Noh and the aesthetics of no-action

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

One salient feature of Oriental performing arts is the effective use of the tension between action and no-action, between movement and rest. While the graceful movement of the body is highly cherished and, therefore, needs to be cultivated, it is equally, if not more, important to control the body when it is in the state of no-action and rest. As a matter of fact, controlling one’s body when the body is in the state of no-action and rest, which requires mental concentration, is regarded as a mark of highest artistic achievement.

Take Noh, for example, which explicitly incorporates the tension between action and no-action, between movement and rest. As Zeami (1363-1443) explains, the moments of no-action are of crucial importance in the Noh play: “Dancing and singing, movements and the different types of miming are all acts performed by the body. Moments of ‘no-action’ occur inbetween. When we examine why such moments without actions are enjoyable, we find that it is due to the underlying spiritual strength of the actor which unremittingly holds the attention. He does not relax the tension when the dancing or singing comes to an end or at intervals between the dialogue and the different types of miming, but maintains an unswerving inner strength. This feeling of inner strength will faintly reveal itself and bring enjoyment.” (Zeami, as quoted in Tsunoda et.al. 1958, p.291)

The moments of no-action acquire their importance, in the first place, from the necessity of integrating the body and the mind. While the body engages in all kinds of actions in the performing arts, the mind is called upon to unify the whole performance by interspersing them with moments of no-action when the body is at rest. This is the way in which the tension between action and no-action, between movement and rest, is created in the Noh play. Zeami, judging from his words quoted above, suggests that the moments of no-action are equally, if not more, enjoyable in the Noh play. To the extent that the moments of no-action are important, Noh as an art from explicitly appeals to what might be termed the aesthetics of no-action.

The main aesthetic principle underlying Noh, according to Zeami, is yugen, which roughly translates into “mystery” or “profundity”. Zeami employs yugen as the term that characterizes the state of highest achievement in the Noh dance as embodied in the beauty of form at moments of both action and no-action. In Zeami’s own words, yugen refers to “a degree of artistry which is of that middle ground where being and non-being meet.” (Zeami, ibid, p.295)

The influence of Zen Buddhism is apparent in these words. Noh, as a performing art, tries to recreate human drama which invariably involves efforts to overcome the tension between the pain of life and the stillness of death. This tension defines the middle ground between life and death where being and non-being meet.

There are other features of Noh that can also be easily identifiable as Zen elements. First, there is the idea of simplicity that regulates the staging of the Noh play. Although the costumes worn by the Noh actors are often colorful and elaborate, reminiscent of the artistic ideal of miyabi which characterized Heian court life, the Noh stage itself is a simple rectangular structure. Moreover, the stage is usually left completely bare except for small gadgets called tsukurimomo, which are employed in some plays. This is one way of conveying to the audience that the Noh play relies heavily on the power of suggestion. The simplicity of the stage is reinforced by the simplicity of actions and movements in the Noh play. Unlike the ballet dancer, the Noh actor, as a rule, is not expected to walk on toes or leap in the air. In fact, the whole performance is one of graceful restraint, as if to evoke the stillness beyond this world. The Noh actor often wears the masks of ghosts, suggesting that the audience is being invited to glimpse into another reality.

Gadgets and masks are one thing, but dancing is quite another. In the final analysis, it is the mental power of the Noh actor that guides the audience into the middle ground where being and non-being meet: “The actions before and after an interval of ‘no-action’ must be linked by entering the state of mindlessness in which one conceals even from oneself one’s intent. This, then, is the faculty of moving audiences, by linking all the artistic powers with one mind.” (Zeami, ibid, p.291)

The mind thus becomes the unifying element in the Noh play. As the Noh actor enters the state of mindlessness with his performance, the audience is expected to participate in the play with the mind of Zen practitioners in order to glimpse into the world of reality beyond appearances. As Zeami puts it, “what the mind sees is the essence; what the eyes see is the performance” (Zeami, 1958, P.302). By entering the state of mindlessness, or mushin (no-mind) as Zeami calls it, the Noh actor can guide the audience into that middle ground where being and non-being meet. Indeed, a highly accomplished Noh actor, like a highly trained Zen master, can potentially guide the audience to glimpse into the world of ultimate reality that transcends both being and non-being.

