Genesis - A Speculative History of Daito-ryu - Part I: That Dog Won’t Hunt

This article should now be considered a work-in-progress, of interest both for the discussion it engendered as well as presenting an earlier perspective on my work. I have radically revised this essay in my new book, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. Some of the conclusions I have reached are somewhat at variance to what you will find here. Those interested in the book can find it at www.edgework.info/buy.html

By Chris Laughrun and Ellis Amdur

Similar to my work on the history of weapons practice by Takeda Sokaku and Ueshiba Morihei, I intend to do a little creative reconstruction on the origins of the Daito-ryu itself. In this first part, however, I intend merely to clear out some deadwood, rather recently introduced by those hoping for documentary support for an ancient origin. Although I am the editor of this piece, all the research and the core of the writing was done by scholar Chris Laughrun. Chris does not like to release his own work unless it is in impeccable, perfectly defensible academic style, but after I pestered him enough, he agreed to let me publish some of his research in this form. As I won’t resist adding my opinions and inferences, the reader should feel free to send all praise Chris’ way, and all brickbats mine.

As I’m sure the reader is aware, it has been claimed that Daito-ryu was passed down through the Takeda family, most notably from Takeda Kunitsugu, the younger brother of Takeda Shingen, and then through his descendents in the Aizu han. I have recently read assertions on the internet that there is evidence to support a connection between Daito-ryu and the Takeda daimyo in the Heiho Hidensho, also known as the Heiho Okugisho. The Heiho Hidensho is traditionally attributed to Yamamoto Kansuke (1498?-1561), a lieutenant of Takeda Shingen. This work is traditionally assumed to describe teachings of the Kyo-ryu, a system of battlefield tactics, of which Yamamoto was a prominent member. The date of authorship given in the preface is of this book is 1530, although it wasn’t released until many decades later.

The first portion of the work is illustrated, and includes essays, pictures and very basic technical instructions for empty-handed techniques, swordwork, bojutsu, and spearwork, plus briefer sections on naginata, archery, and firearms. The larger second section is all text, and made up of many situational strategies and some esoterica.

The Heiho Hidensho was published in various editions, and placed in public circulation, much more like a popular martial arts book today rather than proprietary material from a ryu. Significantly, it was actually released in the early 1600’s, right after a number of Chinese source materials, smuggled out of Ming Dynasty China, hit the Japanese Edo-period market, and got very wide circulation throughout Japanese martial arts circles.

The first portion of the empty-handed techniques, and the entire bojutsu and sojutsu sections are taken directly or indirectly from original Chinese source material. More accurately, the illustrations are Chinese — most of the bojutsu and sojutsu illustrations are tracings of men in Chinese clothes. However, almost none of the text comes from the originals, except for a few sentences translated into Japanese. In other words, someone made up fantasy commentary to correspond to pictures they copied from another work.

The first portion of the empty-handed techniques shows two pairs of boxers, also in Ming-period Chinese clothing. The men in each pair are oriented as if fighting one another, and the Japanese text seems to support this. The first pair is labeled YO (yang), the second IN (yin), presumably the types of techniques they are alleged to be using. These illustrations (but not the text) come directly from a work called the Quanjing (Boxing Canon), a chapter in General Qi Jiguang’s (1528-1588) treatise on military training and operations, the Jixiao Xinshu (1560). Qi Jiguang surveyed a number of existing fighting arts, and put together a number of postures/techniques both for callisthenic training of recruits, and as simple hand-to-hand tactics. He explicitly states these are not suitable for battlefield combat, but were for the purpose of basic training. The resulting 32 techniques, which were probably practiced in sequence like a form, are described in the Quanjing, and were taught to Ming-period infantrymen under Qi’s command. The written descriptions include a name for each technique, and then a simple instruction/tactic, along the lines of “I stand like this, he tries something, I hit/kick/throw him.” There is no yin/yang categorization in the original. Because of a marked similarity in postures, many historians have concluded this basic-training form is the skeleton on which the Chen family created the first Chen taiji quan Form. However, there is no indication of any internal technique in Qi Jiguang’s original text or form.

The authors of the Heiho hidensho have taken four postures from the Quanjing - namely numbers 1 and 2 (which they labeled “yang”) and numbers 11 and 12 (labeled “yin”) - and established them as fighting pairs with completely new textual explanations.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the original source. Also, notice the Quanjing was written in China in 1560, one year before Yamamoto’s death and thirty years after the alleged preface of the Heiho hidensho. Let me emphasize this: the author of this section, who could not have been Yamamoto, took unrelated pictures and did a “cut-and-paste” job to make up fighting forms that did not exist. The originals portrayed a solo training drill. No one ever did the two-person drills the author made up, unless they tried to interpolate one from the book.

