Talk:Miyamoto Musashi

Former good articleMiyamoto Musashi was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 9, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

i think Musashi should redirect here

what do you think? --AnY FOUR! 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that'd be good. As the Musashi page says, there's more than one Musashi. Just with "Musashi" and nothing else, I'd assume you could be talking about this man, Musashi Province, or the Japanese_battleship_Musashi. -Tadakuni 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Tadakuni on this one; there are other subjects that are called "Musashi", so I don't think it'd be advisable to go through with a redirect. --SilentAria talk 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Just for kicks, I ran a Google search. The hits were not as unaminously for Miyamoto Musashi as I'd like to see if we were to redirect a disambig page here. --Gwern (contribs) 20:32 16 September 2007 (GMT)
Musashi should direct to the disambiguation page "Musashi" as it does at present. With multiple meanings/usages of the word, this should not even be a topic for debate! --MChew 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi "Disliked" Shinto?

I find this hard to believe. I'm going to do some searching of my own, but I think that whoever initially wrote that section may have confused Shintō the religion-- 神道 in Japanese-- with Shintō-ryū the sword form 神道流. These are by no means the same thing. -Tadakuni 06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems likely. Off the top of my head, he doesn't write disparagingly of Shinto or Buddhism in stuff like the Dokkodo. --Gwern (contribs) 01:38 8 October 2007 (GMT)

Miyamoto Musashi = Musashi Miyamoto?

I'm just curious, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to have Musashi's name as Musashi Miyamoto rather than Miyamoto Musashi? MastaFighta 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't. Wikipedia has a "rule" that anyone 1868 on is "first name-last name," and anyone before that is "last name, first name" (traditional Japanese order). Besides, Musashi isn't his given name, it's a title-- the shortened form of Musashi no kami. If he were born after 1868, you'd have to give his name as "Genshin Shinmen," because "Genshin" was the closest thing he had to the Western concept of a "given name." -Tadakuni 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I wasn't aware there was a rule/guideline for names. Thanks for informing me. MastaFighta 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's out there, sorry I can't recall the precise place to look for where it's written...should be somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. -Tadakuni 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can find it in the manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names of historical figures. Fg2 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks a lot. MastaFighta 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autodidact

In reply to the poster who posted "self taught," I think you're absolutely right. Musashi was an autodidact without a doubt, and those types of people reach heights that no education can provide. Obsession is incredibly powerful. 68.123.159.100 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which side in the Osaka Castle campaigns?

The timeline says "1614-1615 31-32 Joins the troops of Tokugawa Ieyasu in the Winter and Summer campaigns at Osaka Castle." But the siege of Osaka article says "History indicates that the legendary swordsman Miyamoto Musashi participated in the battle on the Toyotomi side." So which side did he fight with, the defending Toyotomi or the besieging and victorious Tokugawa? Maproom (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Tokitsu says that it isn't clear which side he fought on, but he seems to lean towards the Toyotomi side. I think this is covered in more detail somewhere other than the timeline in the article. --Gwern (contribs) 17:21 24 November 2007 (GMT)
According to Victor Harris's intro to A Book of Five Rings, Musashi fought on the Toyotomi side at Sekigahara and on the Tokugawa side at Osaka; I'll return presently with the precise sentence and citation. -Tadakuni (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1614 and again in 1615 he [Musashi] took the opportunity of once more experiencing warfare and siege. Ieyasu laid siege of Osaka castle where the supporters of the Ashikaga family (sic) were gathered in insurrection. Musashi joined the Tokugawa forces in both winter and summer campaigns, now fighting against those he had fought for as a youth at Seki ga Hara..." -Harris, Introduction to A Book of Five Rings, pp. 17-18. Now, granted, he misnames them as Ashikaga rather than Toyotomi, but still...also, according to the Japanese wiki article on Musashi, it says it is commonly believed that he sided with the Toyotomi at the Osaka campaign; however, this is groundless. He actually served under Mizuno Katsushige, under the command of Katsushige's son Katsutoshi.... -Tadakuni (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Taught?

