 So, hello and welcome. My name is Fabio Gigi. I am the chair of the Japan Research Centre here at SOAS and, as you can see, there's candlelight in the background. I've put on some incense because I thought it was very good for today's topic. And of course it's a great pleasure to introduce our friend and colleague, Dr. Benedetta Lomi from the University of Bristol. She's a lecturer in East Asian religions and has taught on Japanese and Chinese takes on religion. She is, she has published widely on the material aspects of religion. It's a very interesting work on material medica, so medical matters in here, period Japan. And I think the third of the materialities of the sacred is also that which is an important topic for her talk today. It really sounded from the abstract. It sounded like almost like a detective story where people try to find out what is at stake, what is the object, what actually exists, and what does it represent. So her talk today is called Buddy like withered wood and heart like dead ashes, reconfiguring the remains of commentary statue at Torno Minen. So over to you. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you very much, Fabio. Let me try and share the screen without. Sorry, you probably see portion of my, can you all see the, does it look okay. Looks fine. Thank you. Thank you again so very much for your very kind introduction. Also, thank you to the Japan Research Center for inviting me to present on this project. I am of course thrilled and nervous because it's my alma mater and I know many of the people in attendance know me. And I am only sorry I cannot be there in person and see many of you in the audience. It would really have felt like being at home, although I am not as well. It's quite nice. So as Fabio mentioned tonight I will present on an aspect of material culture that have been at the center of an ongoing research that I've started a few years back as I was stuck in Japan. The first wave of the pandemic unable to access the sources and archived archives that I needed for another project. And so I started looking into diaries. And I stumbled from a very interesting story about the famous life site statue of Kamatari and trying to Torno Minen, which was lost in a fire at the beginning of the 13th century. But before I get into the details of this fight and it's demise, which is really at the center of my talk. First, I would like to offer a few words of explanation as to how I got into this topic aside from being in lockdown with only a handful of sources, given that my primary research interest is indeed material culture and retro, but mainly to the Buddhist tradition and very little of what I will present on today, tap into the sources to our explanation and rationale of what's going on. And in fact, this paper is based and elaborates on a section of an article that I have now completed that it's due to be published next year, a part of a special issue of our orientalis Fabio also participated. And the topic was were using recycling in Japanese visual and material culture and it has been sort of put together and edited by Halle and Neil. And when I was first invited to take part in this project my intention was to focus on premodern practices linked to the refurbishment and disposals of Buddhist icons that is I was interested in understanding what happened to sacred images to sacred objects that have been damaged and needed and what are the violations or worse that have been completely destroyed and where beyond repair, given the apparent lack of precise ritual curricula, targeting their temporary or permanent the activations in pre Tokugawa period, Buddhist ritual collection. So, what I sort of what interested me is that by the 17th century we have within Buddhist manuals, instructions on how to perform what are called sending away ceremonies that can she key or that can so that sort of target the temporary temporary, the activation of sacred objects and they are generally presented in connection with that is immediately after rituals of consecration such as the Mizuki Kaji and I open ceremonies. And these sending away rights that are also called sold extracting right so it'll exist today. And our performer can be performed in images has to have to undergo refurbishments that when are moved from their usual location maybe because displayed temporarily in a museum or part of an exhibition, or in connection to more permanent. The consecrations of sacred items or though I couldn't see that being the case in Tokugawa sources. When it came to the medieval context, however, we are faced with a dark of information regarding these types of procedures and this is quite puzzling for various reasons, not only because medieval ritual collections are well known. We would expand for providing details instructions on an impressive breadth and typology of rights. And also because destructions of sacred items was not uncommon at all temples, wooden structures, made them, and their compact, particularly verbal to natural disasters are quite diverse terms and floods where indeed a man is. Given these periods of warfare or period, such as the one between 11th century that were characterized by skirmishes between also between religion institutions, which led to conflict. It also meant that sacred objects could become collateral damages and so, even in spite of any efforts need to preserve them they could easily be destroyed, or, or, or with this damage. So, for instance, is necessarily required dealing with what remained of scriptures icons paintings and or other sacred items. So, I wanted to investigate more into what happened to these type of remains. And I think that's possibly rituals such to send in a way ceremony or the, or the solar structure right may have just been practices that emerge at a later stage, I remain unconvinced that either no ceremonies at all were carried out for damage discarded objects. But if some sort of letter G did exist. It was simply not recorded, because it was an inefficient or to net event. And therefore, sort of, it was not worthy or it was not interesting to record. So, this was really because if images and statues of who doesn't come is but even portraits of eminent individuals such as the one I'm discussing today, and even secret objects will be where thought of embodying the power of the entity they represented. And their production was generally ritualize. Why not the demise of such objects. So these were the sort of the concern that drove my, my research first. I've been lighted by Fabio Rambelli. However, destruction is not always a negative thing, especially in the modern period. And he mentioned that Buddhist institutions were in fact quite successful at finding what is what it goes to domestication of destruction that is being able to transform the losses sacred material culture into a symbolic political or even into an economic game. And therefore, unsurprisingly, we have sources that tend to recast the loss of major icons into miraculous events, such as the case that you see on the slide a century. Sorry, the later representation of the issue of a data and Canon statue. That was destroyed in a fire at the beginning work towards the end of the 11th century. And that according to the English flew out of the blazing temple and found shelter on the top of the train. So we do have the disadvantage of reconfiguring, so to speak, the loss of an icon in a way that is a profession to the institution that lost. However, while the creation of miraculous narratives is consistent with the type of literature, such as the one of angry that provide foundation. I was interested in practical concerns and solutions and so I turned to diary in that and temple records in the hope of gaining further insight into this