The Unbroken Lineage Fallacy

Saitō Ryōichi Mitsukage, JdL, Carp

The Martial Traditions of Japan are well known worldwide. The mystique that is wrapped up in those traditions are what draw many of us in the West to the study of the Japanese Martial Traditions. In addition, for many ryūha (kanji: 流派, meaning: ‘School of Thought’) there are long lineages which stretch deep into antiquity. There is a lot of discourse in the broader Historical Martial Arts community about the legitimacy of a given ryū based around these lineages. Further to that there is an attachment to the idea that ryūha are teaching exactly what was taught in the past. There are a number of factors which can be used to refute the idea that the curricula of the ryūha haven’t changed in the four hundred years since many of them were founded. Of those reasons the most notable are the historical inconsistency found in many lineages, the nature of transmission within ryūha, and the sociocultural changes in Japan across the centuries since the founding of the ryūha.

The historical inconsistencies found in the lineages can come in a variety of forms. Among them are mytho-historical origins and impossible founders. These inconsistencies are even found among the most famous ryūha. Such inconsistencies can make it difficult to determine what the original teachings of the school are in the first place.

A kenjutsu (kanji: 剣術, meaning: “Martial Way of the Sword”) ryūha that is well known in the west is the Kashima Shin ryū. While there aren’t questions about the legitimacy of the Kashima Shin ryū; The history of the ryū does begin in the mytho-historical period of Japanese history. In their book Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima Shinryū and Samurai Martial Culture Karl Friday and Seki Humitake say “Consider now the origins of the warrior arts of Japan. [The ancient records] convey that the Kashima Shinryū began during the Age of the Gods, with a mission of as a champion for the Imperial Court…”¹ They are quoting the Kashima Shinryū Hyōhō Denki, which they explain is a listing of successive Headmasters of the ryū.² This points to the idea that the ryū was founded by in part by divine inspiration, specifically Takemikazuchi-no-mikoto a storm god with associations with swords.³ In addition, the first listed human exponent of the ryū was Kuninazu-no-Mahito, himself a legendary figure, living in the 7th Century.⁴

![[LineageChart.png]]

Figure 1 is a Lineage Chart for the Kashima Shinryū, which shows the primary Student-Teacher relationships within the ryū and its branch schools. An interesting detail is that between Kuninazi-no-Mahito and the two students which start the non-legendary part of the lineage chart, is the influx into the ryū of thought from the Shinto ryū via the student Jizasa Chōisai, followed by Kunii Kagetsugu also studying with the Maniwa Nen ryū. These two students Kunii Kagetsugu, and Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami, are likely the originators of the school. This would move the time of the founding of the ryū from the mytho-historical period of Japanese history to the 16th Century. And also brings other ryūha into the founding of the school, as one of the likely founders is also listed as having studied with Soma Sadakane of the Maniwa Nen ryū. If one assumes that the history of the ryū is true, and that the first human exponent of the ryū was alive in the 7th century one must then wonder what effect the influx of ideas from first the Shinto Ryū, then the Maniwa Nen Ryū would be on the teachings of the ryūha, and what those teachings might have been before the influence of the Maniwa Nen Ryū.

An example of a ryū which has both a mytho-historical origin story and an impossible founder can be found in the Isshin ryū Kusarigamajutsu which is preserved within Shintō Musō Ryū.⁵ The stories in the ryū, as stated in Pascal Krieger’s Book Jodō: the Way of the Stick, say that Isshin Ryū started with a Buddhist Monk named Nen Ami Jion, also known as Sōma Shirō Yoshimoto.⁶ Nen Ami Jion “lived at the Jūfukuji Temple in Kamakura during the Ōei era (1394-1427)”⁷ It was said that “one night after many days of prayers to the deities of Katori and Kashima Shrines, a spirit appeared in front of him with a sickle in his right hand and a metal weight in his left.”⁸ It is far more likely that the school was founded much later than that and not at all by Nen Ami Jion. As Ellis Amdur, a senior instuctor in two ryūha which contain kusarigama, says in his essay “Kusarigama: the Chain-and-Sickle” “It is almost certain that this weapon was mostly developed during the peacetime years of the Edo Period, as a weapon of single combat against someone armed with a sword, and also used as a training device for practitioners of other weapons, particularly enhancing one’s ability to judge distance and hone footwork against rapidly moving, even flying objects. Finally, and not insignificantly, it was both a fascinating ‘plaything’ for warriors with time on their hands…”⁹ The kusarigama’s likely invention in the 17th Century or later presents some challenges with it being invented by Nen Ami Jion in the 14th or 15th Centuries. Furthermore, both Krieger and Amdur point to sources which refute the relationship between the Isshin Ryū and Nen Ami Jion.¹⁰¹¹ Which in turn leave one with questions regarding the ground upon which the ryū stands.

