but as
I'm still a Master's student, I still have a good amount of work ahead
of me. I'm sure there are other Japanese Daoism (etc.) scholars out
there though --- if any of you are out there, feel free to chime in!
> Is the ongoing exhibition of "Taoism Art" at the Osaka Metropolitan Museum
> really an epoch-making event, as says Nobumi Iyanaga at the Tokyo Center of
> EFEO?
> I think so, yes. Or, on the other hand, is it a clumbsy attempt at what
> Prof. Pye calls
> the deadly sins of "reification" and "essentialism?" The gist of most
> comments
> thus far on this PMJS Daoism thread (in my mind) suggest the latter. Am I
> mis-reading?
> Are most of you saying: "No, we cannot classify things like this as Daosim.
> We don't even
> have a clear definition of the term Daoism. More time and research is
> needed."
I think it's more epoch-making in the fact that generally,
non-scholars only see Japanese religion as either Buddhist or Shintō,
and the conception of "Daoist" (whatever it may mean) never seems to
enter their minds. In that sense, even though I have not seen the
exhibition, I would certainly agree with Iyanaga-sensei. While it is
painfully true that there is no clear definition of the term "Daoism,"
at the end of the day, "Daoism" remains still a label, and the
exhibition still presents a world that at the very least attempts to
be outside the Buddhist and Shintō realms, while inside the realm of
Japan. The fact that we in the West disagree about what the term
"Daoism" implies doesn't make the exhibition any less real or
effective.
I hope that helps.
-- Joseph P. Elacqua
Ross Bender
If we are to talk about "Daoism" which was obviously present in "Early Japan", it seems to me that two things at a minimum are necessary:
1) To say very specifically what one means by "Daoism" -- is one referring to Chinese astrological concepts, the calendar, five elements, the poetry of Chuangzi, the Dao De Xing, quests for immortality, use of elixirs, sorcery, magic, demons, Celestial Masters, certain scriptures, Pure Conversation, Dark Learning, the five seasons, geomancy, rhabdomancy? If the answer to this question is "all of the above", that is a totally meaningless classification, or lack of one.
2) To specify precisely what period one is discussing, perhaps even down to the decade. Quite obviously, data found in the Tenmu record in Nihon Shoki is quite different from data found in various decades of the Nara period, "early, mid- or late- Heian", or whenever. For example, Abe no Seimei was apparently some sort of Daoist but he is quite a late figure in the history of "Early Japan".
The tendency, it seems to me, has been to throw out the vague label "Shinto" in favor of the equally or even more miasmic label "Daoist". As we go along, hopefully we are developing a much more nuanced and useful picture of religious thought and practice in ancient Japan.
Nobumi Iyanaga
On Sep 28, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Mark Schumacher wrote:
> Is the ongoing exhibition of "Taoism Art" at the Osaka Metropolitan
> Museum
> really an epoch-making event, as says Nobumi Iyanaga at the Tokyo
> Center of EFEO?
> I think so, yes. Or, on the other hand, is it a clumbsy attempt at
> what Prof. Pye calls
> the deadly sins of "reification" and "essentialism?" The gist of
> most comments
> thus far on this PMJS Daoism thread (in my mind) suggest the
> latter. Am I mis-reading?
> Are most of you saying: "No, we cannot classify things like this as
> Daosim. We don't even
> have a clear definition of the term Daoism. More time and research
> is needed."
> Mind you, the problem in my head might be "my own inadequate
> understanding"
> of Taoism in China and Japan. I am not up-to-date with recent work
> in this field, and
> like many scholars of Japan's religious experience, I have focused
> on Buddhism. But
> Daoism begins to gnaw away.
The introduction in the exhibition catalogue, by Saitoo Ryuuichi
clearly states that in organizing this exhibition, the curators and
other people who helped them deliberately adopted a vague or
ambiguous definition of "Dookyoo": they conceived it as having in its
core, an institutionalized religion like Buddhism, but with unlimited
borders, including all kinds of elements of Chinese popular religion
(p. 11b of the catalogue).
Returning to Buddhism itself, we can say almost the same thing. I
take an example: some ten years ago, I wrote two long articles on the
Japanese medieval myth of King Maara of the Sixth Heaven, thinking
that I was writing on Japanese development of Buddhist mythology. But
the same myth was studied as an important myth of medieval Shinto.