aspect. And into the question that those in charge of sanctuaries or related to specific country had when a major loss of material culture occurred. And so it is why looking through a variety of different diaries and sources that I stumbled upon a long session of the come back to the diary of Conway. Entirely dedicated to an incident which took place at the beginning of the second month of 128. We're following the sudden attack by armed forces from Kim Busan, the main portrait statue of Kamatari was burned ashes, alongside several items. The remains of all these statues were mixed together. And so much so that it was impossible for the monks in charge to distinguish those belonging to Kamatari statues from those belonging to the statues from gravel and dirt that had accumulated. And so not knowing what to do. They collected all the debris and and awaited for official instructions. So this entry, and I elaborate on the events later is notable for several reasons. The first is on a rights down all the different liturgies that were carried out in the aftermath of the event, including also all the divinatory rights with related questions that were held. There is a slightly shed light on the different type of ritual practices that could be held in this occasions, and there are various, but these, in fact, turn out to be the least exciting or insightful part of the diary. But at least the ceremonies, and recitation of scriptures that we can all imagine from the Nino Kyoto, and a series of very lengthy designations about the current. But as the leading member of the Fujiwara and Kampakuri had been appointed a little over a year prior, he had done it was tasked to carry out an investigation into the incident in the attempt to establish exactly who was at fault for the burning of Kamatari statue. But also what the overall implications and meaning behind the accident where his diary, this includes transcriptions of the views of several other leading Fujiwara members on the statues of the sacred remains on the proper way of handling this remain, as well as their fractional whether it was appropriate to build a new portrait statue of Kamatari or not. So in this regard, he is on his diary offers really unique insight into the practical matters that follow this loss, the sudden loss of obviously a very powerful icon. The concerns of the people involved with the both of them in a court, and at the same time, it also sheds light on broader considerations on the nature of certain icons, especially icons of an important ancestor, and on the relationship between a secret object and its remains once sort of the sacred object, as in this case has been burned to ashes. The aim of my paper today is to present these different considerations and reflect on what they can tell us about the ways in which sacred waste was envisioned and handled in the medieval period. And I will try to show that any decision of what constituted the proper etiquette, dependent upon the joint appraisal of historical precedents, on the one hand, and the interrogation of cosmological forces that had precipitated the damages and destruction in the first place on the other. So given the numerous variables involved in this process, my main argument here is that religious specialist institutions dealing with remains of sacred items needed to operate on an unblocked basis, deciding on what practice and ritual they needed to carry out, carry out depending on a variety of different circumstances. So before we proceed, I just wanted to give you a little breakdown of my talk and what I will cover. So first, I will give you a little bit of context by saying a few words about the iconic question, although I'm sure many of you will be familiar with what I'm saying already. But these sort of aims at clarifying or establishing the role of the statue at the Coliseum Centre. And then I will offer a brief but slightly more detailed account than what I've already presented of the incident of 1208. In the second part of the talk, I will instead focus on two issues that interested the Fujiwara circle of noble that debated it, and that was part of the focus of the investigation on the incident. And these attempted to answer to question on the one hand, what should be done about the statue? Should we rebuild it? Should we make a new one or not? And then what should we do about the ashes of Kamatari's icon or the ashes that have remained? And the second part of the second question of the second part is the one that I am still working on because there is so much to go through. And so I really look forward to comments on it later in the Q&A. And then I will offer some concluding reflections, of course. So, on to the first part. So the Coliseum site of Tonomine, also known today as Stanzan train, has been traditionally linked to the Fujiwara plant thanks to its entrainment of the tomb and statue of the Stanzan Fujiwara Kamatari. We do have records of the process which Kamatari came to be enthroned out Tonomine through sources that are however quite late with respect to when the entrainment supposedly happened. And so the Sanctuary Tonomine Riaki, as well as later Tonomine Engi, tries the association between the site of Kamatari too, is held at Sandbunk, Joé. According to this account, Kamatari had expressed to its son the desire to be buried at Tonomine claiming that this would be propitious for his descendants. Following his death, following Kamatari's death, Joé's dream again, Joé who is in China, apparently at the time, had a dream in which Kamatari reminded him of his wish and further instructed him to build a sanctuary on the mountain. He then returns to Japan and moves the remains of the father who had been placed at another location, according to Joé Riaki Aizen Aiman Teninsetsu province, and so it's relocated to Tonomine. And here he also erected the 13th story pagoda of the site and a worship hall in which a wooden life-size portrait statue of Kamatari was placed. And so this all is called in various ways in the sources, and it also changes names several times. It comes to be known as shoryo in the whole of the sacred spirit. At times it's also called in yedo, the all of the sacred image. Now, due to a series of discrepancies pertaining to the life of Kamatari's Joé and the location of Kamatari's shoryos and other, the narrative presented by the Tonomine Riaki and the Tonomine Engiists and so on are more like pious legend than an historically accurate reconstruction of the centric foundation. And in fact, very little is known about the actual establishment of the cultic site of the early sort of layer of the cultic site, the nature of the early cult of Kamatari, as well as the precise dating of the portrait statue. So it seems that in the 9th century, the site was under the tutelage and under the jurisdiction of Kofukiji, this is not last, and during the 10th century the site came to be under the influence of the Tendai school and affiliated with Shorin in Imperial temple. And these period of Tendai oversight corresponded with the development and expansion of Tonomine, we got tested construction buildings and performance of key state protecting rights. And it is also at this time that the role of Kamatari as the protector of the Fujiwara clan and by extension given the political importance of the clan also of the state seems to augment with the tomb and wooden statue of Kamatari coming to play a key role in ensuring their stability and prosperity of the clan that is. According to Deriyaki and according to other sources too, since at least the late 10th century Kamatari's will and his protective powers were believed to manifest through very visible and audible signs associated with the tomb and with the statue. At time the tomb would make loud