Cha dao tools

[thirst]

Mh. The source for the first paragraph above is:

Yifa, and Zongze. The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China: An Annotated Translation and Study of the Chanyuan Qinggui. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002.

Curiously, I think the Chanyuan Qinggui doesn’t include descriptions of the actual preparation of the tea used in the monastic tea ceremonies, which otherwise are described pretty elaborately. But as said, I’ve only skimmed through it yet.

[Evan Draper]

Yifa, and Zongze. The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China: An Annotated Translation and Study of the Chanyuan Qinggui. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002.

Thanks for the interesting citation. What leads you to believe that Chinese literati tea-making ever constituted a "ceremony"?

[thirst]

What leads you to believe that Chinese literati tea-making ever constituted a "ceremony"?

I was probably unclear. I meant that I read that literati tea-making was the impulse for the later Japanese development of Senchado, with some overlap in the tools, not that these Chinese literati residing in Japan were conducting formal ceremonies, given that their tea gatherings were apparently seen as the antithesis of Chanoyu.

The literati have nothing to do with the Chanyuan Qinggui and Chan ceremonies during the Song; they are divided by I think at least three major dynasties.

[bonescwa]

(…) Although I know many people say that the Japanese ceremonies have a much longer history (…)

Correct me if/where I’m wrong.

If I, skimming through the translated Chanyuan Qinggui, haven’t misinterpreted it, tea ceremonies were a codified part of monastic life at Chan (Zen) temples in China, which would make them older than Japanese tea ceremonies; they would get imported later to Japan along with Chan to become the groundwork for later Japanese tea ceremonies. Given that powdered tea fell out of favor in China later on, Japanese tea ceremonies involving powdered tea must have a longer continuous history, while Chinese tea ceremonies involving powdered tea are older.

Senchado, according to Tea of the Sages, developed out of the tea practices of Chinese literati residing in Japan, which by then would involve loose leaf rather than powdered tea. (Loose leaf also replaced powdered tea at Chinese Chan temples during the Ming, and, by extension, the newly found Obaku temple in Japan; I haven’t found anything about the nature of loose leaf tea ceremonies at Chan temples yet, though.) The tea practices of the literati were first followed by locals as a sort of counter-movement to the formalized and politicized Chanoyu, but later on succumbed to form, having taken cues from Chanoyu, and gave birth to Senchado.

Some of the tools used for preparing loose leaf tea literati-style (or monastically?) have been more or less taken over by Senchado, like tall braziers and side-handled kettles (side-handled kyusus would later evolve as a combination of these Chinese side-handled kettles and Chinese back-handled tea pots). As in, not all of the Senchado tools were newly developed for Senchado. Not making any claims about the wooden tools, though.

…it seems I got sidetracked here.

There are obviously many people who are knowledgeable about this history, and I am not. I was just wondering about the history of the cha dao tools we see, tea pets, etc. I notice the absence of antique or handmade examples of these tools, and want to know if they exist or not. Whether or not you can call the Chinese tea-brewing practices before senchado and chanoyu "ceremonies," I have no idea

[thirst]

Yeah, sorry for diverting, just got hung up over that bit mentioning ceremonies.

(Because you mentioned it, though: if the Chanyuan Qinggui is to be believed and monastic Chan practice often included ceremonies, that, you know, mainly involved tea , I don’t see why one would not call them tea ceremonies – I’m not talking about Gongfucha here.)

[chrl42]

(…) Although I know many people say that the Japanese ceremonies have a much longer history (…)

Correct me if/where I’m wrong.

If I, skimming through the translated Chanyuan Qinggui, haven’t misinterpreted it, tea ceremonies were a codified part of monastic life at Chan (Zen) temples in China, which would make them older than Japanese tea ceremonies; they would get imported later to Japan along with Chan to become the groundwork for later Japanese tea ceremonies. Given that powdered tea fell out of favor in China later on, Japanese tea ceremonies involving powdered tea must have a longer continuous history, while Chinese tea ceremonies involving powdered tea are older.

