See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263500638

Initiation to the art of War: A preliminary text of the Takenouchi school

Article  in  Acta Orientalia · March 2013

DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.66.2013.1.6

CITATIONS READS

2 1,185

1 author:

Balázs Szabó
Eötvös Loránd University
2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Balázs Szabó on 30 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 66 (1), 95 – 107 (2013)
DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.66.2013.1.6

INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR:

A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL
BALÁZS SZABÓ

Department of Japanese Studies, Loránd Eötvös University

H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B, Hungary
e-mail: szabo.balazs@btk.elte.hu

In premodern Japan the warrior class (samurai) was placed at the top of society and martial arts
were considered the basis of their education. Therefore martial arts schools played an important role
in forming the way of thinking of warriors, and as these schools expressed their views on tech-
nique, morality and philosophy through issuing handbooks, documents and teaching material (den-
sho), research of densho is perhaps the best way to understand the teachings and inner workings of
schools. In the present article the author attempts to examine one of the basic texts of an important
school of the jūjutsu branch of Japanese martial arts, the Takenouchi-ryū, to provide an understand-
ing of the structure and content of a typical densho.
Key words: Japanese martial arts, Takenouchi school, jūjutsu, samurai education, Japanese history
of thought, pre-modern Japan.

Introduction

In this article I am going to introduce a text of foremost importance in Takenouchi-

ryū school of jūjutsu, titled Bugei no jo 武芸の序 ‘Introduction to martial arts’.1 This
text, written in formal kanbun 漢文 style, played an important role in the everyday
life of the school: it served as an official initiation text, handed to new students, ex-
plaining the basic rules of the school and describing the nature of the skills they were
to acquire while studying there. This document serves as an example of a typical
martial art text from the 19th century, and through its analysis we can see how these
documents were structured, what purpose the main parts served and how other,
religious and philosophical disciplines helped the author express his ideas.

1
Japanese original can be found in Nihon budō taikei, pp. 23 – 24.
0001-6446 / $ 20.00 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
96 BALÁZS SZABÓ

My approach to the text is to reveal (1) its structure and the function of its
main parts, (2) the religious and philosophical background the author had and its
presence in the text. Through this analysis we can get closer to the understanding of
the character of premodern martial arts documents and the systematisation of rules and
techniques provided by a jūjutsu school. As Bugei no jo was written in the first half
of the 19th century, it represents the most developed form of martial arts documents,
making its research even more interesting.

The Takenouchi School

Takenouchi school (Takenouchi-ryū 竹内流)2 is widely known in the world of Japa-

nese martial arts as the very first school of the branch of schools designated as
jūjutsu 柔術, although the documents related to the first period in the school’s history
do not describe it as such, instead the term kogusoku 小具足 is used. The curriculum
of Takenouchi-ryū contains the following groups of fighting skills: yawara 柔
(unarmed fighting), torite 捕手 (grappling), kogusoku 小具足 (short sword), ken 拳
(sword), bō 棒 (stick), iai 居合 (quick sword-drawing), naginata 薙刀 (halberd), na-
wa 縄 (rope), tanken 短剣 (dagger), koshimawari 腰廻 (armoured grappling), ukigu-
tsu 浮沓 (river-crossing with a horse), so it should be called a sōgō-bujutsu 総合武
術, that is, universal martial art. In spite of this, the first encyclopedic work on martial
arts, Hinatsu Shirōzaemon Shigetaka’s 日夏四郎左衛門繁高 Honchō bugei shōden
本朝武芸小伝 (1716)3 lists it as yawara/jūjutsu.
The tenth chapter of Honchō bugei shōden is about jūjutsu schools, but closely
related is the ninth chapter describing the kogusoku (short sword) schools. The rela-
tionship between kogusoku and jūjutsu is clear from the facts that Takenouchi-ryū
had developed to be a jūjutsu school while starting its evolution as a kogusoku ryūha,
while fighting with kogusoku, on the other hand, was very similar to unarmed fight-
ing: grabbing, punching, kicking the opponent, unbalancing him were basic tech-
niques in both styles.
Jūjutsu became well known and popular in the Edo-era (1603– 1867), as the
end of the warring period brought about a revaluation of the usefulness of martial arts,
tending from battlefield forms toward lighter forms more suitable to a pacified age.4