rumbling sounds often accompanied by unusual blows that were heard coming from the Dorial site in the mountain. At times cracks would appear on the face of the wooden statue. And these were considered to be moments of possible threats to the clan, and that they were carefully examined and recorded for the military purposes so for example whenever the statue of Kamatari crack the clock would be measured appropriate tools. Information on the date time length and depth of the cracks were transmitted to the court. And at divination would be carried out to establish the meaning of the occurrence. Eventually, the crack would be fixed, and offering the gratitudes would be sent by the court to Tonamina and other and support and zombie. I believe in one occasion that it was particularly difficult to fix the crack of the statue but that was quite a later on. So, although there is no doubt over the bigger and agency of the Fujiwara ancestors, even the numerous record of the cracking of the statue over the arch of the 11th and 12th century, comparatively less is known of the statue itself of the material support of the town sister. On the one hand, we know that the site had been for a period of times abandoned, that is, since the perpetrated foundation of the site abandoned went through several reconfigurations in terms of influence from other sacred sites and even suffered numerous losses due to fires. And this is also prior to the event of 2008. For example, in the course of the 12th century, there, the main hole in which the icon of kamatari was in train was damaged by fire and reconstructed until, at least twice. And while there is no mention of the actual destruction of the icon prior to 2008, it is this makes it quite hard to ascertain precisely the dating. Furthermore, and this complicates things lightly, what emerges from the diary is that at the time of the of the incident that is in 1208. There were two, not one life-size statues of kamatari installed in shoryo. And these are referred to as the principal image and the display image. The existence of these two statues was apparently very well known amongst the Fujiwara nobles that it's on a dialogue with. However, they claim and they admit that not much is known about the origin of the statue at all. At some point, some of the Fujiwara cast doubts over the efficacy of the second icon, given that its origins were known to them. So let's look more closely at the events that resulted in the destruction of the icon. Of course, what gets destroyed is the main icon, not the spontaneous icon. And so the timeline that I provide, there are several different timelines that are offered by Iizane. But the one that I will present seems to be the most accurate and it's based on a report that Tonomine provides two months after the event. So it's dated to the third day of the four months of 1208. And it's signed by the temple supervisor and by the head Ajari, the Dharma master, who all witnessed the facts and were actually involved in the events that were involved. So what happens is that on the morning of the third day of the second lunar month of 1208, Tonomine is attacked abruptly by armed troops coming from Kinkofen. The temple administrator, together with four other people, fearing for the safety of the two fortieth statue of Kamatari, decided to remove them from their location in Choryo-in. And apparently the display statues was temporarily hidden under a large tree just outside of the hall, while the main one which was obviously what they were concerned about was placed inside a chest of documents and transferred first to the private worship hall of the Dharma master, Tango. However, it is moved another time because as the attackers continue to press their way into the mountain on the afternoon of the same day, it is believed that the quarters of the Dharma master are not safe. And so they bring the statue to another hall, a Buddha hall, and they hide it in a corner behind a very large Shakyamuni statue. So the monastic lodges were burned to the ground that very evening, so the fact that they moved the statue seemed at first to have been a very good choice. However, on the morning of the following day, numerous buildings of the western side of the mountain, including the one in which the image was stored, were targeted and by sunset, nothing was left but debris and ashes. And with sunlight, a group of five monks together with the temple administrator tried to negotiate their way between the rubble to a certain distance up the icon, hoping it could be salvage, but they struggled to gain access to the buildings that were still burning and decided to give up. So the following day, they go back into the hall, they finally gain access, but they resolved that it's impossible to identify the ashes of Kamatari, tell them apart from the statues, and they collected whatever they could, even though they couldn't identify them, they put them in a, they put all the ashes that they can find in a box, and first they bury them in a secret location deep into the mountain, and then as the situation starts to go back to normality, nearly two weeks after, they decide to install the ashes next to the surviving standing in the icon, and everything is put back into short and in. Now the report concludes by asserting how difficult he had been to decide on the cover course of action during the events, and how all the choices that were made, even those that led to the loss of the main icon had been made with the icon, the main icon best interest at heart, even if the choices turned out to backfire in fact. Before this communication, however, he had done it had received a piecemeal borderline misleading information from the temple from the daily entries that he compiled since first receiving news of the attack on the sixth day of the second month. He was initially or seems to have been led to believe that the main statue of Kamatari was safe. And whether this was an intentionally sort of false report or simply an unfortunate misunderstanding due to the circumstances, it's really hard to know. During and in the aftermath of the attacks, the commotion provoked by the extensive loss of objects and the burning of buildings. Paired with a series of profiteers they travel meant that all communication occurred in a stuttered way and with an unusual delay. So, at first, it seems to receive comforting news regarding the main icon, but he's never the last anxious and eager to send our present to to Nobini to investigate and come back with more details. And so he summons the chief of the young world. Nobihira, and he wants to establish a proficient day for travel. But this seems not to be immediately possible. And so, not being able to send anyone to Tonomine he's just waiting for for more news to arrive. And at the same time he also wants to know what he should be doing as he waits. And it's in fact only at the end of the second month on 27 days. So nearly three weeks after the events that he receives a private dispatch briefly confirming that indeed the main type of nothing lost, but even that was sort of stamped in terms of content. And so at this point, he is he's annotation betray a couple of a couple of cells of exasperation towards the way in which the matter had been handled by the most. And so the superintendent the supervisors and three other individuals who handle physically the statues of the daily attack or all accused of negligence. And we're all asked to provide further justification for their actions. As they also impulsively or so it seems decided that to first enter the ashes and then to instill them back into showing next to the surviving icons there was a real concern over the appropriateness of all these measures. And so a number of definitions were held