My friend Beijing was in Tokyo for a conference. I wanted to take him over to see the famous Confucian temple, Yushima Seido (湯島聖堂), so after an unforgettable lunch with Beijing's truly unforgettable friend, I-Sensei, the three of us headed over to Ochanomizu. The temple is located not far from the university hospital where we take Adonis for his eye treatment. After some bad news, about three months ago, we wandered over to the temple, but that day I was just worried and stressed and the truth is, I hardly looked around at all (I just wanted to go home). The stark black building, however, had stuck in my mind, and I knew I definitely wanted to show it to Beijing. I-Sensei seemed to like the idea, and taking full charge of everything, we headed off by taxi.
I am sure Beijing would agree that Yushima Seido is quite unique-- as far as Confucian temples go. The most impressive Confucian temple I have ever seen was in Tainan (considered the Kyoto of Taiwan). The Tainan Confucian Temple is very old and really very beautiful. Maybe because of its long history or because of the more southern climate, but my impressions of the place are more concerned with the gardens which were full of people drinking tea and children playing than the architecture. When I was there, there was just so much activity going on.
In contrast, Yushima Seido is actually rather imposing, silent and somehow cold or inaccessible. Painted a rich shade of black, the building itself, I-Sensei explained, was designed by one of Japan's most famous modern architects, Chuta Ito. (The original Edo period structure had been destroyed in the fires resulting from the Kanto earthquake).
Beijing wondered, why is it black? Indeed, the color is what leaves the strongest impression. I-Sensei immediately questioned the lady in charge of the ticket counter who informed us that originally the building had been painted vermilion but that the red reminded the local residents of the fire that had taken so many lives so it was decided to paint the new temple black instead. I-Sensei pointed to the figures decorating the roof and said, "Where in Japan would you ever see figurines like that on the roof?" Looking up, sure enough there were gargoyles like you would see on Nortre Dame looking down at us.
**
Walking up the stairs toward the gate, Beijing asked me (with what could possibly have been a mischieveous look in his eyes) how things were going on the blogs the past view days. I told him that I am still not crazy about his preference for Ivanhoe's translation of 徳 as "moral power," and I went on to tell him about Shirakawa's take on the origins of the character; basically re-iterating my comment here:
徳: first taking the kanji apart: we have → "straight" (直)+ heart/mind"(心) + "go"(行)
Hence: move with straight heart; move from the natural 直 disposition of one's heart (which you will notice is actually saying "moral force" only if you equate morality not with universal moral law but rather with an intuitive sense that humans have).
Shizuka Shirakawa, by the way, was Japan's leading expert on the etymology of the Chinese characters via his research on oracle bone script. The wikipedia article on the origins of the character 徳 was based on Shirakawa's work:
白川静によると甲骨文字では大きな目の上に装飾をかぶった形であり、司祭王の目による呪力で土地を抑えることを意味し、それがやがて統治者としての資質や自然万物を育成する力を表していったと考えられる。
According to Shirakawa, in the oracle bones script, the character was written as a large "eye" with a decorative head-gear signifying the magical power (mystical force) of the early shaman kings who had the power to control earth. In later times, the kanji came to signify the force that a ruler had to cultivate resources and nurture and draw out 自然万物.
Beijing immediately complained: Well obviously the sage kings were using their mystical power to control earth in a "moral" way, right? I tried to ask him how he would define moral, but unfortunately we had arrived at out destination.
**
What is interesting is that at this exact moment when the three of us were stepping into the Hall of the Confucian Temple in Tokyo, on the other side of the galaxy-- far, far away-- a certain Manyul Im was writing a blog post on On de 德 and se 色. Taking issue with the standard translation of 色 as sex (see Talking to Beijing), he says:
I think se 色 really can’t mean something as narrow as sex or lust; its meaning is much broader, expressing a broader more central concern in the Analects. The “sex” translation seems flat out wrong for the following reasons. There really isn’t any independent evidence that sexual license was a temptation Confucius worried over. Nor does it seem that concubinage was an option for anyone other than the emperor or possibly a very powerful warlord (any ancient Chinese concubinage experts should correct or corroborate me on this). This line of translating seems to be a projection of much later genres of moralizing texts onto the Analects. But those issues about sexual desire and practice don’t really determine the issue as much as consideration of a more central concern for Confucius. In Analects 2.8 Confucius uses se in a context that I think is much more helpful in setting our understanding of se in the right direction:
子夏問孝。子曰:“色難。有事弟子服其勞,有酒食先生,曾是以為孝乎?”
