From Jikishin Seitō-ryū to Jikishinkage-ryū

Yamada Heizaemon Mitsunori (Ippūsai) (山田平左衛門光徳(一風斎), 1638–1718) studied Jikishin Seitō-ryū as a youth until a time when he was injured. Thereafter, he began a study of Edo Yagyū Shinkage-ryū heihō in the Unchū-ryū faction. In Enpō 2 (延宝２年) (1674), at age thirty-six he returned to his first training under Takahashi Danjōzaemon-no-jō Minamoto Shigeharu (高橋彈正左衛門尉源重治), later named Jikishinsai (直心齋). At age forty-eight in Jōkyō 3 (貞享3年) (1686), Yamada was granted the tekiden inka from Jikishinsai and eventually inherited that that line of practice.

Below I provide some context for this thinly attested figure, despite his promenance in the history of Jikishinkage-ryū, and provide a hypothesis on one way in which we can regard Jikishinkage-ryū practice.

From Jikishinsai to Ippūsai

The Bujutsu ryūsoroku (武術流祖録, 1843) has a full entry (image 81):

直心影流　山田平左衞門光德 元祿年中の人而號二一風齋一、從二高橋彈正左衞門重治一習二直心正繼流刀術一究二妙祕一、重治直心正統的傳之印狀を以附二屬于光德一、改二流名一號二直心影流一、其門最多也、三男長沼四郎左衞門國郷自レ幼好二刀術一、從レ父習練有レ年、終悟二奧旨一居二東武西久保一大鳴、從遊士若干、末流多二諸州一、子孫繼二箕裘之藝一不レ墜二家聲一、

with Kakikudashi:

元禄年中の人にして一風斎と号す。高橋弾正左衛門重治に従ひ直心正繼流刀術を習ひ、妙秘を究む。重治、直心正統的伝の印状を以て光徳に附属し、流名を改め直心影流と号す。其の門最も多きなり。三男長沼四郎左衛門国郷、幼より刀術を好み、父に従ひ習練すること年有り。終に奥旨を悟り、東武西久保に居て大いに鳴る。遊に従ふ士若干、末流諸州に多し。子孫箕裘の芸を継ぎ、家声を墜さず。

There is kanji variation in the Jikishin Seitō-ryū (直心正繼流) alternatively using tō (統). The text also asserts twice over that Naganuma Kunisato was Mitsunori’s third son and trained under his father. This would put the founding of the Naganuma family line effectively one generation prior, with Yamada Ippūsai.

Here also only Takahashi is listed as Ippūsai’s teacher. This work is going to lengths recording other men’s cross-school training freely elsewhere — 安丸仲右衛門 「學柳生新陰刀術」, 夏見族之助 「學柳生新陰流究其妙」, 若名主計 「學柳生流の刀術」.

The accompanying 直心影流略系 (image 82) runs Matsumoto Masamoto (鹿島神流之元祖) → Kamiizumi Hidetsuna → Ogasawara Nagaharu (from Okuyama Kimishige, 後入唐) → Kamiya Masamitsu (伝心斎; 改眞新陰流、神則心也) → Takahashi Shigeharu → Yamada Mitsunori. The compiler records a renaming act for four consecutive generations — Kamiizumi 神陰→新陰, Ogasawara 神影→眞新陰, Kamiya →〔直心?〕with the gloss 神則心也, Takahashi →直心正統流 — and records none for Yamada.

With Kamiya Denshinsai is states 神則心也. This is a mid-nineteenth-century attestation of the 神→心 substitution as a phonic identity — “shin is precisely shin” — attesting to the use of homophones for the first character similar to the broader Shinkage-ryū practice found in other lines of the art.

The Yamada box carries only surname and tsūshō, while Takahashi’s naming rationale is given explicitly: 「流派多端而混二支流一、故以二直心正統流一號」 — “because the lineages had become numerous and the branches confused, [he] therefore styled it Jikishin Seitō-ryū”. The passage continues:「重治直心正統的傳之印狀を以て光德に附屬し、流名を改め直心影流と號す」 — Shigeharu, by means of the Jikishin Seitō tekiden certificate, conferred [it] upon Mitsunori; the school name was changed and styled Jikishinkage-ryū.

One thing jumps to a careful reader’s attention. Syntactically, the renaming clause carries no restated subject. Classical Japanese and kanbun both permit subject-drop with continuity from the preceding clause, so the default reading carries Shigeharu forward as agent. But the intervening 于光德 makes Mitsunori an available antecedent, and nothing in the sentence forces a choice.

The renaming therefore attaches to the conferral event rather than to either man — it reads as something that happened at the moment of transmission, not as an act attributed to a named individual. This is a slight divergence from traditional accounts that Yamada renamed the art himself – it is not clear from this 1843 witness whether he or Jikishinsai did so. It may very well be that Jikishinsai provided Ippūsai with that name to refer to his teaching. At that time, each generation founded their own art, or changed its name. It is later, with the Nagnuma family line, that we see the name Jikishinkage-ryū stabilize – this is also around the time its lineage is driven back to the famous warrior Matsumoto Bizen no Kami.

Not all sources agree. The Gekiken sōdan, compiled the same year, says somewhat opposite in kind: 「何人より直心の字を加へ稱する事をしら ず」 Its author Mikami does not know who added 直心. So two 1843 compilations disagree not merely on the answer but on whether the question is answerable. That is a divergence in the mid-nineteenth-century record, which strengthens the case that the attribution question was already unsettled well before the modern scholarship took it up.

Technical Evolution

If we look at the content of Ippūsai’s Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku, by his time the empi, kuka excerpts and tengusho kata are discarded, being replaced with the set of fourteen kata titled Tō no kata.

The bulk of the koto and gokui cited by Ippūsai are those of the Edo line of Yagyū Shinkage-ryū, as preserved in Unchū-ryū and can be found in the work above as well as the Tsuki no Sho. Either at the time Jikishin Seitō-ryū was very close to Unchū-ryū in its core content or the two merged in Ippūsai’s teaching, at least at the level of principle.

I believe a line of Edo Yagyū Shinkage-ryū instead passed through Yamada Ippūsai into a revision of the Jikishin Seitō-ryū of Jikishinkai and then became what we call Jikishinkage-ryū today. Naganuma Kunisato then changed from viewing Jikishinsai as the ryūso to asserting a longer continuous (rather than reformed) lineage, back to Matsumoto Bizen no Kami.

In Jikishin Seitō-ryū transmission of Tahakashi Danjōzaemon to Yamada Heizaemon in Enpō 7 (1679), we see the arrangement hassō, ittō-ryōdan, utten-saten, chōtan-ichimi. They are followed by enren-toren (圓連 刀連) and tairen (体連), which are notes as being conveyed by oral transmission. This shows an example of enren listed directly after chōtan-ichimi, but it does not mean that it was the fifth kata of the set we practice today called hōjō, just that it was adjacent in the curriculum in that grouping of three.¹

This may be why Yamada chose the name Jikishinkage-ryū – as an expression of the influence his Yagyū practice had on his development. The choice of Jiki as a prefix then is a political statement that survives to the current day, regarding their line as the ‘true’ or ‘correct’ Shinkage-ryū.

This was later obscured by Naganuma Kunisato placing great empahsis on the historical figure of Matsumoto Bizen no Kami as a founder, replacing the accepted history of the bulk of Shinkage-ryū coming through Kamiizumi Ise no Kami from the Aisu Kage-ryū he studied. This was likely done to contrast Naganuma’s practice with both the suriving Owari line of Yagyū and factions of the Edo Yagyū Shinkage-ryū after Ippūsai’s passing.

This may have been motivated by the revisions Ippūsai and Naganuma made to the art’s foundational practice. Ippūsai with Naganuma had substantially reworked the curriculum he learned, merging two lines of the art and in the process discarding much of the earlier Unchū-ryū (Yagyū Shinkage-ryū) kata such as Kūka, Empi and Tengusho. Without that technical content being transmitted, it was more suitable to point towards the Ogasawara, Okuyama, Denshinsai, Jikishinsai line and impute another founder than Kamiizumi Ise no Kami.

In essence, he did not return to his earlier tradition so much as take it up again in order to continue a line of his own, at a time when Yagyū was only passed down by hereditary means (or via adoption). Receiving final licensure after decades of absence reads closer to a master choosing to designate someone as their inheritor, versus a continued practice that maintained all of what was present at its inception. However, we should not discount the twelve years Ippūsai spent with Jikishinsai in his elder years – it is remains an open question how large Jikishinsai’s school was and the exact nature of Ippūsai’s later training.