The martial arts section regarding Musashi should be expanded further. What is really awesome about Musashi, is how every single swordsman he fought (and killed) thought they were going to win simply because they studied at "prestigious" sword schools. Musashi, being little more than a rufian who was self taught, killed them all.

As they say, pride commeth before the fall.

Makes you wonder if education as it is currently known is really there to instruct, or, reserve knowledge for those who can afford to pay for it....

I mean, there is nothing more difficult, arguably, than the practice of martial arts. Of all things, even more than academic work, you need a teacher in martial arts. Musashi basically demonstrated that teachers are not needed, that one can seek and study knowledge on their own. It is insulting to teachers of all classes, and to all educational bodies. Its insulting, and yet, intriguing.

which is why the martial arts section shild be exployred further. yes the grammer and punctuation errors are deliberate

206.63.78.91 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't really self-taught. He came from a line of swordsmen and jitte masters. --Gwern (contribs) 16:47 29 June 2008 (GMT)
Yes I know, but his formal training did not last long enough to be officially considered "martial arts training." Also the article needs revision; on his mother side, Musashi was major nobility, on his father's, a man that had risen to nobility. Moreover, Dorin was either a Daimyo, or a regional Samurai (they could act as governors), he was not a monk. Sorry for my wording; I should not have used "self taught" so much as "plenty of experience." At the risk of sounding like a hoodlum, all that meditation combined with experience had to count for something. However that's soapboxing, more to the point in the article; it is packed with inacuracies and it needs revision. It is written as a sort of biography, and few official Japanese University sources are cited. Very few Japanese history texts on the feudal era are translated into English; most of what I know of Musashi, comes from those texts. I used to own "The Lone Samurai," a book mentioned in this article, however I found so many inacuracies in it I felt compelled to sell it back to the store. I won't point them out, as there are too many, space is limited, and this is not a forum, however I will suggest that you look directly at the source, and then revise as needed. 67.148.120.90 (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747[reply]

"He wasn't really self-taught. He came from a line of swordsmen and jitte masters."
Lamarkism?
AerobicFox (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's really unlikely, and off-topic. --Gwern (contribs) 21:00 26 January 2011 (GMT)

Musashi Defeated by Creator of Jodo?

Admittedly I skimmed through the article but I cannot seem to find mention of the story where he defeated but spared a bo master who through the development of the jo (shorter bo) later defeated and spared Musashi.24.83.148.131 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

You mean Musō Gonnosuke? -Tadakuni (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, that's him. I figure that if Gonnosuke never defeated Musashi, then there'd be no Jodo24.83.148.131 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]
Gonnosuke never defeated Musashi on their second duel, only fought him to a draw. Still, to be able to fight the likes of Musashi to a draw, was considered an achievement in and of itself. If you are looking for flashy stuff though you'll be dissapointed; Jodo is an extremely direct and pragmatic short staff art. No fancy circles, no pretty twirls, just direct whacks to the forearms, temples, knees, or crotch. It is a very "no nonsense" weapons form, and very simple. 67.148.120.90 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747[reply]

The name "Takezo"?

In the book of the Five Rings, he calls himself "Shinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin", there is no "Takezo". Please could someone show me a historical prove for the name "Takezo". In almost all movies about him and his life, his birth name is Shinmen Takezo and the people call him "Takezo-san". His well known childhood name was Bennosuke. If his given name would be really Takezo, why he didn´t mention it in "The book of five rings"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.216.111 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi is written with the kanji 武蔵. The first one means roughly 'martial', the same one in budo, bugei, bujutsu, etc. It is also read "mu", "takeshi", "take". The second kanji means to hide, to conceal, and is read kakureru, zou. I don't know the source, but a lot of scholars say he was called Takezo at one point, based on this combination of pronunciations of the same kanji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.113 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shinmen was his father's name, and Takezo was his original name. He changed it to Miyamoto(where he was born) later in life.