surrounding this, even in the course of the investigation. So the focus of the investigation that I would like to focus on is not really who was at fault and why, but on the side of the nature and efficacy of the surviving icon. Should a new one be created or should or is the one that survived good enough. And also the issue of what one should do with the ashes that have remained all think consider considering that we didn't know exactly where, but also putting forward more practical consideration, as well as ontological consideration on to the nature of the ashes. So, let's turn to these issues. First. It's worth explaining that it needs on its diary, the discussion is not organized around the questions so one question first and another question second. It is that he presents the view of each member of the Fujiwara sort of group of scholar and statements that are discussing the issue. And so each person present their view on each topic. And this is because in fact it seems that all of these issues are interconnected in their views. And therefore the purpose of the talk, it's easier if I look at the icon first and the ashes second. Now regarding the need of commissioning and you put the strategy of Kamatari, the majority were in favor of not making a new icon. In the education they offered where based on various considerations. First, they were sort of based on antecedents, drawn from Chinese sources, confusion sources, historical sources. They focused on a similar local examples, and they were for grounding issues of ritual propriety. And at times also touched upon the differences that in the ways such as the Buddha's comments and ancestors should be treated in their view, but also did not neglect and aesthetic and material considerations. So they were really trying to be as thorough as possible in considering why reconstruction was not good. So, I will present some of the views that emerge by referring to the specific individuals that held them. So, this is called the Confucian scholar and imperial preceptor. For example, draws attention to matters pertaining to ritual etiquettes that apply to ancestor worship, and states, when it comes to the reconstruction of an icon that has been destroyed by fire. The Confucian tradition doesn't have us under praxis. Many believe it is perfectly appropriate not to reconstruct because this is consistent with sources on the as if present ritual on the new time. Isn't this why, among the various shrines of our land, there are many in which the original body of a spirit has no speed. We can all agree that the fact that identical life-size statues has survived and is intact is a wonderful thing indeed. Paying respect to this statue is what matters above all else. And for this reason, I believe that in this instance, reconstruction is entirely inadvisable. So, what you can see here results to or referred to Confucian exhortations found in the analytics in analytics 312 to sacrifice to the ancestors by acting as if they were present. It's also mentioned as a precedent for not reconstructing a destroyed image, a ritual called neosino he is literally translating the as if present ceremony. In the Japanese context, this practice existed, and it's existed since 11th century was utilized in cases in which the tenno died before a successor had been nominated and so, and at this time, in order to ensure continuity and legitimacy. And the death of the tender was not announced until after the accession had been completed. And until then the course of the season of the season was treated as if it were alive. And to practice as a precedent for the loss of the like can indicate that each cuts in his eyes. Kamatari's main statue was, of course, more than simply the life-size rendering of the Fujiwara for father it was his body and such that the burning of it was like a death. On the other hand, the death didn't mean the end of the power and did not extinguish the power and, and, and therefore the ancestor could be venerated, even if an image was not present and so kind of supports the idea that it's not necessary to have a few form for the veneration of a statue of an ancestor. However, Chiketsune is not unilaterally advocating against it, creation or identification of a new material form that can function as the state of Kamatari's power. And in fact he acknowledges that the presence of the identical standing icon somehow, and the fact that it managed to survive are reason enough not to reconstruct. Possibly also implying that the fact that the other icon survived unscathed could be seen as a sign of its power. He implies that the beginning and new icon could be perceived as disrespectful and maybe potentially dangerous. So he does already attribute to the degree of agency to this other statue too. So Chiketsune's view this was where echoed by another Fujiwara member Fujiwara Ketsune, who, who claimed that he believed that remaking the statue was not proficient especially since the other statue already is a sit and have escaped fire. The statue had been revered and worshipped for many years. And he also implies that the efficacy of these icon is ongoing. So it's still efficacious. Now, he says if a newly made icon containing the remain of the sacred one it's created however we need to consider all the possible implications in terms of appearance. He wonders whether there is someone who is able to introduce this feature. He also claims, and here lifting from Fujiwara Ketsune, that a temple, an ancestral temple cannot have two main spirits. And he concludes by saying, now doesn't seem the time to be following what the one of Chiketsune did. So here he quotes from a passage of the book of rites, a passage from a chapter called the Zenzi when which contains a series of exchanges between Confucius and one of his disciples, on the matter of ritual propriety. So in one instance, a Zenzi asks whether it is possible for a shrine to have two ancestral tablets for the same ancestors, ancestor to which Confucius replies, in heaven there are no two sons. In a country, there are no two kings. In the signal, seasonal sacrifices, sorry. And those to heaven and earth there are not two who occupy the highest place of honors. I don't know what, whether what you ask is according to the rule. So here, from a related to one of Chi, going frequently toward me fictitious tablets, and took them within on its expeditions. The positing them on its return to an ancestral temple. And the practice of having two ancestral tablets in a, in a temple originated from the two coast one. So here, interestingly, the sockets on a growth apparel between the icon and ancestral tablets or at least uses the notion of the presence of two ancestral tablets to attempt to so just be to kill two birds with one stone on the one hand it shows that in principle, it has been said to be possible to have two icons or two tablets of the same ancestor installed in a temple, however, he also argues that in general, it seems to be the rule to have just one. And so, again, he, they really look into these precedents and lift the patience to, to somehow find justifications for both the way they have been acting up to the point and find a way to move forward. And right from this, the Fujiwara nobles had another reason to believe the surviving icon was efficacious. And therefore, substitution was not an option. So in the beginning of the 13 day of the four month, a little over two months after the main icon had been destroyed, the grave of Kanatari rumbled. It had already been rumbling on several occasions after the attack. And the following day at noon so 14 day of four months. The body of the surviving statue of the standing statue cracked, just like the old one used to do. And so the reasons behind these were