* Zeami, “On the mind linking all powers”, “The book of the way of the highest flower”, “The nine stages of the No in order”, as translated and compiled in: R. Tsunoda, W.T. de Barry, and D. Keene (eds.), Sources of Japanese Tradition, New York: Columbia University Press, 1958.

Civilizing civilizations in an interdependent world

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

When Civilizations Meet: Civilization, as a social system, can be considered an open system defined in the space of interaction among climate, culture, economy and polity. As an open system, the life of a civilization is a story of constant struggle against the forces of nature as well as the challenges coming from other civilizations. Interactions that take place between civilizations can be grouped into four types.

The first—and the oldest—type of interaction between civilizations is “conquest and subjugation”, where one civilization conquers and subjugates another civilization with its commanding superiority in military power. India, one of the oldest civilizations of the world, saw two episodes of “conquest and subjugation” in its history: the invasion of the Aryans around 1,500 B.C.E., who conquered and subjugated the native people, mostly Dravidians, and the invasion of Muslims which culminated in the establishment of the Mughal Empire by Babur in 1526 with his victory in the Battle of Paniput. The Mughal Empire lasted, with ups and downs, until 1757 when Robert Clive’s victory at Plassey established the English rule, paving the way for “colonization and exploitation” by the British, which is the second type of interaction between civilizations.

Needless to say, the British were not alone when it comes to “colonization and exploitation”, as they were soon followed by other European nations—the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the French, and the Dutch—who went on to colonize and exploit the Old as well as the New World. What distinguishes “colonization and exploitation” from “conquest and subjugation” is that it involves domination by a stronger civilization of a weaker civilization, mostly for the purpose of extracting economic benefits. Unlike “conquest and subjugation”, the indigenous civilization is allowed to exist if only for the sake of benefiting the colonizers.

The third type of interaction between civilizations, “absorption and adaptation”, involves one civilization consciously borrowing ideas and institutions from other civilizations in its effort to improve upon its own civilization. The history of Japanese civilization, for example, is a history of constant borrowing of ideas and institutions from its surrounding civilizations, from India and China in earlier times and from Europe and North America in modern times. But in this case, as in others, the borrower does not simply imitate what others have cultivated; the borrower usually “absorbs and adapts” the ideas and institutions of other civilizations to suit its domestic environment.

The fourth type of interaction between civilizations is “exchange and cross-fertilization”, which is distinguished from the third type of “absorption and adaptation” in that it involves bilateral exchange of ideas and institutions between two civilizations. This does not mean, however, that the exchange of ideas and institutions takes place simultaneously for the two civilizations involved, for learning, transforming and adapting others’ ways of doing things to fit the domestic environment can be an elongated process, spread over centuries in some cases. Exchange of pottery techniques between East and West is an example of this type of interaction between civilizations.

Communication and Cross-Fertilization: Every civilization, while trying to carve out its own path of evolution, needs to learn from other civilizations if it is to sustain itself as an open system in an ever-changing environment. As Braudel aptly points out, “the history of civilizations, in fact, is the history of continual mutual borrowings over many centuries, despite which each civilization has kept its own original character.” (Braudel, Fernand, A History of Civilizations, New York: Penguin Books, 1993, p.8)

Mutual borrowings take place even between the colonizers and the colonized. Thus, while we tend to think of the British taking advantage of cheap supply of cotton from India in promoting their Industrial Revolution, the Indians, too, have borrowed from the British the fruits of Western science and technology, including the railroad system, and have learned about the Western notions of law and justice, the abolition of suttee being one outcome of such learning. On the other hand, it is thanks mostly to British scholars that we have come to know the Indian view of the world now known as Hinduism.

As an open system, civilization evolves and transforms itself through constant contact and interaction with its environment. Contact and interaction with other civilizations, according to Toynbee, often take the form of challenges and responses. (Toynbee, Arnold, A Study of History, New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) It is by accepting challenges from other civilizations and successfully responding to them that a civilization maintains its viability as a social system.

Challenges and responses, as the facts of life for every civilization, sustain life as well destroy it. In the history of civilizations, challenges and responses between civilizations have often taken the form of “conquest and subjugation” and “colonization and exploitation”, the first two types of interaction between civilizations discussed above. It goes without saying that these two types of interactions are destructive types of interactions, which must be eliminated if civilizations of the world are to evolve harmoniously by promoting communication and cross-fertilization.