2
School (ryūha 流派) is a term designating a certain lineage in Japanese martial arts. Though
the earliest documents mentioning schools are from early 14th century (mounted archery, yabu-
same 流鏑馬), their majority developed from the middle of Muromachi (15th century) to early Edo
(beginning of 17th century) eras (Nakabayashi 1994, pp. 21 – 22).
3
This work, written in 1714, was published in 1716, its ten chapters are designated to nine
categories of martial arts (two chapters on fencing). For a translation of a part of it and general de-
scription, see Rogers (1990a and 1990b).
4
Although jūjutsu was also prone to the tendency common among martial arts of the day,
to trace back the origins of the art as far into the past as possible. According to a popular version,
the account in Kojiki 古事記 (712) about the duel between two heroes Takemikazuchi-no-kami 武
甕槌神 and Takeminakata-no-kami 建御名方神, can be considered as the debut of jūjutsu in his-
torical records. Although there is a popular view how the schools teaching battlefield fighting devel-
Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013
 INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR: A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL 97

Among these practices jūjutsu was highly valuated, which called attention to the oldest
known school possessing the most characteristics of jūjutsu, Takenouchi-ryū.
We cannot fail to mention that beside Takenouchi-ryū, two other schools are
named as the first schools of the genre jūjutsu: Sekiguchi-ryū and Seigō-ryū, but pri-
macy of these schools is based on the first exact use of the words yawara and jūjutsu,
respectively, moreover, their origins are clouded in legends, nothing to compare to
that of Takenouchi-ryū, which is fairly factual. Most modern researchers agree on the
primacy of Takenouchi-ryū (Maruyama 1967a; Takenouchi 1992; Futaki – Irie – Katō
1994; Oimatsu Shin’ichi – Nihon budo taikei, vol. 6, Watatani Kiyoshi – Bugei ryūha
daijiten), as the historical evidence surrounding its founder, Takenouchi Hisamori is
sound: Hisamori was lord of a castle, who participated in some of the wars raging in
Western Japan in the 16th century, and he was important enough to make his name
known to contemporary chronicles. Whether his school can justly be considered as
jūjutsu is debated: he called it kogusoku, which means a short sword, so it could be
recognised as a fencing school. However, from the earliest time this school taught ho-
boku, tying techniques, a typical part of jūjutsu, and koshimawari, ‘rotating the hips’
as movements with kogusoku, which later evolved into unarmed grappling techniques.
Today Takenouchi-ryū is widely accepted as a jūjutsu school, so its historical pri-
macy is beyond doubt.
As mentioned above, the founder of Takenouchi-ryū was a samurai from Mi-
masaka, Takenouchi Nakatsukasa Dayū Hisamori 竹内中務大夫久盛, who started
his school in the years of Tenmon (cca. 1532). He was born in the village of Haga, as
son of the lord of Ichinose castle. The historical record of the Takenouchi family,
Takenouchi keiso kogo denki 竹内系書古語伝記 gives the date of his death as the
4th year of Bunroku (1595), aged 93, so it is assumed that he was born in the 3rd
year of Bunki (1503) (Bugei ryūha daijiten, p. 358). Takenouchi Hisamori became
head of Ichinose castle, a fortress located in Western Japan, at that time an area
which saw fierce battles between the powerful lords of Mōri 毛利 and Ukita 宇喜多.
He sided with the Mōri just to be destroyed by Ukita Naoie, when the Ukita army
invaded Mimasaka (Maruyama 1967a, p. 51).5
About founding the school, another document in the possession of the Take-
nouchi family, Kogoden relates the story that Takenouchi Hisamori was a brave young
man, who was fond of the art of fencing, practising restlessly but not being satisfied
with his skills. He was a strong believer in the god Atagonokami, praying three times
a day, so when he felt lost in his quest for superior martial skills, he made a pilgrim-
age to Sannomiya shrine, in western Haga to pray and practise in seclusion. He prac-
tised hard with his wooden sword two feet and six inches in length, six days and six
nights, and when his body and soul was exhausted he fell asleep using his sword as
a pillow. He was awakened by the sound of someone shouting his name: a white-

————
oped into Edo-era schools of refined curriculum and rich theoretical background, some scholars
denounce it as baseless: Karl Friday, for example, argues that even early schools showed strong
traces of artistic elements (Friday 2003, pp. 117 – 118).
5
About the political and military situation of the area see Kawaai (1997), Kishida (1984).
Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013
98 BALÁZS SZABÓ

haired yamabushi (mountain priest) appeared from nowhere and called him to a duel.
Hisamori grabbed his wooden sword and attacked, but all of his attacks were easily
parried by his opponent. In the end he gave up, then the priest took his wooden sword,
told him that it is not really usable because of its length, so he cut it in half, handing
Hisamori back one half and saying ‘if you carry this with you, it is called kogusoku’.
Next he pulled an offshoot from a nearby tree and taught him techniques of tying
which he called musha-garami 武者がらみ. Later Hisamori developed the handling
of kogusoku into the art known as torite 捕手, the tying techniques into what is called
today hayanawa 早縄 (Takenouchi 1992, p. 66).