Jikishinkage-ryū then would actually date from between 1690 and 1718, during the interval after Takahashi Danjōzaemon Shigeharu (高橋弾正 左衛門重治) Jikishinsai has passed and before Ippūsai passed the art on to Naganuma Kunisato Shirozaemon. The subsequent line we inherit today then dates not to the imputing of Matsuomoto Bizen no Kami as its founder, but to the moment Naganuma made that choice.

From Ippūsai’s time onward, the shuji shuriken focus on Unchū-ryū would be subordinated to a Zen emphasis in Jikishinkage-ryū that lasted through the twentieth century, as evidenced by the writings of the Rinzai teacher Ōmori Sōgen (Ōmori Sōgen (大森曹玄), n.d.).

Reikenden

In examining the Tsuki no Shō and the opening passages quoting Kamiizumi on his founding summary relating to divine inspiration, we find mention of deities including Mañjuśrī and Marīcī. Kamiizumi’s founding document has two distinct statements — Mañjuśrī’s sword is the fountainhead; Marīcī takes it as her secret art. In addition, Kamiizumi states 「予究諸流奥源、於陰流別抽出奇妙、号新陰流」– his Shinkage-ryū is an extraction from Kage-ryū.

This is precisely what Karukome in his analysis deploys against the Jikishinkage-ryū densho tradition, which denies the Aisu Ikōsai connection: the founder says in his own hand what the later writings of Naganuma Kunisato denies on his behalf.

This is continued on the kata/koto level in Naganuma’s commentary on 面影 and 松風 — one school (Jiki) arguing with its own documentary record stemming from the same source (Yagyū) and more specifically, developing a narrative in counterpoint to the prominent Edo line of Yagyū, flowing from Munefuyu that Yamada Hirozaemon himself practiced. That is a political framing and one can be excused for coming to the conclusion that Naganuma Kunisato doth protest too much: the Jikishinkage-ryū he inherited from Yamada Heizaemon is not as separate from Edo Yagyū as he presents it to be. However, Naganuma’s commentary 「柳生公にては、日に影がうつる心持はよし。此方、影無を自分に付、打込むと也」places praise on the Yagyū approach, reinforcing that in practical terms during Naganuma’s lifetime, the two lines were related.

A Mixture of Influences

What Naganuma learned was likely a mixture of Yamada’s early learning from Jikishinsai and Edo Yagyū material. That is one potential reason why he takes care to distinguish his line from the Kage-ryū history shared by Edo Yagyū. The removal of Aisu as a lineage influence is hardened in later writings (切紙聞書之辨書 from 1806):

或人云、九州鵜戸岩窟ニ而、愛洲惟孝ト云人、霊夢ヲ得而、兵法ヲ自得シタリ、上泉其伝ヲ得タリト言ハ非也

This is around the time Jikishinkage-ryū has introduced the use of bogu and began to emphasize shiai and could be related to anxiety around appearing to (an actually) innovate, in a Confucian culture where older knowledge is valued. This is a continuation of the claim of orthodoxy on the part of Jikishinkage-ryū. Jikishinkai (高橋弾正左衛門重治) named his line Jikishin Seito-ryū (直心正統流) — 正統, orthodox transmission — and Karukome dates his activity 寛永→元禄 with the 免状 at 天和3 (1683). In terms of Kunisato’s writing, the 直心影流目録口伝書 (1764) does not mention Aisu at all. Matsumoto Bizen no Kami to Kamiizumi. There is no mention of Kuka, Empi, Tengusho or the other early Shinkage ryu teachings outside of the Hojo kata that overlap with Sangakuen, and Menkage. Sangaku is not mentioned, but Shinmyoken is, with Fudō bonji.

Karukome’s 表 1-12 collates 『直心正統流兵法目録』 — 元禄7年 (1694), given by Yamada Mitsunori to Yamada Jinnosuke — against the 1856 Ogawa mokuroku. The 直心正統流 極意 column reads:

右口伝 ／ アウン（梵字） 功妙剣 口伝 心妙剣 口伝 ／ 権体勇〔不行不帰不止〕口伝 ／ 西江水 口伝 ／ 惣体之〆 口伝 ／ 口上極意之事 口伝 ／ 以上 右條々極意者有口伝、以理為誠、以誠為理也… ／ 右者従先師神谷氏伝信大居士目録之、雖為奥儀…

Two dates attach to this document. Karukome’s n.224: 「光徳が書いた奥書の前に、延宝7年（1679）に高橋弾正左衛門重治が山田平左衛門光徳に与えたというもう一つの奥書がみられる」 — Takahashi conferred it on Ippūsai in 1679. And the colophon derives its content from Kamiya Denshinsai’s mokuroku, i.e. from before c. 1663.

Ippūsai was seventy in 1708, so born c. 1639. He received this mokuroku, with 西江水 in it, at about forty — from his own teacher, attributed to his teacher’s teacher. And Karukome’s 表 1-10 comparison of 新陰流 against Ogasawara’s 『真之心陰兵法目録』 (1670) puts 水月・懸待用・種子・法心・相分・西江水・打留太刀・光明剣・神妙剣・真心明剣 in the 真新陰流 column. So, 西江水 is present in Jikishinkage-ryū by 1670-79, at the time of Kamiya Denshinsai.

Ogasawara’s list contains: 水月, 種子, 神妙剣 — the Kamiizumi triad from p. 69 of the Tsuki no Shō (手字手利剣・水月・神妙剣) — plus 西江水. That is structurally identical to the Yagyū arrangement (Sano Katsuhisa 1915): founder’s three, with 西江水 as a supernumerary. Both houses show the same shape, which points to a shared horizon in the early-to-mid seventeenth century — the Sekishūsai/Munenori–Ogasawara generation — not to a later transfer.

Three further details from the Ogasawara catalogues sharpen this. A single gokui gloss can be traced across the transmission intact: 「不行不帰不留」 (“not going, not returning, not abiding”), which sits on 圓相 (ensō, the circle) in Ogasawara’s 1670 catalogue (Ogasawara Genshin Yoshiharu 1670), reappears — as 権体勇〔不行不帰不止〕 — in the 1694 Jikishin Seitō mokuroku quoted above: a concrete Ogasawara → Jikishinsai thread for one teaching. The 1670 list also carries 天狗集 (tengu-shū), the name the Kyūshū Hikita line uses for its tengu material, and the Ogasawara inka-maki — kept apart from the mokuroku — preserves a training method for maruhashi (丸橋) that the list itself omits; both are marks of contact between the Ogasawara and Hikita transmissions.

According to Karukome, the Naganuma line writes 円橋; the Fujikawa line writes 丸橋. Both sets are five kata, but the order of 2–4 differs and the fifth is named differently. In the Naganuma line, Hisho san specifies 仕太刀短刀打太刀長刀 — shidachi takes the kodachi. In Fujikawa-ha, uchidachi holds the kodachi and shidachi the tachi. In the Naganuma line, shidachi strikes the tachi down with his own kodachi (e.g. 1st kata: 向ノ太刀ノ当ルコロ、其太刀ヲ打ヲトス). In Yamada’s account nothing is struck down: uchidachi lowers his kissaki with kiai to suppress shidachi’s seigan (打太刀ハ間隔ニ応ジテ剣先ヲ左向水平トナシ気合ニテ仕太刀ノ精眼ヲ抑ヘ剣先ヲ落ス), and shidachi lowers his own point 過不及ナク out of 無想.²

Hisho ichi gives the etymology at length: the founder Sugimoto (杉本) vs Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami (松本備前守) — during a hundred-day pilgrimage came to a stream spanned by a single round log (円キ木ノ橋一本). A blind man probed the bridge briefly with his staff, then held it crosswise and crossed smoothly on ki alone (スラスラト気バカリニテ). Bizen-no-kami built the kata from that impression.

The pedagogical content follows from the image 我ヲステ切テ一気ニテ勤ル (“I will abandon my ego and work with single-minded determination”) a self-discarded, executed in a single breath, action — with the caution that an immature practitioner cannot perform it. The light touch of the kodachi tip against the tachi is glossed explicitly as 橋ニ杖ヲアテタル心, the feeling of a staff touching a bridge, after which one crosses with resolute spirit (一気).

The Shinkage canon is four sets — 燕飛, 三学, 九箇, 天狗抄 — as in Kamiizumi’s 影目録 (1566). If Kunisato’s 1764 kudensho carries none of them, then by 1764 Jikishinkage-ryū had not mixed the Shinkage kata curriculum with Yagyū material, but in fact replaced it. This continues a trend. Tengushō was no longer present in the 1670 mokuroku Ogasawara issued. Empi is still found (written 圓飛 ) and three of the Sangaku-en kata: 一刀両断・右転左転・長短一味, without the first and frame-setting Hasso. In 1679/1694 mokuroku issued from Jikishinsai to Ippūsai, Hasso appears as Hasso Happa (八相・発破) and Empi seems to have been replaced with 圓連・刀連・体連.