Note: he is named ja:Musashi Takezou on the Japanese wiki. (goto page 98) Here is a link that basically outlines popular belief as to why he changed his name -AerobicFox (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you're relying on a novel as a source for this. Yoshikawa made the name "Takezō" up. He has said so himself. He was never named Takezō. Read the Japanese language Wikipedia article. And if you can't read Japanese, maybe you shouldn't be insisting on this...?Matt Thorn (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (under Biography :: Travels and duels)

They faced off, and Musashi struck a single blow, per their agreement.

So, does this mean that they agreed to let Musashi take the first blow? Oddity- (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Muso Gonnosuke

Greetings! I thought I'd clarify I few things regarding Muso Gonnosuke, the creator of Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo, and Musashi. To make it short and sweet: there is no solid evidence that Gonnosuke defeated Musashi in the second duel outside of the Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo tradition itself. There is evidence, however, that Gonnosuke was defeated in the first duel as it is mentioned in both Musashi and Gonnosuke traditions.

The Shinto Muso ryu tradition was founded as a direct result of Muso Gonnosukes defeat, not the defeat of Musashi. The story about the rematch might have been constructed by a very pro-Gonnosuke clique to give that extra edge to the ryu. Or we could speculate that Musashi WAS defeated by Gonnosuke and that Pro-Musashi people have removed all mentioning of it. All of this is idle speculation. What is certain is that there is no sure way of proving that this rematch ever took place.

I've never heard of any "rivalry" between Shinto Muso Ryu and Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu higher-ups regarding this issue, and I've never heard anyone in stating that the "Musashi was defeated" scenario is required "doctrine" for a Shinto Muso Ryu pracitioner. Yes the tradition goes that the rematch happened...but the tradition also states that a Divine Being taught Muso Gonnosuke his jo-techniques. (The "divine aspect" is a very common feature in traditional Japanese warrior-schools by the way.)

Anyways, I hope that clears a few things out. Fred26 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and death

The article currently states that he stayed with the Hosokawa in 1633 and at this time they were sponsors of Sasaki Kojiro. However, Kojiro died in 1612, so it is difficult to see how this could have been the case. Clarification needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.251.34 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1607 Munisai (Musashi's father) passes his teachings onto Musashi. Could this be clarified? Munisai was long dead (whatever date of death you retain). 'His teaching school' ? Belongings? No citation, and I cannot find another ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8821:5136:1362:89B6:F4AF:800C (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Musashi's two swords?

Terao Kyumanosuke (Motomenosuke) had received the complete transmission of the School of Musashi, with certification and Musashi's two swords. He at first refused to teach and sent what he had received to Musashi's adopted son, Iori. Iori refused the succession, since the honor had not been bestowed upon him. With this, Kyumanosuke then agreed to take over as head—both his and Iori's actions were manifestations of their respect for Musashi.

Succession in the Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryū (the name given by Musashi towards the end of his life) does not follow a hereditary pattern. It is attested to by the bestowing of two artifacts: a scroll on which is written the name of the techniques and the approach to them that must be transmitted if the school is to be perpetuated truly,[3] and a wooden sword that Musashi made himself, with which he trained and used as a walking stick during the last years of his life[3], today in possession of the Usa city Shinto Shrine.


Ok so, with that being considered fact or general consesus, I really would love to know what exactly happened to Musashi's two swords. The pasted above states what happened to one of his wooden swords, but not the katanas. I read biography of Musashi written by Kenji (must read) and it really didn't state whether Musashi's swords even still exist today. Any ideas? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.32.4 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years and ages - an observation

"... age of 15 (according to the Tosakushi, "The Registry of the Sakushu Region", although the Tanji Hokin Hikki says he was 16 years old in 1599, which agrees time-wise with the age reported in Musashi's first duel)."