Though details like these do encourage questions about the ground upon which the ryūha stand upon, one might still argue that once the foundational teachings of the ryū have been set that they could still remain constant; However, we can already see one point where there is an influx of information from other ryūha. Furthermore, the nature of transmission in Japanese martial traditions creates a lot of opportunities for reinterpretation of the material taught within the ryū. It does this through a few mechanisms including the nature of written transmission, and the manner of transmission succession found in ryūha.

While there are many components of the nature of transmission within the classical ryūha which complicate the issue of the changes in the teachings of those ryūha; Denshō are a good place to start. In part this is because many ryūha have held on to some denshō from earlier in the ryūha’s history and continue to use it do show the legitimacy of the teachings of the school. This presents challenges for several reasons.

Firstly, denshō are written to obfuscate the truth of the school. In a translation of selected sections of Kuki Shinden Zensho, written by Agō Kiyohiko and translated by Sid Sked, it says

“It says that normally these techniques are known as Kappo methods but these techniques (Kuki Kukatsu 12 ho) are called Kuki Somen Taijutsu Kappo Hen. At this point there are five lines of fifty-two characters written in Kukishinji followed by twenty-one (character) long section about your attitude towards learning Budo that have been omitted from this book.”¹²

Kukishinji here refers to characters (kanji: 字 - read: ji) used specifically in Kukishin ryū documents. The fact that they are specifically referred to as Kukishinji implies that these lines of text are hidden by the choice of characters. In addition, as Ron Mottern says in his paper Koryu Bujutsu as a Transformative Learning Experience “…the third volume in the Heiho Kaiden Sho, states of one particular technique that, ‘because it is to be secretly transmitted, we do not give the correct ideographs for the term in writing, but use ideographs that sound the same’ (Sato, p. 82).”¹³ This quote from one of the dehshō of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryū exemplifies the usage of different kanji to hide the teaching of the ryū within the written text. Moreover, Dr. Kacem Zoughari says in the YouTube Documentary titled Movement of classical martial arts with regard to using Kanbun (Classical Chinese used in Japan as the official written language by men in the Aristocracy) to hide teaching in denshō “You have the part in Kanbun … so if you don’t know Kanbun… well…”¹⁴ The implication here is that parts of the denshō are written in a language relatively few people would be familiar with.  Furthermore, not only would the language or writing system be used to keep the average person from understanding the text; but also, it would be written such that a person without experience in the ryūha would not be able to understand it.

Denshō were typically written for a single student when they were going to go out on their own. In Kako Genzai Mirai Dr. Zoughari says “When, for example, you write a denshō, you write this for your student, for the one who is going to succeed you, for the one you want to give, …”¹⁵ Furthermore, Dr. Zoughari points out how denshō can be passed on for other reasons, including loyalty to your Lord (giri yurushi), or for the money to pay the bills (kane yurushi). Not only are denshō for an individual student, but they were intended to be an aide memoire to that student “so that the next one doesn’t forget what happened when they were together.”¹⁶.

Dr. Zoughari points out in Movement of the Classical Martial Arts, reading from and commenting on the denshō of the Shinden Fudo Ryū, “Koshi wo hikume (Lower your hips)…sometimes it’s writing sanzun (3 sun approximately 9.1 cm)… you have to go that low. Maybe because the master that wrote this to you knew that you’re always here, so you have to go there…” He goes on to say “…you need, not only to study, but at the same time practice, you need to have someone to show it to you, someone who have the right way,”[^20] referring to needing a person who is able to explain the teachings of the ryūha to you. Thus, without the underlying understanding both of what the teacher wrote and the teachings of the school, the written transmission of the ryūha is intended to be opaque to the reader. This can make denshō difficult to interpret even if you are a student of the ryūha.