Kunisato in 1764 adds 龍尾・面影・鉄破・松風・早船・曲尺 — the 十之形 — and the Kashima myth. Before that time, founders are named one per generation. Jikishinsai lists Kamiya Denshinsai (神谷伝心斎) as the founder. This is an important point. The process of evolution from Shinkage-ryū kata as taught by Kamiizumi changed in the 17th century in what later became Jikishinkage-ryū, with Kamiya:

1. Kamiya (c. 1663): discards the inherited canon, declares himself founder of a reformed art. The gokui (極意) including bonji, 功妙剣, 心妙剣, 権体勇, 西江水, 惣体, 口上極意 — is what he keeps.
2. Takahashi → Ippūsai (1679–1708): transmit that reduced curriculum intact; Ippūsai’s Yagyū years contribute at the practical level (kodachi, habiki, and whatever the technical comparanda finally support) but do not introduce the gokui vocabulary.
3. Kunisato (1764): adds the 十之形 and the Kashima origin — supplying, a century later, an ancient authority for a break that had happened at stage 1 and a training method that was new at stage 2.

The myth is doing legitimation work; it is legitimating Kamiya’s rupture, not Ippūsai’s borrowing. Which is why it names Matsumoto — to establish priority, one needs a founder older than the line they have severed themselves from.

What is eventually preserved in common with Yagyū is found in the kuden: shinmyōken, seikōsui, sōjaku, kodachi, habiki, carried back by Yamada Ippūsai from his years in the Edo Yagyū line. The Kashima founder-myth, which derives the Hōjō from Matsumoto Bizen’s divine reiken, is the legitimation this restructuring required — not of a borrowing, but of a replacement.

By 1764 Jikishinkage-ryū had replaced the Shinkage kata canon entirely: Enpi, Sangaku, Kyūka and Tengushō are absent from Kunisato’s mokuroku-kudensho, which retains only the Hōjō — four-fifths of the Sangaku-en set, renamed — supplemented by Kunisato’s own Ten Forms.

The 法定 four are 一刀両断・斬釘截鉄・(左右転化/右転左転)・長短一味 — four of the five 三学円之太刀 (the fifth, 半開半向, dropped). Hōjō is not merely “overlapping” with Sangaku-en; it is a four-fifths subset of it, extracted, renamed as a set, and installed as the school’s foundational form. Everything else — Enpi, Kūka, Tengushō, and the Sangaku rubric itself — is gone.

This serves to explain why Yagyū fingerprints show up in the upper-level portions of the mokuroku (西江水’s 置所/気海丹田, the 陰/陽 stance logic, 相尺’s two-shaku definition) rather than in form-names. Also, it helps explain the densho notes. The 松風 commentary — 「エンクハイ〔円飛/燕飛〕ト云ハ、古ハ猿飛ト相記スよし。小笠原源信斎…」 — is an attestation that the school knows the Enpi/Sarutobi name and its Ogasawara transmission, and glosses its own 松風 against it.

That is not a school preserving Enpi; it is a school explaining what its own form stands in place of it. Same with 面影 explaining itself against 柳生公’s practice, but in the case of empi, they have discarded a practice that Ogasawara had maintained. So, this is not simply a distinguishing between two Shinkage factions in Edo, but instead a more radical break.

The 円/圓 spelling of enpi in this line is consciously chosen, not a mere graphic variant of 燕飛: the Harigaya-line inka scroll glosses it under “On Enpi Hassō” as 「the en of enpi is the en of endonkai (円頓戒), meaning to be perfectly and completely furnished」 — binding the form-name to the Tendai perfect-sudden precepts, and through them to Aisu Kage-ryū and Shugendō, as discussed in Volume I.

The founder legend derives the Hōjō from Matsumoto’s Kashima revelation and provides a provenance (albeit mythical) for the form-set that replaced the Shinkage canon. A school that has discarded Enpi, Sangaku, Kyūka, and Tengushō cannot claim to transmit Kamiizumi’s forms — so it needs its own forms to have an origin older and higher than Kamiizumi. Kashima, Takemikazuchi, the 霊剣 vision, and Matsumoto as 流祖 supply precisely that, and they supply it for the Hōjō in particular.

The myth legitimates discontinuity of form, not concealment of borrowing. And that is why it appears with Kunisato — the generation that finished the replacement (adding the 十之形) and changed the training method (bōgu, shinai) — rather than with Ippūsai, who did the borrowing but at a level requiring no legitimation.

At the same time, all mention of mikkyō and shugendō, aside from the Fudō bonji associated to the shinmyōken teaching, are from this point on either made private or lost. It appears that in Jikishinkage-ryū writings Marishiten has taken on a narrative and charismatic function (a dream granted sword, and avatar epithet, a founder’s invocation), where in the Shugendō corpus she maintains an operational register (mudras, annointment of armor, etc.).

Reiken (霊剣) is then found instead as a named Jikishinkage-ryū teaching with its own commentarial literature (佐藤郡兵衛『霊剣傳解』1819; 藤川整斎『霊剣略解』1857). In 『霊剣略解』 (Fujikawa Seisai, 1857) we find a doctrinal definition:

聊モ刀剣ニ不限、惣テ槍矛或ハ弓鉄砲其他ノ武器悉ク死物ナレトモ、人之ヲ運用活動スルトキハ、自ラ活物トナル訳ナレトモ、人之ヲ活物ニ為サネバ、如何ナル名刀良弓ト雖モ死物也。然レバ之ヲ活物ニ為サンニハ他事無シ、只我ガ精神ヲ其兵器ニ移シテ使用運転セザレバ、却テ其兵器ノ用ヲ失テ害アリ。…故ニ気ハ気ニ移ルモノナレバ、我ガ気ヲ其太刀ニ移シテ修行セザレバ、実地ノ用ニハ立チ難カルヘシ。

Not only blades — spear, halberd, bow, gun, every weapon is a dead thing (死物); when a person wields them they become living things (活物); if he fails to make them living, the finest blade is still a dead thing. The way to make it living is nothing else: transfer one’s own spirit (精神) into the weapon; ki transfers to ki.

In this school then the concept of reiken (霊剣) is that of the weapon made living by the spirit being transferred into it — not a magically blessed or anointed sword. There is also a reading of reiken as on the level of origin myths. The founder legend (as in 『直心影流極意教授図解』 1901 and 『直心影流伝書集』 1909) has Matsumoto/Sugimoto Bizen-no-kami granted 「神伝霊剣ノ妙術」 in a divine dream after a seven-night Kashima vigil; testing it with a bokutō cut from the sakaki (cherry tree) before the shrine, 「心気剣一致シテ剣道ノ真理ヲ悟ル」 — mind, ki, and sword became one. And crucially: 「此霊剣ヨリシテ法定ノ太刀筋ヲ生ス」 — from this reiken the hōjō sword-lines were born.

Rei (霊) carries numinous coloring from the revelation-narrative, but the content it names is the mind-ki-sword unity that the 19th-century commentaries gloss as spirit-transfer but is more akin to infusion or empowerment. This has a Daoist tone, with a focus on ki versus gongen or kami. The 死物/活物 logic remains however a close structural parallel to Yagyū’s 殺人刀/活人剣 — same 活/死 opposition, applied to the weapon rather than to the opponent. In contrast, the term tenken (天劔/天剣) is not found in Karukome’s dissertation, while reiken occurs twenty-one times. The concept of a heavenly sword (天劔) is Yagyū-side variant, not common to the parallel (or merged) Jikishinkage lines of practice.

Analysis of Jikishinkage-ryū Densho Commentary

We turn to some of the source documents mentioned above to complete this analysis. There are three Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku available for study from Naganuma Kunisato (長沼国郷) in the Waseda University library KE5 collection that also house the kuji documents we previously considered in this work. (“Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku (直心影流目録), Meiwa 5 (1768)” 1768; “Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku (直心影流兵法目録添状), Meiwa 5 (1768)” 1768; “Jikishinkage-ryū Hōjō (直心影流法定) — Naganuma Tadasato; copied by Ogawa Yashichi” 1800) Please consult the works of Karukome (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013; Karukome Katsutaka 2020) for exhaustive treatment, but I would like to examine their structure and marginal notes as they connect back to some of the ideas we have been considering in this work. My earlier work (Raugas 2025) provided practitioner-centric commentary on some of these works – here I would like to examine how the concepts described, especially among their koto and gokui sections, relate to the Edo and Kyushu lines of Shinkage-ryū.