“Zixia asked about filial piety. The Master said: ‘[Mere] appearances (se) are the difficulty. With matters to be tended, younger brothers or sons offer their service; with drink and food one partakes in order of birth. Can this really be filial piety?’”
I think this is representative of a concern that Confucius has throughout the Analects with contrasting mere, or rote, behavior that mimics real filial piety (or righteousness, benevolence, ritual, etc) and genuine possession of those characteristics. It’s his concern that the “form” of such activity be filled out with deeper content or correct context. I think that transfers also to distractions that form a category of “surface” pleasure. Appreciation of beauty, in particular, is not a mere surface pleasure for Confucius. So translation of se as ‘love of beauty’ also makes a mistake–the real trouble for Confucius is not appreciating beauty; instead it is enjoying “cheap” delights that merely mimic appreciation of beauty.
As I mentoned in the comments to his post, I am in no position to go against the orthodox interpretation of this reading when it is so overwhelmingly unified (that is to say, that the English, Japanese and Chinese that I've seen so far all agree that 色 should be translated here as romance or sex) So, what can I say? At the same time, I am very much of the same mind with Manyul that --indeed-- Confucius probably was NOT concerned with sex, romance or beauty as being "dangers" which the virtuous man must avoid. This is not Stoic philosophy-- nor is it Victorian sensibility, after all.
That is probably my main point over these several posts (and perhaps it is Manyul's as well?)
What is most probably at issue is rather: Mere outward forms (形→色) versus 徳 (inner commitment?) This, by the way, I think very much supports Sam's translation of 徳 as "integrity."
In the end, Manyul and I came up with this translation:
"It is rare to find a man who pursues virtue over mere outward appearances (of such virtue)” for 9.18/15.13.
For those who may be interested, I also summarized Shirakawa's presentation of the origins of the term (徳)from his book, 孔子伝 here (mainly for Scott since he asked and honestly, I am guessing that for you all-- the experts-- there really is not much of interest so far). Shirakawa's presentation, however, does back up both the understanding of Confucian Virtue as "integrity" as well as "moral power." In fact, after reading it, I would have a hard time choosing between those two translations
I myself am going to stick with "Confucian Virtue" as a translation for 徳.
**
Tokyo.
In Japanese, he would be called a "man who dwells above the clouds." Beijing's friend, I-Sensei, is like nobility ("the elite of the elite"). He also is a really nice guy, and taking us to a favorite restaurant of his for lunch, he ordered all the best delicacies for Beijing and me to try.
Did I mention that Beijing is very adventurous?
He didn't blink an eye when I-Sensei pushed a plate of "sea cucumber intestines, marinated" in front of us, and when I refused, Beijing said: "What are you just off the boat?"
I told him, I never do intestines. (I don't and I won't)
Well, sure enough this morning I woke up to an email from I-Sensei which ended with a mild scolding: 食は冒険です。("Food is about adventure") and he then extemporized a "humble aphorism:"
小生の格言: 人間とは、その人がこれまで食べてきたものの総体である。
"A human being is the sum total of everything they have eaten up till that time"...
Now, I ask you: what would Confucius say to that?
**
Here is a video of the Yushima Seido taken in summer (you can hear all the cicadas in the background). When we were there it was cold and overcast, but the plum tree in the courtyard was just starting to bloom.
**
For those interested in participating in the 2nd reading group, Chris put up all the information at his place: Reading Group II: Fingarette's Confucius-- the more the merrier!
Perhaps I will continue this conversation with Beijing in Beijing in March...
