User talk:Aristophocles

RE: BUSHIDO

NOTE TO ALL USERS INTERESTED IN THIS ARTICLE

First of all, Masaru, I think we're all grateful for the time you've put into this article, and the painstaking presentation of your sources. It's really helpful to know where you're coming from and why the article has come out the way it has. No one on this site should be attacking you for all the sources you've included - it may be a little cumbersome, but that's not a big problem.

What IS a problem is that Wikipedia is by nature a corporate enterprise. There are alot of people interested in this article and interested in putting forth what they think is a more balanced view of Bushido. If you disagree with them, that is completely fine; even so, the nature of wikipedia is that when everyone puts in their own take on an issue, what comes out is the most balanced article possible. I think some of the frustration we see in this talk page is that it seems like one person is monopolizing a page that should be accessible to change by all. The people who want to edit the page are not attacking you, they just want to make the article more readable or a more balanced introduction to someone not familiar with the topic.

The criticism that Nick, Bradford and I have leveled is that Bushido is something that changed over time. Just because warriors during Sengoku quoted the classics doesn't mean that Bushido was something that had existed unchanged since the ancient period. What it meant to be a warrior was being reinterpreted in the medieval and early modern period. Whether or not this is a completely "invented" tradition, the way Bushido is talked about in the Edo period is often at variance with the way actual warriors acted in the ancient and medieval periods.

The sources I'm talking about are the work that has been done in the last few decades (most of the secondary scholarship on this page only goes up to the 1970s) by Martin Collcutt, Thomas Conlan, Cameron Hurst, and general history by Jeff Mass and his group. These scholars have looked at documents from the medieval period (for example, the picture scroll of Takezaki Suenaga) and concluded that up until the Edo period, most warriors did not really practice loyalty to their lords in battle. Often they would switch sides, or even refuse to fight, if they thought they would not be rewarded properly. This is one of the things that happened at Sekigahara.

If other people interested in this site agree, I'll post on this talk page some comments and references that can be put into the main article later. Please respond to this note (in a good-natured way) if you have anything to contribute to this discussion.

Thanks! Aristophocles (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

HURST AND CONLAN MADE UNFOUNDED STATEMENT IN ORDER TO DRAW ATTENTION AND SELL BOOKS. THEY HAVE AN AGENDA. THEY MADE FOOLS OF THEMSELVES IN PUBLIC AND HURST, I THINK IT WAS, QUOTED FLAWED SOURCES.

WHEN RESEARCHERS DREDGED UP THE REMAINS OF THE MONGOL FLEET, THEY FOUND UNEXPLODED BOMBS--SOMETHING CONLAN SAID WERE PHONY OR LATER ADDITIONS TO THE MONGOL INVASION SCROLLS. HECK, EVEN I WOULD NEVER MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE SCROLLS.......

http://www.archaeology.org/0301/etc/kamikaze.html

Volume 56 Number 1, January/February 2003 RELICS OF THE KAMIKAZE Excavations off Japan's coast are uncovering Kublai Khan's ill-fated invasion fleet. BY JAMES P. DELGADO

"In his recent book In Little Need of Divine Intervention, which analyzes two Japanese scrolls that depict the Mongol invasion, Bowdoin College historian Thomas Conlan suggests that a scene showing a samurai falling from his horse as a bomb explodes over him was a later addition. Conlan's research masterfully refutes many of the traditional myths and commonly held perceptions of the invasion, downplaying the number of ships and troops involved and arguing that it was not the storms but the Japanese defenders ashore, as well as confusion and a lack of coordination, that thwarted the khan's two invasions. But his suggestion that the exploding bomb is an anachronism has now been demolished by solid archaeological evidence. Moreover, when the Japanese x-rayed two intact bombs, they found that one was filled just with gunpowder while the other was packed with gunpowder and more than a dozen square pieces of iron shrapnel intended to cut down the enemy. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.204.111 (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.collegenews.org/x2957.xml