Bugei no jo

As of the text in question, Bugei no jo, according to the signature attached to the end
of the document it was written in the 15th year of Tenpō 天保, that is, 1844. The author
is not indicated, instead a short list of headmasters is given, clearly to provide the
highest possible legitimation to it.
As I wish to use this text as an example of Japanese martial art initiation docu-
ments, revealing its structure and pointing out its main ideas, I do not give a full trans-
lation here, instead I summarise its sections and try to let readers grasp the overall
feeling of it. Where Chinese text is used, I give the original in full, in the case of Japa-
nese text I give only the crucial phrases occurring in sentences.
In my attempt to grab the general meaning and message of a text so specially
intended to serve a restricted group of readers I heavily rely on the methodology
worked out by authors with excellent results in the field of the philological survey of
martial arts texts, mainly those of Ōmori Nobumasa and Uozumi Takashi (Ōmori
1991; Uozumi 2002; 2003; 2005).
The text is divided into the following sections:

Introduction (Jo 序)
Rules (Kinkai 禁戒)
Essence of the style (Tōryū tai’i 当流大意)
Inner teachings (Okushi 奥旨)
Understanding the application of techniques (Ōhen no ketsu 応変之訣)
Discipline (Kaishin 戒慎)
List of fistfight techniques (Kenpō jōmoku 拳法条目)
Deepest secrets of fistfight (Kenpō kyokuhi 拳法極秘)
Deepest secrets of fencing (Kenpō okuhi 剣法奥秘)

1. Introduction

Bugei no jo makes its start with a teaching rather well-known in the world of Japanese
martial arts literature, especially liked by writers belonging to jūjutsu schools: animals

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

 INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR: A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL 99

have teeth, horns, claws or venom that they use in fighting. Humans do not have any
of those things, so they must learn how to fight.6

2. Rules (Kinkai 禁戒)

The text proposes twelve basic rules for students enrolling in the school. Part of these
rules are general requirements set to assure the proper attitude of anybody of bushi
origin,7 others are designed to control the behaviour of students studying in the school.
– Your lord and your father must be ahead of everything!
– Never forget your teacher’s benevolence!
– Do not let the school’s teaching to leak out!
– Do not tell bad things about other schools!
– Do not compete!
– Be polite!
– Avoid violent behaviour!
– Do not leave the path of honour!
– Do not commit shameful deeds!
– Do not be surprised of grand things!
– Do not underestimate small things!
– Never forget to be disciplined!

It may be clear that beyond general rules concerning the desirable behaviour
of youngsters of the bushi class there are four rules devised specially for students of
this school.
“Never forget your teacher’s benevolence!” (師恩勿忘)
It was an important element of the school’s attitude toward teaching that while the
ryūha itself functioned as an enterprise, teaching its techniques for money, assuring

6
In a slightly different context, the same parable is present in a document of another impor-
tant jūjutsu school, Shibukawa-ryū Jūjutsu Taiseiroku: there headmaster Shibukawa Tokihide uses
it to point out why humans need weapons to defend themselves (Nihon budō taikei, vol. 6, pp. 334 –
366). Kishino Yūzō also calls attention to this section, arguing that unarmed fighting was of second-
ary importance in traditional jūjutsu, considered necessary only when the fighter was curtailed of
his weapons (Kishino 1995, p. 24). He goes on by saying that empty-handed fighting was esteemed
to be of low importance in Japan, due to the traditional weapon-centred thinking of the bushi, unlike
China, where empty-handed fighting (kenpō 拳法) was thought to be the basis of martial arts (Ki-
shino 1995, pp. 23 – 2 4).
7
Cultivation of character (ningen-keisei 人間形成) was an essential part of Edo-era martial
arts, partly as they played a role in the education of the warrior class, partly because they held mind
and body inseparable, so teachers were convinced that without proper thinking it is impossible to
achieve technical superiority (Nakabayashi 1988a, pp. 5 – 7). As Sagara Tōru emphasised it, in the
thinking of Edo-era warrior two sides were present: a vassal serving his lord unconditionally and
the wise and responsible leader governing his family and his estate as an independent decision-maker
(Sagara 1984, pp. 73 – 74). This is significantly different from the one-sided view echoing in later
Bushidō-related sources.
Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013
100 BALÁZS SZABÓ

