Golden Pavilion
What has
struck me most in reading The Temple of the Golden Pavilion by Yukio
Mishima is my lack of pertinent perspective in quantifying the
philosophic themes of the novel. The fact that Mishima is a Japanese
author writing to a Japanese audience in what could be an exclusively
Japanese cultural context makes a traditional analysis of the novel
impossible. It can not be assumed that simply because the novel was
written in the early 1950’s that Mishima is familiar with the themes
of philosophy up until that time, but at the same time it cannot be
assumed that he has not. It is quite possible that he is familiar
with the works of Plato,Nietzsche and Sartre and , and with the
themes that he has woven into his novel I would like to assume that
definition of existence is the crux of understanding The Temple of
the Golden Pavilion, or perhaps the definition of existence is what
The Golden Temple is attempting to understand. So what is existence?
I would hope that Mishima as a human being exists in a similar way
that I exist as a human being, as well as the same why that Sartre
and Nietzsche existed as human beings, despite cultural difference.
If it is true that Mishima exists as a human being in the same manner
as all other human beings it makes sense that his description of what
it means to exist would not differ significantly from the way that
western philosophers define existence if in fact both are attempting
to talk about being human. I think that because Mishima is talking
about the common experience of existing as human that terms of
western philosophy that similarly seek to speak about existence may
be used. In that light I think that the development of the main
character, Mizoguchi, can be accurately identified according to
existential philosophy.
Mizoguchi
begins the novel, and his trouble, by defining himself as a sever
stutterer with a fate of being a great priest. Both of these action
are instances of bad faith in so far as he does not accurately
identify himself with the freedom of his situation and as a result
persues life according to how he imagines it ideally to be. The
metaphor for the ideal life is occupied in the building of the Golden
Pavilion itself. Through out the novel Mizoguchi is unable to
experience life because he is always over come with the image of the
golden pavilion, it is not until the end of the novel that he
realizes that The Golden Pavilion is what is keeping him from living
and as a result he burns it to the ground, thus freeing himself from
his instance of bad faith and allowing himself the freedom to live
for the first time as manifested by the last line “I wanted to
live” (pg. 262). In deciding to live he made the choice to
affirm his freedom as a human being and to live in Good faith.
“When people concentrate on the idea of beauty, they are, without realizing it, confronted with the darkest thoughts that exist in this world.” (48)
Beauty and ugliness obsess Mizoguchi; his preoccupation with them form his very nature, and from that fascination springs his relationship to the Temple of the Golden Pavilion.
Being that beauty, by its very nature, should be pleasing, it is curious that Mizoguchi does not find pleasure in objects generally considered beautiful. Women, flowers, buildings, etc., do not soothe or inspire him; they have the qualities and features of loveliness, yet to Mizoguchi must lack an ephemeral intrisicality defined as Beauty.
If one subscribes to the idea that everything that is ought to be either beautiful or useful—and that utility confers a kind of beauty—Mizoguchi’s being unmoved by beauty of any kind can be perplexing. On the one hand, when he asks, “Why does there seem to be something inhuman about regarding human beings like roses and refusing to make any distinction between the inside of their bodies and the outside?” (58), Mizoguchi seems to validate that idea. For human organs function and serve their purpose admirably, and are therefore useful, ie beautiful, though many people are repelled by the sight of human intestines. This seems a reasonable question. On the other hand, his reaction to Kashiwagi’s interpetation of the “Nansen Kills a Kitten” problem infers that Beauty is a thing which must be endured—the decayed tooth and accompanying pain. Here is Beauty not only symbolised by something unpleasant, but as that which must be suffered.
Beauty’s defilement, as portrayed by Kashiwagi and, ultimately, the destruction of the Temple of the Golden Pavilion, is also a major theme. Is it that this killing of a beautiful object completes that object as death can be said to complete life, granting it that ephemeral Beauty as life is granted symmetry—validity, even—by death?
Perhaps it is the incomplete nature of beautiful objects then that fails to move Mizoguchi, and indeed that inspires him to destroy the Temple of the Golden Pavilion.
Death and destruction are dark thoughts, and if they are indeed necessary to appreciate beauty, the idea of beauty could then be said to be among the darkest thoughts comprehended by the human mind.
I think it would be helpful to point out some additional information in regard to the biography of Mishima, his favorite author was Thomas Mann, his favorite philosopher was Nietzsche, and he was heavily influenced by the German Romantics of the late 19th century.
So that anwsers one of my earlier questions about the ability to identify and talk about western philosophic themes in eastern literature. I guess this was a case of early multiculturalism on the part of Mishima. He also worte 53 books by the time he was 34.