The Truth about Samurai: It’s Unlikely Tom Cruise’s Film Will Get it Right, Says Bowdoin Professor

CONLAN:

In a time of peace, with a stable government, and no more land rights, the Samurai needed to justify their existence. They began promoting that "the way of the Samurai was death," and exaggerating their sense of honor and loyalty. They also encouraged the idea that suicide was an ideal of the warrior, but even in the 17th century, suicides were often pragmatically motivated: If a warrior was executed, his material possessions were not passed on to his heirs. If he killed himself prior to execution, however, his possessions went to his heirs, so some made that choice to protect inheritance rights.

THE REALITY:

The practice of Noh Drama is absolutely forbidden. When one unsheathes his sword, he has cutting a person down on his mind. Thus, as all things are born from being placed in one’s heart, a samurai who practices dancing, which is outside of the martial arts, should be ordered to commit seppuku. -KATO KIYOMASA

THE REALITY:

No matter whether a person belongs to the upper or lower ranks, if he has not put his life on the line at least once he has cause for shame. "Bushido is in being crazy to die. Fifty or more could not kill one such a man." --Nabeshima Naoshige (1538-1618 A.D.)

THE REALITY

"It is forbidden to forget the great debt of kindness one owes to his master and ancestors and thereby make light of the virtues of loyalty and filial piety."

"It is forbidden that one should, acting disrespective of the Way of Heaven, attach little importance to his duties to his master and be overly attentive to his own business"

First of all, a samurai who dislikes battle and has not put his heart in the right place even though he has been born in the house of the warrior, should not be reckoned among one's retainers.

"There is a primary need to distinguish loyalty from disloyalty and to establish rewards and punishments.

---Imagawa Sadayo (1325-1420 A.D.) IMAGAWA'S WRITINGS WERE WIDELY QUOTED BY OTHERS WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE. TOKUGAWA USED THEM FOR THE BASIS OF FEUDAL LAW

THE REALITY

In the fief of the Asakura, one should not determine hereditary chief retainers. A man should be assigned according to his ability and loyalty--Asakura Toshikage (1428-1481 A.D.)

THE REALITY

When one is serving officially or in the master's court, he should not think of a hundred or a thousand people, but should consider only the importance of the master. Nor should he draw the line at his own life or anything else he considers valuable. Even if the master is being phlegmatic and one goes unrecognized, he should know that he will surely have the divine protection of the gods and Buddhas. While in the midst of duties, one should keep this principle in mind concerning service at the master's court, too To think of receiving the blessings of the master without fulfilling the duties of court service is no different from trying to cross rough sea without a boat.---Hojo Shigetoki (1198-1261 A.D.)

THE REALITY

There are men who believe that when one is serving the lord, he first receives the lord's favor and only then makes endeavors in loyalty and his duties. They have understood the matter in reverse. Being able to live in this world is from the beginning by the grace of one's lord. It is a sad thing for men to forget this and, while setting their ambitions yet higher, envy their masters and the world at large.---Shiba Yoshimasa (1350-1410 A.D.)

THE REALITY:

They must be determined to stand with Lord Ieyasu's clan in both its ascent and decline, in times of peace and in times of war; and either waking or sleeping they must never forget that they will serve his clan, and his clan alone. To be avaricious for land or to forget old debts because of some passing dissatisfaction, or to even temporarily entertain treacherous thoughts is not the Way of Man.

Even if all the other provinces of Japan were to unite against our lord, our descendants should not set foot inside another fief to the end of time. Simply, in no matter what circumstances, unify with the heart of one family - of elder and younger brothers - exert yourselves in the cause of loyalty, mutually help and be helped by one another, preserve your righteousness and strive in bravery, and be of a mind never to stain the reputation of a clan that has not remained hidden from the world, but has gained fame in military valor for generations, especially since the days of the Governor of Iga. --TORII MOTOTADA INSTRUCTING HIS HEIRS ON THE EVE OF HIS CASTLE'S DESTRUCTION, 1600 AD

THE REALITY

Everyone knows that if a man doesn't hold filial piety toward his own parents he would also neglect his duties toward his lord. Such a neglect means a disloyalty toward humanity. Therefore such a man doesn't deserve to be called 'samurai'.