Now, what was Shinto in medieval times? Was it a Japanese development
of certain aspects of Buddhism? But can we say that these aspects of
Buddhism were "really Buddhist"? Here comes at point the criticism of
"essentialism". In other words, it is impossible to define "the
Buddhism", or, probably any other cultural phenomena, which evolve in
history...
The exhibition of Daoist Art seems to me "epoch-making" in the sense
that it reveals that so many Japanese religious phenomena could have
traces of Chinese influences having at their core something clearly
and closely related to Daoist ideas. We all knew that Onmyoodoo, for
example, was based on mainly Chinese elements; we all knew that there
were many Chinese elements in Buddhist texts imported in Japan. But
when all these things are gathered in an exhibition, we are given a
new, strong incentive for new studies in a certain direction.
Japanese studies always tend to be limited to Japan; but this
exhibition clearly shows that if we don't try to look at Chinese
phenomena, we would not understand Japanese things... It opens a new
perspective in our study field...
This does not clarify things. But I think this is nearer to the reality.
M. Jamentz
>
>
> >
>
>
Hello All,
I have found the discussion on Daoism in Japan quite interesting and
wish to offer a few thoughts on the problem.
In regard to the question of the existence of Daoism in Japan, I suggest
looking carefully at the primary sources that we study to examine how,
or if, Japanese writers in various periods used the terms that might be
judged the equivalent of Daoism.
As the number of searchable online primary texts increases, what was
once an extremely daunting task has become somewhat easier.
I had not been interested in this problem except in the context of the
interaction of Onmyoudou and Esoteric Buddhist practice and late-Heian
Confucian writing. I know that many will not accept even the existence
of the latter, but I believe contemporary use of terms such as /judou/,/
jusha/, and/ daiju/ in primary source is evidence to the contrary. I
wonder if such equivalents for Daoism and Daoists can be discovered in
Nara and Heian writings. I am somewhat skeptical about that possibility,
but my skepticism may simply be the result of a previous lack of
interest in the question of Daoism in Japan.
I do not wish to suggest that if the Japanese of any given period did
not use a term, the phenomenon to which it refers did not exist in
Japan. We cannot be limited by the ignorance of the people we study.
After all, the people living at the time didn’t even realize that they
were living in the Heian period, but I would not argue against using the
term “Heian period.” However, if it were demonstrated that contemporary
Japanese writers did not employ the term /doukyou/, or equivalents, then
our treatment of the term Daoism when writing about the history of Japan
needs to be done very carefully.
The following example may demonstrate what I see as the problem and the
difficulty in dealing with it. Pre-modern Japanese had no conception of
a week as a unit of time. However, when writing about Japanese funerary
practices, a period of seven days is a fundamental marker of the passage
of time. Written from the lofty perspective of the historian, a
statement such as “a memorial service was then held one week later for
the prince” is unproblematic. Yet, to the extent that we attempt to
convey the thinking of, for example, a Heian courtier as reflected in
his writing, I think we should avoid using a sentence such as “Michinaga
sought to delay the first-week memorial service.” I can’t claim to
always follow my own suggestion because observing such distinctions is
difficult and often results in confusing and unnatural English.
For me the problem can be summed up in the following.
Many, many weeks passed during the Heian period, but the people living
in Heiankyou never realized that even one had slipped into the past.
When they looked at a painting of a Daoist immortal, did they recognize
it as such?
Best,
Mike Jamentz
Michael Pye
Greetings. Your points are very apposite, as it seems to me. Just one
small comment on the closing example though. If it is anachronistic or
culturally inappropriate to refer to a "week" (a concept which
ultimately derives from the Genesis creation myth I presume), then it
would be possible to refer to the "seventh day memorial service"
wouldn't it? This would still be preferable with reference to Japan
today. Often there is a simple solution just round the corner.
I hope the Kamogawa is flowing nicely!
Michael Pye
Professor of the Study of Religions
University of Marburg, Germany (retired)
Visiting Professor, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan
Scheid, Bernhard
I see your point, but we have to be even more careful. According to my limited knowledge of Heian religion, Kukai not only wrote the Sangô shiiki, a treatise where he compared the "Three teachings", i.e. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism, he is also credited with the transmission of the concept of the seven yô (planets) and the practice to count the days accordingly, which seems to have existed as a specialist knowledge since then in Japan... Gerhard Leins, a German scholar of Japanese history, once gave a talk on that with the beautiful title "What did Michinaga on Sunday?"
Best
Bernhard Scheid
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pm...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pm...@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von M. Jamentz
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2009 06:54
An: pm...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: [PMJS] Re: Daoism in Early Japan