Senchado, according to Tea of the Sages, developed out of the tea practices of Chinese literati residing in Japan, which by then would involve loose leaf rather than powdered tea. (Loose leaf also replaced powdered tea at Chinese Chan temples during the Ming, and, by extension, the newly found Obaku temple in Japan; I haven’t found anything about the nature of loose leaf tea ceremonies at Chan temples yet, though.) The tea practices of the literati were first followed by locals as a sort of counter-movement to the formalized and politicized Chanoyu, but later on succumbed to form, having taken cues from Chanoyu, and gave birth to Senchado.

Some of the tools used for preparing loose leaf tea literati-style (or monastically?) have been more or less taken over by Senchado, like tall braziers and side-handled kettles (side-handled kyusus would later evolve as a combination of these Chinese side-handled kettles and Chinese back-handled tea pots). As in, not all of the Senchado tools were newly developed for Senchado. Not making any claims about the wooden tools, though.

…it seems I got sidetracked here.

Very nice information. Thanks for your time.

Chaozhou Gongfu ceremony (being in shape by Ming, but popularized by early-Qing) is also known to be taken from Lu Yu's Cha Jing. From selection of teaware, water, firing etc as in a pretty concentrated form to be included as a ceremony. Only difference would be tea type (loose-leaf).


Chaozhou's fashion of drinking tea draws a lot similar to Edo-Meiji's Senchado, for their preference for small Yixing teapot (唐物), too. It's clear almost same Yixing teapots (during the same period) had been used (small Zhuni teapots) in both regions. Only egg-shaped Ju Lun Zhu Yixing isn't found in CZ region often while CZ's favorite Zhuni Yixing is found many in Japan.

But if you like those days' carving or seal or clay, they demonstrate the groups who made those Japan-exported small Yixings and CZ/SE asian exported Gongfu Yixings, were almost same groups. (duplicated in many parts)

[kyarazen]

Very nice information. Thanks for your time.

Chaozhou Gongfu ceremony (being in shape by Ming, but popularized by early-Qing) is also known to be taken from Lu Yu's Cha Jing. From selection of teaware, water, firing etc as in a pretty concentrated form to be included as a ceremony. Only difference would be tea type (loose-leaf).

Chaozhou's fashion of drinking tea draws a lot similar to Edo-Meiji's Senchado, for their preference for small Yixing teapot (唐物), too. It's clear almost same Yixing teapots (during the same period) had been used (small Zhuni teapots) in both regions. Only egg-shaped Ju Lun Zhu Yixing isn't found in CZ region often while CZ's favorite Zhuni Yixing is found many in Japan.

But if you like those days' carving or seal or clay, they demonstrate the groups who made those Japan-exported small Yixings and CZ/SE asian exported Gongfu Yixings, were almost same groups. (duplicated in many parts)

what is the evidence of it being in shape by ming and popular by qing for CZ gf tea (apart from baidu/baike of course)? and wouldnt CZ's hong guan be more of a favourite over yxzn?

[the_economist]

Wasn't Japanese senchado created by a guy from Fujian, Ingen Ryūki?

[chrl42]

Very nice information. Thanks for your time.

Chaozhou Gongfu ceremony (being in shape by Ming, but popularized by early-Qing) is also known to be taken from Lu Yu's Cha Jing. From selection of teaware, water, firing etc as in a pretty concentrated form to be included as a ceremony. Only difference would be tea type (loose-leaf).

Chaozhou's fashion of drinking tea draws a lot similar to Edo-Meiji's Senchado, for their preference for small Yixing teapot (唐物), too. It's clear almost same Yixing teapots (during the same period) had been used (small Zhuni teapots) in both regions. Only egg-shaped Ju Lun Zhu Yixing isn't found in CZ region often while CZ's favorite Zhuni Yixing is found many in Japan.

But if you like those days' carving or seal or clay, they demonstrate the groups who made those Japan-exported small Yixings and CZ/SE asian exported Gongfu Yixings, were almost same groups. (duplicated in many parts)

what is the evidence of it being in shape by ming and popular by qing for CZ gf tea (apart from baidu/baike of course)? and wouldnt CZ's hong guan be more of a favourite over yxzn?

ya know....the Chinese exaggerate things..I am not saying earlier they didn't practice those ceremonies, and I mentioned Tang's Cha Jing already.

Just maybe well-written scripts or excavations aren't found enough to back up more clear theories. Reading books by Chen Xiang-bai or Ye Han-zhong by far offered much more valuable information than Baike.