the livelihood of the family owning the school, the techniques taught to the students
were able to save his life so they were highly valued, a transmission of knowledge
that was a benevolent act, a favour (on 恩) on the side of the teacher.
“Do not let the school’s teaching leak out!” (流意勿洩)
Defending the secrecy of the taught techniques served two purposes: first, it pro-
tected the interests of the family owning the school, second, it was to avoid those
techniques to be anticipated by future opponents, this way protecting the students in-
volved in fights with members of other schools.8
For a martial arts school in order to be attractive it was necessary to have spe-
cial techniques enabling the fighter to be effective even against a much stronger op-
ponent. These sophisticated techniques were the pride of the school kept cautiously
in secret, as their leaking out would have caused economic as well as prestige loss
(Nakabayashi 1994, p. 24).
On the other hand, in the first part of Edo era (until Iemitsu, third Tokugawa-
shōgun) it was customary that students of martial art schools dueled with one another
to decide which technique is superior. In those fights (called taryū-jiai 他流試合, “to
fight with other schools”) the element of surprise was overly important: the fighter
who was able to surprise his opponent with an unanticipated trick was very likely to
win. This way the danger was present that should information about those tricks leak
future opponents would be able to prepare against the school’s champions (Nakaba-
yashi 1994, pp. 67–69).
“Do not tell bad things about other schools!” (勿毀他流)
“Do not compete!” (勿競雌雄)
As we have already said, in the time of Iemitsu (1624– 1651) memories of warring
past were alive, the shogun (just as his father and grandfather before) was personally
involved in the study of martial arts.9 From then on interest in martial arts were on
the decline as memories of wartime had faded away, moreover the fifth shōgun,
Tsunayoshi, who was a devoted Confucian wished to repress the “moral of wartime”
for the sake of “peaceful, benevolent governance”,10 also placing a ban on martial art
duels. With the lack of chance to prove the real strength of the schools their connec-
tion developed toward collegiality, became friendlier.

18
As Nakabayashi Shinji has pointed it out, two main reasons existed for keeping the tech-
niques secret: (1) to maintain the purity of the teachings, (2) the intention that full knowledge should be
given only to the person who inherits the school as its next headmaster (Nakabayashi 1988b, p. 154).
19
The shōgunal family employed several martial art experts as teachers – those ryūhas were
called “noble family styles” (oie-ryū お家流), including the sword arts of Yagyū Shinkage-ryū and
Ono-ha Ittō-ryū, but Iemitsu also studied the art of the musket (hōjutsu 砲術) from Inatomi Ichiun
(Mikami 1977, vol. 2, p. 99).
10
Tsunayoshi had the first article of the 1615 code, Buke shohatto rewritten. This article
had set practising martial arts and pursuing learning as the main task of the warrior class – after the
rewrite it was “to develop learning and martial skills, loyalty and filial piety, to force proper be-
havior on other classes” (Maruyama 1974, p. 114). On the changes of the text of Buke shohatto, see
also Mikami (1977, vol. 2, pp. 11 – 12).
Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013
 INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR: A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL 101

3. Essence of the Style (Tōryū tai’i 当流大意 )

This section provides basic information for the students about what they are going to
learn: without fail the origin of techniques is traced back to the age of the gods and
students are made to feel the magnitude of the challenge awaiting them:
“These techniques of the sword, born in the age of the gods, had been
handed down through divine transmission. They form a tradition revered
by the world, but its magnificence manifests itself only when one’s knowl-
edge is ripe.”
夫剣法者、自神代有神伝。謂之曰、幽絲業天下咸尚之其妙在於
熟之而已。
As of mature knowledge, its spiritual side is emphasised:
“When [knowledge] is mature, the mind forgets about the hand, the hand
forgets about the sword.”
熟則心能忘手、手能忘剣。
This state of mind can be achieved only when one is able to get rid of all delu-
sions by calming one’s mind – this is a level very few people can rise to, that is why
most practitioners are stuck with artistic, ineffective martial arts (kahō mueki no gei
花法無益之芸). To be politically correct, the text mentions the arts of the Yagyū and
Ono families11 as opposite examples, that is, arts remaining useful and effective.
After citing examples from the art of the sword Bugei no jo continues with de-
scription of kenpō 拳法, fist-fighting. Interesting to notice that while in Edo era mar-
tial arts literature kenpō was considered to be empty-handed fighting (boxing) from
China (Mikami 1977, pp. 100–101; Maruyama 1967a, p. 60), in Takenouchi-ryū it was
understood as fighting without kogusoku (short sword), also known as kumiuchi 組討
(Takenouchi 1992, p. 68). Still, the text recognises its alleged Chinese origins when
defining it quotes a lengthy passage from a well-known Chinese martial art treatise,
Qi Jiguang’s 戚繼光 Jixiao xinshu (紀效新書, New treatise on military efficiency).12
Qi’s name is not mentioned and the punctuation and characters of the original Chinese
are altered in many places. As of kenpō, the borrowed paragraph explains that these
techniques are not for battlefield use (雖似無預於大戦之技), but they can be useful
as the training of hands, legs and body, so this is the first level of martial art training
(此為初学入芸之門也). Following the quotation it concludes that as Takenouchi-ryū
holds the training of the movements of the hands and body of utmost importance,
kenpō is considered to be the source of martial art (bugei no minamoto 武芸之源).