immediately interrogated and incidentally the following day so one day after the cracks of court on the 15 day. It's on a record, a big fire fuel by strong winds that have leaked Tokyo leading to the destruction of several buildings. And so this leaves it's on it to to conclude that even if the main statue of Kamatari have been destroyed in the fire, the effectiveness of the surviving image is surprisingly like that of the original one, having cracked immediately before a major event that restricted the capital occurred. This allows us to better understand some of the remarks of the Fujiwara nobles claim that this substituted statues would have been created many years prior was powerful and therefore worthy of veneration. So, Fujiwara no one is just that in fact, the ashes of of the destroyed image should be stored, not next but inside the body of the surviving in order to augment its efficacy. And in a way, he believes that the fact that when I could say is so fortunate. And by storing the sacred flashes inside the newly made one would probably not be proficient, it would not be possible. I'm mentioning that not everyone agree, not everyone was convinced by his arguments. So, so some pointed to eminent with his precedents for the creation of you images that were different but not less powerful than the original. And so they, they mentioned a variety such day. And I would have serioji, etc. And, but in the end, they decide that not even divination is necessary at the time that the fact to the cracks and how speak for themselves, the statue is worthy of being used as the main icon now. And part of the reason for reaching this agreement was linked to the discussion pertaining to the ashes for clean. So as the accounts by it's on a make clear, since the very beginning had been impossible to establish whether any of the ashes trade from your package of the whole belong to the icon of commentary or not. So, in doubt, amongst them meaning had collected them stored them temporarily and put them back usually in next to the make the surviving. On the one hand, the nature of these remain were uncertain, and many of the Fujiwara nobles feared that the mishandling of something that was the nature and origin of which was unclear, could somehow lead to to further calamities. And even in spite of this uncertainty, they feared that getting rid of these ashes altogether could be more even more dangerous. So, somehow, no one ever suggested that throwing away the ashes or whenever this was raised. Everybody agree that simply throwing away these ashes and respective other origin was not a possibility. In fact, they believe that there was somehow the possibility that even a single sort of speck of dust or material part and no matter how small of the original icon you could still exist and mashed in this remain, and therefore that could not be And a variety of examples are brought to show that even an infinitesimal part remaining of a sacred object is still the sacred object. So, Tokudaiji Kinsuku brings us an example, nothing other than the burning of the sacred mirror. It occurred in 1040 in Chokyu one and on this occasion, he claims that nothing was left of Vadoragalia and only after repeated efforts a few small yielded particles were identified and stored in a dedicated container. So along these lines, different others considered instances in which small particles of a powerful object had remained and they were either installed inside a new icon or stored in a safe place and buried it in the ground at an appropriate location. And so they come up with a variety of precedents that existed for this different solutions during inside an icon or entering at an appropriate location. And the former storing the remains inside of an existing items seem to have been based on their investigation the most common practice at the time. And so Nagakane again serves as follow. Somehow brings about he suggested storing items inside different items have been the practice in a variety of different contexts. And so storing items inside this icon is a knowledge and my spread practice across the Sino-Japanese traditions. We know that cavities of such as that we are that why diversity of materials from grains, coins, the pouches, dedication, tax, talismans. And very often that the narrative that we find in scholar works one of them live and indeed for to learn all this. The sessions here suggest that earlier it was mentioned how storing the ashes inside the icon could and live live in them. And at the same time, these procedures were not considered to be only Buddhist so they believe that there is ground to allow for this. And for this reason they say it's quite impossible to in the end throw away anything. It's quite impossible to come to the conclusion that thrown away is the possibility. Once they have turned to dust, the practice is to enclose them within a sacred body. The presence of precedents was not necessarily considered by all to be sufficient to that of the matter, especially given the reservation that some had over the motives behind the destruction of the icon. And so some claim that in fact that there are no sources are unprecedented that can explain these practices in the context of ashes like this one that have no clear sort of ontological status, nor settled status. And so he says while it can be, it can look like a convenient thing to do. We also need to establish why it is like converted in the first place we need to establish why this happened to make sure that we're not installing something that can cause further on. And in this regard, there are different considerations that are going forward over the nature of the icon that I am still struggling in a sense to unpack in relation to the entire discussion. And again, in relation to these ideas, should we instill them or not to instill them what are ashes he asks exactly what are ashes after all. And in a way he says that what we find in the sources is that ashes are just dead fire. But we also find the idea that the heart is like dead ashes. And this is all he says, but in such a short sentence he actually says a lot. The first part he lifts from a condimnesty dictionary. The show and in which there is a section on ashes that matter of fact he states that as a dictionary would that ashes are simply what is left. After the fire has died, nothing more, nothing less. And they can be touched, it says only once the fire has extinguished and that's it. It's a dictionary. The second part, however, that the heart is like that ashes is a quotation that it's taken from the Johnson. This will have a later indications in some dynasty practices for the creation of the body of a protected Dallas. So chapter 22nd of the transit compares the body, the sorry, the body and mind of a sage to a wither corpse sort of a corpse withered wood and the mind to simply being dead ashes. So body like wither corpse or then body like wither wood in my like that ashes comes from this context of sort of the ideal body mind about stage. And as I said in later sources this idea that the body of the perfected persons entailed first the burning down or the turning sorry of the body into this withered log of wood. And again, the burning of this body into ashes in order to obtain this exalted body. And so when they're sick and it wants to make a point. And maybe the point being that after all, the, the withered wood of tomatary turning to burned ashes. It's that amount of even something more powerful than what had happened before, due to this transformation or not, I still do not. I'm surely intrigued by this attempt at examining or interrogating the very ontology of the materials that have been left by scrutinizing a variety of different forces from what practical to what probably shows