1800 Text on Hōjō

Hōjō and hairyū (敗龍)

Hōjō is said to have been arranged from the Sangakuen teachings Takahashi Denshinsai inherited from his teacher, so date from the time of Jikishin Seitō-ryū (taught between 1624 and 1690):

法定トハ ハリノ定リタルコトヲ平生ナスユヘニ尚流ノ太刀ノ形ニハ法定トミナリ。形ハ人ニ生レテ色ニ變ルトモ汝定ニトナルヲ勤テ已カ形敗龍スルニ至リテハ其モ自由ニトリマハシナルナリ。職トシ勤苦ニハナスへシト云々。必モ人形ヲツカウヤウナル心ニテハ携行ナルヘカラス。

Hōjō means, because what we routinely practice is that which has been established with proper hari (ハリ; extension/stretching), in this school the kata of the tachi are all called Hōjō. Although forms (kata), once born in the person, change in their outward color [i.e., expression], by training diligently in that which becomes fixed (定ニトナル; becoming fixed/settled) — and reaching the point where one’s own form is broken and transformed, one becomes able to handle (the sword) freely. One should make it one’s vocation, pursuing it with diligent toil. It is most important: one must never proceed with the mind of merely being a ningyō (人形, “doll/puppet”) [doing kenjutsu].

四季ハ天地ノ形ヲ表スルナリ。八相ハ八ツノ形・物ノ八分円・・・

The four seasons represent the forms of heaven and earth. The Eight Aspects (Hassō) are the eight forms / the eight-tenths of a circle [in things]…

Notes

Ningyō kenjutsu is an established concept, relating to just going through the motions of kata. Hairyū (敗龍, “broken dragon”) is an interesting term, possibly specific to this line of practice, referring to the breaking and transformation (敗龍 / hairyū) of kata. It is evocative of the shu-ha-ri (守破離; follow-break-transcend stages) process made popular later in martial culture.

This Shunkashūtō (春夏秋冬; Four Seasons) doctrine [cf. A-Un, Gogyō, Godai and Beyond (Raugas 2025), 2026] will be referred back to later in the densho. (The per-kata commentary read below opens with a closely parallel four-seasons passage — 四本ハ天地ノ形、四季ヲ表スルナリ — the 沿覚 preamble and the hassō commentary share the doctrine.)

Curriculum

The opening section called Hassō Happa (八相發破; “eight-aspect breaking-forth”) is the core of the curriculum, being the first kata but also the point of analysis of the final gokui jūaku (十悪; ten evils), which examines what can go wrong in a practitioner’s development. The 1800 densho glosses the name on two registers at once — what 八相 is, and what 發破 does. It reads 八相 cosmologically before it reads it as movement: the Eight is the form of heaven and earth and the turning of the four seasons — the Shunkashūtō doctrine above — and then a figure, eight forms set in an eight-part hachibunzu (八分圖), the same wheel the school elsewhere calls the 八方車. What follows is a graded-fullness teaching: the circle is not won at eight but filled by degrees of weight (重ノ位) added one at a time, 八 toward 九 toward 十, until the stance is jūbun (十分), complete. 發破 is then the resolution of that completed fullness rather than raw aggression, glossed through 和 (harmony). This is the inner face of the warning given under the ten faults — that a hassō spirit not filled (michiru) collapses into kedai (懈怠) — the same fullness described not as a danger to avoid but as a process to build, which is why the first kata and the last gokui meet here (“Jikishinkage-ryū Hōjō (直心影流法定) — Naganuma Tadasato; copied by Ogawa Yashichi” 1800).

The four kata names that start this densho are standard otherwise for Hōjō and overlap with Yagyū Shinkage-ryū kata names from the set called Sangaku-en no tachi: Hassō (八相), Ittō Ryōdan (一刀両段), Utten Saten (右轉左轉) and Chōtan Ichimi (長短一味). Then we find the standard Tō-no-kata (韜之形) — interestingly, each entry is listed with the suffix tō (韜; tactic). Use of tō is significant as the introduction to the mokuroku lists the Seven Military Classics of China, one of which is well-known to be Rikutō (六韜; Liu Tao, the “Six Secret Teachings”). This densho initially writes Ittō Ryōdan (一刀両段) using the kanji 段 (level or step) instead of 断 (to cut or sever).

The small sword or kodachi practice, which can be regarded as the ura (concealed) version of Hōjō [cf. Kodachi: The ura of Hōjō, 2026], is not mentioned except in passing in commentary on the topic of Chōtan Ichimi in the koto section below.

Koto particular to 0003

The section containing a list of principles called koto (事; matters) following kata, and preceding the gokui, have some differences from the other mokuroku I have examined. Unique principles found here include:

• Uchi-ashi no koto (打足之事; striking footwork),
• Tsuki-gakure no koto (月隠之事; moon hiding [concealment]),
• Issaisho no koto (切處之事; all places [of cutting])

Others are found common across mokuroku. These include:

• sōjaku no koto (相尺之事; matter of equal measure)
• shikake no koto (仕懸; launching)
• ichimonji (一文字; one character)
• tome-sandan (留三段; three step retention)
• ki-tō (氣當; striking with ki), alternatively ki-ate (氣当)
• tai-tō (體當; striking the body)
• tachi-tō (太刀當; striking the sword)
• ginmi no koto (吟味之事; matter of discernment)

I examine these in my 2025 book (Raugas 2025). Several koto were added by Naganuma Kunisato in his 1764 mokuroku kudensho. It is at the time of Naganuma Kunisato that Matsumoto Bizen no Kami is inserted as the founder.

The technical curriculum in this mokuroku is not explicitly annotated by season but is broken into four parts: foundational methods of Hōjō, retention tome (留; finishing/stopping techniques), circle/connection ren (連; linking/sequential techniques) and stance variations (構之變; guard/stance variations) of in, yo and ai kamae/gamae.

The 0003 gokui list

The gokui are listed in books on the art; I collect the documentary side of my research on them separately. One example that is drawn from Zen Buddhism is seikō-sui(“swallow the west river”), the name of a famous Zen teaching aphorism or kōan. Others include shinmyōken (神妙剱 / 心妙剱 ), ken tai yū (權躰勇), sōtai no boku (惣躰之卜), furyū no katsu (不立之勝) and kihatsu (起發), along with explicitly mentioned kōjō gokui no koto ( 口上極意之事; “beyond words or unspeakable”) matters.

I. Kata (形)

八相 (hassō); 発・破 (happa)

「四本ハ天地ノ形、四季ヲ表スルナリ。八相ハ八ツノ形也。物ハ八分目ト申ハ、十分ニ勝〔たず〕、八分目ノトコロガ、心ノ一ツ、一杯ニノリ、アト二分、重畳ノ心也。初ノ形ハ相和ノ形也。発破ハ、和ナル処ヲ打破テ行ク気味。又ハ剱九重ノ伝一ツ加ヘ、突トモ云也。」

The four [basic] are the form of heaven-and-earth, expressing the four seasons. Hassō is eight forms. ‘Things at eight-tenths’ means: not winning fully — the eight-tenths point is where the mind rides fully on one thing while keeping the remaining two-tenths in reserve (chōjō 重畳). The opening form is the harmonious (相和) form; happa (発破) is the feel of breaking through the harmonious place — or, adding one ‘ninefold-sword transmission’ (剱九重ノ伝), it is also ‘thrust.’

一刀両断 (ittō ryōdan)

「二ツナシ、一心ニ頭ヲ破ル心ナリ。只一刀ニテスマスこゝろ也。」

Not two; the mind of breaking the head with a single mind — finishing with just one stroke.

右転左転 (uten saten)³

「〔…〕夏ヨリ冬迄〔…〕、秋ニナリ候ヘバ、時召出ル星ノ思ヒヲ『旋』ト云。最初ヨリ〔シャカラ…?〕。」(heavily flagged)

〔…〕 from summer to winter 〔…〕; when autumn comes, the image (思ヒ) of the stars called forth in season is called ‘rotation’ (sen 旋). 〔…〕” — relates the kata’s turning to celestial rotation through the seasons.

長短一味 (chōtan ichimi)

「〔一補?〕気持ゟ、弐人ニ、長短ニよらず、初メノ八相ノ心アレバ、長短ノ差別ニ不及。是迄木刀四本ノ形也。」

Between two people, not depending on long-or-short [weapon]: if one has the initial hassō mind, the distinction of long and short does not arise. Up to here, four bokutō forms.”