Six illustrations of men, again in Ming-period Chinese clothing, performing staff postures/techniques, comprise the bojutsu section of the Heiho Hidensho. A sentence or two of the opening essay, the illustrations, most of the technique names - but not the explanatory text - all come from Cheng Zongyou’s (fl. 1620-1630) Shaolin gunfa chanzong, or “Authentic Shaolin Staff Methods,” written, Mr. Laughrun believes, in 1610, but published in 1621. Cheng lived and trained at the Shaolin Temple for ten years, and his book is the fruit of that effort, containing essays, some esoterica, and an explanation of the staff forms he practiced: the “Greater Yaksa,” the “Lesser Yaksa,” “Yin Hands,” and “Arranged Staves” (a paired form). Only the Yaksa forms are illustrated. Cheng later combined this text with three others (on long sword, spear and crossbow), into an integrated training plan for fighting Japanese pirates. To underscore, the staff forms in the Heiho Hidensho are Chinese, not Japanese. However, no one learned them from any Shaolin practitioner, or any Chinese person whatsoever — if they were “practiced,” they were pieced together from trying to imitate the illustrations. I would challenge anyone to use those illustrations, and attempt, solely from that, to make a staff form of any utility whatsoever.

The spear section of the Heiho Hidensho is the oddest of all. The illustrations (but again, not the text) come ultimately from the earliest known work on Chinese staff (!!!!!!!), General Yu Dayou’s (1503—1579) Jian Jing, or “Sword Canon.” Despite the title, the work describes staffwork. Yu’s friend and colleague Qi Jiguang included the text with illustrations of paired stick-fighters in his Jixiao Xinshu, (which you remember also contained the Quanjing). Although the Heiho hidensho authors probably had access to Cheng Zongyou’s spear treatise mentioned above, they, for some reason, took the Yu/Qi staffwork illustrations instead, lengthened the weapons a bit, and put spearheads on the end. Aside from the original drawings which prove their derivation, the forms do look very odd from a perspective of spear fighting. Which means that the author: a) knew little or nothing about the use of spears as opposed to stave fighting, or b) truly didn’t care what he was publishing - he/they were just putting out a book for mercenary reasons, and stuck in drawings that, with Chinese provenance, looked really cool.

So, in short, ALL of the illustrations in the items above indisputably come from Chinese sources, the latest circa 1620. The boxing and spear sections are misunderstood or deliberately altered. All of the Chinese texts post-date the death of Yamamoto, and the reputed authorship date of the Heiho hidensho, let alone the time it took for those Chinese texts to reach the Japanese readership.

All of the Chinese material above was quite popular for a time, and was republished in Japan separately and sometimes piecemeal in popular home encyclopedias (another Chinese innovation): “Here’s how to cook pork shoulder; here’s a tricky strategy at dice; your kid got a hacking cough? Try this herb; Oh, and here’s a staff form.” Furthermore, both the Cheng Shaolin forms and the Yu/Qi form were reproduced in another Chinese military manual, Mao Yuanyi’s (1594-ca. 1641) Wubei zhi (1628). The Wubei zhi enjoyed enormous popularity in Japan, the first Japanese edition printed in 1664. Note: this is not the same Wubei zhi famous in Okinawan karatejutsu. The material was all in circulation, as was published editions of the Heiho hidensho.

It is a fair question to ask if there was a Kyo-ryu core of Yamamoto Kansuke encased in the Heiho hidenshom and that others simply tacked on things they thought were flashy looking or commercial to the initial text on battlefield tactics. Or is it a complete fabrication, a chimera of everything the publisher could get his hands on, including the name of a famous strategist as an author?

Given that there were innumerable ryu with authentic staff, spear and empty-hand methods readily available to any warrior, why was this book even written? I would suggest that it was the Edo-period equivalent of the popular, commercial martial arts books rife today — not intended for the warrior, but for the dillitante. In fact, I imagine that this book was mostly bought by commoners, who did not have access to any real training — similar to an individual buying a book with illustrations of a koryu form today; interesting to look at, but without direct instruction, otherwise useless. Whatever else might be said, this book with its simplistic pastiche of misappropriated illustrations and misinterpreted technique, tried and tested by no one, cannot be the core of Daito-ryu aikijutsu. Let’s just take this dog out back and put him down with a minimum of fuss. He can’t hunt, he can’t fetch, and he takes up too much space on the porch.

www.ellisamdur.com

Ellis Amdur — November 27^th, 2006 (add comment)