one and related to issues of what to do, possibilities of what happens, if we take the ashes or perfected forms of the ancestor and put them into another statue. So, following these and other considerations, it became apparent that unlike the issue of reconstruction. And that was a special thanks to the power of the image that seemed to be a contested and the matter of the ashes could not be established beyond any reasonable doubt if not through divination and everybody agree so on the 25th day of the four months. The work of seven omnioji summoned by the Office of Military Affairs carried out the divination the question designed was very simple whether the positive ashes of the icon inside the identical remaining statue would bring good or bad luck and whether the outcome of this action therefore was correct or not. And after written appeals were also sent to Minoru Kazuka, who I don't know and Roshesh Primes, and further divinations of the finding of the homes that take in place. It was established that installing the ashes inside of the remaining statue of Kamatari was the correct course of action. Purification rituals were carried out by an omnioji on the preceding day. And then the ashes were installed but no specific right is recorded to have taken place to mark the occasion or at least I haven't encountered it yet. And so this is somehow concludes this investigation and this overview of what happens and I'll just say a few things in terms of conclusion to wrap up what I have presented. So as I said what I was interested in establishing was what happens to damage or destroy the icons to damage statues and damaged paintings. And, and maybe even to reflect on whether the power of these objects to live to vanish, because of their features have been somehow destroyed or damaged or torn apart, or whether there is still a degree of efficacy and potency trapped in their destroyed remain. And the answer from the sources doesn't seem to be necessarily right. At the time, admonishments existed, you know, to lend indefinitely from our idea of the scriptures, encouraging people not to let sacred items decay and prompting people to care and take care of statues. And what happens to the superintendent of a phenomenon that's punished along other people for the lack of care is clearly a find it. One should not let one sacred material culture. Sacred images, or at least what emerges from the discussions of the of the Fuji water nobles. It seems that when sacred items, it seems can never really truly be destroyed. The coming apart of these these icons and in a sense or maybe also highlighted this in his research, always allow for the coming together of of something else, something that is at the same time different and identical to what the object was before. So, if the speck of ashes that are left from the burning statue of Kamatari, may function as a synod for the founders, our its preservation and installation inside an indebted statue is a telling metaphor for the authority of such and part of the power of such and linked to the given the importance that the common statue of Kamatari had in guiding and sanctioning the clan's political role, the loss of the main icon would constitute much more than a negative all men. In this regard, the Fuji water nobles that were tasked to decide what to do with this possibly mixed and part of this career of ashes. But ruled out entirely the possibility of discarding them and instead open to divine whether storing them inside the surviving image was propitious or not propitious the fact that no divination at all has helped to set the matter of the ashes origins, meant that there was probably not a lot of interest in a certain with the possibility that nothing was left at all of the founders statue, which would have been a much more unsettling outcome. The crux of the matter then it's not that the sacred icon could not really disappear could not really be destroyed, but rather that it was not allowed to disappear, it was not allowed to simply be destroyed. And this is because of the example that I have presented suggest the power, the instantiate is not only that of the deity of the ancestor but also that of the natural individuals of the clan and that possess them. And the two necessary support each other here. Quite clearly the relationship is always nurtured in the torture interaction. So, in a way, what these overview of considerations suggest is that the Fujiwara noblemen were actively involved in reconfiguring these remains along the different lines that served their interest. And so they were ready to make concessions as to what was considered to be plausible than what was considered to be allowed, based on the fine balance in act that for grounded for sure, the importance of maintaining the sacred site, and their ancestors will also ensure not to incur it in any further sort of negative occurrence. So, whether destructions of icons were intentional or accidental. Whether rituals should be performed in a specific way or not, where matters that needed to be discussed given the variety of different considerations and circumstances. In fact, it may reinforce the idea that sacred items cannot simply be considered ever as terminal commodities in a context in which, even when reduced to ashes, even where these ashes are probably not the ones of the of the objects that was the sacred objects. The notion of a sacred item becomes almost like a limitless respectable that can never be truly allowed to disperse and disappear and constantly caught in this process of sort of re-signification and reshuffling until we just have a miniscule particle or a miniscule aspect of us. I will probably stop here. I thank you very much for listening, and I welcome any questions and comments. Thank you very much for a fascinating talk. Please put your questions either in the Q&A function which you find at the bottom right hand up screen, or you can also raise your hands and we can then unmute you. I mean, this is really absolutely fascinating. I was reminded of Kantorowitz as the king's two bodies in many ways because the continuity really seems to be one of the main concerns. And together with that, the idea of what kind, I mean there seem to be several material registers at work. On one hand you have the resemblance. And on the other hand you have the matter. And on one hand you have sort of the continuity. On the other hand you have the, you know, the sort of the, it's a non-fungible token, you would say, sort of in modern language, right? The thing cannot be replaced. It cannot be added to. But actually, if push came to shove, it can. And it's absolutely fantastic to have access to this process of discussion where people think, okay, we don't quite know what it is. Yeah, I wanted to ask you about the relationship first between the hon mye and the, I don't know how to pronounce it, whether this is the hon mye or the hy hon mye. And because that seems to sort of shape the way in which this discussion is held. Absolutely, but from what I could hear, from what I could read, not much was known about the standing image, the second image, the one that was on display probably. But it seems that they are both called amie. There is clearly the sense that they are installed in the same place. But as I was, especially when I read about the second one cracking immediately after the other one was lost, I also started to wonder whether it was always one statue that cracked, not two. And, and, but so far, it's not that I, I was super occupied in a sense with other matters, so to speak, and this is why it's also still ongoing that I really don't know whether they, it's not clear to understand whether they will identical or not my impression from the sources that I'm reading is that