A mixture of humility and confidence is needed if a civilization is to benefit from communication and cross-fertilization with other civilizations. Humility is needed because, as Durant clearly states, “no one of the civilizations known to us was the originator of any of the elements of civilization.” (Durant, Will, Our Oriental Heritage, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1935, p.533) On the other hand, confidence is needed if a civilization is to sustain itself, constantly exposed to challenges from other civilizations and from the natural environment: “Of course, civilization requires a modicum of material prosperity—enough to provide a little leisure. But far more, it requires confidence—confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its philosophy, belief in its laws, and confidence in one’s own mental powers.” (Clark, Kenneth, Civilization, New York: Harper & Row, 1969, p.4) If communication and cross-fertilization are to take place, all civilizations are required to keep proper balance between humility and confidence, for excessive humility on the part of one civilization invites domination by others while excessive confidence on the part of one civilization leads to contempt, if not rejection, of others.

Civilizing Civilizations in an Interdependent World: Is the civilizing of civilizations possible in the world of global interdependence, where challenges and responses between civilizations often take the form of violent clashes between them? Let us recall that civilization, in the sense of douceur de vivre, or “the sweetness of life”, was an eighteenth-century discovery of Western intellectuals such as Mirabeau, Voltaire and Diderot. The civilizing of the West took place, as Elias’ insightful study shows, during the process of state formation that followed the divisive feudal age. (Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994) While the sweetness of life was initially limited to the elite class of monarchs and aristocrats, the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent process of industrialization would spread the material comfort enjoyed by them by steadily increasing the members of the middle class, at least in the industrial nations of the world.

The danger facing civilizations of the world today is the fact that the two conditions—state formation and industrialization—which have contributed to the civilizing of the West and other industrial nations, are under threat by the forces of globalization in all spheres of social life. On the one hand, there is the decline of the nation-state as the center of social life. On the other, the growing gap between rich and poor diminishes the possibility of spreading the fruits of economic development equally among the nations of the world.

If communication and cross-fertilization are to benefit all the civilizations of the world, it is essential that each and every civilization become “civilized”—civilized not befitting the civilization in eighteenth-century Europe but befitting the civilization in a globally interdependent world of the twenty-first century. What, then, should be the content of civilized behavior in the world of global interdependence? As civilization is seen here as an open system defined in the space of interaction among climate, culture, economy, and polity, the civilizing of a civilization must take place in each of these four subsystems.

The industrial civilization of the past two and half centuries has been built on the aggressive exploitation of the natural environment. While this has enhanced the standards of living for some nations, no civilization should be allowed to follow the path of willful exploitation of the natural environment because the survival of the global community depends on the sustainability of that natural environment. What is needed is an environmental ethic that treats nature and all the things in it—even disease-causing micro organisms—not as our enemies to be conquered but as living systems with whom we share the interconnected system called nature.

To cultivate and develop civility in cultural life would require that the new conception of self as a relational being—with other individuals in the world as well as other things in the natural environment—replace the conception of self as an autonomous being. Civility in the conduct of economic life cannot be built on the aggressive kind of market capitalism as it undermines the stability of the global economy and widens the gap between rich and poor. What is needed is “enlightened capitalism” that regards material welfare not as an end but as a means to self-actualization, or enlightenment. Politically, civility requires participatory democracy in which everybody participates in the political process and does not surrender oneself to the wanton rule of the few.

Globalization in the world around us is changing the way in which challenges and responses between civilizations take place. For one thing, it is now possible for communication and cross-fertilization between civilizations to take place at the global level. There are some indications that challenges and responses in a globally interdependent world are giving rise to a global civilization of a sort—from awareness about our common fate in Spaceship Earth to universal demands for basic human rights. On the other hand, there are other kinds of changes that threaten the cohesion and stability of the world as a system of civilizations. These include ethnic conflicts, religious fundamentalism, and willful manipulation of the global financial markets.

Globalization is obviously a double-edged sword as we witness forces of both unification and fragmentation and tendencies towards both order and chaos. While there are constructive contacts between old rival civilizations, there are also destructive clashes between old and new civilizations, as pointed out by Huntington. (Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996) Trite as it may sound, it is up to each and every civilization to take up the challenges of globalization and work out proper responses needed to transform itself into a more “civilized” civilization in a globally interdependent world of the twenty-first century.