I was just looking through this article, very interesting, and spotted this bit. Nothing really wrong with it, but I did observe the confusion on age, and figured I'd note that he could have been 15, if it was during the first half of 1599, right? Similar case for his first duel, as well- he could have had the duel sometime in the latter half of 1596 and thus been 13 as documented. If he really was born in June, like I was, then this is certainly a detail not to be ignored. Though, as well, the actual birth year seems to be in question by some historians, and these dates may be based on those. They certainly seem to match up with the 1584 birth year, though.

Though perhaps there's implied times of year for these registries and such from which these ages and years came from..? In any case, it is important to keep in mind that half of the year, he's a year 'younger' than one might think just calculating age vs theorized birth year. I do like how at least one of the later mentions of 'age' put the other possible age in parentheses, seemingly noting this possibility. --128.220.107.111 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional japanese way to calculate age of a person you are 1 year old just after your birth. And you will be 2 years old after the next lunar New Year, not after your actual birthday. In historical japanese sources you will find that way of calculating someone's age, while in Western sources there is a trend to calculate age as we Westerners do. That's the thing you should keep in mind reading this article. Vigilium (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a doctor or medic in duels?

Is there anything to suggest in historical records that Musashi was a user of doctors when survivng the aftermath of a duel? European duels always had a medic/doctor at hand to stitch wounds and remove shot. Did this issue apply to Samurai duels? Did Musashi retain a doctor for his duels alone?--Ickesshadow (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi was only ever injured twice in his career, so that is unlikely. Once with his fight with Kojiro where his leg got cut near the femoral artery, and another where he tied with Ganryu. He was also hit be a falling rock when storming a castle, and grazed by an arrow. Considering the lack of times he was injured, and the fact that duels were almost always to the death, and that he was a loner; there was probably not a doctor or anything. --AerobicFox (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donn F. Draeger letters

Donn F. Draeger's view on Musashi conflicts with a lot of what I see in this wikipedia article's intro. See [1] I'm somewhat inclined to believe his opinion more than what I see here. Comments from someone more knowledgeable? janto (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gripping the sword with two fingers?

In "The Book of Five Rings" in the "Water Book" is written: "Grip the long sword with a rather floating feeling in your thumb and forefinger, with the middle finger neither tight nor slack, and with the last two fingers tight. It is bad to have play in your hands." So Miyamoto don't teach two-finger grip, but a slack between two fingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.50.139.226 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly correct, and the article is definitely misleading on that point. It's probably worth noting that the grip described by Musashi is also the only effective way to wield a sword (whether with one hand or two), given the physiology of the human hand. I've never heard of anyone ever teaching a different method - and how to grip a sword is pretty basic stuff. The commentary on this point in the article is probably misplaced, and definitely consists of original research. Why don't you edit the article and add a citation to the specific passage in the Book of Five Rings two clarify the point about the grip. Bradford44 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Needed????

I know nothing about this other than what is in the article, so I am hesitant to make changes. However in 

Munisai and Musashi's birth date, it says

Mysteriously, Munisai's tomb says he was born in 1580,

From surrounding text I'm pretty sure this should read died instead of born, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.163.244 (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shirota

Should the information about Shirota be included in a timeline of Musashi's life?--Slowlikemolasses (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue

It appears that some of the text was copied from here: http://likendo.com/miyamoto_musashi.htm without proper citation.

On a separate note, the claim that he died in 1580 is suspect. Perhaps that should have read "born in 1580"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grauenwolf (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text your referring to was probably copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. The "offending" text includes the sentence The details of Miyamoto Musashi's early life are difficult to verify. This sentence was formed on 25 August 2006[2] and was actually a modification of the phrase Much of Miyamoto Musashi's early life is shrouded in mystery. It's almost impossible that Wikipedia had an old version of a sentence, and then that sentence was later edited, and the edited version -- but not the original -- was a CO violation. In fact, we can clearly trace the date of that website's plagiarizing Wikipedia to some time between 25 September 2006, when a quotation was formatted to the way LiKendo cites it, and 13 October 2006, when a reference to GRnS that is not included in LiKendo was added. (Most of the intervening edits were either to parts of the article that LiKendo didn't copy, or vandalism that was reverted, or formatting changes -- Wikilinks, etc. -- that would not affect a copied version of the page.) Hitomaro742 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Death?