11
Arts practised by the shōgun himself.
12
Qi Jiguang (1528 – 1588) was a general who among others, fought against the Japanese pi-
rates of the time, the wako. Takenouchi Hisamori’s homeland, Mimasaka was situated by the inland
sea, where pirate traditions at the time were very strong. I would like to express my gratitude to
Prof. Inoue Takami of Otani University, who called my attention to this connection. Qi Jiguang was
influental in preserving and documenting the martial traditions of Ming China as well (Shahar
2001, pp. 372 – 373).
Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013
102 BALÁZS SZABÓ

4. Inner Teachings (Okushi 奥旨)

This section explains the significance of alternate approaches of gentle and hard,
strong and weak in combat, quoting San Lue (Jp. Sanryaku 三畧), a classic work on
strategy, attributed to Huang Shigong 黄石公, one of the seven classics on military
science in China.
It says that as there are cases when the gentle (jū 柔) wins against the hard (gō
剛), the weak (jaku 弱) is victorious over the strong (kyō 強), one must be prepared to
use gentle, hard, weak and strong according to the situation. Only alternating use of
the four principles, all time applied to the circumstances assures the ability to adapt
to the changes in the movements of the opponent.

5. Understanding the Application of Techniques

(Ōhen no ketsu 応変之訣)

This section quote Sima Fa (Jp. Shiba Ho 司馬法), a 4th-century BC Chinese mili-
tary manual and Sunzi (Jp. Sonshi 孫子):
“Take care of the small things, not the big things,
care for labour, do not care for idleness,
care for great dangers, not for small ones,
(Sima Fa, Yan wei 嚴位 21)
and it will be like throwing a stone on an egg,
this is what strong and weak means.”
(Sunzi Bing Fa 兵法, Bing shi 兵勢 1)
撃其微静 避其強静 撃其倦労
避其閑宛 撃其大懼 避其小懼
如以砥投卵者、 虚実是也
The text quotes Chinese classics to made its point – it was usual in Edo-era
Japan to turn to ancient Chinese lore for strengthening one’s position. Here we find a
rather cleverly designed blending of quotations from two separate texts with the aim
to emphasise the importance of knowing the enemy’s strong and weak points.

6. Discipline (Kaishin 戒慎)

Another quotation:
“To see bad as good is like stepping out of the gate we see the enemy,
though numerous we see them as few, therefore no fear awakes,
so we triumph when the fighting is just started.”
(Wuzi Lunjiang (Jp. Ronshō 論將) 1)

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

 INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR: A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL 103

視不能如能 出門如見敵 見衆如見寡

臨敵不懐生 雖克如始戦
The quotation is from Wuzi (Jp. Goshi 吴子), another piece of the Seven Classics.