In the meantime, here is a question that I posed somewhere along the way in this discussion (I think at Manyul's place): what would a Confucian-derived perspective have to say about sexuality in our own age? I am imagining that the more open and public expressions of sex (movies, prostitution, etc.) that are so common in the US and Japan and elsewhere would be understood by a latter-day Confucian (and remember: I do not consider myself a Confucian) as crossing some moral line. And perhaps that line is precisely what you and Manyul are talking about when translating "se". Sex has become commodified and "cheap" (we can even think of this in economic terms: the oversupply of sexual imagery cheapen it...). There is a "surface" and distracting quality about it: too often sex is pursued outside of the continuing maintenance of social relationships. Whatever 9.18/15.13 might have meant in Confucius's own time, in our age it might well translate as: "It is rare to find a man who pursues Integrity over mere sex."
And, finally, as to what Confucius might say to I-Sensi, 7.16 comes immediately to mind:
The Master said: "Poor food and water for dinner, a bent arm for a pillow - that is where joy resides. For me, wealth and renown without honor are nothing but drifting clouds.
Didn't Yen Hui get by on thin gruel? No intestines there....
Posted by: Sam | February 13, 2009 at 06:26 AM
Don't laugh Sam, but I consider myself a kind of Confucian lady--with an existentialist bent of course! So I shall take a stab at your question (though, really, I think you will get a more interesting response chatting to Beijing in Beijing).
First, I am not at all convinced that sex is more open or more commodified in our age that it has been in the past. That sex is used to sell other products (like everything) is probably new, I am not convinced, however, that sex as commodity is new-- nor am I convinced that there is a cheapening of sex in our age. Actually, I think maybe that nothing much has changed.
Remember the Ally McBeal scene when she has sex with a man in a carwash that she doesn't know? Is that kind of behavior new to our age? I doubt it... And maybe you will have a different answer to this, but every single time I have ever told a man that sex without love holds absolutely no interest to me (not because of any moral reason but just that it is quite simply something that doesn't appeal to me), every single man has told me I am "dead wrong"-- that sex without love is *very interesting* One friend recently said, quoting Woody Allen, "as far as experiences without meaning go, it doesn't get better than that"... Because no man has ever agreed with me, I just cannot help but wonder if what you call "cheap" sex is just not as old as time.
And quite honestly, I am not even sure Confucius would have much to say about it as I do not think he saw sex as a distraction in the way you are suggesting.
When we look around and perhaps see people overly concerned with material possessions or the unending parade of amusements (an over-concern with having fun); coupled with a lack of commitment to their *extended* families (not to their spouse but to parents) or to communities (volunteering, being active members of *their* neighborhood) no matter how I look at this, I do not see sex as being even the slightest factor in contributing to this.
But, of course, this is not to say that Confucius is advocating "mere sex" just that, like Manyul, I no longer see this passage as making any sense the way it is being translated unless it is the way I approached it at the very, very beginning (which Chris quite strongly disagreed with)....
....drifting clouds
Posted by: Peony | February 13, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Peony, your episode with the intestines turned into some food for thought for me ...
I have long wondered how two neighboring countries, India and China (East Asia in general), can have such astonishing differences in their approach to animals. I think it is due in good measure to the different conception of humans in the two realms. The ancient Indians saw humans not as a unique creation but as part of an integrated web of being. This was reflected in their myths and the idea of reincarnation, where humans were seen as just one type, albeit a coveted type, of creature that a soul may come to inhabit as it migrated from life to life. Such a conception of the living world naturally promoted respect for all life and the idea of non-violence and vegetarianism (particularly for Jains and some Buddhists and Hindus), making the ancient Indians perhaps the first people to extend a de facto right to life to animals.
On the other hand, the moral compass of the Confucian canon is humanistic -- centered on human cultivation and social relationships -- and it didn't really care for animal welfare (not that it was actively against it). While Mencius advocated kindness toward them, animals were categorically distinct from humans and decidedly subservient to human interests and desires. This I think helps explain the lack in the Confucian tradition of notable moral injunctions against treating animals as means to human ends -- paving the way for the eager consumption of their guts over polite conversation.
Of course, the dominant Western (including Greek, Christian, Modern) conception of animals is hardly better, and not the least because some elemental but flawed strands of the Greek worldview are still with us today.