龍尾 (ryūbi); 左・右

「最初二本、当リヲ龍尾ト言。蛇ナドハ、頭ヲ押ヘ、尾ヲ押ヘテモ、中ヲ押ヘテモ、自由ナル〔もの〕。龍尾かへしト言。是ゟシナイノ形。」

In the first two, the contact (当リ) is called ryūbi (dragon-tail). A snake — whether you pin its head, tail, or middle — remains free; hence ‘dragon-tail reversal’ (龍尾返し). From here, the shinai forms.”

面影 (menkage); 左⁴

「柳生公ニテハ、日ニ影カウツルこゝろ持ハよし。此方、影無ヲ自分ニ付、打込ムト也。水ニ月ノ移ル心也。ちらりト言フ所ヲ打ツ心なり。」

In the Yagyū tradition (柳生公にては), the mind-set of the reflection appearing in the sunlight is good; on our side, attaching ‘no-reflection’ (kage-nashi 影無) to oneself, one strikes in. It is the mind of the moon reflecting in water (水に月の移る心). One strikes at the instant of a glint (ちらり).

鉄破 (teppa); 進・退

「四本ノ形。敵ヲ見テ、此間、体ニ〔貫ツレテ?〕打込ムヲ鉄破ト言。二本、向腕ヲ打払フ処ノ〔挂刀?〕ヲ拂フ也。佛書ニハ『泥手鉄山破』ノ言語有り。」

Four forms. Seeing the enemy, striking in [body committed] in the interval is called teppa (iron-break). Two of them sweep away the 〔挂刀?〕 at the point of striking aside the facing arm. In Buddhist writing there is the phrase ‘deishu/deigyū tetsuzan wo yaburu’ (泥〔手/牛?〕鉄山破).

It is not clear whether the second character is 手 or 牛 — the latter is likely, and if the graph is 手 it may be a copyist’s error.

In Buddhist canon we often see the construction:

泥牛 + [motion verb] + 破/碎 + [object]

with the verb slot taking a variety of actions.

For example, in X72n1444 we find 泥牛昨夜狂心起，觸碎須彌跳出欄 — “last night the clay ox’s mad mind arose — it butts Mount Sumeru to pieces and leaps the fence” — and in J39nB460 we find 木馬踏碎須彌，泥牛耕破海底 — “the wooden horse treads Sumeru to pieces; the clay ox ploughs open the sea-bottom.”

The annotation 泥手/泥牛鉄山破 is neither a quotation nor a garbling. There is no fixed phrase to have garbled. It is a well-formed generation from a productive canonical formula, with 鉄山 occupying a slot the canon fills with 須彌, 鐵崑崙, 蒼龍窟, 虗空. The term 言語 is “expression / manner of speaking,” not “quotation” — the assertion is there is such an idiom in Buddhist writing, and there demonstrably is.

The school is speaking the idiom competently, not misciting. The canonical formula is SVO: 泥牛 (S) + 觸碎 (V) + 須彌 (O). The densho is 泥牛鉄山破 — object before verb, and no motion verb at all (no 觸/踏/耕/吼). The romanization above reads it as SOV with を. So the phrase doesn’t instantiate the Chinese formula’s syntax; it’s a Japanese-order condensation of it.

Regarding meaning, the sense is not “soft defeats hard.” A deigyū (泥牛; clay ox) isn’t “soft” — a clay ox is impossible, paired throughout with 木馬, 石虎, 石女, 鐵蛇. The formula says the inconceivable accomplishes the inconceivable. For 鉄破 as 体ニ貫ツレテ打込ム, the sense is closer to: what cannot be done is done.

松風 (matsukaze)

「エンクハイ〔円飛/燕飛〕ト云ハ、古ハ『猿飛』ト相記スよし。小笠原源信斎〔…〕。通リノ木刀ニ当ル風ト違ヒ、松ニ当ルノ、サツサツト滞ナク当ル。少シモ滞ナク当ルこゝろヲ言フ。」

‘Enkuhai / Enpi’ (円飛/燕飛) was formerly written ‘Sarutobi’ (猿飛), it is said. Ogasawara Genshinsai (小笠原源信斎) 〔…〕. Unlike wind striking an ordinary bokutō, it is like wind striking a pine — hitting satsu-satsu without stagnation; the mind of striking without the slightest stagnation.

This entry corroborates the enpi (燕飛/圓飛/猿飛) renaming and the 真新陰流 (Genshinsai) transmission.

甲船 (hayafune); 左・右

「〔車?〕ノ形。〔敵〕ハ舟ノ〔艪〕ヲ押ス気味也。此方ゟハ、舟ニ乗ル心持也。〔…〕是迄十ノ形也。」

The 〔cart?〕 form. The enemy has the feel of pushing a boat’s oar; on our side, the mind of riding the boat. 〔…〕 Up to here, ten forms.

This may be the end of the earlier jutachi arrangement (ten forms) seen in the Naganuma-ha Jikishinkage-ryū of the time.

曲降 (kyokushaku)

曲リ、長短、マツスグニ打込ムこゝろ也。滞ナク、何処モ曲ラズ打込ムこゝろ也。」

Bending — regardless of long-or-short — the mind of striking straight in; without stagnation, bending nowhere.

円連 (enren)

With the annotation 刀連 (tōren) 体連 (tairen):

円連ハ、心・体トモニ〔…〕連レヲ少シモ滞ラス。刀ニ連ルヲ刀連、体ニ連ルヲ体連ト云。右三ツ、心滞ナク打ツ意味也。右同伝。」

Enren: mind and body together, the linking without the slightest stagnation. The sword’s linking is tōren (刀連), the body’s linking is tairen (体連). These three — the meaning of striking with an unstagnating mind. Same transmission as at right.

Waza (業)

The entries 陰之構・陽之構・相構・相心・相尺・目付・仕懸・手の内・横一文字・竪一文字・留三段・体当・太刀当・切落・吟味 are transcribed and commented on.

陰之構之事 (in no kamae no koto)

In no kamae is the yin (陰; yīn) posture:

強々、上段ニ取ル形。体ヨリ上ニ持ツハ陰ノ構。右一致スレバ丈夫〔ナル?〕也。

Firmly, the form taken in upper stance (jōdan 上段); holding above the body is the yin stance. When these accord, it is robust.

陽之構之事 (yō no kamae no koto)

Yō no kamae is the yang (陽; yáng) posture:

弱〔柔〕ハ下段ニ取ル形。〔柔ラカ〕ニ体ヨリ下ニ持ツハ陽ノ構。最初同様也。

Softly, the form taken in lower stance (gedan 下段); holding softly below the body is the yang stance. Same [in principle] as the first.

The mapping is 陰 → 上段/firm and 陽 → 下段/soft — inverting the usual height convention (陽上陰下) but coherent with the Shinkage setsunintō/katsuninken (殺人刀・活人剣) logic in the Tsuki no Shō, where the lower stance (下段) is the life-giving sword (活人剣; yang/life) and the held upper stance the killing sword (殺人刀; yin/death). The mapping is by life/death, not by height.

相構之事 (aigamae no koto)

Aigamae no koto describes both opponents in combative posture (mutual stance):

互ニ構ヘ、打込ムこゝろ、外ニナシ。

Both take a stance; there is nothing beyond the intent to strike in.

相心之事 (aishin no koto)

Aishin no koto is the matter of the mutual mind:

互ニ一気ニ合タル所ヲ言フ心也。

The mind that refers to the point where both are matched as one ki (ikki 一気; yī qì).

相尺之事 (sōjaku no koto; 相尺)

Sōjaku no koto deals with matching measure (pinyin xiāngchǐ):

たとへバ、向ニテモ弐尺、此方ニテモ弐尺、一致シテ打ツ心也。

For example, two shaku on the opponent’s side and two shaku on one’s own — matching them, the mind of striking.” — a direct definition of sōjaku as the matched two-shaku measure.

目付之事 (metsuke no koto)

Metsuke no koto addresses the gaze:

目付ハ敵ヲ見ル。〔気配?〕ノ動キトハ、敵ノ眼中。此上ニモ、得ト〔しかと〕敵ノ〔心棒?〕見ル心也。

Metsuke is watching the enemy. As for the movement of [his] 〔ki-presence 気配?〕 — the enemy’s eyes (眼中); and beyond that, the mind that firmly watches the enemy’s 〔central axis 心棒?〕.

仕懸之事 (shikake no koto)

Shikake no koto deals with initiating:

究理ノ巻ニモアル通リ、猪牛ノ〔…〕ノこゝろニテ、参リ〔申?〕ト云事也。

As is also in the Kyūri no maki (窮理之巻; qiónglǐ; ‘investigating principle’; the densho writes 究理), it is advancing with the mind of a charging boar-and-ox (chogyū 猪牛; zhūniú).” — cross-references the Jikishinkage-ryū’s own Heihō kyūri no maki (兵法窮理之巻).