7. List of Fistfight Techniques (Kenpō jōmoku 拳法条目)

Twelve techniques (called sei 勢) of kenpō are listed here, this expression is used only
in the case of kenpō in Takenouchi-ryū. After the list of techniques there is a line:
“Of martial arts it is said, they are like an endless circle.
(Junkan no mutan no gotoshi 如循環之無端)”
This remark and the number twelve very likely shows the effect of the Buddhist
monk Takuan’s (沢庵) famous work, “Discussion on the essence of the immovable
mind” (Fudōchishinmyōroku 不動智心妙録) (Fudōchishinmyōroku, for an English
translation see Takuan – Wilson 1986). Takuan brings up the twelve musical tones as
an example for how beginning and end meet, then applies it to martial arts:
“Because the beginner does not know how to stand with the sword in
his hands or anything else, in his mind there is not a thing to be attached
to. When he is attacked, without any deliberation he tries to fend off the
attack. But gradually he is taught many things, he is instructed how to
hold the sword, where to concentrate his mind and other things. So his
mind will be attached to those things and when he attempts to attack his
opponent, his movements will be awkward. However, as days, months
and years pass, due to innumerable trainings everything, as he stands, as
he holds the sword will lose consciousness, in the end getting back to the
state of mind he had in the beginning, when he did not know anything.”
(Fudōchishinmyōroku, pp. 35–36)
For Takuan, the same is true in Buddhism:
“In Buddhism when someone reaches the depth of the Way, becomes
like the man who does not know neither the Buddha nor the Teaching,
he does not have any outside signs or something to show to people. The
early affliction of abiding in ignorance and the later immovable wisdom
become one, all intellectual activities are gone and the person arrives to
the state of no thinking, no consciousness (munen-mushin 無念無心).”
(Fudōchishinmyōroku, pp. 38–39)

8. Deepest Secrets of Fistfight (Kenpō kyokuhi 拳法極秘)

Kyokuhi 極秘 techniques formed the highest level of the school’s curriculum, divided
to three parts. These were added in the time of the third headmaster, Takenouchi
Kaganosuke Hisayoshi (Bugei ryūha daijiten, p. 359).

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

104 BALÁZS SZABÓ

Ukemi no daiji 請身之大事 – defensive techniques

Shinkatsu no daiji 真活之大事 – ‘virulent’ techniques, attack techniques
Shinsei no daiji 神勢之大事 – ‘divine techniques’. It was rather customary in
the world of Japanese martial arts to name the most effective, therefore most valuable
techniques divine techniques (also kamuwaza 神業).13

9. Deepest Secrets of Fencing (Kenpō okuhi 剣法奥秘)

These techniques are divided into three categories:

Senryūken 潜竜剣 (Also known as shinshō 心勝 or hisshō 必勝.)
Hiryūken 飛竜剣 (Also known as Senkin 千金).
Ōryūken 応竜剣 (Also known as iju ichinin 惟授一人, ‘considered to be given
to one person’, as these techniques were taught only to the headmaster’s heir.)14
These last sections of the text are lists of techniques. Their laconic nature was
to provide students the necessary information about the names and succession of tech-
niques, without the risk that anyone outside of the school can fathom their meaning.
Secrecy was to be maintained regardless the number of scrolls given out by the school.

Conclusion

As already mentioned, Bugei no jo represents the genre of initiation documents of

Japanese martial arts literature, with the intention of providing students with a basic
knowledge about the school’s teaching, curriculum and the philosophy of jūjutsu.
Therefore the specialty of the text is the mixture of different purposes, as it serves as
a theoretical premier, a list of rules and a mokuroku 目録,15 that is, a list of techniques.
Throughout the document the Confucian morality underlying warrior-identity and
moral is apparent, but its author(s) cannot ignore the foundations of martial arts theory,
which is based on Buddhist ideas. This is clearly visible in the sections when the author
follows the zen monk Takuan almost word by word.
One of the most interesting features of Edo-era martial arts literature is the deep
practicality constantly present in the writings, hardly shadowed by the also percepti-
ble aspiration to rise to theoretical, even philosophical heights. It is a fact, that martial
art teachers were eager to approach the problem of reaching the highest level of bodily

13
As a religious understanding of divine techniques, see the case of Ueshiba Morihei 植芝
盛平, founder of a 20th-century martial art, aikidō 合気道. Divine techniques for him meant the
state of mind when the fighter is beyond mere technical skills, movements are born during the fight
spontaneously, like results of divine interference (Ueshiba 2007, p. 103).
14
Headmaster of a school was usually called sōke 宗家. For a thorough survey, see Nishi-
yama (1960).
15
Mokuroku is an important genre of martial arts documents, representing the earliest form
of these texts. These are actually a list of techniques, serving as a memoriser and a diploma for
students (Nakabayashi 1988c, p. 193).
Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013
 INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR: A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL 105