Hong Guan you mean by Shantou? from what I know, CZ's first prefered ones are Yixings, next is Shantou. According to Huang Jian-liang, the ones who cound't afford Yixings used Shantous. And after 50s Gaiwan replaced for the coming of DC.

[Evan Draper]

Chaozhou Gongfu ceremony (being in shape by Ming, but popularized by early-Qing) is also known to be taken from Lu Yu's Cha Jing. From selection of teaware, water, firing etc as in a pretty concentrated form to be included as a ceremony. Only difference would be tea type (loose-leaf).

Yeah, no.

1. Tea-making in Lu Yu's Cha Jing is wholly unrelated to "chaozhou gongfu" styles of tea-making. There is virtually no commonality between the two methods, and there is emphatically not a continuous cultural tradition connecting the two.
2. Lu Yu's Cha Ching does not outline any form of "tea ceremony" whatsoever. A "ceremony" might be defined as "ritual observances with a prescribed form." Lu Yu doesn't prescribe a form--as I see it, he simply tells you how to select and prepare the best tea, and you can make allowances for your tastes, like a cookbook. I heard Steven Owyoung lecture on the Cha Jing, and I'll take his word that Lu Yu's text evokes principles of Daoist thought and cosmology, but this is a long way from a ceremony. Lu Yu may be swimming in a Daoist pool, but he's not building a Daoist canal.
3. If Chaozhou gongfu ever constituted a ceremony, the best information I have says it was recently invented. http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/f ... &issue=029

We should have left this at "cha dao tools were a Taiwanese invention." It was my misunderstanding that sidetracked this conversation earlier. I was worried someone was asserting the continuity of the "tea ceremony tradition," but then, you know, someone did. Or didn't? I don't know. Don't anybody say anything until I read this Chanyuan Qinggui.

[wyardley]

what is the evidence of it being in shape by ming and popular by qing for CZ gf tea (apart from baidu/baike of course)?

I realize this is a subject about which there is some debate, but I have read some articles in real books that suggest the same thing. This post has some citations. If you can read Chinese and are interested, I believe I have a few of the original "Archeology of Agriculture" articles footnoted in that book in PDF form.
http://www.teachat.com/viewtopic.php?p=220791#p220791

But as I understand it, the first printed reference to it was during Qing, so that's basically an educated guess (that it began to develop earlier).

[wyardley]

1. Tea-making in Lu Yu's Cha Jing is wholly unrelated to "chaozhou gongfu" styles of tea-making. There is virtually no commonality between the two methods, and there is emphatically not a continuous cultural tradition connecting the two.

There are some early references which say things along the lines of "The proper way to make congou [read gongfu] is to obey Lu Yu's tea ceremony but with more exquisite tea sets…" (references at http://teadrunk.org/post/1167/#p1167), so that may be one reason people sometimes mention them together. While reading it in current times, it may be hard to see how Cha Jing relates to later traditions (and in the English translation I've read, really, it's difficult for me to really appreciate or even put in context), I do feel like it likely would have at least had an influence in the sense that cultured people interested in tea would have been aware of it.

[kyarazen]

Yeah, no.

1. Tea-making in Lu Yu's Cha Jing is wholly unrelated to "chaozhou gongfu" styles of tea-making. There is virtually no commonality between the two methods, and there is emphatically not a continuous cultural tradition connecting the two.
2. Lu Yu's Cha Ching does not outline any form of "tea ceremony" whatsoever. A "ceremony" might be defined as "ritual observances with a prescribed form." Lu Yu doesn't prescribe a form--as I see it, he simply tells you how to select and prepare the best tea, and you can make allowances for your tastes, like a cookbook. I heard Steven Owyoung lecture on the Cha Jing, and I'll take his word that Lu Yu's text evokes principles of Daoist thought and cosmology, but this is a long way from a ceremony. Lu Yu may be swimming in a Daoist pool, but he's not building a Daoist canal.
3. If Chaozhou gongfu ever constituted a ceremony, the best information I have says it was recently invented. http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/f ... &issue=029

We should have left this at "cha dao tools were a Taiwanese invention." It was my misunderstanding that sidetracked this conversation earlier. I was worried someone was asserting the continuity of the "tea ceremony tradition," but then, you know, someone did. Or didn't? I don't know. Don't anybody say anything until I read this Chanyuan Qinggui.

maybe the topic should be split again with the help of a moderator.

but in principle, the stuff that is recorded in LYCJ is just a bunch of nice names and fancy showmanship steps. perhaps fancy chadao tools is a "min-nan" invention of recent times.