In the Heihō zakki, 仕懸 is filed under shingyō (心行; mind-practice) at the middle (中学) training stage: initiating oneself to test the opponent’s 虚実 (己ヨリ仕懸テ行…専ラ仕懸ヲ以 糺ス虚実ヲ), practiced within Hōjō through the sanze (三世; past–present–future) teaching — the uchitachi’s three timings 本ヲ切ル・中ヲ切ル・末ヲ切ル against the shitachi’s stance, step, and advance (Karukome Yoshitaka and Sakai Toshinobu 2013). The 0003 gloss’s charging boar-and-ox is thus a later, more kinetic framing of an entry whose founding content was a timing-and-probing discipline.

手の内之事 (te no uchi no koto)

Tenouchi no koto is the matter of the grip:

茶巾絞リ、心片寄ラズ、シナイ〔竹刀〕ヲ握ル迄。

The tea-cloth-wringing grip (chakin-shibori 茶巾絞り); without the mind leaning to one side, all the way to gripping the shinai (竹刀).”

一文字之事 (ichimonji no koto)

The straight line is described as yoko (横; horizontal) or tate (竪; vertical).

向ヨリ竪ニ太刀打込ムハ、此方ヨリハ横ヨリ打込ム事也。

When the opponent strikes down vertically (tate 竪), from one’s own side one strikes across horizontally (yoko 横).

Tate ichimonji is the reverse of the above — cutting vertically against a horizontal strike. In the Heihō zakki, 竪一文字・横一文字 are grounded in the 十文字 principle — 真ノ切ヲ云、畢竟十文字也…剣術ハ十文字ヨリ無外 — with a nine-line cut diagram (eight cuts plus the center thrust) (Karukome Yoshitaka and Sakai Toshinobu 2013); the 0003 gloss’s cross-response (horizontal against vertical and the reverse) enacts exactly that jūmonji logic.

留三段之事 (tome-sandan no koto)

たとへバ、人ト〔段場?〕ニ及ブ節ハ咽喉〔インド〕也。又ハ親ノ敵ヲ打ツ節ハ、耳ノ脇ヘ留ム。既ニ曽我兄弟、工藤ヲ討ツ節、右耳ノ脇ヘ差ス。〔…〕退治ノ節ハ外ヘ留メ候ヘバ見苦シク候。是ハ土踏マズヘ差ス也。口伝。

For example, when it comes to [a duel], it is the throat (nodo 咽喉). When striking a parent’s enemy, one pins beside the ear — as when the Soga brothers (曽我兄弟) killed Kudō (工藤), thrusting beside the right ear. 〔…〕 In general subjugation, pinning to the outside looks unseemly; here one thrusts to the arch of the foot (tsuchifumazu 土踏まず). Oral transmission.” — i.e. three pinning-targets (throat / beside-ear / foot-arch), with the Soga vendetta as exemplar.

This refers to the three manners of delivering the finishing thrust (todome 留め) after a duel, based on the type of conflict one has engaged in: dueling, vendetta, subjugation. Other commentary speak to tome-sandan no koto in terms of three levels or distances:

見ル 敵ノ拍子 御意ニカナフ 三段

Observing the enemy’s rhythm, it accords with your will, three steps

This is the gloss I provide in TOCS (2025). So here we see different marginal notes for the same formal entry diverge over time.

体当之事 (tai-ate no koto)

自分ノ体、丈夫堅ク出来候上ニテ打込ムベシ。八方八角、車ノ様ナル、何処ニモ十分〔…〕、体ヨリ当ル心也。

Once one’s own body is made robust and firm, strike in. Eight directions, eight corners, like a wheel, fully everywhere — the mind of striking with the body.

太刀当之事 (tachi-ate no koto)

右同様ノこゝろ也。太刀ト一所ニ連レテ打ツ心也。

Same as at right; the mind of striking with [body and] sword linked as one.

切落之事 (kiri-otoshi no koto)

「平生ノ切落ノ事。悪敷所ハ、幾度モ切捨候而、心ノマヽ〔ニ〕候処、邪心ヲ〔去ル〕心也。」

The everyday kiri-otoshi. Where it is bad, cut it away however many times until it is as the mind wills — the mind of [removing] evil-mind (jashin 邪心).”

吟味之事 (ginmi no koto)

The ginmi no koto (吟味之事) has the annotation 「相互ニ吟味イタル事也。」 denoting it “the matter of mutual examination.”

Gokui (極意)

Karukome details a comparison of the kata, waza (koto 事; matters), and gokui of this document with the Heihō Zakki of Yamada Mitsunori (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013). The example has commentary on six gokui (氣當・權體勇・西江水・惣體卜・口上極意・不立之勝).

The paired gokui listed with the a-un (阿吽; a-un) bonji read Kōmyōken (功妙剣) and Shinmyōken (心妙剣; heart-subtle sword) — not 切妙剣 (kiri-myōken). Confirmed against a densho copy; this supersedes the earlier “kiri-myōken” reading. Note the three-way distinction to keep in romaji:

• Shinmyōken (神妙剣; 神 = divine/spirit)
• Shinmyōken (心妙剣; 心 = heart)
• Kōmyōken (功妙剣; 功 = merit/efficacy)
• Setsumyōken (切妙剣; 切 = cutting) — the graphing of the 0003 witness (image-verified 2026-07-19; see the 功妙剣 entry below)

Takuan’s Fudōchi Shinmyōroku (p. 129) has: 神ぞ心ぞと申すわけ… 或は性或は心とて、その別ち少しづゝかはり有りといへども、源一つにて候 — relevant to whether the mokuroku’s 心妙剣 against the parent tradition’s 神妙剣 is a meaningful variant or a distinction the milieu already held as porous. Takuan’s own title carries 神妙. A Takuan bridge into Jikishinkage-ryū is suggested by the 不動智/動カサル, 惣身/總身, and 抜目/缺ける correspondences. The Fudōchi Shinmyōroku was addressed to Munenori, and Jikishinkage-ryū was influenced by Yamada Heizaemon’s (Ippūsai’s) study of Munenori’s line of Yagyū Shinkage-ryū.

不動ノ剣 (fudō no ken)

「不動ノ剱ト云。〔…〕〔かし残?〕ト切者成候ヘバ、妙釼ニテゝ〔…〕。」

Called the Immovable Sword (fudō no ken 不動ノ剣; Fudō/Acala 不動). 〔…〕” — the Fudō-Myōō (mikkyō) register, matching the bonji / a-un as indicating the beginning of the gokui list.

Densho typically carry the two bonji written large — forms consistent with a stylized a / hūṃ pair (アウン) — each keyed by a single-graph siglum beside it: 不 at the first seed, 切 at the second. Sometimes the Kanman seed syllable fo Fudō is found instead.

功妙剣 (kōmyōken) 口伝

The NDL model renders the first as 切妙剣 — and inspection of the 0003 gokui leaf shows the model was reading its witness correctly: 0003 writes 切妙劔, the head graph’s left element being the crossing 七 (not 功’s 工), and — independently — the single-graph siglum beside the second bonji writes 切 in clearer semi-cursive. The 功妙剣 reading belongs to the other witnesses (Karukome’s tables give 功妙剣 for both the 1686/1708 zakki and the 1764 kudensho), so the 功/切 divergence is between witnesses, not model versus eye: a real single-graph variant in the 1800 copy. The drift is graphically motivated — 工 and 七 converge in cursive — a different mechanism from the phonically motivated 神/心 substitution discussed below: two distinct graph-drift types operating in one witness’s gokui list. A fresh ndlkotenocr-lite pass on the leaf again returns 切妙剣, so model, eye, and siglum now concur for 0003.

是〔ハ〕梵字ノ別傳ナシ、人ニ〔ユヱ/ユルシ〕習ヒナリ。梵字ハ不動ノ梵字ニテ、〔カン…〕ント唱ヘ、是二字ヲ〔…〕ト云テ、下ノ二句ヲ生ズ。〔…〕功至テ妙ニ〔至ル?〕意也。〔…〕妙剣アリテ、甚〔だ〕至テ妙トナル意ナリ。

This concerns the bonji (梵字; Sanskrit bīja) — no separate transmission; it is a teaching given person-to-person. The bonji is the Fudō (不動; Acala) bīja, chanted as 〔kān…〕; these two graphs … generate the following two lines. … The sense is ‘efficacy (功) reaching subtlety (妙)’ → kōmyō; … there is the 〔…〕myōken, and it means becoming utterly subtle.”