One who was born in the house of a warrior, regardless of his rank or class, first acquaints himself with a man of military feats and achievements in loyalty ---Takeda Shingen (1521-1573 A.D.)

CONLAN:

"When you have peace, you can say, the way of the warrior is death. But that's a luxury that you can only say in a time of peace. In a time of war, you can't say that," Conlan said. "I just think their 14th-century compatriots were far more sensible."

THE REALITY:

Having been born into the house of a warrior, one's intentions should be to grasp the long and the short swords and to die.

If a man does not investigate into the matter of Bushido daily, it will be difficult for him to die a brave and manly death. Thus it is essential to engrave This business of the warrior into one's mind well.

The above conditions should be adhered to night and day. if there is anyone who finds these conditions difficult to fulfill, he should be dismissed, an investigation should be quickly carried out, it should be signed and sealed that he was unable to mature in the Way of Manhood, and he should be driven out. To this, there is no doubt."

TO ALL SAMURAI

Kato Kazuenokami Kiyomasa (1562-1611) KATO WROTE A HANDBOOK FOR SAMURAI, WAS WELL KNOWN DURING HIS LIFETIME AND LEAD HUGE ARMIES IN KOREA.

THE REALITY (example 2)

First, a man whose profession is the use of arms should think and then act upon not only his own fame, but also that of his de­scendants. He should not scandalize his name forever by holding his one and only life too dear. On the other hand, in the light of this, to consider this life that is given to us only once as nothing more than dust and ashes, and lose it at a time when one should not, would be to gain a reputation that is not worth mentioning. One's main purpose in throwing away his life is to do so either for the sake of the Emperor or in some great undertaking of a military general. It is that exactly that will be the great fame of one's de­scendants.---Shiba Yoshimasa (1350-1410 A.D.)

THE REALITY: (EXAMPLE 3)

It is not the Way of the Warrior to be shamed and avoid death even under circumstances that are not particularly important. It goes without saying that to sacrifice one's life for the sake of his master is an unchanging principle.

That I should be able to go ahead of all the other warriors of this country and lay down my life for the sake of my master's benevolence is an honor to my family and has been my most fervent desire for many years.--TORII MOTOTADA, 1600AD

DONT GET ME WRONG, THERE IS MUCH VALUABLE INFORMATION IN THE AUTHOR'S BOOKS BUT HE SHOULD STICK TO THE FACTS AND NOT TRY TO INCREASE SALES BY MAKING OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENTS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION.

BUSHIDO 101:

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED TODAY? LOYALTY WAS EMPHASIZED FROM JAPAN'S EARLIEST WRITINGS, "THE WAY OF THE WARRIOR IS DEATH" WAS EMPHASIZED FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES AS WELL AS DUTY TO ONE'S MASTER.

I HAVE PLENTY MORE MATERIAL TO POST. SHALL I CONTINUE? YOUR SO CALLED EXPERTS SHOT OFF THEIR MOUTHS ON SUBJECTS THEY DONT KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT

WE COULD HAVE LEARNED THIS FROM MITFORD
'''CONLAN:

"If a warrior was executed, his material possessions were not passed on to his heirs. If he killed himself prior to execution, however, his possessions went to his heirs, ."'''