they were quite the same in terms of size. And I don't know what they looked like. And I have, and I, and I welcome anyone who has more information about this to help me because it's true that I haven't had the time yet to look much into this but there seem to be very similar, they seem to have the same size they both obviously had, and they're both identified clearly as a me. And just one is the main one and the other is the one that is displayed or shown the fact that they tried to say to get both out. And that there is a lot going on around this to suggest to me that they're, and in any way consider important. True, one is left under a tree and the other is more powerful, or they're serving or more respect than the other. But again, we're also, they also say they don't know where it comes from. So we say, we can't have this as my icon because we don't know where it comes from. We don't know who made it and we don't know who. But there is a challenge brought towards efficacy of the second, which is resolved once. The fire. Apparently. I don't know. But one also ends up inside the other right which which I did there's something about that the containment of it which immediately brought to my mind the idea of interiority and the mind and when you brought in the quote from the mind like that. I mean, this is okay. The dead ash, you put them into the statue, they become a new mind for that statue and in a sense that it made sense in this particular way. No, especially because it's the, although it so in the quotation that we have in the diary. There is only the bits of the mind like that ashes. Had it been together with the body like with our word and the mind that the dashes, it would have been perfect because it would have looked as if the remaining wooden statue is the body, like with our word. And now we have the mind like that ashes so in a way we have a more powerful perfected icon. I also don't want to read too much into it, maybe he was just looking through source and find all quotations that included ashes and he just lifted those two. But I just thought it was really the justice of the process of transformation, that in a context in which it was paramount to show the power of the icon as being still there. The efficacy still being there. Obviously the quotation they asked you to start just ashes. And I'm just dead fire. It's not about. But he quotes it nevertheless. Right, yes, he must have found some kind of affordance in the in this way of describing it. So please if you do have questions put them into the Q&A, or raise your hand again raise your hand icon is at the bottom of the middle. And we can unmute you. I'm just looking at the list here. A lot of people who are indeed thought thinking about what has been discussed. And so we'll give them a little more time, Lucia has just raised her hand, and if I can. Yes, thank you very much for that that this was fascinating. Yes, a lot of questions I'm just thinking what one can ask first, but there are a couple of comments that I wanted to make. First I thought it was very interesting that the second statue cracked after the first one disappears. It looks like is taking the shape of the original statue. And so sort of replacing it, even in its, in its, well cracked form, so to speak. Would that change the state that the status of these icons with with would there be some kind of absorption of the first of the characteristics of the first one and the second so that the second becomes a proper image, or something like that. I, so at least this is how it has been interpreted by some of Suzy Waramander. It is restricted. Well, that it's, it's, I don't, I, they don't say that it replace it, but it, they say that its efficacy is like the, the one of the icon that has been lost, but it's just as efficacious for their purpose so it works well. I don't, I don't recall the language of substitution. But somehow there is the acknowledgement that it worked that is as efficacious as the previous one, because he cracks like the producer sense warning like the previous one and it so happened that, according to the records the warning was about something that actually happened immediately. So, I don't know whether there is a sense that it, well of course it's, it is a substitute body of we can interpret it as a substitute body. Of the body, I was thinking really a substitution of, of the icon itself. So you say that they don't really speak about substitution but the physicality, perhaps we can say of the of the statues speaking for it. Absolutely. And that's why I was also curious to, it would be very interesting to know whether this happened before, whether it leads. Or whether the, the display one cracked before, or whether this was a prerogative of the main one that, that all of a sudden as if a sort of transfer the curve becomes as you're saying the surviving one more since to the existing one. It's really, it's really fascinating. And, of course, one can only sort of guess what's what possible interpretation can be given there. I also have another question that the, the statue, this, this specific status clearly connected to a, a specific person so you have rightly interpreted within question of ancestor, and sister ship and, and also sort of human aspects. There were some of the quotes from the from the diaries that you're giving that that really were suggesting that they were thinking this way because after all it was the effigies of a real person. And it all the time whether what happens to statues of Buddhist deities, for instance, of, yeah, non human beings, and whether the same kinds of concerns I mean whether there would be. Yeah, how, how could you translate these concerns on a broader, on the broader context of the destruction the continuous destruction of stages that did happen in temples in Japan. And what they, so I was really focusing on this one example and I'm very much aware that this is the statue of an ancestor. And, and they seem to be aware to that there are different things that could be done but they tap in the show an array of different precedents. In some of these precedents are Buddhist, so they are drawn from Buddhist touches so they do say in the case of the Buddhist icon, this is what you do. In fact they use as an example to support and give authority to the installment of the remains inside of the statue. The fact that this is what you do for Buddhas and some even even say, well, in this, this is really it seems to be that independent this is what we do. And here are all the Buddhist examples. Interestingly, they also really sorry, I have a starving cat that is just sending me a whole full time and it's throwing it with throwing a thunder. But they also use this example to claim that reconstruction in fact is not about things. They seem to be to draw a line when it comes to to reconstruction saying in that we have example of Buddhist images that are made a new once one has been destroyed and that are just as efficacious, and they are just as powerful. And therefore, it is possible to, to build a statue of a new. It still happened that here, I don't know whether it is simply because the statue of commentary, the remaining statue of commentary, ends up being quite sorry, powerful. But then that they don't, they don't rebuild, or because it's such a nonsense or this is unclear to me, but they have this. What I take away from the discussion, as I was saying is that there is no. They acknowledge that there are there are no standardized way of acting in these respects. They show that there are so many possibilities out there based on precedence based on what you do. There is just not one way, just as there is just not one way of making sense of what ashes are. There is just not one way of understanding and I can isn't what you should do when it burns. And, and, and as I was reading this I have, I, this is where I had the idea that. How do you come up with a standard diet ritual for something that there is no consensus over. How do you come up with the basic proxies that someone can follow an immediate aftermath of a reduction, when there's not even a consensus, but to the nature of the very thing that has been destructed. And so here is where the sort of contextual investigations take need to take place. It is to me still not immediately appearance whether they're believed, or that from the sources we can see that there is a distinction that we would find in other type of sources. But at the level of this type of exchanges in this type of circles. I'm not sure that it's immediately evident that they're different. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we have, we have, we have two more questions in the q&a. I'll read out the first one. How does this relate to the cases in which standing images also become he boots as they are considered too powerful. Not already but are there other cases of ancestor icons in Japan with two sculptures and or a similar story. I'll just read I'll just read it also myself. I just found where it is. So, honestly, whether there are other cases that are similar to this one. I would certainly love to know if there are other cases in which two icons existed and we have a similar story. I think it does relate to, it does relate to cases in which standing images also can be considered to be powerful here we seem to have a case of an image that remains and stand up to the occasion and so it actually, I mean we do have records of the cracking of this image went into the 16th of a commentary image well into the 16th century so this function this worked. And so, whether we can wonder whether it is accidental that he has been destroyed or not whether this was in fact what was supposed to happen that this indeed was a was an icon so it was a powerful icon. So, I think it can certainly relate to cases. After all, what gives, or in my understanding what gives power to these icons, if they're used and their venerations of this. And this is clear from what they write. They do say that you can't disrespect something that has been venerated for such a long time. The existence in its presence, obviously allow this icon to accrue power it so happened that this power now is greater than what once thought and so, and you can have possibly build something new. When you have something that is there that has been able to accrue this power and has shown its efficacy, it would be kilometers. I think it relates. And, but I don't know whether they're similar. And I look no. Thank you. I mean, it seems to me that there are two different ideas of power involved that you mentioned, or two ideas of the sacred and one is the idea of the sacred as a fractal thing that within the most infinitesimal small piece, or piece of dust or ashes, there still is somehow the whole presence is somehow there. But what you just mentioned now is sort of more an idea that that efficacy accrues over time. And it sort of is something that that accumulates and that that so so the statue at different points in his life cycle is as different kinds of efficacy. I think that's that's really quite interesting because in many ideas of the sacred is exactly these two registers that sort of bump into each other. And it's not quite clear to anyone I think and this is what they are trying to figure out which idea to follow right is is is everything is it in the little small thing. Or is it something that accumulates over time, just as a comment. When I so it feels in the, if it feels like they are discussing this, and they are trying to work their way around this different disabilities, without excluding that the two can actually coexist. So, I would say that the type of paradigm that they present, which are aimed at really covering all the basis to make sure that they act in a way that doesn't backfire in any way seem to attribute efficacy to something that has some is older and long standing and that therefore is deserving of something that's something that it's already in place that it's already part of a precise configuration, but that they have then reconfigure according to a variety of other ideas so the term reconfiguration came to mind to me a lot as I was reading this because they were trying to relocate not only the ashes, but also the existing statue. And, and in my impression for them both paradigm coexist. A paradigm of power that is accrued for time and for practice. And a paradigm in which however, once, and once the statue has its statue, its power and its efficacy. You can't just think that the power withers away. It gets to the point where even a small particle of it is still worthy. So, so this is what I gather from their conclusions and of course divination seems to drive everything. I believe they don't define whether it's worth reconstructing or not simply because of the occurrence. So there's there's two more questions in the chat. I just read it for our I think most of the participants cannot see it unless we've typed the thing. Doesn't this happen during the pre I think that the question popped up during the discussion with Lucia. Doesn't this happen during the process of reconstruction of Kofuki and the other narrow temples. Are these mentioned in the diaries in relationship with the reconstruction of the icon. I don't remember all the examples that they raise because they do bring a lot of examples of statues that that have I believe that doesn't this happen during the process of reconstruction is the question of the building of the icon right and they do bring a lot of examples. I, I, I mentioned the city of Jupiter because that's the somehow the famous one that they bring about, but they mentioned several and they mentioned a variety of different Buddhist such as objects so that represent coming up with those such as a specific I mean so they, they, they, they try to show that it's possible across the board to to reconstruct, but I don't remember if they bring out and other narrow temples. I believe they do bring examples of several times in trying when it comes to reconstruction. Okay, and there's one last question. Is the term shadi ever used to refer to the sculptures ashes. No, no, not to my to my collection no and I and I look for it. That that was, yes, very short and concise. Thank you. I did I did remember looking for for it, but there is no such idea. I think many people were reminded of that Zen anecdote about the monk who in order not to freeze to death burns the statue and that draws cries of shock from the others. And he says, yeah, well, the other shy there but of course that is a very different tradition. Also very iconoclastic. So, okay, ashes are just burnt fire. The matter of fact, sort of element. So thank you very much. We've come to the end of our time. It is 630. Thank you very much for a really enlightening talk. Thank you for joining us. We have we had guests from all the way from from, I think, first the way was a representative from the club of the culture and Iponica to go later Dorio Tejanero, so from Rio in Brazil. Thank you very much for joining. I want to draw your attention to our next event, which happens in two weeks from now on the 17th of November, please put it into your diary. Dr. Aya home from the University of Manchester will talk about family planning in post World War two Japan through a transnational lens. Thank you very much. There's lots of messages in the chat. I hope you were inspired to think about sacred materials in new and interesting ways. And so thank you very much, Benedetta, and thanks very much for coming and goodbye.