This entry ties 功妙剣 to the a-un (阿吽; a / hūṃ) / Fudō-Myōō mikkyō nexus already visible in the gokui list — same register as the Tsuki no Shō 五字/五大 material.

The a-un (阿吽; Skt. a-hūṃ) is the fundamental esoteric syllable pair: 阿 (a), the first sound and unborn origin of all dharmas — 阿字本不生, from the Mahāvairocana-sūtra’s 「阿字門一切諸法本不生」⁵ — and 吽 (hūṃ), the last, into which all is drawn and united into one body.⁶ Written as bonji (梵字; Siddhaṃ seed-graphs) these are core Shingon vocabulary, with 阿吽 in some nineteen CBETA works and five Shugendō volumes, and 吽字 in around 130 and twelve respectively. The densho’s 「梵字ハ不動ノ梵字」 fixes the graph on Fudō Myōō (不動明王; Acala), which places the 功妙剣 gokui squarely in the a-un and Fudō mikkyō register.

心妙剣 (shinmyōken) 口伝

「心妙剣心持也。口伝。動カサル気味、何レモ惣身マシ〔テ?〕、抜目〔なく〕聞キ〔利き〕所也。〔…〕。」

Shinmyōken (心妙剣) — it is a matter of kokoromochi (心持; mental bearing/disposition). Kuden (口伝; orally transmitted). An unmoving quality (動カサル気味): in every case, 〔suffusing?〕 the whole body (惣身); it is the point at which 〔one perceives / it tells〕 without a blind spot. 〔…〕

Clause by clause we find:

• 心持也 — 心持 (kokoromochi) is “frame of mind / mental bearing,” and the nari makes the whole entry predicative: shinmyōken is a mental disposition, not a physical form. The gesture is to file the item under mind rather than technique.

• 口伝 — the standard marker that the substance is withheld for oral transmission. Everything after it is a mnemonic gloss, not the teaching.

• 動カサル気味 — read 動かざる (ugokazaru; unmoving, classical negative attributive) + 気味 (kimi; a quality, feel, tinge). “An unmoving feel.” Not “motionless body” — 気味 is a felt quality, so this is about the character of the state, not immobility of the limbs.

• 何レモ惣身マシ〔テ?〕 — 何れも (izure mo; in every case / whichever [technique]), 惣身 = 総身 (sōmi; the whole body). The マシ crux is now resolved at the graph level: the ndlkotenocr-lite pass reads the witness’s kana as まし, with a following stroke the model renders 火 — best taken as て. The reading 増し(て) (mashite; spread-increased [through the whole body], te-form) is therefore promoted from candidate to primary: 何れも惣身増して、抜け目なく… — “in every case suffusing the whole body, without a gap.” The alternatives (交じ/廻し) drop away; the sense — distributed through the whole body rather than localized — is unchanged and now graphically grounded.

• 抜目〔なく〕聞キ〔利き〕所也 — 抜け目なく (nukeme naku; with no gap, no blind spot). The 利き gloss gives 利き所 (kikidokoro; the point where it takes effect / where it tells) — the martial reading. Taking it as 聞き所 instead gives “the point to be perceived/attended to.” The two aren’t far apart in a densho: both make this the locus where the state becomes operative without lapse.

• Image verification (0003 gokui leaf, 2026-07-19). The entry head is written as a tight 心+妙 ligature (the heart-graph’s dots-and-hook flourish fused above 妙) followed by 釼 — the 心 graphing of this witness is confirmed by direct inspection, with the small interlinear and 口傳 below. In the commentary column the anchors 動サル気味・何レモ・惣身 (written large, almost emphatically)・抜目 are legible; the graph after 惣身 was subsequently resolved by the ndlkotenocr-lite pass — kana まし〔て?〕, see the transcription note above.

• 心妙剣 vs 神妙剣. We see 神妙 in 0003’s 長短一味. 神妙剣 (shinmyōken) is an inherited Shinkage-ryū term, so a Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku writing 心 where the parent tradition writes 神 is either a meaningful variant or a scribal one. Whether the house deliberately re-grounded a shin-as-divine term in shin-as-mind is a real question.

• 動カサル (unmoving) + the instruction to spread the mind through 惣身 rather than fix it anywhere is very close to the Fudōchi Shinmyōroku (不動智神妙録) teaching: don’t set the mind in one place; set it nowhere and it pervades the body. Note that text carries 神妙 in its own title, and 不動 in the deity’s name.

氣當 (ki-ate; 気当; ki-striking / ki-contact)

執行ノ中ニ而モ、〔とこと…?〕ニ空ナル所アリ。兎角、気分モ体モ〔ク〕渡レハ、一ツ添ヘ〔一つに?〕ニ出来ル事ナリ。

Even in the midst of execution there is a place that is empty (kū 空); in any case, when both the ki-feeling (kibun 気分) and the body pass through, it comes about as one.

權體勇 (ken-tai-yū) or 権体勇 (ken-tai-yū)

ケンハ秤ノ重ミ、体ノ勇也。不行・不〔踊／帰?〕・不〔留／止?〕、万事一ツ添ヘニ成タルこゝろ也。

Ken (権; quán) is the counterpoise-weight of a steelyard (hakari 秤); [it is] the vigor of the body (tai no yū 体の勇). ‘Not going, not 〔returning?〕, not stopping,’ a mind in which all things become one.

Notes

This confirms the balance-weight metaphor inferred from the red ink commentary of the 1805 example examined in The Truth of the Calm Spirit (a separate witness from the ke05 items). Variant on the non-fixation formula: the red commentary has 不行不帰不止 compared to here 不行・不〔踊/帰〕・不〔留/止. The kanji 権 (ken/gon; quán) literally denotes the sliding counterpoise-weight of a steelyard balance, so the “scale/equilibrium” metaphor for 権体勇 is internally apt. The sidenote 不行不帰不止 matches the Karukome-table annotation on this gokui (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013).

西江水 (seikōsui; xī jiāng shuǐ; West River water)

The 1768 densho carries both a black-ink gloss and a red-ink shusho (朱書) interlinear commentary on 西江水, a Chan koan that figures prominently in Jikishinkage-ryū and Yagyū Shinkage-ryū writing.

惣體卜 (sōtai-boku)

惣体ノ〔卜／分?〕。惣クゝり〔総括り〕ノ心也。人ノ動キモ何モ見ユルガ肝要也。

The whole body (sōtai 惣体): a mind of gathering-all-together (sō-kukuri 総括り); the essential is that all the opponent’s movements are seen.

Here, it seems as though one is commenting on perception. The later red ink commentary is difficult to read. It may say:

〔キカ…〕流ノ義。初メ形、両〔手?〕ヲヒロケ、三所〔…〕、〔細?〕帳ニ風ノ含ム如〔ク〕、一パイニ満テ〔…〕下ニ〔…〕アリ。此ノモ〔…〕。

〔…〕-ryū’s sense. First the form: both 〔hands?〕 opened, three places 〔…〕, as wind fills a 〔curtain/sail?〕, filled to the brim 〔…〕 below 〔…〕. This too 〔…〕.” — i.e. the whole-body (sōtai 惣体) expansion/integration.

This seems to instead refer to the body being integrated and expanded so that it is fully connected. In internal martial arts, this is a type of cultivated force or energy called jin (勁; jìn; trained force).

口上極意 (kōjō gokui; the oral-statement innermost teaching)

自分ノ呑込〔飲み込め〕ぬ義ナド不申、先ノ残レタルモノニハ負ル事有。其処ヲ心ヲ相考フヘキ也。

Do not speak of matters you have not grasped; there are times you lose to what remains ahead. That place one should consider well.

Kōjō is here the discretion of oral transmission: what to state and what to withhold.

不立之勝 (furyū no katsu; the victory of not-establishing)

執行場ニ至リ候而、立合トモ候ヤ、此人ニ勝タントヤ、〔…〕此方ヨケレハ不立、先ニ見込ミ勝〔ツ…〕

Coming to the practice ground and facing off — ‘[shall I] win against this person?’ — 〔…〕 if your side is ready, do not establish [a stance] (fu-ritsu 不立); win by anticipating (先ニ見込ミ).

This is a reference to mukamae (無構; no-stance) in Shinkage practice.