Posted by: Namit | February 13, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Hi Namit,
Those mountains are so tall and they divide such really different approaches to life, don't they? You have so much more experience in both cultures so I probably couldn't add very much to the conversation, I'm afraid. But like you said, as incredibly philosophically abstract as the ancient Indians were (and maybe current day Bengali intellectuals still are?), the Chinese have been just as intensely rational→ practical. Even the ancient Chinese concept of the divine (tian) was not really like a god like you would find in India (or Greece), but rather it was a non-anthropomorphic "heaven," which was believed to have certain powers. But even these powers, or divine will 天意, were tempered by the powers of humans 民意 (that is influence worked both ways). So that the concept of 革命 (revolution) was built right into the concept of 天命 (heavenly mandate) right from very ancient times (it's pretty unique if you think about it. In Europe, for example, dynasty changes often occured without reference to poular will 民意 but in China dynasty change = 革命).
So just as you said, their "philosophy" was very, very rational and humanistic (humancentric)-- and yes, practical. And this probably had everything to do with food their practices. Did you happen to listen to part 2 of the philosophers zone program I recommended when we were talking about human rights (the show with Martha Nussbaum)? She brought up some aspects of this: how Indian philosophy about animals has influences legality and human/animal rights in India. Nussbaum, by the way, has thought very deeply about these issues (animal rights) and is herself a vegetarian. Though she does eat fish. She gave her reasons for eating fish and then said she was still open to thinking about even this decision.
The elegant food that the elegant I-Sensei was offering, by the way, was the intestine of a sea cucumber see "konowata"
I just don't like intestine-- internal organs, tongue, etc.
When I was in India, I think I could eat everything, but well, I don't don't really remember anything that I couldn't tolerate since I love vegetables and curries so much.... and, of coures, I love so many Indian sweets-- and coffee and tea was so delicious there too.
Writing this kind of made me hungry :) We're having ramen noodles and gyoza (god only knows what is ground up in the gyoza too!)
And I'm sick so am having korean yuzu tea.
How 'bout a cuppa tea?
Posted by: Peony | February 13, 2009 at 06:45 PM
Athena sends an email remarking on the color of the temple:
"Yushima Seido: STARK BLACK.
The picture of it was lovely, lively,thrilling in color to me. It looked like a really WONDERFUL INK STICK! ...with all the nature elements that go into those sticks, the secret/prized recipes for them, the tradition of grinding ink, the calligraphy, the poetry & the meanings that come from writing... Mrs. Lee would not let her students use anything but ink and brush for the lst 2 years of study. "If you cannot paint with skill or power in black and white, then adding any touch of color will certainly be nothing of gain." And as the artists say: "Black is the Queen of Colors."
Exactly. In fact, because Beijing and I had been talking about traditional colors the day before after both being impressed by the gorgeous shade of a purple kimono while watching kabuki, I wanted to ask him how he would describe the shade of black of the temple. I was drawn between 墨 (charcoal, or really the color of black ink as ink sticks are called in japanese o-sumi; or sumi-e for ink drawings) or was it 玄?
I have writtn about the elusive color 玄 in this post to which Bill bravely tried to help me with my translation: how to differentiate 玄 from black? While his translation was quite awful, he had a lot of interesting things to say about the color (as everything he says is always worth reading).
In any event, I wanted to ask Beijing about the different shades of black in China to try and figure out which shade best described the temple. Well, with Athena's email, the puzzle has been solved. She is never wrong and so it must be charcoal-- or the color of an ink painting.
See this post to find out how the court painter responded to this topic: painting horse hooves fragrant on returning from trampling flowers,’ in black ink??
**
Finally, Namit, I embedded the tea wallah video in the post...you've been down in chennai haven't you? I have not been south of Delhi-- maybe someday...