In addition to the written transmission of the ryūha being opaque to the uninitiated, the method and nature of the transmission also present challenges to the teachings of the ryūha not changing. The foundations of Japanese Martial Pegagogy are found in the three word idiom “Shu Ha Ri” which can be translated as “keep, fall, break away.” Shu, Ha, and Ri can be thought of as stages in the practitioner’s journey through the ryūha. The Shu stage is a period during one’s training where the expectation is to copy your teacher, as closely as possible. However, as Dr. Zoughari says in Kako, Genzai, Mirai “One Master, six students, six students six different forms.”¹⁷ Because, even though those six students would be trying to emulate their sensei to the best of their abilities; their perspective on what the sensei is doing would differ. This is also exemplified by the Shinan-kata scroll within the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryū, which is a text which includes the pedagogy of the ryūha. It includes instructions for adapting to 6 different types of student.¹⁸ The multiple interpretations of the teachings of the ryūha add to the difficulty of interpretation of the denshō to make changes in the teachings of the ryūha even more likely over time. In a lot of ways this becomes a several hundred-year game of telephone.

There is yet one more feature of the manner of transmission and succession in the ryūha of Japanese Martial Traditions which factor into the shifting of the teachings over the years, that being the nature of “total transmission.” Friday and Seki explain the concept of total transmission in this way:

“Martial art ryūha, by contrast, have historically tended to practice total transmission, in which all students certified as having mastered the school’s kabala are given “possession” of it.  As figure 1 demonstrates, such former students normally left their masters to open their own schools, teaching on their own authority; Masters retained no residual control over former students or students of their students.“ ¹⁹

The decentralization of the ryūha’s teachings will lead to different interpretations of the ryūha’s teachings being spread, in additional to the main line teachings. These factors, nature of written transmission, the nature of pedagogy within the Japanese martial traditions, and the nature of total transmission, all lead to the teachings within ryūha changing over time.

Finally, there are major sociocultural factors which also impact the teachings of the Japanese martial traditions. As much as the previous factors present challenges which are centred around the teachings themselves; the sociocultural factors present much deeper reasons for the teachings of the ryūha to change over time. The first of these sociocultural changes took place in the early 17th century. The beginning of the Edo period in 1604 marked the end of several centuries of war, and the beginning of almost 200 years of peace. This united the country under the leadership of the Tokugawa Shogunate, a military dictatorship granted under the auspices of support from the Emperor. The martial aristocracy transitioned to bureaucratic roles in the government of the country. With that came changes in the relationship with the martial ryūha.

The first of these changes can be exemplified by 17th century writers on martial philosophy.

In the late 17th century, you have writers like Hojo Chikuho-shi who wrote Instructions for the Way of the Knight who makes statments about the nature of samurai in his time. He says:

“Samurai are originally born into the caste in charge of killing and attack, so their hands and feet should be hardy, making nothing of mountains, rivers, and seas. They should train their bodies in colde and hear, night and day, so as to become strong in every way. But, samurai today -lords, commanders and officers alike- are pale of face, the soles of their feet are soft, they wear socks and caps. Their form may be that of samurai but their bodies are like aristocrats…” ²⁰

It should be plain to see that Hojo Chikuho-shi, who may have been a direct retainer of the Tokugawa, looks at the samurai of his time as having strayed far from the roots of their martial origins. Samurai of the time were still thought of as warriors, and were encouraged to practice the martial arts. This leaves us with the question, how did the teachings of the ryūha change with the cultural change of the nature of being samurai in the time period.

Though he is often thought of as a writer who romanticised the warriors of the previous time period Yamamoto Tsunetomo, writer of what would eventually be published as Hagakure, was famously outspoken about the lack of understanding of the warrior way. In Hagakure he says

“Although it is nothing out of the ordinary that warriors should keep the warrior’s way in mind, everyone seems to be negligent. The reason I say this is that when you ask them how they understand the essential idea of the way of the warrior, hardly anyone can answer at once. That’s because they haven’t got presence of mind. So it’s obvious that they don’t keep the warrior’s way in mind. This is utter negligence”²¹

While Yamamoto Tsunetomo is referring to the philosophical way of the warrior, as opposed to the physical arts of the warrior, it does still demonstrate a change in the thinking of the average samurai in the late 17th century.