--LIKE THIS IS SOME NEW DISCOVERY? WE JAPANESE KNOW THIS ALREADY. ANY ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSON WHO READ MITFORD (1871) ALREADY KNOWS THIS, SO WHY IS CONLAN MAKING AN ISSUE FROM A NON-ISSUE?

example:

http://www.munseys.com/disktwo/tajadex.htm

rules regarding seppuku and confiscation From Tales of Old Japan:

3rd. Self-immolation of a Daimio on account of disgrace.—When a Daimio had been guilty of treason or offended against the Tycoon, inasmuch as the family was disgraced, and an apology could neither be offered nor accepted, the offending Daimio was condemned to hara-kiri. Calling his councillors around him, he confided to them his last will and testament for transmission to the Tycoon. Then, clothing himself in his court dress, he disembowelled himself, and cut his own throat. His councillors then reported the matter to the Government, and a coroner was sent to investigate it. To him the retainers handed the last will and testament of their lord, and be took it to the Gorojiu (first council), who transmitted it to the Tycoon. If the offence was heinous, such as would involve the ruin of the whole family, by the clemency of the Tycoon, half the property might be confiscated, and half returned to the heir; if the offence was trivial, the property was inherited intact by the heir, and the family did not suffer.

In all cases where the criminal disembowels himself of his own accord without condemnation and without investigation, inasmuch as he is no longer able to defend himself, the offence is considered as non-proven, and the property is not confiscated. In the year 1869 a motion was brought forward in the Japanese parliament by one Ono Seigoro, clerk of the house, advocating the abolition of the practice of hara-kiri. Two hundred members out of a house of 209 voted against the motion, which was supported by only three speakers, six members not voting on either side. In this debate the seppuku, or hara-kiri, was called “the very shrine of the Japanese national spirit, and the embodiment in practice of devotion to principle,” “a great ornament to the empire,” “a pillar of the constitution,” “a valuable institution, tending to the honour of the nobles, and based on a compassionate feeling towards the official caste,” “a pillar of religion and a spur to virtue.” The whole debate (which is well worth reading, and an able translation of which by Mr. Aston has appeared in a recent Blue Book) shows the affection with which the Japanese cling to the traditions of a chivalrous past. It is worthy of notice that the proposer, Ono Seigoro, who on more than one occasion rendered himself conspicuous by introducing motions based upon an admiration of our Western civilization, was murdered not long after this debate took place.

EXAMPLE:

They also encouraged the idea that suicide was an ideal of the warrior, but even in the 17th century, suicides were often pragmatically motivated: so some made that choice to protect inheritance rights."

CONLAN TRIES TO CLAIM THAT PEOPLE KILLED THEMSELVES SO THAT POSSESSIONS WOULD NOT BE CONFISCATED.

THE REALITY IS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE KILLED THEMSELVES IT HAD TO BE OUTLAWED BY SHOGUNAL DECREE. THE REALITY WAS THAT MANY WARRIORS KILLED THEMSELVES EVEN AFTER IT WAS FORBIDDEN AND THEY KNEW THEIR OWN FAMILIES WOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THE ACT OF SEPPUKU:

On the same day (i. e. 28th June, 1663) the following prohibition of (Jun-shi) the custom of vassals following a deceased lord in death was verbally promulgated: -

http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ostasiatische_geschichte/texte/japan/dokumente/17/tokugawa_legislation/index_files/buke_shohatto_1663.html

"That the custom of following a master in death is wrong and unprofitable is a caution which has been at times given of old; but, owing to the fact that it has not actually been prohibited, the number of those who cut their belly to follow their lord on his decease has become very great. For the future, to those retainers who may be animated by such an idea, their respective lords should intimate, constantly and in very strong terms, their disapproval of the custom. If, notwithstanding this warning, any instance of the practice should occur, it will be deemed that the deceased lord was to blame for unreadiness. Henceforward, moreover, his son and successor will be held to be blameworthy for incompetence, as not having prevented the suicides."

Your Conflict of Interest notification
It appears that a COI request you submitted has been answered. Please take a moment a view the reply over there - if this doesn't quite help you, please feel free to ask for more information or clarification. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)