movements from the direction of the mind, leading to the conviction that body and
mind are inseparable (shinshin funi 心身不二) (Yōrō – Kōno 1993, p. 21), and in the
Edo era this tendency became even stronger (ibid. pp. 33–34). However, in martial
art literature body was never really overshadowed by mind, as everyday experience
refuted such theoretical extremities: without body there is no martial art. We can as-
sume that consistent accentuation of the importance of the physical side of martial arts
came from the down-to-earth thinking of such authors, as general tendencies led to
the opposite: Edo-era martial artists liked to think of themselves as artists, freed from
the bounds of body, so the superiority of mind over body was tautological (Nakaba-
yashi 1988a, pp. 5– 7).
That time martial art schools were mostly family enterprises, making a liveli-
hood of ‘selling’ their techniques, which needed to be interesting, useful and attractive
enough to attract vast numbers of students. In support they had to argue that those
techniques, a system created by human intellect, will help anyone who masters it to
reach beyond physical boundaries, determining again mind’s superiority over body.
This, coupled by the general atmosphere of the age was a force surely enticing authors
to lean on the theoretical, psychological side – that most of them refused to do so,
can be explained only by their consequent practicality deriving from their everyday
experience.
In the mokuroku (list of techniques) part of the text we can see the typical char-
acteristics of these documents: the names are obscure but noble-sounding, in the ex-
planations we often find poems and quotations from classical Chinese works – all
these serve the primary purpose to raise interest in the techniques without releasing
any details about their practical execution, in addition to show the author’s education
and literary skills.
In summary we can say that the multi-purpose nature of Bugei no jo may be
due to the fact that it was written late in the Edo period, thus representing a highly de-
veloped form of martial arts documents. Through its text we can get an understand-
ing of the educational and social roles of contemporary martial arts schools, which
were an important phenomenon of Edo-era samurai society.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Bugei ryūha daijiten: 綿谷雪 Watatani Seki – 山田忠史 Yamada Tadashi (eds) (1978): 武芸流派
大辞典 Bugei ryūha daijiten. Tōkyō, Tōkyō kopii shuppanbu.
Friday, Karl (2003): Off the Warpath: Military Science and Budo in the Evolution of Ryūha Bugei.
In: The 23rd International Seminar of Budo Culture. Katsuura, pp. 114 – 128.
Fudōchishinmyōroku: 池田諭 Ikeda Satoshi (ed.) (2004): 沢庵宗彭 Takuan Sōhō: 不動智神妙録
Fudōchishinmyōroku. Tōkyō, Tokuma shoten.
Futaki – Irie – Katō (1994): 二木謙一 Futaki Ken’ichi – 江康平 Irie Kōhei – 加藤寛 Katō Hirosi
(eds): 日本史小百科・武道 Nihonshi shohyakka – budō. Tōkyō, Tōkyōdo.
Kawaai (1997): 河合正治 Kawaai Masaharu (ed.): 毛利元就のすべて Mōri Motonari no subete.
Tōkyō, Shinjinbutsu-ōraisha.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