[kyarazen]

what is the evidence of it being in shape by ming and popular by qing for CZ gf tea (apart from baidu/baike of course)?

I realize this is a subject about which there is some debate, but I have read some articles in real books that suggest the same thing. This post has some citations. If you can read Chinese and are interested, I believe I have a few of the original "Archeology of Agriculture" articles footnoted in that book in PDF form.
http://www.teachat.com/viewtopic.php?p=220791#p220791

But as I understand it, the first printed reference to it was during Qing, so that's basically an educated guess (that it began to develop earlier).

i would think the CZ style is as old as the tradition of making hong-guans or chaozhou zhuni pots, as these pots were created/made just for such brewing purposes. most people dont actually brew the real/proper CZ style these days anyway, the popular "gongfu" style propagated every where is just an abstract transmission of "ritualized" steps.

[thirst]

It was my misunderstanding that sidetracked this conversation earlier. I was worried someone was asserting the continuity of the "tea ceremony tradition," but then, you know, someone did. Or didn't? I don't know. Don't anybody say anything until I read this Chanyuan Qinggui.

I wasn’t asserting the continuity of the tea ceremony tradition.

In my original post, I mentioned the Chanyuan Qinggui because I believe it concerns the history of tea ceremonies, regardless of powdered or steeped tea. (And I would like to hear other people’s opinions of what is described as tea ceremonies in it. I’m obviously not a scholar, I just read a book on tea now and then.) But it does not concern continuity.

I mentioned the part about Senchado because it concerns the connection between tea ceremonies and tools(the original concern of the thread), where the tools appear to be unique to a tradition: one of the things I didn’t get across very well in my original post is that just because one thing is framed as a ceremony and the other isn’t, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of overlap.

For example, Chinese people a few hundred years ago obviously didn’t have electric kettles. So they took, for example, a tall charcoal brazier and a side-handled clay kettle and used that to heat their tea water. Does that mean it’s a tea ceremony? No, but it also doesn’t mean that Senchado invented tall charcoal braziers and side-handled kettles. (There’s nothing about Gongfucha in my original post.) Similarly, Tea of the Sages features Yixing pots as small as 6.5 cm in height (though also much larger ones) from between the eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century (p179), and seventeenth century Ming dynasty cups that are 4.5 cm tall (p82). Throughout the book, it is made clear just how much early drinking of »Sencha« owes to and emulates Chinese literati tea-making and gatherings.

By the way, it doesn’t sound like Senchado really is that old, either. Quoting Tea of the Sages: »Through his [Kakuō’s] influence sencha became transformed into a refined ritual so closely resembling chanoyu that by the 1840s Fukada Seiichi was compelled to lament in his Secrets of Steeped Tea by Bokusekikyo that it was no longer being distinguished as a separate tea tradition.«, p154.

-

Since Lu Yu and Gongfucha were brought up: I had read A Quintessential Invention and had done a bit of research, which lead to the above. Of course, MarshalN knows vastly more about tea drinking than I will most likely ever do, but for some reason, the text still felt a bit one-sided at times*.

*For example, while it’s known that Lu Yu was hugely influental, the article was the first time I heard of anyone making a direct connection between Lu Yu and Gongfucha. The connection is perhaps propagated by people who have a story to sell, and perhaps re-told by people who haven’t read the Chajing, but I can’t believe for one second that it is something that would amount to being believed by scholars who have occupied themselves with the topic: as the authors of the article say themselves, the Chajing is a text from the Tang dynasty. Not the Song dynasty, not the Ming dynasty. Let’s recall: the Tang dynasty was the one where tea was boiled, the Song, where tea was whipped, and the Ming, finally, where tea was steeped. This isn’t hidden information. It’s probably in about every book about tea. The Chajing itself isn’t terribly hard to access, is surprisingly short, and is easy to skim through. It contains suggestions, not regulations. So the spuriousness of a direct connection between Lu Yu and Gongfucha seems at most an apparently common misconception, not an original argument.

There are other things that I find strangely worded or implied without further investigation but it’s not really the topic at hand.