March 10, 2011
Susano-O the Trickster
The Myth of Susano and Amaterasu contines:
"How can I trust you?" asked the goddess Amaterasu. To this, Susano-O replies, "How about if, to divine my intentions, we exchange oaths and make children" Amaterasu says "okay." First she takes a a part of her brother’s sword, and rinsing it in the Well of True Names (with a nunatomomo sound) and chewing it chewily spits it out into the Peaceful River in Heaven, whereupon three female children are formed. Then Susano-O takes some of the curved jewels hanging at his sister's neck and washing them in the Well of True Names, chewing them chewily, spits them out onto the surface of Peaceful River in Heaven, whereupon male children are formed. They agree that the children belong to the owner of the symbol from which they are made.
Thereupon, Susano-O exclaims, "Since the children I gave birth to are wan females, that proves that my heart is pure". And Amaterasu believed him.
There are many versions of the above myth in the Kojiki, the Nihonshoki and its "according to another version" footnotes. The versions vary according to which children are made from what, which children are made by each god, and whether female children or male children demonstrate purity.
In the Nihonshoki Susano-O says “my children are men (and even though Amaterasu made them), and that proves that my heart is pure.”
Japanese scholars debate which version of the myth is correct. The assumption is that the myth is portraying an allegory of a historical truth, or a historical truth of some sort, if only regarding whether males or females were regarded as being pure. For example, it is argued that in Shinto males are considered to be purer than females (the reverse of the Christian tradition), but since it was an emperess not an emperor who commissioned the Kojiki, and since the storyteller was also a female, this part of the Kojiki was changed so female children demonstrate purity.
As mentioned in previous posts however, I suggest that myth may be speaking about misconceptions rather than exactly truths. When explaining a misconception, it is often expedient to explain what the truth really is, but sometimes this is not possible (such as in the case when the truth is beyond the explanatory power of the language you are using). In that case, if the reality cannot be explained directly, another way of explaining a misconception is to provide examples of analogous misconceptions – a technique used in Biblical parable.In all of the versions, the end fact that Amaterasu gains the male children who go on to be the ancestors of the imperial throne, and that Susano gains three daughter deities that live somewhere near Fukuoka does not change.
Also, the fact that Susano turns out to be impure does not change either : in any event, as soon as Susano finishes "proving" that his heart is pure he then commits all, or many, of the sins in the book. He commits earthly sins, and heavenly sins. His behaviour in the myth immediately after the above excerpt is used as an example of the worst, most impure behaviour on record, anywhere in the Shinto cannon. So whatever is the case, his heart was not pure, and he did, undoubtedly, trick his sister.
In other words, Susano-O, like many heroes that appear in the Kojiki, was a trickster. The trick that is being played here is similar to, "heads I win, tails you loose," or “moving the goalposts”. Whatever the outcome of their oath, Susano can claim that his heart is pure basing the decision upon whether the children that he made himself, or that were made from his possessions, are male or female. In the Kojiki he is not even self consistent since he did not give birth to female gods.
I imagine that listeners in ancient where used to their being various versions, and also used to the fact that Susano always exclaims at the end, "Si that proves I am pure!" This trickery, (like Susano's misquotation of his father) again draws the reader towards an appraisal of language as an untrustworthy medium of communication, open to mischievous reinterpretation after the event.
Furthermore, the way in which Susano revels in his victory also suggests to me an objective for carrying out the oath, visiting his sister, visiting his mother, and even crying in the first place. Perhaps what Susano-O wanted all along was to create children, and hence his suggestion of the method of "proof," his glee, and subsequent drunken revelry at having fooled Amaterasu into making them. If so then, perhaps he visited his sister's kingdom with this intent in mind. Perhaps he wanted to visit the underworld, aware that that his father was able to create children -- Amaterasu and Susano-O himself, an event that Izanagi too rejoices in -- as a result of going to the underworld. And finally since Izanagi was able to make children as a result of water dripping from his eyes onto water, this may be why Susano spent so long crying -- dripping water from his own eyes. I can imagine a comic dramatical rendition of the first scene, showing Susano-O rubbing his eyes, dripping tears, but looking down, and looking at the audience as if to say "still no children."
But why should dripping chewed up symbols into mirrors create anything at all? I am not sure. “Creating by dripping into Mirrors” is one of the most popular methods of creation in the Kojiki. I think that it makes as much sense as creating by speaking, and may be open to a semiotic interpretation, or one related to Yohtaro Takano’s theory of left-right reversal in mirrors. The important thing about seeing a mirror image as oneself, may be to see it as ones symbol. If so then dripping symbols may make some metaphorical sense.
Even if Susano-O is a trickster, it should be remembered, according to my interpretation Susano-O is in a sense looking at his own reflection (image above), and the only person he is tricking is himself. And that is what I think that the myth may be about: how we trick ourselves into identifying with our mirror image.
Picture: Based on Portrait of :Alexander Sakharoff, by Alexej von Jawlensky 1909. Original formerly on display at the Edinburgh Museum of Modern Art, chosen asspecially because the sitter appears of uncertain gender. Posted by timtak at March 10, 2011 11:52 AM
Comments