106 BALÁZS SZABÓ

Kishida (1984): 岸田裕之 Kishida Hiroshi (ed.): 中国大名の研究 Chūgoku daimyō no kenkyū.
戦国大名論集 Sengoku daimyō ronshū. Tōkyō, Yoshikawa.
Kishino (1995): 岸野雄三 Kishino Yuzo: 武器史から見た東アジア Bukishi kara mita Higashi-
Ajia. In: The 7th International Seminar of Budo Culture. Katsuura, pp. 19 – 25.
Maruyama (1967a): 丸山三造 Maruyama Sanzō (ed.): 大日本柔道史 Dai Nihon judoshi. Tōkyō,
Kōyūsha.
Maruyama (1967b): 丸山三造 Maruyama Sanzō (ed.): 世界柔道史 Sekai jūdōshi. Tōkyō, Kōyū-
sha.
Maruyama, Masao (1974): Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan. Transl. by Mikiso
Hane. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.
Mikami (1977): 三上参次 Mikami Sanji: 江戸時代史 Edo jidai shi, vols 1 – 3. Tōkyō, Kōdansha.
Nakabayashi (1988a): 中林信二 Nakabayashi Shinji: 日本武道における身体論 Nihon budō ni
okeru shintairon. In: 武道論考 Budō ronkō. Tsukuba, 中林信二先生遺作集刊行会 Naka-
bayashi Shinji sensei isaku shū kankōkai, pp. 3 – 17.
Nakabayashi (1988b): 中林信二 Nakabayashi Shinji: 兵法家伝書の思想に関する一考察 Heihō
kadensho no shisō ni kansuru ichikōsatsu. In: 武道論考 Budō ronkō. Tsukuba, 中林信二先
生遺作集刊行会 Nakabayashi Shinji sensei isaku shū kankōkai, pp. 153 – 159.
Nakabayashi (1988c): 中林信二 Nakabayashi Shinji: 武道における技法・心法・修行 Budo ni
okeru gihō, shinpō, shugyō. In: 武道論考 Budō ronkō. Tsukuba, 中林信二先生遺作集刊
行会 Nakabayashi Shinji sensei isaku shū kankōkai, pp. 192 – 199.
Nakabayashi (1994): 中林信二 Nakabayashi Shinji: 武道のすすめ Budō no susume. Tōkyō, Shi-
mazu.
Nihon budō taikei: 老松真一 Oimatsu Shin’ichi – 植芝吉祥丸 Ueshiba Kisshōmaru: 日本武道
大系 Nihon budō taikei. Tōkyō, Dōhōsha shuppan, 1982. Vol. 6: 柔術・合気道 Jūjutsu-
Aikidō.
Nishiyama (1960): 西山松之助 Nishiyama Matsunosuke: 家元の研究 Iemoto no Kenkyu. 西山松
之助著作集 Nishiyama Matsunosuke Chosakushū, vol. 1. Tōkyō, Yoshikawa Kōbunkan,
1982 (first edition 1960).
Ōmiya (1998): Ōmiya Shirō: The Hidden Roots of Aikido. Aiki Jūjutsu Daitōryū. Secret Teachings
of an Ancient Martial Art. Tōkyō, Kōdansha.
Ōmori (1991): 大森宣昌 Ōmori Nobumasa: 武術伝書の研究 Bujutsu densho no kenkyū. 近世武
道史へのアプローチKinsei budōshi e no apurōchi. Tōkyō, Chijinkan.
Rogers, John M. (1990a): Arts of War in Times of Peace. Archery in Honchō Bugei Shōden. Mo-
numenta Nipponica vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 253 – 260.
Rogers, John M. (1990b): Arts of War in Times of Peace: Swordsmanship in Honchō Bugei Shō-
den, chapter 5. Monumenta Nipponica vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 413 – 448.
Sagara (1984): 相良享 Sagara Tōru: 武士の思想 Bushi no shisō. Tōkyō, Perikansha, 2004 (first
ed. 1984).
Shahar, Meir (2001): Ming-period Evidence of Shaolin Martial Practice. HJAS vol. 61, No. 2, pp.
359 – 413.
Takenouchi (1992): 竹内藤十郎久武 Takenouchi Tōjūrō Hisatake: 竹内流の伝統 - その心と技
Takenouchi-ryū no dentō – sono kokoro to waza. In: The 4th International Seminar of Budo
Culture. Katsuura, pp. 65 – 77.
Takuan – Wilson, W. S. (1986) (foreword and transl.): Takuan Sōhō: The Unfettered Mind. Tōkyō,
Kōdansha.
Ueshiba Morihei (2007): The Secret Teachings of Aikidō. Transl. John Stevens. Tōkyō, Kōdansha.
Uozumi (2002): 魚住孝至 Uozumi Takashi: 宮本武蔵 - 日本人の道 Miyamoto Musashi – nihon-
jin no michi. Tōkyō, Perikansha.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

 INITIATION TO THE ART OF WAR: A PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE TAKENOUCHI SCHOOL 107

Uozumi (2003): 魚住孝至 Uozumi Takashi: 武道の思想史的課題 - 宮本武蔵五輪書の研究を

通して Budō no shisōshiteki kenkyū no kadai – Miyamoto Musashi ‘Gorin no sho’ no ken-
kyū wo tōshite. In: The 23rd International Seminar of Budo Culture. Katsuura, pp. 26–35.
Uozumi (2005): 魚住孝至 Uozumi Takashi: 宮本武蔵五輪書の思想史研究 Miyamoto Musashi
“Gorin no sho” no shisōshi teki kenkyū. In: Yamada Shōji – Bennett, Alexander (eds): 日本
体育に武道を - 21世紀に心技体を鍛える Nihon no taiiku ni budō o – 21 seiki ni shingi-
tai o kitaeru. Tōkyō, Meiji tosho, pp. 122 – 144.
Yōrō – Kōno (1993): 養老孟司 Yōrō Takeshi – 甲野善紀 Kōno Yoshinori: 古武術の発見 - 日本
人にとって身体とは何か Kobujutsu no hakken – Nihonjin ni totte “shintai” to ha nani-
ka. Tōkyō, Kōbunsha.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

View publication stats