Posted by: Peony | February 13, 2009 at 09:49 PM
Most definitely sumi ink stick… When I was in art school, I always preferred ink stick to the usual India ink one could purchase in bottles. (Of course being a bit on the lazy side I would always use bottle ink for larger projects.) Aside from the calming effect of grinding the ink, there is the amazing aroma of japanese ink sticks . India ink always had a somewhat unpleasant, slightly acrid smell while the sticks always reminded me a bit of resinous incense. (Of course, since I haven't used an ink stone in thirty years, that could be an imagined memory…)
The black building is indeed striking however I'm not quite sure why the red color would remind people of a fire & the charcoal color not evoke the aftermath of a blaze…
I don't do intestines either.
Posted by: M.W.Nolden | February 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Hi MW!
I also loved to grind the ink (in calligraphy practice not painting). Like you said, the preparation is very calming and the fragrance of the ink stone comes in waves as you prepare the ink and the whole process is incredibly pleasant, isn't it? In Japan, students also used liquid ink that comes in bottles but it is all Japan-produced and I would say it lacks any smell whatsoever.
When Athena mentioned all the natural elements in the ink, I recalled a translation I did about 6 months ago on Chinese sumi ink sticks and went back to check but I think I must have cut all the details out of the english version because I felt it was just too much detailed/technical information in English. I seem to remember, though, that the Chinese ink was made of very few ingredients and that sumi-e painters worked with only a small variety of different inks. Just pine-resin, tung oil-- what else?
Have you read John Cage's Color and Culture? I have beeb wanting to read it for quite sometime (recommended by our Conrad). I wonder what he has to say about black-- do you know? Conrad did track down the book on the myth of Helen of Troy, by the way, and it just arrived. I am looking forward to reading it.
Hope all is well there. I have caught a terrible cold, have a fever which is causing all sorts of "peonica bad moods".... :)
Agreed about the smoke too-- that is why I was curious about Cage's take on black.
Posted by: Peonica feeling badly | February 14, 2009 at 02:31 PM
I'm intrigued by the Gage "Color & Culture". No, I haven't read it. I tend to miss books like that since I inevitably gravitate to art monographs with lots of pictures…I always seem fixated, at least initially, with the 'how' (appearance/process) rather than the 'why' (meaning/cultural context). Naturally one can't separate the two & begin to fully understand the object but often (We have established that I am a bit lazy & disorganized…) I never manage to follow up on the 'why' part. The fortuitous thing about working in a museum is that one sort of picks things up by osmosis; the information is all around you & since most curators love to talk about their collections, eventually it just gets imprinted…
Hope you're feeling better.
Posted by: M.W.Nolden | February 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Hi MW,
Thank you for the moon! And, I really think one of these days we should read Gage's book. Have you ever read, Elaine Scarry's book, On Beauty Beijing recommended it, and so I picked up a copy and read it yesterday (it's very short) collapsed in my futon miserably sipping plum wine all day.
I wonder if Conrad's read it? He seems to have his hands rather full thees days-- do you have any idea what is being discussed? It's like a foreign language...
Anyway, I would be so curious to hear what you think of Sacrry's book. I may try and write a Post on it, or may just think about it and email you later. It is definitely worthwhile reading-- very beautifully written. More soon!
Posted by: Peony sick with a cold | February 15, 2009 at 04:19 PM
That tea video was great. That's exactly how tea should be had by all civilized peoples of the world. (Brits: take note.)
Thanks for the Nussbaum reference. I found it, though it would have been easier if you had a "Search" feature on your otherwise awesome blog. Hope you're feeling better.
Posted by: Namit | February 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Thanks Namit! I agree about tea in India. Mark my words: starbucks is the end of civilization (and it there where I have drawn the line!) You know, I think tea in Kashmir was actually most wonderful.
And, I know, I know... but those instructions for the google search box were really complicated. You practically would need an advanced degree in computer science (which I believe you have) to even decipher your instructions, you know!
After you listen to the program, tell me what you think, ok? I am actually really interested in reading Nussbaum's Poetic Justice . Have you read it?
OK, I have this other India-related video that our pal Bill sent back in December to cheer me up out of another gloomy mood-- I will upload it to my next post. You will love it, Namit. I can just hear your complaints aready too! :)
Posted by: Peony sick with a cold | February 16, 2009 at 01:03 PM