In the timeline the cause is given as thoracic cancer in the infobox as stomach cancer. --90.1.249.192 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aside from that fehlleistung wakizashi, quite competent at tetris plus more contemporary cg, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:3AC2:0:2D66:4689:7684:1ED1 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In US English they call it a [soandsohanded] swoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.225.107 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi Self portraits

NEVER PAINTED ANY SELF PORTRAITS! [1] It is written and often said that the above painting depicts a self-portrait by Miyamoto Musashi. However, when I spoke to the curator of the Shimada Art Museum which owns the original work, the curator advised me that this is a misconception. The original painting was not done by Musashi but a painter of the Meiji era. In fact, Musashi did not create any self-portraits. - Aki Hayashi (talk · contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.trangsformation.com/2014/04/02/%E5%AE%AE%E6%9C%AC%E6%AD%A6%E8%94%B5-miyamoto-musashis-art-calligraphy/

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miyamoto Musashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040615033613/http://www.hyoho.com/ to http://www.hyoho.com/
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218202853/http://www.pref.kumamoto.jp/education/hinokuni/isan/siteijoukyou/2003.9.12/dokoudou.html to http://www.pref.kumamoto.jp/education/hinokuni/isan/siteijoukyou/2003.9.12/dokoudou.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline

It´s overall well done, but there are some little mistakes. I allow me to change it. Example: If there is only a year available and not an exacte date (day, or at least month), it can not be determine how old he was. Take the year 1600: From January 1st to his birthday on March 12, he was still 15 years old. From March 12 to December 31 he was 16 years old. --Niten Doraku (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His age (japanese way vs western way)

I also want to mention something which i consider important because it can confuse people. As far as i know, the Japanese have an other method about how old someone is. Musashi wrote for example in 1599, when he defeated Akiyama, that he was 16 years old at that time. Same with Arima Kihei. Mr. Miymaoto wrote he was 13 when he killed his first man, Mr. Arima, and this was in 1596. Since Musashi was born in March 1584, it is obvious he was not 13 in ´96 and he was not 16 in ´99. And this is a confusion for some people with his timeline, since even the author William Scott Wilson made him 13 in 1596 and 16 in 1599, when he was actually 11-12 and 14-15 in those two years.

As far as i know, a 3 months old baby is in Japan already 1 year old. The baby is basically "in his first year", that´s why they say it is 1. And if a man or a woman is let´s say 20 years and 10 days old, for the Japanese he/she is already 21 ("in their 21th year). Since Musashi was japanese, it is highly possible he ment by 16 (in his 16th year), which would made him 15 in the western method.

I am not an Expert in japanese manners, but i´ve heard it many years ago the Japanese handle it like this, at least they did it, i dont know if they still do it today. --Niten Doraku (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

  • Statue of Miyamoto Musashi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y

Sig at han var god til kamp 2A02:AA7:4007:9D93:1:2:2670:A571 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

Japanese Knifemaker Seisakusho Miyamoto engraves the handles of his Higo-Knaifu, a "Higonokami" folding-knife not licensed by the Higonokami-Knife-Guild, hence the slightly different name, with a depiction of Miyamoto Musashi wielding his sword. 2003:CA:3F0A:20B0:3920:78EC:5827:2D84 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious life

Reading this one wonders if the character had any other real thing about him outside the fact that he lived in the early 17th century. Similar to Benvenuto Cellini, Caliostro or Casanova, all we know about him is writen by himself. How reliable can this be?! 188.27.132.41 (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miyamoto_Musashi&oldid=1212606621"