Lastly, there was a major social upheaval at the end of the 19th Century when Emperor Meiji stripped samurai of all of the trappings of their position, even making the carrying of swords illegal. One cannot help but ask what would happen to the teachings of a ryūha whose material revolved around the weapons which had just been made illegal. These sociocultural changes left an indelible mark on the ryūha which survived them.

In conclusion, while there are many traditions around ryūha having teachings which have been unchanged since the founding of the school; The factors of sociocultural changes, the nature of transmission found in Japanese martial traditions, and historical inconsistencies in the histories of the ryūha raise questions about the impacts these factors had on the thinking within the ryū. These questions serve to provide a lens on the teachings of the ryūha which allows us to see the tenacity of the teachings within the ryūha. Through interpretation, and evolution we can see which teachings have been held closest. It is through these fundamental aspects that we can cut through some of the mystique, and see these ryūha for what they are, flows of Martial Thought from one generation to the next across almost 5 centuries.

Works Cited

解吾鄉清彦. and 吾鄉清彦. 1983. 九鬼神伝全書: 中臣神道・熊野修験道 - Kuki shinden zensho. Translated by Sid Sked. Tōkyō: 新國民社 : 発売統一密敎硏究所.

Amdur, Ellis. 2014. Old School: Essays on Japanese Martial Culture. 2nd ed. Wheaton: FreeLance Academy Press.

Cleary, Thomas F. 2009. Training the Samurai Mind: A Bushido Sourcebook. Boston: Shambhala : Distributed in the United States by Random House.

Friday, Karl F., and Fumitake Seki. 1997. Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima-Shinryū and Samurai Martial Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Krieger, Pascal. 1989. Jodô: la voie du bâton = Jodô : the way of the stick. Boulogne, Gland: SEDIREP ; SOPHA Diffusion.

Ron Mottern. 2020. “Koryu Bujutsu as a Transformative Learning Experience.” JOURNAL OF TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING 6 (2).

Ustav, William. 2013. Dr. Kacem Zoughari — Kako, Genzai, Mirai . YouTube - Dr. Kacem Zoughari — Kako, Genzai, Mirai . Onmitsukage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlrPjUsKsa0.

Ustav, William. 2018. Movement of Classical Martial Arts. Dr Kacem Zoughari – Movement of Classical Martial Arts (Documentary). Onmitsukage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVri1mi1Af0&t=1088s.

Footnotes

1. Friday and Seki, Legacies of the Sword, 12 ↩

2. Friday and Seki, Legacies of the Sword, 12 ↩

3. Friday and Seki, Legacies of the Sword, 19-22 ↩

4. Friday and Seki, Legacies of the Sword, 22. ↩

5. Krieger, Jodô, 419. ↩

6. Krieger, Jodô, 419. ↩

7. Krieger, Jodô, 419. ↩

8. Krieger, Jodô, 419. ↩

9. Amdur, Old School, 120. ↩

10. Krieger, Jodô, 419. ↩

11. Amdur, Old School, 131. ↩

12. 解吾鄉清彦. and 吾鄉清彦., 九鬼神伝全書. ↩

13. Ron Mottern, “Koryu Bujutsu as a Transformative Learning Experience”, 6. ↩

14. Ustav, Movement of classical martial arts, 2018, 2:53-3:02. ↩

15. Ustav, Kako, Genzai, Mirai, 2013, 7:20 - 8:55 ↩

16. Ustav, Kako, Genzai, Mirai, 2013, 4:36 - 4:39 ↩

17. Ustav, Kako, Genzai, Mirai, 2013, 30:20 - 31:00 ↩

18. Ron Mottern, “Koryu Bujutsu as a Transformative Learning Experience”, 8. ↩

19. Friday and Seki, Legacies of the Sword, 18. ↩

20. Cleary, Training the Samurai Mind, 135. ↩

21. Cleary, Training the Samurai Mind, 109. ↩