十悪 (jūaku; the ten evils)

These are written traditionally in katakana:

1. カマン = gaman (我慢; self-conceit; Skt. asmimāna)
2. カシン = gashin (我心; egoism) — resolved: the Heihō zakki’s 十悪十非 list carries ガシン, which Karukome and Sakai gloss 我心 (Karukome Yoshitaka and Sakai Toshinobu 2013)
3. トンヨク = don’yoku (貪欲; greed; Skt. lobha)
4. イカリ = ikari (怒り; anger; Skt. dveṣa)
5. オソレ = osore (恐れ; fear)
6. アヤフミ = ayabumi (危ふみ; apprehension)
7. ウタカヒ = utagai (疑ひ; doubt; Skt. vicikitsā)
8. マヨイ = mayoi (迷ひ; delusion; Skt. moha)
9. アナツリ = anadori (侮り; contempt / scorn)
10. マンシン = manshin (慢心; conceit; Skt. māna)

「此十悪ハいづれも〔…〕、〔新気ヲ〕スラレバ出来ル。此内一ツ有テモ出来不申事。」

These ten evils, every one 〔…〕; if one 〔…〕 〔the fresh ki 新気?〕, it can be accomplished. If even one of these is present, it cannot be done.

These are “diseases of the mind”; they overlap the four classic sicknesses (shibyō 四病: 驚・懼・疑・惑 — startle, fear, doubt, confusion) and map onto the Tsuki no Shō’s byōki (病気) gokui, the mental fixations to be removed. The list descends from the Heihō zakki’s 十悪十非: except the order of some are changed (Karukome Yoshitaka and Sakai Toshinobu 2013). The ordering differs slightly, and the ten are precisely the 非 that the hikiri (非切) shingyō removes — 法定非切之事 非ヲ改木刀ニテツブシヲ云: the evils are “crushed” by the swinging of the bokutō in Hōjō practice, tying this closing gokui back to the middle-stage training method. Additional examination of the ten evils to avoid can be found in my book, The Truth of the Calm Spirit (2025).

Transmission colophon (ending passage)

Reconciled reading and translation of the closing licensing colophon. Script is clear gyōsho (行書). Method: NDL古典籍OCR-Lite (which recovered most of the kanbun) × human read × collation with Karukome’s transcription of the corresponding passage (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013). NDL models succeeded on the clear script:

右條之極意者、有口傳。以理爲誠、以誠爲理也。愈々工夫鍛錬、二六時中、無怠慢、〔御〕勉、可爲肝要者也。元目録之旨趣爲奧儀、今旁下數年、深實信仰、而二六時中、依被勵懇精之、不殘一塵授之、〔暇加愚意説?〕、彌抽丹誠。此道有切磋琢磨工夫、可被鍛錬。而猶〔心〕妙不測之所、免状之時、可顯之者也。

The gokui items above carry oral transmission (kuden 口傳). Take principle (ri 理; lǐ) as sincerity, and sincerity (makoto 誠; chéng) as principle. Ever more contrive and forge (kufū tanren 工夫鍛錬), throughout the twelve hours (nirokujichū 二六時中; èr liù shízhōng — day and night), without slackening, applying oneself — this must be held essential.

The purport of the original mokuroku (moto-mokuroku 元目録) is [held to be] the innermost teaching (ōgi 奧儀). Now, over several years, with deep and true faith, being urged day and night to earnest exertion, it was conferred without a single mote (ichijin 一塵) held back, 〔adding my humble explanation?〕, drawing out ever greater devotion (tansei 丹誠).

This Way holds mutual polishing and contrivance (sessa-takuma kufū 切磋琢磨工夫; qiēcuō-zhuómó); it must be forged. And still, the place of the subtlety beyond measure (myō fusoku 妙不測) is revealed only at the time of licensing (menjō 免状).

What is called ‘winning’ lies in the fore-of-the-fore (sensensen 先々先); the later victory (go no kachi 後の勝) too lies in the fore-of-fore — as fore-and-after, fore-and-after, right and left, back and front all brought into accord: heaven, earth, and the myriad things are of one root, one emptiness (tenchi banbutsu dōkon ikkū 天地万物同根一空; tiāndì wànwù tóng gēn yī kōng). Set down in writing, conveyed by mouth — these words (kotonoha 言の葉); to hold them in the everyday mind is forging (tanren 鍛練).

勝ト云ハ先々先、後ノ勝モ〔先々先〕、また先々ニ先後〔々々?〕、右左後モ前モ一致シテ、天地万物同根〔ノ?〕空。 常のこゝろに持〔つ〕は、たんれん〔なり〕。

The term 鍛練 here is written tanren (たんれん) in kana in the annotations. Three further small-script annotations:

• 此句、一ト切リニ不致、トコマデモ続クこゝろなり — “The mind of it: this phrase makes no single cut-off; it continues however far” — the interlinear gloss on 先々先, reading the fore-of-the-fore as a non-terminating recursion: there is no first initiative to seize, only the ever-prior. (Model line: 此句一本切に不致トコマテ其続く／こゝろなり; 一本切 emended 一ト切リ.)
• 右同様ノ心持、惣体一致スル心也 — “the same mind-set as at right: the mind in which the whole body accords as one” — 惣体 surfacing again at the leaf’s summit, tying the closing doctrine to the 惣体之〆 gokui.
• 此句、今申渡ス上ハ、已来迚モ二六時中、無怠慢相勤、たんれん可致心持也 — “this phrase, now that it has been handed over: henceforth, at every hour of day and night, without negligence, it is a mind-set to be trained and forged” — a vernacular restatement of the kanbun colophon’s 二六時中・無怠慢 injunction, the two registers paired on one leaf.

Provenance line — editorial apparatus; omitted from print

Provenance line

In the passage below several readings are flagged (権/勉精, 旁下, 免状〔態〕):

kanji

右者従先師神谷氏伝信大居士目録之、雖為奧儀、今旁下数年有深実信仰、而二六時中被励〔権/勉〕精之、不残一塵授之。暇加愚意説、抽弥丹誠。此道有切磋琢磨工夫、可被鍛練。而猶心妙不測之所、免状〔態〕之時可顕之者也。

The above follows the mokuroku of the late master Kamiya (先師神谷氏), 〔posthumous name〕 Denshin Daikoji (伝信大居士). Though it is the innermost teaching (ōgi 奥儀), now — over several years, holding deep and true faith, urged day and night to exert full effort — it was conferred without a single mote held back. In my spare time I have added my own humble explanations, drawing out ever greater devotion. This Way holds mutual polishing (sessa-takuma 切磋琢磨; qiēcuō-zhuómó) and contrivance (kufū 工夫); it must be forged. Even so, the place of the mind’s subtlety beyond measure (〔shin〕myō fusoku 〔心〕妙不測) is to be revealed only at the time of licensing (menjō 免状).

Recension variant (for collation) — editorial apparatus; omitted from print

Recension variant (for collation)

This densho:

元目録之旨趣爲奧儀

the purport of the original mokuroku is the innermost teaching

Karukome’s transcription of the corresponding passage (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013):

kanji

従先師神谷氏伝信大居士目録之雖爲奧儀

[it] follows the mokuroku of the late master Kamiya 〔神谷氏〕, [posthumous name] Denshin Daikoji 伝信大居士, though it be the innermost teaching.

Notes

The two copies differ in whether the licensing clause names its source (Kamiya) or refers generically to the “original mokuroku. Kamiya Denshinsai (神谷伝心斎) was, per Karukome (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013), the founder of Jikishin-ryū (直心流) and the lineage predecessor of Naganuma Kunisato (長沼国郷). If the named recension is authoritative, this colophon derives the transmission from Kamiya Denshinsai’s mokuroku — a concrete placement of the ke05_01032 copy in the Jikishinkage-ryū line, and a dating anchor for its gokui content (including 西江水).

Key Findings

1. 面影 (menkage or omokage) explicitly contrasts the Yagyū approach with the Jikishinkage-ryū one and invokes the water-moon (水に月の移る心) — a Jikishinkage-ryū-internal reference to both 柳生 and the suigetsu figure. This is direct densho evidence of the Jikishinkage-ryū↔Yagyū comparison traced in the seikōsui essay, in the school’s own words.
2. 松風 corroborates Karukome (Karukome Yoshitaka 2013) independently: 円飛/燕飛 formerly 猿飛, with 小笠原源信斎 (真新陰流) — the same 燕飛/圓飛/猿飛 renaming Karukome argues, here attested in the densho itself.
3. Opening verses attributed to Naganuma Kunisato — dates/places this recension in the Kunisato line (consistent with the 相尺・留三段・切落・吟味 additions present in the waza list).
4. 泥〔手/牛?〕鉄山破 (teppa) — not a fixed canonical quotation but a well-formed, Japanese-order condensation of a productive Buddhist formula (see the 鉄破 entry).
5. 不動ノ剣 / 功妙剣 / a-un bonji — a consistent Fudō-Myōō (mikkyō) presence across the gokui.
6. The document confirms the full gokui set (incl. 西江水) and the 功妙剣 reading (NDL’s 切 documents the 功/切 ambiguity).

End Notes